- 12 -
psychological counseling petitioner received was general in
nature and that the problems petitioner was experiencing were at
most only nominally related to the sexual harassment claims. We
find that neither the psychological counseling nor the visits to
the physician--visits which occurred over 5 years after the
termination of petitioner’s employment with the May Company--are
related to petitioner’s sexual harassment claims.
Petitioner further argues that the physical injury to her
hand caused her damages that occurred after she entered into the
settlement agreement, due in part to an inability to perform
certain job functions. This argument does not address the
relevant issue in this case. The relevant issue is the intent of
the May Company in paying the $50,000 settlement to petitioner.
See Stocks v. Commissioner, supra; Metzger v. Commissioner,
supra. We have found that the intent behind the payment was to
settle the sexual harassment claims made in petitioner’s lawsuit.
Any harm connected with the hand injury that was suffered by
petitioner after entering into the settlement agreement could not
have affected the intent behind making the payment at the time of
the agreement.2
1(...continued)
Conf. Rept. 104-737, at 301 n.56 (1996), 1996-3 C.B. 741, 1041;
see Prasil v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-100.
2At trial, petitioner cited Moe v. United States, 326 F.3d
1065 (9th Cir. 2003), for the proposition that “the chronological
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011