- 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 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011