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: MulhollandDrive who wrote (52579)	10/30/2006 3:04:42 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I haven't studied the basis for the Murphy decision sufficiently to opine on whether it will withstand further scrutiny; however, as a matter of policy, I don't think that emotional distress damages or attorneys fees recovered by the plaintiff in such cases should be taxable to the plaintiff. As a practical matter, the taxation provides a disincentive to sue, which may prevent plaintiffs with viable cases from going forward. Also, the tax benefits to Uncle Sam have to be miniscule in the larger scheme of things. I sincerely doubt that the revenue realized since 1986 was sufficient to offset the disincentive to plaintiffs and the extra amounts required of defendants to both settle and defend. I'd actually be interested in seeing some analysis along those lines.