|
||||
|
||||
Revisiting the Taxation of Punitive DamagesGregg D. PolskyUniversity of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill - School of Law Dan MarkelFlorida State University College of Law September 8, 2011 Virginia Law Review In Brief, Vol. 97, pp. 73-82, 2011 FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 510 UNC Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1885722 Abstract: In our recent article, Taxing Punitive Damages, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1421879, we argued (1) that plaintiffs in punitive damages cases should be allowed to introduce to the jury evidence regarding the deductibility of those damages by defendants, and (2) that this jury tax-awareness approach is better than the Obama Administration’s suggested alternative of disallowing those deductions. To our delight, Professor Larry Zelenak and Paul Mogin have each provided published comments to our piece on Virginia Law Review's In Brief companion website. Professor Zelenak’s thoughtful response focuses on our prescriptive claim that jury tax-awareness is better than nondeductibility, while Mr. Mogin disputes our doctrinal claim that the tax evidence is admissible. In this reply, we offer our answers to these and related challenges.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 10 Keywords: tax, torts, punitive damages Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: July 15, 2011 ; Last revised: September 10, 2011Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.578 seconds