Damian Gerard and Leigh H. Gerard - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         
          v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 116, 126 (1994), affd. in part, revd.             
          in part on another issue and remanded 70 F.3d 34 (5th Cir. 1995).           
          State law controls whether the nature of the claim is a tort or             
          tort type right; Federal law controls the Federal tax                       
          consequences pertaining to such interests and rights.  See                  
          Helvering v. Stuart, 317 U.S. 154, 162 (1942); Threlkeld v.                 
          Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1294, 1305-1306 (1986), affd. 848 F.2d 81             
          (6th Cir. 1988).                                                            
               As reflected in the May 1994 Suelthaus letters, which are              
          cross-referenced in Schedule III of the settlement agreement,               
          which in turn is cross-referenced in section 11.03 of the                   
          settlement agreement, Katherine and Damian asserted that their              
          professional relationships with Maritz Inc. were each terminated            
          with “intent to injure” and sought compensatory damages with                
          respect to a variety of claims.  These letters assert, in                   
          identical language, certain common claims on Katherine’s and                
          Damian’s behalf; namely, claims for compensatory damages for                
          “defamation, infliction of emotional distress, emotional pain,              
          suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of              
          life, and other applicable claims”.  The May 17, 1994, Suelthaus            
          letter asserts on Katherine’s behalf an additional claim for                
          “wrongful termination of employment”.  The May 18, 1994,                    
          Suelthaus letter asserts on Damian’s behalf an additional claim             
          of “intentional interference with his employment relationship”.             






Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011