Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Banks (1)
- Causes of action (1)
- Compensation (1)
- Compensatory damages (1)
- Damage awards (1)
-
- Defamation (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Emotional distress (1)
- Fraud (1)
- Gross income (1)
- Internal Revenue Code (1)
- Involuntary conversion (1)
- Judges (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Negligence (1)
- Personal injury (1)
- Physical injuries (1)
- Punitive damages (1)
- Statutory amendment (1)
- Tort Reform (1)
- Torts (1)
- Uniform Commercial Code (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- United States v. Burke (1)
- Wire transfers (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Torts
Allocation Of Loss Due To Fraudulent Wholesale Wire Transfers: Is There A Negligence Action Against A Beneficiary's Bank After Article 4a Of The Uniform Commercial Code?, Robert M. Lewis
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that where a bank reasonably should have known of a fraud but still pays out a wire transfer to an unauthorized recipient, common law negligence should provide a basis for recovery despite the absence of an explicit Code provision imposing liability on the bank. Part I examines the UCC's language itself and analyzes possible cases, under 4A and under articles 3 and 4 by analogy, and discusses the applicability of these other parts of the UCC to wire transfers. Part II examines how extra-Code regulatory systems and the common law would determine wire transfer liability. Part II …
Compensatory And Punitive Damages For A Personal Injury: To Tax Or Not To Tax, Douglas A. Kahn
Compensatory And Punitive Damages For A Personal Injury: To Tax Or Not To Tax, Douglas A. Kahn
Articles
Since the adoption in 1919 of the Revenue Act of 1918, damages received on account of personal injuries or sickness have been excluded by statute from gross income.1 This exclusion, which does not apply to reimbursements for medical expenses for which the taxpayer was previously allowed a tax deduction,2 is presently set forth in section 104(a)(2). One might expect that a provision having recently attained the ripe age of 75 years without change in its basic language would have a settled meaning. However, recent litigation under section 104(a)(2) bristles with unsettled issues. Does the exclusion apply to punitive damages? To …
Point, Andrew Popper
Point, Andrew Popper
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
No abstract provided.