Author Topic: Weirdly specific question for tax experts  (Read 7022 times)

The Money Monk

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 619
  • Location: Nevada
Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« on: April 29, 2015, 01:02:48 PM »
I know this is a high-level question, but I would appreciate any insight from tax experts out there.

I am trying to find out what the tax status would be of a settlement from a false arrest case.

Based on my research it looks like the IRS has said that settlements that are at least in part for physical injury are counted as tax-exempt income. On there other side there is a circuit court case I found where a woman's settlement for false arrest/false imprisonment was deemed as taxable because she explicitly stated that there were no physical damages, only emotional/psychological.

Where it gets weird is there seems to be a gray area that hasn't been addressed with cases that aren't explicit either way (doesn't outline specific physical damages, but doesn't specify that they were non-existent either). I can't find any info on such situations.

Anybody happen to have any insight on this? There is a possibility I will at some point receive such a settlement or judgement and I'm trying to find out what my tax burden would be.

The Money Monk

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 619
  • Location: Nevada
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2015, 02:38:27 PM »
Anyone?

I know this it's a fairly esoteric question, but I figured I would at least ask and see if anybody knew anything about the issue.

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2015, 03:00:43 PM »
Dude, you only gave 90 minutes to reply between your two posts. I'm not inspired to do significant research for this question, but here's the first principle you should know of legal research: you should look at the statutory framework before trying to understand the case law.

In this case, the general principle is that all income "from whatever source derived" is taxable: 26 USC 61(a). Unless you can identify a statutory basis for excluding your settlement from income, it is going to be taxable.

One possible basis could be 26 USC 104(a)(2), which excludes from income compensatory damages (not punitive damages) received "on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness". Damages for emotional distress explicitly do not count other than damages paid for medical care to treat emotional distress.

So let's just review the above. The general principle is that the income is taxable. To avoid that result, you need to identify a statute that makes it nontaxable. If you want to rely on 26 USC 104(a)(2), you need to show that your settlement or a portion thereof (1) consists of compensatory damages, not punitive damages, and (2) was received on account of personal physical injuries. Only the portion that actually meets the requirements will be nontaxable under that statute.

It's very possible that a claim for false arrest could involve compensation for a personal physical injury. However, that may only be a portion of the damages. A shrewd lawyer would have drafted the formal consent judgment (or other settlement document) to explicitly demarcate the damages that were being awarded as compensation for personal physical injury. That way you would have a rock solid tax argument simply by producing the signed formal judgment. Assuming that was not done here, you may be in for more fun.

You should understand that the specific basis in tort law for the claim or claims is not what is relevant for 26 USC 104(a)(2).

Good luck.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2015, 03:10:55 PM by Cathy »

CPA CB

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 205
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2015, 10:54:13 PM »
Dude, you only gave 90 minutes to reply between your two posts. I'm not inspired to do significant research for this question, but here's the first principle you should know of legal research: you should look at the statutory framework before trying to understand the case law.

In this case, the general principle is that all income "from whatever source derived" is taxable: 26 USC 61(a). Unless you can identify a statutory basis for excluding your settlement from income, it is going to be taxable.

One possible basis could be 26 USC 104(a)(2), which excludes from income compensatory damages (not punitive damages) received "on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness". Damages for emotional distress explicitly do not count other than damages paid for medical care to treat emotional distress.

So let's just review the above. The general principle is that the income is taxable. To avoid that result, you need to identify a statute that makes it nontaxable. If you want to rely on 26 USC 104(a)(2), you need to show that your settlement or a portion thereof (1) consists of compensatory damages, not punitive damages, and (2) was received on account of personal physical injuries. Only the portion that actually meets the requirements will be nontaxable under that statute.

It's very possible that a claim for false arrest could involve compensation for a personal physical injury. However, that may only be a portion of the damages. A shrewd lawyer would have drafted the formal consent judgment (or other settlement document) to explicitly demarcate the damages that were being awarded as compensation for personal physical injury. That way you would have a rock solid tax argument simply by producing the signed formal judgment. Assuming that was not done here, you may be in for more fun.

You should understand that the specific basis in tort law for the claim or claims is not what is relevant for 26 USC 104(a)(2).

Good luck.

As usual - a veritable hum-dinger from Cathy.

Money Monk - good luck decrypting the statutory law for your area without relying on case law, as Cathy has suggested. Remember next time posting on the forum to quote the applicable to your case...

As someone who works in an adjacent field, in a different country (keep in mind, CanEHdians rely on common law, 'Mericans rely on... well who knows) I suggest you look to case law FIRST. In Canada, personal injury settlements (general damages etc.) are not included in family law settlements. Nor are they included in income under most circumstances (as damages are calculated after tax). I would expect a similar result in the land of Cellino and Barnes - but a guarantee that anything close to "Income" will be taxable in any case.

Cathy's analysis isn't sufficient - clearly she knows little (nothing) about Personal Injury Law - as there is a difference between general damages and "Income Losses" - in any case - you want to ensure that you report what is generally considered Income by the IRS, and ignore the remainder for tax purposes. My expectation here is that income losses will be taxable, yet medical costs and general damages will not be. Speak with your attorney about the various heads of damages (or if self-represented go to your local law library) and ask about potential liability.

The key here - look at cases that are similar - what did the judge say in the decision on the facts? Compare this to your situation to find wedge issues - no case will fit perfectly, but some used together may paint a picture that the facts land in your benefit.

Good luck!

CPA CB


Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2015, 11:50:19 PM »
Money Monk - good luck decrypting the statutory law for your area without relying on case law, as Cathy has suggested.

I didn't suggest not reading the case law. I suggested reading the statute first so that you understand what the cases are discussing. I stand by that suggestion for all areas of law governed by statute. In particular, that allows you to focus your search through the case law to cases that are relevant. It also allows you to know what cases are irrelevant due to intervening legislative changes. In particular, the Internal Revenue Code used to be more generous on this topic, but was relatively recently (1996) amended to include more compensatory damages in income. Cases decided before that date may contain propositions of law that are no longer accurate. You wouldn't know that without reading the statute first.

As for the rest of your post, although it appears to contain a gratuitous insult, I am not sure why you posted it. The information in my post is accurate and you have not identified any inaccuracy. US law on this topic is a bit different from Canadian law, although it works out the same in many but not all cases. Specifically, the US framework is exactly what I already said: the general principle is that the entire damage award or settlement is taxable, unless you can identify a statutory exception. The most common exception for these facts is the one I mentioned in my post. This is exactly how the issue is framed in the cases. For example, see the discussion in Banks v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2001-48:

       We must decide whether petitioner received any of the settlement proceeds on account of a personal injury. To the extent that he did, the funds are excludable from his gross income. See sec. 104(a)(2). To the extent that he did not, the funds are includable in his gross income. See sec. 61(a).

The Court presumably uses the term "settlement proceeds" to make it clear that this analysis applies to the entire amount (not just the portion that would be income under Canadian tax principles). You will notice that those are the exact same two provisions I cited: the general rule ( 61(a)) and an exception thereto ( 104(a)(2)). The Court was a bit imprecise and overly broad in that quote, but it illustrates the general idea that the entire proceeds are taxable unless a statutory exception is identified. See my post above for a more precise statement. Incidentally, that's another reason to read the statute first: you'll know when the judge is incorrectly paraphrasing it.

The results under the US scheme sometimes overlap with Canada but they sometimes do not. I myself have occasionally mentally confused the laws of the two countries. However, they aren't always the same.

In OP's case, the key issue is going to be what proportion of the funds in the settlement or judgment constituted money received on account of personal physical injury (which are probably nontaxable), and what proportion constituted money received on account of emotional distress or for other things (which are probably taxable unless a different exception can be identified). OP seemed to be operating under the assumption that the entire settlement would be one or the other, but that is not necessarily the case.

Furthermore, OP seemed to be unclear on whether the default result was that the proceeds were taxable or nontaxable. Specifically, OP says:

Where it gets weird is there seems to be a gray area that hasn't been addressed with cases that aren't explicit either way (doesn't outline specific physical damages, but doesn't specify that they were non-existent either).

In other words, OP was unsure on what happens if the taxpayer is silent about whether the damages were awarded for a physical personal injury. I have answered that question: the default is that the proceeds are taxable in their entirety. To avoid that result, OP needs to bring himself within an affirmative exception, as explained in my post.

In summary, my post correctly answered all the major questions in the OP, while inviting him to do further research to find the answers applicable to the specific facts of his case. I'd say it was a solid post.

I should also comment on your use of the term "common law" in your suggestion that since Canada is a common law country, legal research should start with the cases rather than the statute. The term "common law" has many different meanings, and it is not clear which one you meant. I previously mused on this in an earlier essay on common law marriage.

In this situation, the tax system is a "common law" system in the sense that the decisions of judges may have a binding effect such that one needs to read the case law to learn the entire law. However, the tax system is not a common law system in the way that, say, contract law in Canada is. In Canadian contract law, all of the rules originate from the cases: there is no statute being interpreted (for the most part).

However, the sole authority for the collection of taxes is a statute or a collection of statutes. In both Canada and the USA, the government cannot levy a tax unless it has been authorised by statute. In that sense, the tax system is a "positive law" system rather than a pure "common law" system. In such a positive law system, you would be remiss not to start from the first principles contained in the statute. Trying to piece together the various conclusions of the case law without a good understanding of the statutory basis for them can lead to very significant misunderstandings, and is something that I have seen lead many people astray in legal research.

I have also written elsewhere about the legal basis for income tax rules in the USA, together with a brief comment of the role of court decisions in tax administration. My intent with some of these posts is to provide people with the tools they need to carry out research themselves in the future. I believe I've actually had some success as some users have started citing statutes where they did not do so before.

In my opinion, society is enhanced when people understand the legal basis for their system of government and social relations. I like to think my posts are helping with that, in whatever trivial way posts on a small forum can do so.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2015, 09:54:14 AM by Cathy »

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6949
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2015, 04:52:29 AM »

I can't top our resident legal expert Cathy above, but I'm curious to know what the OP was falsely arrested for.


The Money Monk

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 619
  • Location: Nevada
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2015, 02:42:08 PM »

I didn't suggest not reading the case law. I suggested reading the statute first so that you understand what the cases are discussing. I stand by that suggestion for all areas of law governed by statute. In particular, that allows you to focus your search through the case law to cases that are relevant. It also allows you to know what cases are irrelevant due to intervening legislative changes. In particular, the Internal Revenue Code used to be more generous on this topic, but was relatively recently (1996) amended to include more compensatory damages in income. Cases decided before that date may contain propositions of law that are no longer accurate. You wouldn't know that without reading the statute first.

In OP's case, the key issue is going to be what proportion of the funds in the settlement or judgment constituted money received on account of personal physical injury (which are probably nontaxable), and what proportion constituted money received on account of emotional distress or for other things (which are probably taxable unless a different exception can be identified). OP seemed to be operating under the assumption that the entire settlement would be one or the other, but that is not necessarily the case.

Furthermore, OP seemed to be unclear on whether the default result was that the proceeds were taxable or nontaxable. Specifically, OP says:

Where it gets weird is there seems to be a gray area that hasn't been addressed with cases that aren't explicit either way (doesn't outline specific physical damages, but doesn't specify that they were non-existent either).

In other words, OP was unsure on what happens if the taxpayer is silent about whether the damages were awarded for a physical personal injury. I have answered that question: the default is that the proceeds are taxable in their entirety. To avoid that result, OP needs to bring himself within an affirmative exception, as explained in my post.

I wasn't talking about being silent. You are misinterpreting what I said. I never assumed that the entire settlement is one way or the other, in fact my ENTIRE question is trying to figure out what happens when its NOT, as the case law i was referring to has already settled the issue for cases where it is explicity 100% for either physical or emotional damages.  I was asking about situations were the settlement or judgement doesn't specify to what extent physical damages are part for the settlement. If my initial complaint alleges physical and emotional damages, and we settle out of court, there isn't necessarily anything that is going to outline what % of the settlement is supposedly from physical damages and what is from emotional, is there? I couldn't find any instances where that situation was been dealt with as a tax issue, so I was asking if anyone did.

I already knew (and said as much) that physical damage settlements are exempt from income, and emotional arent. What I m trying to figure out is if I get a check for $10K and it says "for physical an demotional damages" what is my tax burden?

The Money Monk

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 619
  • Location: Nevada
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2015, 02:48:21 PM »

I can't top our resident legal expert Cathy above, but I'm curious to know what the OP was falsely arrested for.

Well, the definition of a false arrest is that they didn't actually have cause to arrest me, so it wasn't actually "for" anything, as I didn't actually break the law.

But as far as the specifics, the charge was "resisting" and ostensibly the reason was failure to produce ID. However it was a situation where I was not legally required to even carry an ID. Under terry v ohio and Florida Stop and frisk laws I would have been required to identify myself verbally since i was allegedly suspected of a "crime" ( a minor civil infraction that was dismissed) but they never actually asked for my name, and put me in handcuffs within 30 seconds of making contact.

Long story short, it was a 'contempt of cop" charge and nothing else. I know my rights and the laws and I let them know, and that really bothers them. 


Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2015, 03:03:26 PM »
If my initial complaint alleges physical and emotional damages, and we settle out of court, there isn't necessarily anything that is going to outline what % of the settlement is supposedly from physical damages and what is from emotional, is there? I couldn't find any instances where that situation was been dealt with as a tax issue, so I was asking if anyone did.

I already knew (and said as much) that physical damage settlements are exempt from income, and emotional arent. What I m trying to figure out is if I get a check for $10K and it says "for physical an demotional damages" what is my tax burden?

I don't misunderstand your post, although I don't know what kind of answer you are looking for here. Do you expect us to write a legal brief for you that you can use in your argument of why your settlement is nontaxable? Until your most recent post, you didn't even tell us the facts of the case, and even your most recent post is rather vague as to what kind of damages you may have suffered. You also expected the brief within 90 minutes. This is normally a service you would pay a significant amount for.

If there's nothing that outlines what the damages are for, you're going to have to construct a convincing argument yourself. It might help if you can quantify the portion of the damages that would be nontaxable and then compare that to the amount of settlement. There's not a whole lot else we can say here. If you don't know how to come up with an argument, you will have to retain counsel.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2015, 03:07:28 PM by Cathy »

The Money Monk

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 619
  • Location: Nevada
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2015, 03:17:02 PM »
If my initial complaint alleges physical and emotional damages, and we settle out of court, there isn't necessarily anything that is going to outline what % of the settlement is supposedly from physical damages and what is from emotional, is there? I couldn't find any instances where that situation was been dealt with as a tax issue, so I was asking if anyone did.

I already knew (and said as much) that physical damage settlements are exempt from income, and emotional arent. What I m trying to figure out is if I get a check for $10K and it says "for physical an demotional damages" what is my tax burden?

I don't misunderstand your post, although I don't know what kind of answer you are looking for here. Do you expect us to write a legal brief for you that you can use in your argument of why your settlement is nontaxable? Until your most recent post, you didn't even tell us the facts of the case, and even your most recent post is rather vague as to what kind of damages you may have suffered. You also expected the brief within 90 minutes. This is normally a service you would pay a significant amount for.

If there's nothing that outlines what the damages are for, you're going to have to construct a convincing argument yourself. It might help if you can quantify the portion of the damages that would be nontaxable and then compare that to the amount of settlement. There's not a whole lot else we can say here. If you don't know how to come up with an argument, you will have to retain counsel.

You obviously DO misunderstand me, and you've demonstrated it again with this post. What part of what I have written would lead you to believe I am looking for a legal brief in defense of ANY of the positions mentioned above? I also never asked for anyone to come up with an argument. I don't mind if you don't or can't answer, but you're just being a curmudgeon. I very clearly simply asked if anyone knew of a situation similar to what I described: Where damages where awarded but nothing specifies how much are for physical and how much are for emotional.

The specific facts of my case are mostly irrelevant to this issue. The only relevant factor is if the damages end up being awarded for physical or emotional damages. I already wrote that I allege both kinds of damages in my complaint.

 My only question is still (and has only ever been been) simply if they accept my latest offer, but nothing SPECIFICALLY outlines how much if any, is physical damages, how does the IRS classify the money. I appreciate any attempts to answer THAT question, but If you are just going to completely miss the point and be surly about it, I'd rather you not reply at all. 

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2015, 03:23:34 PM »
The specific facts of my case are mostly irrelevant to this issue.

The facts of your case are obviously highly relevant. If you don't understand why, you may want to read the posts that have already been made.


I very clearly simply asked if anyone knew of a situation similar to what I described: Where damages where awarded but nothing specifies how much are for physical and how much are for emotional.

Here, again, is the answer: You will have to come up with an argument that shows that some portion is nontaxable, if you want some portion to be nontaxable.

I am no longer inclined to offer any further assistance given that your most recent post is filled with insults and you clearly have no respect for the free help that has been provided to you in the thread.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7389
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2015, 03:40:15 PM »
Money Monk, why are you being so hostile to someone who is trying to help you? Not a winning strategy in life. If you don't like the help provided, a better approach might be to just ignore it.

I suggest you ask a tax professional. If the amount is at all significant, it seems like it would be worth a small fee to have some professional advice on this.

The Money Monk

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 619
  • Location: Nevada
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2015, 03:57:21 PM »
Money Monk, why are you being so hostile to someone who is trying to help you? Not a winning strategy in life. If you don't like the help provided, a better approach might be to just ignore it.

I suggest you ask a tax professional. If the amount is at all significant, it seems like it would be worth a small fee to have some professional advice on this.

I wasn't being hostile.  If you go back and read all her posts, she takes a very surly, confrontation tone from the very beginning. I simply identified this. As identified by the post from CPA CB, I'm not the first person to identify this.

The Money Monk

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 619
  • Location: Nevada
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #13 on: May 16, 2015, 04:16:33 PM »
The facts of your case are obviously highly relevant. If you don't understand why, you may want to read the posts that have already been made.

See, you are still misinterpreting what I am saying: The facts of my case are most certainly relevant to any argument I would make to the IRS about the tax status of my settlement.


However, what you don't seem willing to understand, is that I am not doing that. I am not making any arguments to the IRS, or to anyone else. I may have to in the future, but I am not now, and I an not asking about that. I am ONLY asking if anybody knew of any other cases where the IRS had made a decision about the tax status of a settlement that didn't specify what amount was for physical damages. 

So the specifics of my case are indeed irrelevant to whether or not anybody knows the answer to that question. I could be asking the same question without even being involved in a case, so maybe its better if you think of it that way.

I would use any such precedents, if they exist, if I ever DO have to make an argument, but i am not making any arguments now. I dont know how else to explain that to you.


Here, again, is the answer: You will have to come up with an argument that shows that some portion is nontaxable, if you want some portion to be nontaxable.



Again, If I have to deal with the IRS, you're right. However, I am not doing that. not yet anyway. I am simply trying to find any precedent of similar situation in case I do get to that point. I am not asking you or anyone else to make arguments for me, I can make the arguments on my own. I am just looking for how similar situations if any, have been dealt with by the IRS in the past.  Ignore what I 'want' to happen with the case, that is irrelevant to the question I am asking. In fact, pretend I don't even have a case of my own. I am just a curious citizen asking the question.




I am no longer inclined to offer any further assistance given that your most recent post is filled with insults and you clearly have no respect for the free help that has been provided to you in the thread.


 You have most certainly been surly, in your posts, and I simply identified that.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2015, 04:20:40 PM by The Money Monk »

Cpa Cat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #14 on: May 16, 2015, 04:33:23 PM »
If you were to consult with an attorney or a CPA, they likely have a paid subscription to a legal database to research tax cases. It's probably prudent to pull a few cases before you sign any papers and get some advice.

The truth is that you're highly unlikely to get a lot of advice on this. You're dealing with a complicated legal/tax question for which we don't have all of the details. You are specifically asking for tax avoidance advice regarding a "grey area" and most professionals aren't going to be willing to dive too far into pulling case law when you aren't their client!

If you're truly interested in having someone pull cases for you, I would suggest posting a job on Elance - you can usually find someone with access to a legal database who will do that for relatively cheaply.

The Money Monk

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 619
  • Location: Nevada
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #15 on: May 16, 2015, 04:39:51 PM »
If you were to consult with an attorney or a CPA, they likely have a paid subscription to a legal database to research tax cases. It's probably prudent to pull a few cases before you sign any papers and get some advice.

The truth is that you're highly unlikely to get a lot of advice on this. You're dealing with a complicated legal/tax question for which we don't have all of the details. You are specifically asking for tax avoidance advice regarding a "grey area" and most professionals aren't going to be willing to dive too far into pulling case law when you aren't their client!

If you're truly interested in having someone pull cases for you, I would suggest posting a job on Elance - you can usually find someone with access to a legal database who will do that for relatively cheaply.

Thanks for the response. Yeah I just didn't know of a way, other than subscription based databases, to look up such precedents/case law.  I just figured I would ask to see if anyone happened to have dealt with such a situation before and knew, before spending any money. I realized and mentioned the esoteric nature of the question.

And for the record, I am not trying to avoid paying any taxes that I owe,  I just want to find out what I DO owe. Maybe the IRS has already said that cases that don't specify are considered 50% taxable or something, who knows. That is why I am trying to figure out what has already been addressed by the IRS BEFORE bothering to formulate any arguments.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2015, 04:41:51 PM by The Money Monk »

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #16 on: May 16, 2015, 04:50:08 PM »
Many tax cases are filed in the Tax Court, which publishes its opinions on its website. Cases can also be filed in District Court, and those opinions are also available online. Opinions rendered by a Court of Appeals are also online. Supreme Court opinions are also available online.

Databases like LexisNexis have some additional features such as allowing you to see the "treatment" of a case (whether it has been followed in subsequent cases). They also group the entire procedural history of an action together making it easy to view subsequent appeals in the same case. The commercial databases may also allow you to view the briefs filed by the parties, which can sometimes be helpful. If you want to see the briefs in a particular case, they are likely to be available on PACER for a nominal fee, which is waived if you spend below a certain threshold.

Overall, I don't think you will need access to a commercial database to do this research, but if you do want access to one, you may want to visit your local public library, or the library at a local courthouse, as they often have subscriptions available to the public (which I believe CPA CB suggested as well).

Cpa Cat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #17 on: May 16, 2015, 04:54:24 PM »
And for the record, I am not trying to avoid paying any taxes that I owe,  I just want to find out what I DO owe.

I know. Tax avoidance involves perfectly legal strategies to avoid tax liability - such as how to specifically phrase a settlement agreement, or what evidence you'd need to prove your physical damages for tax purposes.

Tax evasion would be avoiding paying taxes you owe!

The Money Monk

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 619
  • Location: Nevada
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #18 on: May 16, 2015, 05:04:36 PM »
And for the record, I am not trying to avoid paying any taxes that I owe,  I just want to find out what I DO owe.

I know. Tax avoidance involves perfectly legal strategies to avoid tax liability - such as how to specifically phrase a settlement agreement, or what evidence you'd need to prove your physical damages for tax purposes.

Tax evasion would be avoiding paying taxes you owe!

right on, my mistake.

 Pretty sure I actually knew that somewhere in my brain.

The Money Monk

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 619
  • Location: Nevada
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #19 on: May 16, 2015, 05:26:12 PM »
Many tax cases are filed in the Tax Court, which publishes its opinions on its website. Cases can also be filed in District Court, and those opinions are also available online. Opinions rendered by a Court of Appeals are also online. Supreme Court opinions are also available online.

Yeah, that is how I found the cases I referenced, but either that is all there is or I have reached the limits of my Google-searching skills.

Databases like LexisNexis have some additional features such as allowing you to see the "treatment" of a case (whether it has been followed in subsequent cases). They also group the entire procedural history of an action together making it easy to view subsequent appeals in the same case. The commercial databases may also allow you to view the briefs filed by the parties, which can sometimes be helpful. If you want to see the briefs in a particular case, they are likely to be available on PACER for a nominal fee, which is waived if you spend below a certain threshold.

I remember I used Lexisnexis as a student many years ago, but I thought it was a pay-service. Now if I can only remember HOW to use it lol

Overall, I don't think you will need access to a commercial database to do this research, but if you do want access to one, you may want to visit your local public library, or the library at a local courthouse, as they often have subscriptions available to the public (which I believe CPA CB suggested as well).

I'll check it out, thanks.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2015, 05:27:47 PM by The Money Monk »

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #20 on: May 16, 2015, 05:29:19 PM »
LexisNexis is a paid service, although if you had access as a student, your student account may still be active as they are not very reliable about deactivating them.

The Money Monk

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 619
  • Location: Nevada
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #21 on: May 16, 2015, 05:39:22 PM »
LexisNexis is a paid service, although if you had access as a student, your student account may still be active as they are not very reliable about deactivating them.

Lol man, i dunno. This was 12 years ago.

CPA CB

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 205
Re: Weirdly specific question for tax experts
« Reply #22 on: May 17, 2015, 08:50:16 AM »
LexisNexis is a paid service, although if you had access as a student, your student account may still be active as they are not very reliable about deactivating them.

Lol man, i dunno. This was 12 years ago.

Try Cornell's Legal Library?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/

A semi-equivalent to the Canadian CanLii