|
|
|
  Tax Court: Settlement Payment for Workplace Stress that Exacerbated Physical Condition Not Taxable IncomeLittler Mendelson, P.C. - January 28, 2010 In Domeny v. Commissioner, the U.S. Tax Court held that an employee's settlement payment for allegations that work-related stress exacerbated a physical condition was excludable from taxable income under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 104(a)(2).2 Report Link Tax Court Reiterates that Emotional Distress Suffered From Claims of Employment Retaliation Is Not Tax Exempt.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - January 25, 2010 In Wells v. Commissioner the United States Tax Court reiterated that emotional distress manifested in the form of depression suffered as a result of alleged employment-related retaliation was not exempt from taxation as a personal physical injury under the Internal Revenue Code. Report Link Tax Court Reiterates that Emotional Distress Suffered From Claims of Employment Retaliation Is Not Tax Exempt.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - January 19, 2010 In Wells v. Commissioner the United States Tax Court reiterated that emotional distress manifested in the form of depression suffered as a result of alleged employment-related retaliation was not exempt from taxation as a personal physical injury under the Internal Revenue Code. Report Link Tax Court Reiterates that Emotional Distress Suffered From Claims of Employment Retaliation Is Not Tax Exempt.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - January 15, 2010 In Wells v. Commissioner the United States Tax Court reiterated that emotional distress manifested in the form of depression suffered as a result of alleged employment-related retaliation was not exempt from taxation as a personal physical injury under the Internal Revenue Code. Report Link Federal District Court Rules that Back Pay and Front Pay are Wages Subject to Employment Taxes.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - August 11, 2009 In Josifovich v. Secure Computing Corp.1 a federal district court in New Jersey held that both back pay and front pay paid as part of a settlement award to a former employee were wages and thus subject to federal employment taxes. The court also rejected the former employee's argument that the employer must pay the taxes by "grossing up" the settlement, finding that because the plaintiff had entered into the settlement voluntarily, she was stuck with its tax consequences. Report Link Third Circuit Allows Award of Extra Damages for Additional Taxes Due to Lump Sum Payment.Jackson Lewis LLP - March 02, 2009 In an apparent case of first impression in the circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Philadelphia) has held that a court may award a prevailing employee an additional sum of money to compensate the employee for the increased tax burden a back pay award may create. Eshelman v. Agere Systems Inc., No. 05-4895 (3d Cir., Jan. 30, 2009). Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of an additional amount to the plaintiff. The Third Circuit encompasses Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the U.S.Virgin Islands. Report Link DC Circuit Rules that Damages for Non-Physical Injury Are Subject to Federal Taxation.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 17, 2007 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has resolved the constitutional question it first created concerning the taxability of damages for emotional distress or mental anguish and loss of reputation (non-physical personal injury). After reviewing the issue, the D.C. Circuit has held that such damages were taxable. Karraker v. Rent-A-Center,No. 06-2617 (7th Cir. July 9, 2007)Report Link D.C. Circuit Reverses Course and Finds Emotional Distress Damages Are Income Subject to Tax.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - July 12, 2007 Reversing its August 22, 2006 opinion, the D.C. Circuit Court held in Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 15816 (July 3, 2007), that emotional distress damages are taxable income under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 61. The court backed away from its earlier ruling holding IRC section 104(a)(2)1 unconstitutional on the ground that emotional distress damages were not "income" within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Report Link DC Circuit Vacates Ruling Exempting Damages For Emotional Distress From Federal Taxation.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 03, 2007 As reported on this website, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held last summer that an individual's award of damages for emotional distress or mental anguish and loss of reputation (non-physical personal injury) is not taxable. Murphy v. IRS, D.C. Cir., No. 05-5139 (8/22/2006). Report Link Federal Court Finds Compensatory Damages for Non-Physical Injuries Are Not Taxable.Ford & Harrison LLP - September 08, 2006 The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has held that compensatory damages received for emotional upset and harm to reputation, but not connected to any physical injury, are not taxable as income. See Murphy v. I.R.S. (D.C. Cir. Aug. 22, 2006). The court's decision is the first federal appeals court decision to rule on the taxability of compensatory damages not connected to physical injuries. Report Link Are Emotional Distress Damages "Income" Subject to Tax? "No" Says The D.C. Court of Appeals in Murphy v. United States.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - August 28, 2006 On August 22, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held it unconstitutional, within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment, to tax compensatory damages for emotional distress damages. Murphy v. United States, No. 05-5139 (Aug. 22, 2006). This opinion is likely to cause many plaintiff's counsel to immediately claim all emotional distress damages are nontaxable, but the decision is clearly not so simple. Report Link Emotional Distress Awards Are Not Taxable in District of Columbia.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 24, 2006 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that an individual's award of damages for emotional distress or mental anguish and loss of reputation (non-physical personal injury) is not taxable. Murphy v. IRS, D.C. Cir., No. 05-5139 (8/22/2006). See copy of decision in "Related Links" below. Report Link U. S. Supreme Court Rules Attorneys' Fees Are Income and Reportable on Claimant's Federal Tax Return.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 25, 2005 In a unanimous decision, the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that attorneys fees paid out of a judgment or settlement under a contingent fee agreement are includible in a claimant's gross income for federal tax purposes. Report Link Voluntary Early-Out Severance Benefits Subject to Federal Employment Taxes.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 01, 2000 Discusses Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. v. United States. 22 EBC 2858 (Ct. Fed. Cl. 1999), in which the Court of Federal Claims held that payments made by Associated under the early out plan were "wages" as contemplated by § 3121 and therefore subject to FICA tax. [Case appears to have been affirmed by Federal Circuit, Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. v. United States. 99-5058 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2000)].
|
ArticlesFound: 15 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
A Littler OFCCP Webinar Series
Webinar
March 15, 2010 LittlerCreating and Keeping Employment Law RecordsWebinar
March 16, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsUsing Serengeti Tracker - More Than a Matter Management ToolPortland
March 16, 2010 LittlerWho Says Social Networking Is Just for Kids?Indianapolis
March 16, 2010 LittlerAdvanced Executive BriefingJacksonville
March 17, 2010 ConstangyManaging Intermittent Leave and the Medical Certification Process Under FMLAWebinar
March 17, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsWho Says Social Networking Is Just for Kids?Chicago
March 17, 2010 LittlerHR Madness: The Road to a Winning WorkplaceJacksonville
March 18, 2010 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplyOntario
March 18, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsUnder Pressure: What You Need to Know About Immigration Regs. to Keep Your Health Care OrganizationWebinar
March 18, 2010 Vedder Price |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2010 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds