[CLC-Discussion] Damages, Death, and Taxes

Tue Sep 10 18:14:28 PDT 2019

Perhaps this would be a good topic for one of the CLE monthly meeting speakers to address. I for one would certainly like to understand it better 

Jessica T. Sebag, Esq.

The Law Office of Jessica T. Sebag, PLLC
2159 SE Ocean Blvd
Stuart FL 34996
Tel: (561) 331-1310
Jessica at sebaglegal.com
www.sebaglegal.com

Sent from my iPhone

No trees were destroyed for this message. However a great number of pixels were extremely inconvenienced.  

> On Sep 10, 2019, at 8:57 PM, Bruce Partington <bpartington at clarkpartington.com> wrote:
> 
> It has to do with the elimination of the “miscellaneous deduction” as I understand it. I’m not a tax lawyer either, but I know some….
>  
>  
> Bruce Partington | Shareholder
> bpartington at clarkpartington.com | (850) 432-1399
> 
> CLARK PARTINGTON
> Office: (850) 434-9200 | Fax: (850) 432-7340 
> 125 East Intendencia Street, 4th Floor 
> Pensacola, Florida 32502 
> clarkpartington.com
> 
> 
> 
>   <Twitter_216c94ca-a91c-458c-ad76-295500e4747c.png>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Reese J. Henderson, Jr. <Reese.Henderson at gray-robinson.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 7:49 PM
> To: Bruce Partington <bpartington at clarkpartington.com>; clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
> Subject: RE: Damages, Death, and Taxes
>  
> Bruce:  For everyone’s benefit, can you cite the tax provision you are referring to?  None of us are tax lawyers (at least, I’m not), but the citation would be helpful nonetheless.
>  
> From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of Bruce Partington
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 8:36 PM
> To: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
> Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Damages, Death, and Taxes
>  
> This message originated outside of GrayRobinson.
> Folks –
>  
> Floating an idea here about a damages issue for your comments and thoughts. Not really anything in here about death, I just thought the subject line had a nice ring to it.
>  
> As I’m sure many of us do, I represent both plaintiffs and defendants, and often both in the same case, so my question cuts both ways, I know.
>  
> The 2017 tax law has effectively made recoveries from property damage claims “income” of some sort without a corresponding deduction (I think this is only an issue in individual claims—mostly residential obviously). I understand there is some uncertainty about exactly how it is treated (ordinary income/capital gain, factoring in the owner’s basis), but in sum, the things that our clients could use before 2017 to reduce or eliminate taxes on property damage awards (or even breach of contract) are gone. So, for an individual client whose marginal rate is 39%, the IRS will go a long way to keeping owners from being put in the position they would have been in but for the breach. (For purposes of this discussion, I’m excluding consequential damages like loss of revenue since that would have been taxable anyway, and would have corresponding expense deductions that would go with it).
>  
> In some other areas of law, damages called “tax neutralization” or “tax gross-up” damages are allowable. They seem most common in employment cases where the employee receives a lump sum that results in paying taxes on parts of the award at marginal rates higher than what the rate would have been had the employee received the money over some period of years as wages. The idea is so that the employee wouldn’t pay more in taxes than he or she would have otherwise paid, so additional damages are awarded to neutralize the tax impact. There are some cases on both sides of the issue – but exactly none that deal with this issue post-2017 tax law for property damage claims in either direction. But, if the general damages rule is to put the injured owner in the same position…..then it would make sense to include these types of damages (at least until 2026 when the law phases out, or Congress changes it before).
>  
> It’s a somewhat complex calculation because you can’t just add the taxes that would be due, because then that total is the amount on which the taxes would be calculated, so you have to add more. This results in substantial additions, particularly at higher marginal rates. For example, to “net” $1.5 Million at a 39% marginal tax rate, you have to “gross up” the amount by $959,016.40 – or about 63.9% of what your “net” damages are supposed to do. So instead of a $1.5 Million claim, your claim becomes $2,459,016.40. Of course there’s a whole other layer here about whether that would be covered under a CGL policy that I’m not even thinking about yet.
>  
> Anyway, has anyone tried this yet (or defended it)? Or have you tried anything else to mitigate the impact of the changes in the tax law?  
>  
>  
> Bruce Partington | Shareholder
> bpartington at clarkpartington.com | (850) 432-1399
> 
> CLARK PARTINGTON
> Office: (850) 434-9200 | Fax: (850) 432-7340 
> 125 East Intendencia Street, 4th Floor 
> Pensacola, Florida 32502 
> clarkpartington.com
> 
> <image001.jpg>
> 
> <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Reese J. Henderson, Jr. | Shareholder
> Florida Bar Board Certified in Construction Law
> Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator
> G R A Y | R O B I N S O N
> 
> 50 North Laura Street, Suite 1100 | Jacksonville, Florida 32202
> T: 904-598-9929 | F: 904-598-9109 | D: 904-632-8459
> E-mail | Website | Bio | vCard
> 
> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter
> 
> 
> This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender.
> 
> Please be advised that this law firm may be acting as a debt collector and is attempting to collect a debt and any information provided will be used for that purpose.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CLC-Discussion mailing list
> CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20190910/75c63ff5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logo4_09e57621-d955-46d0-aad5-1c620e3975ef.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 27207 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20190910/75c63ff5/logo4_09e57621-d955-46d0-aad5-1c620e3975ef-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Facebook_55598884-7995-4d93-92d3-5101d580d70c.png
Type: image/png
Size: 365 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20190910/75c63ff5/Facebook_55598884-7995-4d93-92d3-5101d580d70c-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: LinkedIn_57c89113-2875-479d-9fdd-fd3a2a809f98.png
Type: image/png
Size: 468 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20190910/75c63ff5/LinkedIn_57c89113-2875-479d-9fdd-fd3a2a809f98-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Instagram_c437b822-13ce-4d58-87bc-212014b134fa.png
Type: image/png
Size: 621 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20190910/75c63ff5/Instagram_c437b822-13ce-4d58-87bc-212014b134fa-0001.png>