|
''Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Appellees'' (commonly known as Murphy v. IRS),〔460 F.3d 79, 2006-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,476, 2006 WL 2411372 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 22, 2006).〕 is a controversial tax case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit originally held that the taxation of emotional distress awards by the federal government is unconstitutional. That decision was vacated, or rendered void,〔To ''vacate'', in the context of a court's action on a judgment, means "to render void; to set aside". ''Barron's Law Dictionary'', p. 503 (2d ed. 1984).〕 by the Court on December 22, 2006. The Court eventually overturned its original decision, finding against Murphy in an opinion issued on July 3, 2007.〔493 F.3d 170, 2007-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,531 (D.C. Cir. 2007), at ()〕 The July 3, 2007 decision was that the taxpayer's recovery could be taxed under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution even if the recovery were not "income" under the Sixteenth Amendment. The Court conceded that this rationale for granting a rehearing and overturning the original decision was not in the government's original appeal, and would not normally have been considered under the Court's rules. The Court indicated that the issue was of such importance, affecting "the broad public interest", that the new argument could be entertained. ==The original decision== The Court had issued its original opinion, written by Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg and joined by Judges Judith Rogers and Janice Rogers Brown, on August 22, 2006. The opinion had struck down to the extent that the statute purported to categorize compensatory damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation as being includible in gross income for Federal income tax purposes.〔''Murphy v. Internal Revenue Serv.'', 460 F.3d 79, 2006-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,476 (D.C. Cir. 2006).〕 Marrita Murphy was represented by David K. Colapinto of the law firm Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, who also handled her appeal before the D.C. Circuit. Murphy had sued to recover income taxes that she paid on the compensatory damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation that she was awarded in an action against her former employer under whistle-blower statutes for reporting environmental hazards on her former employer’s property to state authorities. Murphy had claimed both physical and emotional-distress damages as a result of her former employer’s retaliation and mistreatment. In a prior administrative proceeding, Murphy had been awarded compensatory damages of $70,000, of which $45,000 was for “emotional distress or mental anguish” and $ 25,000 was for “injury to professional reputation.” Murphy reported the $70,000 award as part of her “gross income” and paid $20,665 in Federal income taxes based upon the award. Section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code excludes, from gross income, amounts "received . . . on account of personal physical injuries." The statute provides that for purposes of that exclusion, "emotional distress shall not be treated as a physical injury or physical sickness." Based on that provision, Murphy sought a refund of the full amount of tax, arguing that the award should be exempt from taxation both because the award was “in fact” to compensate for “physical personal injuries” and because the award was not “income” within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.〔''Murphy v. Internal Revenue Serv.'', 460 F.3d 79, 2006-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,476 (D.C. Cir. 2006), 2006 WL 2411372 at *1- *2.〕 Interpreting Section 104(a)(2), the D.C. Circuit first held in August 2006 that the damages at issue did not fall within the scope of the statute because the damages were not in fact to compensate for “personal physical injuries,” and thus could not be excluded from gross income under that provision.〔''Murphy v. Internal Revenue Serv.'', 460 F.3d 79, 2006-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,476 (D.C. Cir. 2006), Id. at *4- *5.〕 The D.C. Circuit next analyzed whether Section 104(a)(2) is “constitutional,” relying upon language from ''Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.''〔348 U.S. 426, 430-31 (1955).〕 to the effect that, under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress may “tax all gains” or “accessions to wealth.”〔''Murphy v. Internal Revenue Serv.'', 460 F.3d 79, 2006-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,476 (D.C. Cir. 2006), 2006 WL 2411372 at *5.〕 Murphy argued that her award was neither a gain nor an accession to wealth because it compensated her for nonphysical injuries, and was thus effectively a restoration of “human capital.”〔Id.〕 Recognizing that the Supreme Court has long held that a restoration of capital “()s not income,” and thus is not taxable, and that personal injury recoveries have traditionally been considered “nontaxable on the theory that they roughly correspond to a return of capital,” the D.C. Circuit accepted Murphy’s argument in its August 2006 decision.〔''Murphy v. Internal Revenue Serv.'', 460 F.3d 79, 2006-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,476 (D.C. Cir. 2006), Id. at *5- *6 (quoting, inter alia, ''O’Gilvie v. United States'', 519 U.S. 79, 84 (1996), ''Glenshaw Glass'', 348 U.S. at 432 n.8).〕 The D.C. Circuit reasoned that Murphy’s award for emotional distress or loss of reputation is not taxable because her damages “were awarded to make Murphy emotionally and reputationally ‘whole’ and not to compensate her for lost wages or taxable earnings of any kind.”〔''Murphy v. Internal Revenue Serv.'', 460 F.3d 79, 2006-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,476 (D.C. Cir. 2006), Id. at *8.〕 The D.C. Circuit also explained that a 1918 opinion of the Attorney General stating that proceeds from an accident insurance policy were not taxable income and a 1922 IRS ruling that damages based on loss of reputation were not taxable income, both issued relatively near the Sixteenth Amendment’s ratification in 1913, support its ruling.〔See id. at *6, *9- *10.〕 The D.C. Circuit thus concluded that “the framers of the Sixteenth Amendment would not have understood compensation for a personal injury – including a nonphysical injury – to be income.”〔''Murphy v. Internal Revenue Serv.'', 460 F.3d 79, 2006-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,476 (D.C. Cir. 2006), Id. at *10.〕 Murphy’s position was that her award constituted only monies that “made her whole” and, in effect, was a return of her “human capital.” 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Murphy v. IRS」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|