« Immigration hijinx roundup | Main | CA1: post-Unitherm plaintiffs »

August 22, 2006

CADC: § 104 unconstitutional as applied to emotional distress and loss of reputation

It is pretty rare to see a tax provision struck down on constitutional grounds.  Even rarer to see one which goes to the theoretical question of income.  Today, the DC Circuit holds that 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2) is unconstitutional as applied to “emotional distress and loss of reputation” hence, “insofar as § 104(a)(2) permits the taxation of compensation for a personal injury, which compensation is unrelated to lost wages or earnings, that provision is unconstitutional.”  Murphy v. United States, No. 03cv02414 (D.C. Cir. 9/22/06).  Tnx TaxProfBlog.

The court holds:

That emotional distress and loss of reputation were both actionable in tort when the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted supports the view that compensation for these nonphysical injuries was not regarded differently than was compensation for physical injuries and, therefore, was not considered income by the framers of the Amendment and the state legislatures that ratified it. By 1913, in at least 39 of the then-48 states and in the District of Columbia, the law made compensatory damages for "mental suffering" recoverable in the same matter as compensatory damages for physical harms; indeed, in 34 of those states, there are reported cases involving defamation and other reputational injuries -- the very sort of injury Murphy suffered -- and at least five more states allowed an action for alienation of affections, also a nonphysical injury. As a result, we see no meaningful distinction between Murphy's award and the kinds of damages recoverable for personal injury when the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted. Because, as we have seen, the term "incomes," as understood in 1913, clearly did not include damages received in compensation for a physical personal injury, we infer that it likewise did not include damages received for a nonphysical injury and unrelated to lost wages or earning capacity. [Very long and well-researched footnote omitted.]

And so the misguided fires of tax protesters are stoked once again.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2ca353ef00d834666b0669e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CADC: § 104 unconstitutional as applied to emotional distress and loss of reputation:

» HAD A TAXABLE NON-PHYSICAL INJURY? MAYBE YOU NEED TO FILE A REFUND CLAIM from Roth & Company, P.C.
The Federal Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit came out with a shocker of a tax case today (hat tip:... [Read More]

Comments

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment