« Thoughts on Genworth Financial exit from the settlement annuity market. | Main | John McCulloch leaving Allstate Structured Settlement division. »

The Settlement Industry and the Murphy decision. Sitting on our hands again?

Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 at 11:19AM by Registered CommenterThe Settlement Channel | Comments5 Comments

It's been over two weeks now since the Murphy vs IRS decision was handed down by the Federal Appeals court, in which opinion Judge Ginsburg offered a sweeping repudiation of the theory that all litigation proceeds that aren't directly tied to physical injury or sickness are income, and therefore, taxable. The general reaction of tax professionals and court watchers is that the Murphy decision will be contested to the Supreme Court and eventually overturned, but I personally don't think it is a guarantee at all that it would be reversed.

However, my larger concern, and the theme of this particular post is to discuss my belief that the "settlement industry" is once again failing to seize the day and aggressively agree with this stunning decision and line up on the side of the broken and beaten in society, at least from a tax stand point.

Lets look at the facts. Murphy v IRS is largely a philosophical shift away from the concept that all proceeds from litigation that aren't directly tied to personal physical injury or sickness should be taxable. It is a repudiation of the Treasury and Big Government theory that because you were molested, because you were defamed, because you were wrongfully imprisoned you some how "earned income" for the return of your human capital that an award in those areas implies. I, and others in our business, have been troubled for a long time that there exists a gross inequity in that someone who is raped and beaten obtains a tax free award under section 104(a)(2) but that someone who is systematically molested, abused and traumatize mentally and emotionally over a period of years was in a position where there award was taxable.

Judge Ginsburg in his decision for the court largely attacked and swept away the techno/tax law babble that supported that flimsy argument and went to the heart of what is equitable and just. It is what Judges are supposed to do and he did it masterfully. My concern is that the fall out of this, if you read the blogs and news commentary on it, is that all the "tax and lobby guys", who typically have all the warmth, humor and joy of a rock, are upset that the Judge messed with their precious tax code in such a dramatic way, and as a matter of policy and protecting their turf, they want to see it reversed, "just because".

I think it would be a great PR and general business move if the Settlement Industry in the form of NSSTA, the SSP and the Life Insurance industry got their lobbyists out, went up to Congress and made it absolutely clear that we as an industry are choosing to side with molestation victims, wrongfully jailed prisoners, people who have been defamed and abused and ask to have the code amended permanently to correct this injustice and not leave it in the hands of the courts. Congress has the power to make this permanent, and I think it would be a bold and powerful statement by NSSTA and SSP to come out and proclaim our belief that the prior position was wrong and that we agree with Judge Ginsburg.

To often we are seen as the bad guys, the money changers in the Temple, who debate how many angel dance on the head of a pin, instead of looking after the broken, abused and beaten among us. Lets hope this doesn't turn into another "policy debate" but instead is seen as a chance to lead and demonstrate our firm belief in taking care of those who can't take care of themselves, or at the very least, not supporting those who would tax human suffering as income.  

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (5)

Mark,

You're right, but will we really see anything done about it? The SSP doesn't do anything unless its to trash the traditional (both plaintiff and defense) side of our business. NSSTA is a reactive force, rallying when something goes bad (and does a fine job of it, I think). The life insurers, with their lobbyists (and they all have them) are probably best suited to do this, but the brokers will need to provide them with concrete examples of injury victims who have been unfairly taxed, such as the molestation victims and wrongfully imprisoned.
September 12, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterJack
Almost all of the comments fail to address why Congress changed Sec 104(2)a? Prior to 1996, mental injuries were non-taxable - so why the change? The 1996 Act contained 139 items and there was great disagreement on that change. But in typical disdain for those with mental injuries, the House insisted on passage of the WHOLE bill so that their proposed tax cuts would become law. It threatened to defeat, especially including a Minimum Wage Increase (long overdue), unless the entire Act was adopted. It stated that eliminating the mental injuries exclusion would increase revenues needed to "offset" the tax cuts.
Putting aside the facts that the change would cause more litigation because settlements would be reduced and would cause more costs to businesses because of additional litigation and the increased amounts necessary for settlement agreements, we must question why those with mental problems are to be "sacrificed"? We note that Clinton, in signing the act, pointedly objected and citicized the change, but could not veto because of the long overdue minimum wage increase.
Could it possibly be that the mentally ill
are the least able to defend themselves and/or they don't contribute to political campaigns? Could it possibly be that this has been a Conservative practice for more than the last 25 years - save money by ignoring the rights and needs of the mentally disabled - they really can't fight back, especially they know not the "sacred" principles of propaganda. Why many do not even vote!


To evidence these contentions, we first point to the Reagan administration secretly denying those with mental problems certain benefits which culminated in the S. Ct. castigation of the practice in the BOWEN case (476 U.S. 467). The practice was so reprehensible that Giuliani (Reagan appointed U.S. Attorney) refused to represent the government and so notified the Judiciairy in his Circuit. On or about 1990 there was a secret policy to initially deny SS Disability Benefits to the mentally disabled. (Had personal involvement) And then with the return of Republican control of the House we had this 104(2)a abomination.

What is most disturbing is that somewhere in my memory I seem to remember someone "crying" out that we must protect "the poor, the sick and those least able to defend themselves". As a matter of fact isn't there a whole religion based on his thoughts? And here I thought that conservatives were "wedded" to the thoughts of the "savior"..... I guess I was wrong!

Just a sugestion: With an election coming up, we believe that emphasizing this abomination will mean permanency for the MURPHY opnion.

September 13, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterj.m. herskovits
Great points and some good historical perspective. I remember when the change was enacted and wondering how in the world they could throw it in as a means of "paying for tax cuts" when the income it generated was nominal at best, and was raising income on the most broken and most disabled in our society. Hopefully BOTH parties step up to the plate on this and make the Murphy decision a permanent part of the law and remove this absurd distinction between mental, emotional injury and physical injury and illness. Great post.
September 13, 2006 | Registered CommenterThe Settlement Channel
Heard that Murphy is being appealed.

Jack
October 16, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterJack
You are correct in that the IRS has requested a rehearing of the case with the full court of the DC district Court of Appeals. Assuming that is turned down, which is a pretty safe assumption according to my experts in that area, they would then petition to the US Supreme Court for cert.

I'll be doing a follow up show on this in the next week or so.
October 16, 2006 | Registered CommenterThe Settlement Channel

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.