Geraldine Ann Peck - Page 3

                                        - 2 -                                         
               Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s 2000                
          Federal income tax of $8,887.  After a concession by petitioner,1           
          the issue for decision is whether petitioner’s gross income                 
          includes $50,000 of settlement proceeds she received from her               
          former employer.                                                            
                                     Background                                       
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulation of facts with attached exhibits, and an                     
          additional exhibit admitted at trial, are incorporated herein by            
          this reference.  At the time the petition was filed, petitioner             
          resided in Redding, California.                                             
               Petitioner began working as a special education teacher for            
          the Shasta County Office of Education (SCOE) in 1986.  By the               
          late 1990s, petitioner’s relationship with SCOE had deteriorated            
          significantly.  In 1999, SCOE had petitioner evaluated by a panel           
          of mental health experts and filed a complaint against her in               
          State court.  The complaint alleges that petitioner is mentally             
          unfit to teach and seeks to place her on mandatory sick leave.              
          SCOE filed the complaint as part of its efforts to terminate                
          petitioner’s employment.                                                    




               1 Petitioner concedes that a $491 income tax refund she                
          received from the State of California is taxable.  The remaining            
          adjustment in respondent’s notice of deficiency is computational;           
          therefore, we do not address it.                                            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011