Robert Henderson - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          evidence.  Rule 143(b); Davis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-             
          80.                                                                         
               Even assuming arguendo that petitioner suffered from a                 
          personal physical injury or physical sickness, the record does              
          not support the conclusion that petitioner received the $5,000              
          settlement payment on account of such physical injury or physical           
          sickness.  According to the settlement agreement, petitioner                
          released “any and all claims” against Morgan Stanley in exchange            
          for $5,000.  The settlement agreement, however, did not                     
          specifically carve out any portion of the settlement payment as a           
          settlement on account of personal physical injury or physical               
          sickness, let alone make reference to a physical injury or a                
          physical sickness resulting from any reputation damage by Morgan            
          Stanley.                                                                    
               The settlement agreement did not allocate any part of the              
          settlement payment on account of a personal physical injury or              
          physical sickness.  Furthermore, the evidence in the record does            
          not support such an allocation.  Accordingly, we conclude that no           
          portion of the $5,000 settlement payment was compensation for a             
          personal physical injury or physical sickness.  Therefore, we               
          sustain respondent’s determination in this regard.                          
               We have considered all of the other arguments made by the              
          parties and, to the extent that we have not specifically                    
          addressed them, we conclude they are without merit.                         






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011