Comments on: Precedent, schmecedent. http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/ Paying taxes is painful... but reading about them shouldn't be. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:33:00 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Kelly http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/comment-page-1/#comment-2999 Kelly Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:03:35 +0000 http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/#comment-2999 Diane, I could write several posts on OICs these days. Here's my short answer... Despite TV commercials that promise "pennies on the dollar", it is much more difficult (and expensive) to get an OIC in the current economy. I have been advised by agents that there is tremendous pressure to turn down Offers - and the Service is even turning down its own Offers (http://www.taxgirl.com/are-irs-employees-actually-responsible-for-anything/) All of that said, it really depends on personal circumstances - how much is owed, the assets owned and income stream. But the IRS is really making it tougher than ever before. Diane, I could write several posts on OICs these days. Here’s my short answer… Despite TV commercials that promise “pennies on the dollar”, it is much more difficult (and expensive) to get an OIC in the current economy. I have been advised by agents that there is tremendous pressure to turn down Offers – and the Service is even turning down its own Offers (http://www.taxgirl.com/are-irs-employees-actually-responsible-for-anything/)

All of that said, it really depends on personal circumstances – how much is owed, the assets owned and income stream. But the IRS is really making it tougher than ever before.

]]> By: Kelly http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/comment-page-1/#comment-2998 Kelly Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:58:17 +0000 http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/#comment-2998 The taxpayer isn't famous. She's a whistle-blower who received a jury award and the subsequent tax consequences have led to a number of cases (due to the appeals). The taxpayer isn’t famous. She’s a whistle-blower who received a jury award and the subsequent tax consequences have led to a number of cases (due to the appeals).

]]> By: Diane http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/comment-page-1/#comment-2997 Diane Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:43:01 +0000 http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/#comment-2997 What is your opinion on Offer In Compromises and the IRS? What do you think the chances are receiving an OIC What is your opinion on Offer In Compromises and the IRS? What do you think the chances are receiving an OIC

]]> By: Diane http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/comment-page-1/#comment-2996 Diane Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:31:02 +0000 http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/#comment-2996 Who exactly is this taxpayer? Is she famous? Who exactly is this taxpayer? Is she famous?

]]> By: Here We Go Again. http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/comment-page-1/#comment-2995 Here We Go Again. Sun, 19 Aug 2007 02:08:32 +0000 http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/#comment-2995 [...] posted and posted and posted about the case on the blog [...] [...] posted and posted and posted about the case on the blog [...]

]]> By: Mea Culpa. Sort of. http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/comment-page-1/#comment-2992 Mea Culpa. Sort of. Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:40:09 +0000 http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/#comment-2992 [...] I mischaracterized some of what went on in Murphy v. IRS - and the attorney for Ms. Murphy is not happy. He is even more unhappy because some of my colleagues are referring to my piece in their [...] [...] I mischaracterized some of what went on in Murphy v. IRS – and the attorney for Ms. Murphy is not happy. He is even more unhappy because some of my colleagues are referring to my piece in their [...]

]]> By: David Colapinto http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/comment-page-1/#comment-2991 David Colapinto Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:25:22 +0000 http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/#comment-2991 Please correct the mis-information and factual errors reported about Ms. Murphy's award that you posted on your blog. As previously pointed out in my earlier comment, Ms. Murphy did not receive damages to punish the employer and she only received "make whole" tort-type damages to restore her personal injury losses. This point is crucial to your analysis which is wrong because you assumed Ms. Murphy did not receive tort-type "make whole" damages. Please correct your blog immediately because your factual errors are being reported on other blogs. See, http://wanderingtaxpro.blogspot.com/2007/07/murphys-law.html Thank you. David K. Colapinto, attorney for Ms. Murphy Please correct the mis-information and factual errors reported about Ms. Murphy’s award that you posted on your blog. As previously pointed out in my earlier comment, Ms. Murphy did not receive damages to punish the employer and she only received “make whole” tort-type damages to restore her personal injury losses. This point is crucial to your analysis which is wrong because you assumed Ms. Murphy did not receive tort-type “make whole” damages. Please correct your blog immediately because your factual errors are being reported on other blogs. See, http://wanderingtaxpro.blogspot.com/2007/07/murphys-law.html

Thank you.

David K. Colapinto, attorney for Ms. Murphy

]]> By: Kelly http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/comment-page-1/#comment-2994 Kelly Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:43:55 +0000 http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/#comment-2994 Editor's note: the commenter above, David Colapinto, is the attorney in the case who represented Ms. Murphy. Editor’s note: the commenter above, David Colapinto, is the attorney in the case who represented Ms. Murphy.

]]> By: David Colapinto http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/comment-page-1/#comment-2993 David Colapinto Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:33:10 +0000 http://www.taxgirl.com/precedent-schmecedent/#comment-2993 The facts are wrong in your report. Awards in these kinds of cases (in this instance, it was a whistle-blower matter) are NOT meant to punish the defendant - RATHER Ms. Murphy's compensatory damages award, which is based on tort-like remedies, are designed to make the plaintiff whole. The court ruled that all awards for personal injury are now taxable. While you are correct that personal injury awards should be taxed differently because they are "make whole" relief, you missed the entire point of the court's decision. This court is ruling that "make whole" personal injury awards are taxable. The facts are wrong in your report. Awards in these kinds of cases (in this instance, it was a whistle-blower matter) are NOT meant to punish the defendant – RATHER Ms. Murphy’s compensatory damages award, which is based on tort-like remedies, are designed to make the plaintiff whole. The court ruled that all awards for personal injury are now taxable. While you are correct that personal injury awards should be taxed differently because they are “make whole” relief, you missed the entire point of the court’s decision. This court is ruling that “make whole” personal injury awards are taxable.

]]>