Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Court Tosses Federal Tax Statute covering Emotional Damages
It is not every day that a Circuit Court of Appeals sets aside as unconstitutional a federal tax statute. When the taxability of untold millions of dollars of personal injury settlements and verdicts is affected, people generally take note. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Aug. 22 struck down as unconstitutional an amendment made to Code ' 104(a)(2) (All references to the Code are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended). If the decision stands, it could be one of the most significant tax developments in decades.
What did the offending amendment to Code ' 104(a)(2) provide? That is the section that limits the exclusion from taxable income for personal injury recoveries only to those amounts paid on account of injuries with physical manifestations. The Fifth Circuit has concluded that all personal injury recoveries, not only involving those with physical manifestation, are not taxable under the Sixteenth Amend-ment, not-withstanding the contrary command of Code ' 104(a). For those who have not looked at the Sixteenth Amendment lately, it provides that '[t]he Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived ' ' In Murphy v. IRS, '- F.3d ”, 2006 WL 2411372 (D.C. Cir. 8/22/06), the court was asked whether recoveries for personal injuries were within the Framers' understanding of 'incomes.' Before we get into the significance of the holding or practical advice to counsel and clients, some background is in order.
The Case
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.