Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (52565)	10/30/2006 2:32:08 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I wonder if Smithee has encountered this issue in his...ahem...movie career There was much confusion and litigation over the scope of the exclusion. Prior to 1996, the exclusion was for damages received on account of "personal injuries or sickness." In 1996, the qualifier that the injuries be "physical" was added. Emotional damages were excluded. Smithee is aware of an individual who owned an onshore fish processing plant in Alaska that was devastated by the Exxon Valdez spill. He received money from Exxon (initially) and took the position on his tax return that it was received on account of "personal injury," which was the requirement for exclusion under Section 104(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. The theory was he was compensated for injuries to reputation that were caused by the oil spill (much of the product was sold in Japan. Japanese consumers place a high premium on the purity of the product they buy). He lost that one in the Tax Court. Smithee has not read the Murphy decision out of the DC Circuit (it does not have the prospect for being made into a bad movie). He is aware, however that the case turned on analysis of the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. It appears that the poor fish processor who lost his case in the Tax Court quite possibly would have won under the analysis adopted by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, back to movie making.