Financial experts are frequently asked aboutthe tax impact of damage awards, both paidand received. The complexities of the InternalRevenue Code (IRC) and judicial interpretations thereofmake determining the taxability of receipts or payments difficult.The same is true when dealing with the taxability of economic damages awarded to plaintiffs in civil actions. Nuances in the IRC and the judicial interpretations may make it difficult for a taxpayer to determine the taxability of his or her proceeds from a litigation award of personal economic damages. Whether or not such is taxable often depends on how the award of economic damages is categorized and/or described in the awarding documents.
Examining actual transactions in the private capital markets and court outcomes figure into whether holding a large block of stock equates with it control or even a premium. The internal and external factors, legal provisions, and property performance drive this result.
Several important economic factors appear to be moving unfavorably for the US at the moment, both domestically and abroad, and there are increasing indications that America may not be able to orchestrate a global resurgence on its own. Despite encouraging signs of domestic recovery, fundamental structural problems persist in the US economy. The National Debt now exceeds $18 Trillion, the Department of Agriculture confirms that well over 46 million Americans continue on food stamps, and key voices have stepped forward asking for a deeper look at several U.S. economic statistics. Last week long-time Gallup CEO Jim Clinton very boldly drew attention to the government's recent 5.6% unemployment numbers, questioning them as overly optimistic interpretations of data, and noting on CNBC that the percentage of Americans holding full-time jobs is now the lowest in 60 years.
Complex civil litigation routinely includes expert economic testimony. However, determining which expert economist is more credible may confound a lay jury. It may even confound the judge when ruling on the admissibility of expert economic testimony during the Daubert hearing.1 One solution rarely employed is for the court to appoint its own neutral economic expert under Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence2 when a lawsuit contains a claim for damages that will require rigorous analysis of data. Based on my recent experience as Judge Richard Posner's court-appointed neutral economic expert on damages in patent infringement litigation, I explain in this article how the wider use of Rule 706 would assist the judge and jury and would facilitate the prompt settlement of intellectual property, antitrust, securities, contract, business tort, and other complex disputes.3 The benefits to courts and litigants would surely exceed the costs.
Mail delivery is one of the few economic activities that has avoided the wave of deregulation and privatization that has swept network industries over the last few decades. This Article examines several questions regarding the business activities of Canada Post Corporation in a competitive environment. What should be the appropriate mandate of Canada Post? If Canada Post is a natural monopoly, what form of regulation best serves Canadian consumers? If Canada Post's delivery of letter mail is not a natural monopoly, what basis exists for retaining Canada Post's current statutory monopoly? What potential exists for Canada Post to abuse its statutory monopoly-and other statutory privileges and immunities-to compete unfairly against efficient private suppliers of postal services?
The value of time is a relevant aspect of economic valuations of life. The value of time affects the optimum combination of inputs in home production, the investments made by a household for its economic improvement, the household's supply of labor for market employment and its demand for goods, and other household economic decisions. This paper introduces a whole-time methodology useful to forensic economics in valuing a number of economic losses associated with personal injury.
Few phrases in public policy have become so overused so quickly as the information highway. Although it is unclear to many what that superhighway is or will be, this uncertainty has not prevented proposals to regulate the superhighway from being made. In this Article, we examine the economic principles that should govern competition and regulatory policies concerning the development and operation of the information superhighway.
At the present time, the fundamental question is whether the petroleum "event" will turn out to be a blessing or a curse for the United States, especially the nations middle class. The increasing price of petroleum, especially if it remains at elevated levels for a prolonged period of time (say 6 months or longer) could have a pronounced negative effect on the Middle Class. These effects can be broken down into three (3) major categories - direct, indirect and subsequential.
The contention of this article is that the appropriate discount rate is one which counterbalances the uncertainties associated with projecting future losses. Such uncertainty is defined, herein, as risk. Parity in risk must be maintained between projected losses and the discount rate. A risk-free rate of interest is an appropriate discount rate only when applied to projected losses which are, themselves, risk-free. As elements of uncertainty, or speculation, enter into the projection of future losses, either those elements must be removed from the analysis or the discount rate must be increased commensurately to maintain parity in risk. To do otherwise would yield an award which overcompensates the plaintiff (p. 33).
In "The Valuation of a Closely Held Firm: Difference in Expert Opinion," (JFE, 1988) Carl M. Hubbard and Darryl G. Waldron present the results of a survey in which the respondents were asked to place a value on a non-publicly traded firm. The authors classified the responses into four categories: the net asset valuation (NA V) approach; the discounted cash flow (DCF) approach; the earnings multiple (EM) approach; and the capitalized earnings (CE) approach. As the title of their paper states, there were differences of opinion among the respondents.