February 7, 2012
TAX FILE MEMORANDUM
TO: Professor
FROM: Student
SUBJECT: Murray Taxpayer Issues Regarding Damage Award
Facts: Murray Taxpayer was previously employed by a company who was illegally dumping chemicals into a river. Murray had knowledge concerning these illegal activities of his employer and made an ethical decision to report this to the Environmental Protection Agency. Upon inspection, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that Murrays employer was in fact illegally dumping and was appropriately fined for the charges. Murray’s employer reacted to his whistleblowing by firing him and making deliberate efforts to prevent Murray from gaining employment elsewhere. Murray then sued his former employer for damaging
…show more content…
Unfortunately this decision was overturned on July 3, 2007 [2007-2 U.S.T.C. ¶50,531, (Jul. 3, 2007)].
Conclusion: Thanks to the landmark case, Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Appellees, there is now no misunderstanding that awards received for damages to personal and professional reputation and mental suffering are included in gross income and are therefore taxable under 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2). This determines that because Murray did not suffer personal physical injuries and since gross income as defined by Code Sec. 61 includes compensatory damages for nonphysical injuries, such as those awarded to Murray, his award is in fact taxable [2007-2 U.S.T.C. ¶50,531, (Jul. 3, 2007)].
Issue 2: Are damages for personal injury considered restoration of human capital? And if so, is it excluded from gross income for tax purposes?
Analysis: Also referring to the case, Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Appellees, Murphy continues her attempt to recover the taxes she paid on her compensatory damage award by arguing, like Murray, that her award was in fact a recovery of human
The pool cost the petitioner over $19,000, and we cannot accept his contention that such amount was spent primarily for therapy for his leg in view of the limited need for such therapy and the alternatives which were then available.
Parent Corporation owns 85% of the common stock and 100% of the preferred stock of Subsidiary Corporation. The common stock and preferred stock have adjusted bases of $500,000 and $200,000, respectively, to Parent. Subsidiary adopts a plan of liquidation on July 3 of the current year, when its assets have a $1 million FMV. Liabilities on that date amount to $850,000. On November 9, Subsidiary pays off its creditors and distributes $150,000 to Parent with respect to its preferred stock. No cash remain to be aid to Parent with respect to the remaining $50,000 of its liquidation preference for the preferred stock, or with respect to any common stock. In each of Subsidiary’s tax years, less than %10 of its gross
The ATRA and CALA are trying to stop minor cases from receiving enormous sums of money which will dampen the economy. The subject matter of these cases varies to some length including but not limited to medical and car insurance. In a case against Rich Mountain Nursing and Rehabilitation Center of Mena, jurors found the defendant, Mena, guilty of malpractice in the death of Margaretha Sauer, a ninety-three year old woman. The non-economic punitive damages cash award for the suffering and pain of the Sauer family to be paid by Mena was seventy-eight million dollars. Punitive damages is one of the issues that the ATRA is trying to combat. If nursing homes continue to have pay large sums for punitive damages, they will not be able to survive. The premium average liability offered by nursing homes has increased from $820,000 in 1999 to $11.6 million in 2001. With the liability premiums continuing to rise, the prospects of profits continue to dwindle. They will have no chance at retaining a profit and thus will have to close. It will also mean that doctors will charge more for their services, which leads to fewer health insurances carrying
I think Dr. Prost should be rewarded because it can allow the private parties to file some actions across the defendants from a federal government. Additionally, the deferral statute getting some credit to criminal and penalties that come up with the bill of the government. Also, it is representing the amount of the delivery products and obligation of the government. More than that, False Claims Act have their choice by enforcing the either Justice Department and those individuals with qui tam proceeding. I think he succeed some private party and receive up to 30% of the government awards. Then, the real party has the interests and making some plaintiff. The relator was related to the private party that can initiate the suit. The False Claims Act can the first relator files that Dr. Prost can suit due to the Federal district Court. It can fill the relator under the field of the
As for the issue of whether or not you should take out another mortgage in order to supplement the conversion of Certificate of Deposits into Municipal Bonds, again, I.R.C. §265(a)(2) comes into effect and disallows any interest deductions sought, thus, removing the profitable advantage offered though the interest rates. In similar situations, such as Wisconsin Cheeseman, Inc. v. United States, 388 F. 2d 420 (1968), the Court ruled against the taxpayer on the claim that the taxpayer was only allowed deductions on the interest of the indebtedness incurred prior to the purchase of the tax exempt investments, meaning that only the interest deductions on the new debt incurred was disallowed. In Wynn v. United States, 411 F. 2d 614 (1969), the taxpayer was also disallowed to claim any deduction for the interest payments on the loans he incurred from the bank, the purpose of which was to expand the amount of tax-exempt securities the taxpayer currently possessed. In Drybrough v. Commissioner, 376 F. 2d 350 (1967), that taxpayer also tries to deduct the interest payments on his leveraged mortgages in order to expand their tax-exempt investment fund, and again, the Court referred to I.R.C. §265(a)(2), which forbids such deductions on the basis that the sum of the interest paid was used to purchase tax exempt securities, thus ruling against the taxpayer. Although the Court’s ruled
Yes, I agree with the court that the damage awarded in this case was arbitrary and reversed the State Appellate court decision. The Court held that the punitive award of $145 million was neither reasonable nor proportionate to the wrong committed, and it was consequently ruled an irrational, arbitrary, and unconstitutional deprivation of the property of the insurer. (Ethical and Legal Environment, 2011). This is like a punishment to defendant, since the defendant was held responsible for doing illegal act outside the state’s jurisdiction.
1. All distributions (excluding reasonable salary) to Paula and Mary will be taxed as dividends to them. And the corporation could not deduct this part of distribution.
The court concluded they made a mistake in not ruling that the issue of personal injury must be determined under the Workers ' Compensation Act. The disposition on this issue eliminated the need to discuss the sufficiency of the evidence and other arguments relating to the amount of damages for personal injury and the fairness of the trial on that aspect of the case. It is somewhat unclear how Kerr-McGee determined that the federal regulation of nuclear energy prevents application of the workers ' compensation law for injuries on the job. The existence here of significant damage to Silkwood 's personal property in her apartment required the court to consider additional issues recognized in the appeal. In conclusion, the Workers ' Compensation Act applies only to
QuickBooks and Sage 50 Accounting are both great options for small business accounting. These programs help manage business finances which can drastically save time that may have been spent creating Excel spreadsheets and more. However, while both programs are sufficient for small businesses, the programs differ based on what they can offer your company.
With the exception of the mid -1930's, transfer taxes have never represented a significant share of federal revenue. In 1992, the U.S. government collected $11.1 billion in transfer taxes, predominately estate taxes, representing about 1 percent of total federal revenue.
If the compensation is paid for the loss ordinary income, then it will take the nature of the original ordinary income and will be assessed under s 6-5. On the other hand, if it is received for something given up in the form of right then it will be part of capital gain. In the FCT V Inkster (1989) 20 ATR 1561 case, the tax payer received a compensation from his ex-employer in relation to the health problem faced during his employment. The court held that the amount received by the taxpayer was not assessable under both s6-5 and s 15-2 as well as it is a mandatory payment and a compensation for the loss of earning ability by the taxpayer. In our particular case as well, the amount $10,000 received is related to personal injuries and it’s a mandatory payment under the legislation. Hence, it will not be assessed under any of the
The mental anguish that he has had to go through and the pain and suffering that he has had to endure are also grounds for compensatory damages. Chapter 12 also covers punitive damages. These damages are fines that the court may impose on the company or individual in an effort them for the neglect. The company will undoubtedly be sued for negligence.
As a new employee in the financial reporting unit the task is to evaluate the relevant disclosures of the company’s latest annual report in accordance to the Income Tax requirements as per AASB 112.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of ninety thousand ($90,000) dollars and that the medical and psychology departments and prison officials provide Plaintiff treatment.
The biggest tax reform in the history of India’s 70 years of independence, the Goods and Services Tax (GST), was launched on the midnight of 30th June 2017. This new GST is an indirect tax, which applies throughout India. It replaced multiple cascading taxes levied by the central and state governments.