- 14 -
management [of GC&D] that I felt that I had a claim related to
not only my current pregnancy, but also the fact that I had lost
a child in October 1998 * * * and that I intended to pursue that
claim when I left.” Petitioner further testified that “To
release my pregnancy related claim, I said to the firm, you know,
that I wanted a settlement amount equal to a year’s salary”. We
found petitioner’s testimony to be vague, self-serving, uncorrob-
orated, inconsistent with the terms of the separation agreement,
and not credible.6
As made clear by the following provisions of the separation
agreement, the settlement payments received thereunder were
salary continuation severance payments.7
I. Valuable Consideration
In exchange for NDIRIKA’S entering into this
Agreement, GC&D agrees to provide NDIRIKA with the
following consideration:
6At the call of this case from the calendar, petitioner
informed the Court that she intended to call as a witness an
individual who during 2000 had been the managing partner (part-
ner) of GC&D and who would corroborate her claim that the pay-
ments at issue were received on account of personal physical
injuries or physical sickness. At the call of this case for
trial, petitioner informed the Court that the partner whom she
intended to call “has come down with a case of amnesia”. We
infer from petitioner’s failure to call that partner that his
testimony would not have been favorable to petitioner’s position.
See Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158,
1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947).
7The separation agreement contains a release and waiver
provision that appears to contain boilerplate language, and we do
not attribute any significance to that provision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011