- 8 -
may be attributable to damages received for personal physical
injuries or physical sickness.
In the present case, we find petitioner meets the first part
of the Schleier test, having brought a tort type action against
Morgan Stanley alleging harm to his credit reputation. We now
turn to the question of whether the $5,000 settlement payment was
received on account of a personal physical injury or physical
sickness. Petitioner asserts that Morgan Stanley paid the $5,000
settlement payment to petitioner as a result of damage he
suffered to his credit reputation. The record, however, is
devoid of specific information indicating that Morgan Stanley
issued the settlement payment on account of damage to
petitioner’s credit reputation. We are not required to, and do
not, accept petitioner’s self-serving testimony without
corroborating evidence. Lerch v. Commissioner, 877 F.2d 624,
631-632 (7th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-295; Geiger v.
Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688, 689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per
curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-159; Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74,
77 (1986). Further, the record does not support a conclusion
that petitioner’s harm constitutes a physical injury or a
physical sickness caused by the conduct of Morgan Stanley. On
brief, petitioner alleged that he suffers from a “life-
threatening, pre-existing physical illness” exacerbated by the
harm to his personal reputation. Assertions on briefs are not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011