-7-
610, 613 (10th Cir. 1965)), affd. without published opinion 845
F.2d 1013 (3d Cir. 1988).
The Court notes that the record is nearly devoid of
information regarding the negotiations that led to the settlement
agreement. However, nothing in the record suggests that the
relationship between petitioner and Universal was anything other
than adversarial. The settlement was reached while petitioner's
charges against Universal were still pending. Furthermore, both
sides were represented by counsel.
The settlement agreement states "that the Settlement Payment
represents non-wage [sic] damages for injuries arising out of
Bolden's claims * * * [and] that the Settlement Payment
constitute[s] non-wage [sic] income, and shall be subject of an
IRS Form 1099". The settlement agreement says nothing about
physical injuries. In this situation, the Court must look to
Universal's intent in making the payment. By referring to the
payment as "nonwage income," Universal demonstrated that it
expected the payment to be included in petitioner's gross income.
It is clear from other sections of the settlement agreement
that it was not Universal's intention to compensate petitioner
for physical injuries or physical sickness. As consideration for
the settlement agreement, petitioner was required to request a
dismissal of her claims with prejudice and resign from her
position at Universal. Only after petitioner had taken the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011