Brief of Amicus Curiae Professor Timothy M. Todd, Jr., In Support of Respondent in Perez v. Commissioner, U.S. Tax Court, No. 9103-12, 144 T.C. No. 4

41 Pages Posted: 23 Jan 2015 Last revised: 5 May 2015

See all articles by Timothy M. Todd

Timothy M. Todd

Liberty University School of Law

Date Written: May 7, 2014

Abstract

This Court has recognized that a proper exclusion under § 104(a)(2) requires some tortious, wrongful, or otherwise unlawful harm to befall the taxpayer; here, because of the taxpayer’s informed consent and that the Egg Donor Agreement is a bargained-for service contract, this required harm did not occur. Amicus therefore argues that the payments petitioner received are not excludable from income under § 104(a)(2), as they are not “damages” within the meaning of § 104(a)(2). Without this sensible limit on “damages,” all sorts of payments made under personal service contracts where physical injury results would become non-taxable, like wages to athletes, theatrical performers, carpenters, and even office workers with carpal tunnel syndrome.

Keywords: egg donation, 104, 104(a)(2), tax, exclusion, amicus, tax court, egg donor, Roosevelt, Starrles, Perez, damages, tort, tort-type, Small Business Job Protection Act, Threlkeld, Schleier

JEL Classification: K34, K00, K10, K30, K13

Suggested Citation

Todd, Timothy M., Brief of Amicus Curiae Professor Timothy M. Todd, Jr., In Support of Respondent in Perez v. Commissioner, U.S. Tax Court, No. 9103-12, 144 T.C. No. 4 (May 7, 2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2554064 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2554064

Timothy M. Todd (Contact Author)

Liberty University School of Law ( email )

1971 University Boulevard
Lynchburg, VA 24515
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
181
Abstract Views
1,265
Rank
300,534
PlumX Metrics