As promised, bitter blogger Daniel Shaviro took his turn at the Murphy decision, the one that ruled that taxing personal non-physical damages was a constitutional violation. Bitter? Bitter and personal:
Ginsburg has one policy-minded hobby horse in the opinion. He abhors the idea that, under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress can define income however it damn pleases. But again, if common sense were permitted under his theory of judging (if his biases can even be dignified with such a term), he would recognize that this (simply including gross and net receipts of cash) is not the place where policing by the courts is needed to make sure that our government remains one of limited and enumerated powers.
Meanwhile, Dr. Maule takes on a correspondent who unwisely suggested that the doctor's initial post was so off-base that he should take it down. You can view the massacre here.
Academic response to Murphy is overwhelmingly negative, but if you want to hear a few good words about it, visit the comments at the TaxProf's place.
The items included in the Tax Update Blog are informational only and are not meant as tax advice. Consult with your tax advisor to determine how any item applies to your situation.
Joe Kristan writes the Tax Update items, and any opinions expressed or implied are not necessarily shared by anyone else at Roth & Company, P.C. Address questions or comments on Tax Updates to