Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Tax Treatment Of Employment-Related Personal Injury Awards: The Need For Limits, J. Burke, Michael Friel
Tax Treatment Of Employment-Related Personal Injury Awards: The Need For Limits, J. Burke, Michael Friel
Michael Friel
This article examines Section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code and the litigation that has centered on the applicability of this Section to payments in settlement or other resolution of employment-related disputes arising out of an employment relationship and accompanied by charges of tortious conduct leveled at one or more of the parties. Part II reviews the origin of amounts received as damages on account of non-physical injuries. Part III analyzes the application of Section 104(a)(2) focusing on how courts have often blurred the distinction between what non-physical injuries are encompassed by the term “personal injury,” and whether a taxpayer …
To Hold Or Not To Hold: Magneson, Bolker, And Continuity Of Investment Under I.R.C. Section 1031, J. Martin Burke, Michael K. Friel
To Hold Or Not To Hold: Magneson, Bolker, And Continuity Of Investment Under I.R.C. Section 1031, J. Martin Burke, Michael K. Friel
Michael Friel
This article examines the judicial and administrative development of the two holding requirements under the continuity of investment standards of section 1031 prior to decisions of the Tax Court and the Ninth Circuit in Magneson v. Commissioner and Bolker v. Commissioner, both of which expanded the boundaries of qualified holding and reemphasized the need for guidance from the Treasury or Congress on these issues. Next the article examines the subsequent impact of these decisions. Finally, the article suggests a standard to be followed in the future.
Getting Physical: Excluding Injury Awards Under The New Section 104(A)(2), J. Martin Burke, Michael K. Friel
Getting Physical: Excluding Injury Awards Under The New Section 104(A)(2), J. Martin Burke, Michael K. Friel
Michael Friel
This article analyzes the 1996 amendments to section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. The authors argue that while section 104(a)(2) was in need of remedy, the remedy chosen is both insupportable from the standpoint of tax policy and problematic in terms of administrability. Part II of the article traces the recent history of the statute’s judicial construction. Part III discusses the provisions of the 1996 amendments. Part IV demonstrates the impact of the 1996 amendments on dignitary torts and highlights policy and interpretational problems associated with the amended provision. The article concludes with a proposal for a better remedy.