Henderson v. Commissioner
This text of 104 F. App'x 47 (Henderson v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Robert Henderson appeals pro se the order of the Tax Court denying his motion for reconsideration following the Tax Court’s judgment holding that his receipt of income pursuant to a settlement agreement with Morgan Stanley, Dean Witter & Company was not excludable from taxable income under 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review the Tax Court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion, Lucky Stores, Inc. v. Comm’r, 153 F.3d 964, 967 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion because the record reflects that Henderson’s settlement agreement stemmed from damage to his credit reputation, not from physical injury or physical sickness. See Comm’r v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 330, 115 S.Ct. 2159, 132 L.Ed.2d 294 (1995). Even assuming that
Henderson suffers from a pre-existing physical sickness, he failed to submit evidence demonstrating that harm to his reputation resulted in personal injuries. See Banaitis v. Comm’r, 340 F.3d 1074, 1080 (9th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
104 F. App'x 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-commissioner-ca9-2004.