- 18 -
under section 104(a)(2). See Bland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2000-98.
In this case, petitioner contends that he suffered IIED due
to the conduct of Winston during negotiations. Specifically,
petitioner contends that Winston failed to return or delayed in
returning his telephone calls and refused to meet and negotiate
for substantial periods of time. Petitioner contends he became
distressed over this conduct and required psychological
treatment.
Petitioner’s contention that he suffered from depression is
supported in the record.8 The insertion of the personal injury
clause into the settlement agreement, however, was motivated
solely by tax considerations. Over the 32 months of
negotiations, Winston held firm to the original severance offer
of approximately $165,000. By attempting to characterize the
settlement as received for personal injury, petitioner aspired to
maximize his recovery by lessening or eliminating the tax burden.
8 The record is not so clear, however, as to whether
petitioner’s depression was causally linked to an IIED claim or
to the negotiation process with Winston. During the same period
as the negotiations with Winston, petitioner’s son suffered from
a bipolar disorder, his daughters were undergoing therapy for
problems relating to a car accident, and his wife was receiving
treatment to help her cope with the problems of other family
members. It is difficult to discern a particular cause for
petitioner’s depression, especially because it could have been,
in part or whole, attributable to natural depression that may
accompany a loss of employment after 26 years with the same firm.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011