Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Revisiting the Taxation of Punitive Damages

10 Pages Posted: 15 Jul 2011 Last revised: 10 Sep 2011

Gregg D. Polsky

University of Georgia School of Law

Dan Markel

Florida State University College of Law (Deceased)

Date Written: September 8, 2011

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.

Keywords: tax, torts, punitive damages

Suggested Citation

Polsky, Gregg D. and Markel, Dan, Revisiting the Taxation of Punitive Damages (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. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1885722

Gregg Polsky

University of Georgia School of Law ( email )

225 Herty Drive
Athens, GA 30602
United States

Dan Markel (Contact Author)

Florida State University College of Law (Deceased)

Paper statistics

Downloads
96
Rank
234,607
Abstract Views
3,475