10 Pages Posted: 15 Jul 2011 Last revised: 10 Sep 2011
Date Written: September 8, 2011
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: 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