TaxProf Blog

Editor: Paul L. Caron
Pepperdine University School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Caron Presents The Story of Murphy: A New Front in the War on the Income Tax Today at Cincinnati

I am presenting The Story of Murphy:  A New Front in the War on the Income Tax at Cincinnati today as part of our 12th Annual Summer Scholarship Series:

This paper is a draft of a chapter from the forthcoming second edition of Tax Stories (Foundation Press), a book designed for use as supplemental reading in the basic federal income tax course. The other ten chapters in the book focus on ten seminal U.S. Supreme Court federal income tax cases. This chapter unpacks the D.C. Circuit’s stunning decision in Murphy v. United States, 460 F.3d 79 (D.C. Cir. 2006), which unsettled more than a half-century of tax jurisprudence in holding, based on an originalist view of the Sixteenth Amendment, that a personal injury award for emotional and reputational injuries could not be constitutionally treated as income. The chapter explores the background of the case, examines the parties’ conduct of the litigation, and critically analyzes the flaws and negative implications of the panel’s opinion. Although the D.C. Circuit panel ultimately granted rehearing and reversed its earlier decision in Murphy v. IRS, 493 F.3d 170 (D.C. Cir. 2007), the panel could not unring the bell and undo the lasting damage to the tax system caused by its original opinion.

Here is the Conclusion:

In his chapter on The Story of INDOPCO, Joseph Bankman argues that the income tax often asks too much of judges (and taxpayers, tax accountants, tax lawyers, and the IRS), demanding Solomonic judgments that mere mortals are incapable of consistently getting right. As a result, what initially may appear as an isolated failure instead may be a systemic flaw in the income tax itself. In Murphy, however, the income tax asked very little of the D.C. Circuit: the case merely required understanding of the constitutional source of Congress’s taxing power; the relationship between constitutional and statutory definitions of income; the meaning of tax basis and the difference between financial capital and human capital; and the courts’ duty to the tax system. Instead, the D.C. Circuit turned what should have been a run of the mill tax dispute over the application of § 104(a)(2) into a threat to the very survival of the income tax. The D.C. Circuit, prodded by the tax blogosphere, ultimately backed away from the brink, but the panel’s willingness to arm the anti-tax brigades should give pause to those committed to defend the income tax. Although questions about the taxation of damage recoveries will not bring down the income tax, the willingness of so many to shake its foundations may ultimately prove its undoing.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/07/caron-presents.html

Colloquia | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef00e553c2887f8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Caron Presents The Story of Murphy: A New Front in the War on the Income Tax Today at Cincinnati:

Comments

I am a tax attorney and know where my bread is buttered, but I am not sure I agree with your implication that getting rid of the income tax is necessarily a bad thing. There can be be no doubt that a person gives up something (time with family, health, life span,etc.)when he works and (applying the willing buyer and willing seller theory of fair value)what he gives up must be worth at least what he gets paid for giving it up.

In this "year of Obama" people say they want change. I can't think of a bigger change than ditching the progressive income tax and replacing it with either a tax on consumption or some sort of flat tax.

I am not saying I favor those alternatives, but I don't think it's a bad idea to look at them.

Posted by: Peter | Jul 30, 2008 9:35:48 AM

"based on an *originalist* view of the Sixteenth Amendment, that a personal injury award for emotional and reputational injuries could not be constitutionally treated as income."

I hope it's made clear that the panel relied on an *erroneous* application of originalism, and that the chapter does not suggest that originalism compels the panel's bizarre result.

Posted by: andy | Jul 31, 2008 8:37:14 AM