- 20 -
above the amount originally offered as severance pay. It had
become clear to petitioner that Winston would not increase the
amount of its original offer approximating $165,000.
Petitioner’s motivation and purpose for proposing the personal
injury clause was to increase the net amount of money he would
realize from the settlement by attempting to reduce the tax
burden on the amount being offered.
Equally significant is the fact that petitioner did not make
Ms. Haude or any of the Winston representatives aware of his
medical records or the details of any personal injury. Nor did
petitioner attempt to show that Winston was the cause of any
injury. Petitioner and Winston eventually agreed to include the
personal injury clause and to assign an amount to it without
addressing the merits of any such claim.
The following excerpt from Ms. Haude’s testimony supports
the above conclusion:
beginning in summer of 1993 Ed was talking about tort
damages and could we deliver some of the money tax-
free. And we had extended conversations about whether,
why, and what kind of money could be deliverable tax-
free.
In reaching our conclusion, we also considered the fact that
petitioner’s bases for a personal injury claim were not
specifically or adequately supported in the record. Petitioner
contends that the $116,000 lump-sum settlement payment was solely
for the release of his IIED claim. The final agreement between
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011