![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
- 37 - *+ Rojas v. Museum of the American Indian (claim for injuries allegedly sustained on the premises of the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation): The matter was handled by insurance counsel pursuant to the former museum's liability insurance. Because the Smithsonian Institution assumed all obligations (including potential judgments) of the Museum upon transfer, this proceeding was monitored by OGC staff. The case was successfully settled and dismissed. Thompson v. Smithsonian Institute (sic) (claim for injuries allegedly sustained from a fall in the National Museum of Natural History in October 1987; damages sought: $200,000). Volvo Cab Corporation v. Smithsonian (claim for damages to taxicab arising out of a November 1989 accident in New York City involving a Smithsonian delivery truck; damages sought: $2,019.11). To be noted among the six new cases is the Richmond case, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on January 29, 1991. This action involves a former scrap yard located in Arlington, Virginia, that is contaminated with PCBs and other hazardous substances. The owner of the site, the railroad company, sued the scrap yard operator, Davis, under federal law and various common law theories to recover the cost of cleaning the site. Davis, in turn, sued the United States and over 20 private parties, alleging that Davis purchased PCP-contaminated transformers and other scrap materials that contained the hazardous substances from these parties. In June 1991, the U.S. Department of Justice informed the Smithsonian that Davis named a Smithsonian Institution building, as a source of hazardous substances disposed at the site between 1955 and 1973. The Office of the General Counsel has been working with the Department of Justice in locating historical information pertaining to prior dealings with Davis and the disposal of pertinent electrical equipment. Two of the other five new cases (Hooper Marketing and Rojas) have been settled as noted. The remaining three cases (Child, Garcia, and Kuber) present no unusual issues and are being handled by the Department of Justice. The additional cases completed are Janczewski and Stone, the plaintiffs of which are both former employees of the Institution's Office of Environmental Management and Safety, and which were settled for $42,000 and $8,000, respectively, with certain other minor agreements, without any admission on the part of the Institution to the claimed actions; and Staton and Poole, which were both dismissed, with no appeal in either case being taken to the orders granting the motions to dismiss filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the Institution. SMITHSONIAN POSITION ON PROPOSED IRS REGULATIONS AFFECTING CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES As reported in the July 1991 Newsletter to the Regents, a recently proposed Internal Revenue Service regulation threatens to discourage donations from multi-national corporations to nonprofit organizations with activities abroad such as the Smithsonian. The proposal would require that for a donor with foreign source income, donations would be deductible from the taxpayer's United States source income only if the charity certifies that the