Taxing emotional distress damages held unconstitutional.The Circuit Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia, federal district (2000 pop. 572,059, a 5.7% decrease in population since the 1990 census), 69 sq mi (179 sq km), on the east bank of the Potomac River, coextensive with the city of Washington, D.C. (the capital of the United States). Circuit in Marrita Murphy decided Aug. 22 that IRC (Internet Relay Chat) Computer conferencing on the Internet. There are hundreds of IRC channels on numerous subjects that are hosted on IRC servers around the world. After joining a channel, your messages are broadcast to everyone listening to that channel. Sec. 104(a)(2), which only excludes from gross income non-punitive damages for personal physical injuries or sickness, is unconstitutional as applied to damages for emotional distress emotional distress n. an increasingly popular basis for a claim of damages in lawsuits for injury due to the negligence or intentional acts of another. Originally damages for emotional distress were only awardable in conjunction with damages for actual physical harm. or mental anguish When connected with a physical injury, includes both the resultant mental sensation of pain and also the accompanying feelings of distress, fright, and anxiety. As an element of damages implies a relatively high degree of mental pain and distress; it is more than mere disappointment, and injury to professional reputation because these damages were unrelated to lost wages or earnings, or for diminished earning capacity or otherwise in lieu of income. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] The court stated that" ... the framers of the Sixteenth Amendment would not have understood compensation for a personal injury--including a nonphysical injury--to be income." |
|
||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion