Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Prawfs
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Legal Commentary
: PrawfsTaxing Punitive Damages, coming soon
By Dan Markel, Ethan Leib, Rick Garnett, Matt Bodie, Paul Horwitz , Steve Vladeck, and Orly Lobel
My colleague Gregg Polsky and I have a piece called Taxing Punitive Damages that we're pretty excited about, which we've just uploaded finally to SSRN. It's a draft and so we welcome comments and feedback. I may take the liberty of sharing some more of the paper in some coming posts, but in case I don't get to that soon, here's the link to the whole thing, and the abstract appears below:
There is a curious anomaly in the law of punitive damages. Jurors assess punitive damages in an amount that they believe will best ?punish? the defendant. But, in fact, defendants are not always punished to the degree that the jury intends. Under the Internal Revenue Code, punitive damages paid by business defendants are tax deductible and, as a result, these defendants often pay (in real dollars) far less than the jury believed they deserved to pay.
To solve this problem of under-punishment, many scholars and policymakers, including President Obama, have proposed making punitive damages nondeductible in all cases. In our view, however, such a blanket nondeductibility rule would, notwithstanding its theoretical elegance, be ineffective in solving the under-punishment problem. In particular, defendants could easily circumvent the nondeductibility rule by disguising punitive damages as compensatory damages in pre-trial settlements.
Instead, the under-punishment problem is best addressed at the state level by making juries ?tax aware.? Tax-aware juries would adjust the amount of punitive damages to impose the desired after-tax cost to the defendant. As we explain, the effect of tax awareness cannot be circumvented by defendants through pre-trial settlements. For this and a number of other reasons, tax awareness would best solve the under-punishment problem even though it does come at the cost of enlarging plaintiff windfalls. Given the defendant-focused features of current punitive damages doctrine, this cost is not particularly troubling. Nonetheless, a related paper of ours furnishes a strategy for overcoming this tradeoff through some basic reforms to punitive damages law.
Full post as published by Prawfs on March 17, 2010 (boomark / email).
Stacy Schneider
Stacy Schneider offers to be Britney Spears Lawyer for Free
Bextra Injury Risks
Bextra Increases Risk of Fatal Heart Attack
Environment Law
alleging damages from violation of the law.
Skilled Health Care Faces $670 Million in Damages over Nursing Home Violations
Skilled Health Care Faces $670 Million in Damages over Nursing Home Violations
Ministry of Defense
$500,000 in damages in transgender humiliation suit.
The Ministry of Defense
$500,000 in damages in transgender humiliation suit.
TVA Coal Ash
Class Action Seeks $5 Million in Damages

Polsky & Markel on Taxing Punitive Damages
Markel & Polsky: Taxing Punitive Damages
Dan Markel on Taxing Punitive Damages
Markel & Polsky on Taxing Punitive Damages
Foreign Courts Wary of Punitive Damages
Markel, Seiner on punitive damages








