Jesse and Tawara Goode - Page 5

                                         -5-                                          
          settlement provided for, among other specified items of                     
          consideration, the termination of petitioner’s employment, a                
          mutual omnibus release encompassing any and all litigation-                 
          related claims between the parties, and the remuneration by the             
          District of the following compensatory sums: (i) $15,904.33,                
          allocated as severance and accrued leave; (ii) $103,250,                    
          designated as petitioner’s “claims and out-of-pocket expenses”;             
          and (iii) $31,750, earmarked as petitioner’s counsel fees and               
          costs.  Payment of petitioner’s counsel fees and costs was                  
          remitted directly to petitioner’s attorneys, in accordance with             
          the settlement.                                                             
               The settlement, in a provision accompanying the enumeration            
          of the compensatory payments, contains the following                        
          characterization of the respective $103,250 and $31,750 amounts             
          (cumulating $135,000, the disputed settlement amount) as:                   
                    compensatory damages pursuant to section                          
                    104(a)(2) and for out-of-pocket expenses                          
                    only; * * * [the disputed settlement amount]                      
                    does not constitute wages, and shall be                           
                    considered as non-taxable to the fullest                          
                    extent permitted by law.  The parties                             
                    understand and agree that no W-2 form shall                       
                    issue from the District of Columbia with                          
                    respect to * * * [the disputed settlement                         
                    amount].                                                          
               Relying solely on such representation set forth in the                 
          settlement, petitioners did not include (and did not provide                
          supplemental disclosure of) the disputed settlement amount in               
          their 2001 gross income.  Of the aggregate settlement proceeds,             





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