TaxTheMaxAbolishTaxes

http://www.whistleblowersblog.org/12.13.2007.Murphy.Cert.Pet.pdf

No. _________

================================================================

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

---------------------------------

♦

---------------------------------

MARRITA MURPHY,

Petitioner,

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents.

---------------------------------

♦ ---------------------------------

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The District Of Columbia Circuit

---------------------------------

♦ ---------------------------------

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

---------------------------------

♦

---------------------------------

D

AVID K. COLAPINTO

*

S

TEPHEN M. KOHN

K

OHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO

, LLP

3233 P Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20007

(202) 342-6980

*

Counsel of Record

================================================================

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964

OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

(1) Can Congress tax “make whole” personal injury

or sickness damage awards that are solely intended

as compensation for a loss (or restoration

of human capital), as opposed to income or any

accession to wealth, in accordance with this

Court’s holdings in Comm’r. v. Glenshaw Glass

Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955) and O’Gilvie v. United

States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996)?

(2) Is the tax on Ms. Murphy’s compensatory damages

permitted by the Sixteenth Amendment to

the Constitution, by 26 U.S.C. § 61(a), or by any

other section of the tax code?

(3) Should compensatory damages awarded to Ms.

Murphy based on evidence, including, among

other physical injuries, permanent damage to her

teeth and physical manifestations of stress resulting

from the violation of her legally cognizable

federal statutory rights, be excluded from

gross income based on Internal Revenue Code

(“IRC”), 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2)?

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

The following is a list of all parties who have

appeared before the D.C. Circuit:

Petitioner

Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Plaintiff-

Appellants.

Respondents

Internal Revenue Service and United States of

America, Defendants-Appellees.

Amici Curiae

The following amici curiae parties were admitted:

No Fear Coalition, The National Employment Lawyers

Association, Andrew Jackson Society, National

Taxpayers Union, Liberty Coalition, and Innocence

Project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED .................................. i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS..................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................... iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... v

OPINIONS BELOW............................................... 1

JURISDICTION ..................................................... 2

CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY, AND REGULATORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED ................. 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................ 6

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT............. 11

I. WHETHER PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES

AWARDED SOLELY TO COMPENSATE

FOR A LOSS (OR RESTORE

HUMAN CAPITAL) ARE TAXABLE AS

GROSS INCOME IS AN IMPORTANT

QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW THAT IS

EITHER NOT SETTLED BUT SHOULD

BE RESOLVED BY THIS COURT, OR

HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE D.C.

CIRCUIT IN A WAY THAT CONFLICTS

WITH RELEVANT DECISIONS OF THIS

COURT AND OTHER CIRCUITS .............. 11

A. Whether Damages Awarded Solely to

Compensate for Personal Injury Losses

(and Not for Wages or Liquidated or

Punitive Damages), Are Taxable Income

Needs to be Resolved...........

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

Page

B. The D.C. Circuit Failed to Follow Glenshaw

Glass............................................. 15

C. Implying A Tax Conflicts With Supreme

Court and Circuit Precedent ..... 22

D. Congress Did Not Enact An “Excise

Tax” on Compensatory Damages and

the D.C. Circuit’s Interpretation of the

Catchall Phrase of Section 61(a) To

Imply Such A Tax Conflicts with Cases

of Other Circuits and of the Supreme

Court ...................................................... 26

E. The D.C. Circuit’s Decision Conflicts with

the Supreme Court’s test in Schleier ....... 31

II. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE

IMPORTANT AND THERE IS NO REASON

TO DEFER REVIEW.......................... 33

CONCLUSION ....................................................... 36

APPENDIX

CIRCUIT COURT OPINION (07/03/2007).......App. 01

CIRCUIT COURT OPINION (08/22/2006).......App. 39

CIRCUIT COURT ORDER (12/22/2006) ..........App. 68

CIRCUIT COURT ORDER (12/22/2006) ..........App. 70

DISTRICT COURT MEM. OPINION

(03/22/2005) ....................................................App. 72

DISTRICT COURT ORDER (03/22/2005) ........App. 93

CIRCUIT COURT ORDER (09/14/2007) ..........App. 95

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

America Online, Inc. v. United States, 64 Fed.

Cl. 571 (Ct.Cl. 2005)................................................23

American Bank and Trust Co. v. Dallas County,

463 U.S. 855 (1983).................................................24

Ark Las Vegas Rest. Corp. v. NLRB, 334 F.3d 99

(D.C. Cir. 2003)..........................................................9

BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States, 541 U.S.

176 (2004) ................................................................32

Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Balt. & Ohio R.R.

Co., 331 U.S. 519 (1947)..........................................25

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire, 271 U.S. 170

(1926).......................................................................20

Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) ..............29

Brown v. United States, 890 F.2d 1329 (5th Cir.

1989) ........................................................................31

Burk-Waggoner Oil v. Hopkins, 269 U.S. 110

(1925).................................................................16, 17

Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576

(2000).......................................................................19

Commissioner of Internal Rev. v. Brown, 380

U.S. 563 (1965)........................................................30

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Schleier,

515 U.S. 323 (1995)...............................11, 31, 32, 33

Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005) ............12