Revisiting the Taxation of Punitive Damages
Gregg D. Polsky
University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill - School of Law
Florida 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
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 damagesAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: July 15, 2011 ; Last revised: September 10, 2011
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.406 seconds