- 35 -
lesser amount; under the Settlement Agreement, the value of the
arbitrator’s award was essentially paid in full. Instead of
merely compromising the arbitrator’s award, the Settlement
Agreement settled a broader array of claims for significantly
higher share values advanced by Mr. Polsky in the Lake County
Lawsuit. Although the Cook County Lawsuit was also dismissed as
part of the Settlement Agreement, this feature was incidental to
the primary focus of the settlement, which was to resolve
Indeck’s exposure in the Lake County Lawsuit. Consequently, the
arbitrator’s award is not analogous to the appealable verdicts in
Rozpad and Delaney, and provides no basis for disregarding the
written allocation between purchase price and interest provided
in the Settlement Agreement.
Smith v. Commissioner, supra, is likewise not persuasive
authority for Indeck’s treatment of the disputed amounts as
interest. Smith concerned a situation where the parties’ written
settlement agreement stated that the settlement payment included
interest, but a court order implementing the settlement did not,
providing the taxpayer-payee with his opportunity to argue that
the payment did not include interest. Based on the settlement
agreement’s written terms covering interest, the taxpayer’s
entitlement to interest under State law in connection with the
condemnation that was the subject of the settlement, and the
State government payor’s documentation showing it intended to pay
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011