- 37 -
including libel or slander. The Court finds, as a factual
matter, that the Settlement Term Sheet speaks for itself and that
any dispute about the mutual releases was merely quibbling.
A court may not be in a position to apportion damages among
various contract and tort claims where it appears that the
settlement was all-encompassing. Taggi v. United States, supra
at 96.32 It is petitioner’s duty in this case to prove the proper
allocation between taxable and nontaxable amounts. Pipitone v.
United States, supra at 865. “‘[F]ailure to show the specific
amount of the payment allocable to the claims of tort or tortlike
damages for personal injuries results in the entire amount’s
being presumed not to be excludible.’” Id. at 864 (quoting Wise
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-4); see Pipitone v. United
States, supra at 864; Taylor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-
323, affd. 246 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2000); Morabito v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-315.
State law does not assist petitioner. None of petitioner’s
State claims as presented in his State court pleadings pertained
to any tort or tort-type injuries. Instead, the pleadings
referenced petitioner’s contest for control of Ormet and other
related contractual claims.
32 Because this case would normally be appealable to the
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, absent stipulation to
the contrary, Taggi v. United States, 35 F.3d 93, 95 (2d Cir.
1994), is controlling here under this Court’s Golsen rule. See
Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), affd. on another
ground 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971).
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011