Procedural History: By understanding Section 104(a)(2), the court from August 2006 said that the income could be taxed under the law. The damages that were done were not actual “personal physical injuries” and could be taxable. Therefore, Murphy could not deny the federal government to not tax her income that she deemed was recovery capital.
On July 3, 2007 there was another hearing. The court said that taxpayer’s award was received because of “non-physical injury”. The gross income under section 61 of the IRS code states that for “non-physical illnesses” or “injuries”, it can have income tax implemented on it. It does not matter if it is human recovery capital, it will still be taxed because it does not violate the statement of article 1 section 9, article 1 section 8, or the sixteenth amendment. It was found that Ms. Murphy was not eligible to the refund that she felt that was not taxable.
Murphy’s
…show more content…
He argues that the damage is human recovery capital, not income because his former employee damaged his chances of obtaining employment.
Rules: Sixteenth Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
493 F.3d 170 (CA–DC, 2007), says that recovery capital or other transactions can be taxed because of Article 1, section 8 and through the sixteenth amendment. It was determined that the Constitution has the power to give Congress the allowance to tax income. Therefore the federal government is not just limited to only taxing income, it can tax other transactions too.
Congress also states in 26 U.S. Code § 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue code says that compensation for injuries or sickness that is can tax personal injury awards even if it is not physical. It states “emotional distress shall not be treated as a physical injury or physical