• Contact Us
  • Company (current)
    About Us Contact Us India
  •     Careers
  • Practice Areas
    Antitrust Damages Employment Energy Health Care Intellectual Property International Arbitration Data Analytics Valuation Finance & Securities
    Antitrust Damages Employment Energy Health Care Intellectual Property International Arbitration Data Analytics Valuation Finance & Securities
    EconOne Antitrust
    Antitrust
    EconOne Damages
    Damages
    EconOne Employment
    Employment
    EconOne Energy
    Energy
    EconOne Health Care
    Health Care
    EconOne Intellectual Property
    Intellectual Property
    EconOne International Arbitration
    International Arbitration
    EconOne Data Analytics
    Data Analytics
    EconOne Valuation
    Valuation
    EconOne Finance Securities
    Finance & Securities
    Services
    • Class Certification
    • Damages Analysis/Calculation
    • Liability Issues
    • Price Fixing
    • Regulation
    • Market Definition
    • Vertical/Horizontal Arrangements
    • Predatory Conduct
    • Price Discrimination
    • Unfair Competition
    • Market Power
    • Bundling/Tying
    • Exclusive Contracts
    • Consulting/Market Studies
    View Antitrust
    Services
    • Antitrust
    • Consumer Fraud
    • Contract Breach
    • Employment Issues
    • Intellectual Property
    • Oil & Gas/Royalty Disputes
    • Wrongful Termination/Death
    View Damages
    Services
    • Class Certification
    • Damages Analysis
    • Wage & Hour
    • Discrimination--Racial, Gender, Age
    • EEOC/OFCCP Compliance
    • Hiring, Termination, Promotion Analyses
    • Impact of Reduction in Force Actions
    • Racial Profiling
    • Personal Injury/Wrongful Death
    View Employment
    Services
    • Antitrust & Market Power
    • Contract Breach
    • International Arbitrations
    • Merger Analysis
    • Royalty Disputes
    • Project Finance
    • Asset Valuation
    • Renewable Energy
    • Bankruptcy Advisory
    View Energy
    Services
    • Antitrust
    • Breach of Contract
    • Damages Analysis
    • False Claim Act
    • Government Investigations
    • Qui Tam Litigation
    • Generic Delay
    • Paragraph IV Litigation
    • Hatch-Waxman Act Litigation
    • Commercial Payor
    • Reimbursement Disputes
    • Statistical Sampling
    View Health Care
    Services
    • Damages Analysis/Calculation
    • Lost Profits
    • Reasonable Royalty
    • Antitrust Counterclaims
    • Trade Secrets/Trade Dress
    • Copyright Infringement
    View Intellectual Property
    Services
    • Commercial Arbitration
    • Investment Treaty Arbitration
    • Damages Calculation
    • Business Valuation
    • Economic Analysis
    • Financial Analysis
    • Quantum Analysis
    • Competition Analysis
    • Regulatory Analysis
    • Causation Analysis
    • Forensic Investigations
    • Statistical Analysis
    • Contract Disputes
    • Market Assessment
    • Prices Analysis
    • Energy Issues
    • Natural Resources
    View International Arbitration
    Services
    • Antitrust
    • Corporate Data Analyses & Forecasting
    • Predictive Modeling
    • Civil Rights
    • Employment Issues
    • Energy
    • Fraud
    • Regional Analysis
    View Data Analytics
    Services
    • Employment stock option valuation
    • Intellectual Property
    • Settlement Services
    • Business Valuation
    • Patents/Reasonable Royalty
    • Competitive Alternatives
    • Franchise Economics And Valuation
    View Valuation
    Services
    • Misstatement and Omissions
    • Event Study Analyses
    • Market Manipulation Claims
    • ERISA Claims
    • Insider Trading Allegations
    • Financial Portfolio Enhancement
    • Security & Portfolio Analysis
    • Trading & Marketing Dynamics
    • Strategy Testing
    View Finance & Securities
  • Resources
    News / Events Podcasts Inside Economics EconOne Box Login
  • Find an Expert

The Adverse Tax Consequences in Employment Discrimination Damages

Posted by Charles Mahla
February 16, 2022

Your new client comes to you after being terminated from a middle-management position he held for 15 years. He is convinced his termination was age related, as the company explained his lay off as a “reduction in force,” but he and one other 50+ employee were the only two employees let go. Your client had a solid history of earnings increases, complete with health benefits and matching 401(k) contributions. He has been unable to find employment with comparable earnings/benefits. After a lengthy discovery and trial schedule, you prevail on your age discrimination claim and the jury awards your client $1.5 million in back and front pay damages. Everyone, save perhaps the Defendant, is happy. However, your client calls after receiving his net proceeds from the damage award (for purposes of this example, you took this case pro bono so we can ignore fees) and complains that the Feds and the State took a sizeable portion of his award. He explains that, in fact, he paid much more in taxes due to his lawsuit than he would have had he not been terminated. Your client just experienced the “adverse tax consequences of a lump sum damage award.”

This phrase, first coined by Barry Ben-Zion in a 2000 article on the phenomenon, describes the tax effects of receiving a large lump-sum damage award as a replacement to the flow of income over time.[1] Because of the progressive nature of our tax code, your client just paid an incrementally higher tax bill than he would have had he never suffered from his ex-employer’s termination.

While economists have long recognized the negative impacts of taxing damage awards when such awards result in an incremental tax bill, the courts have only recently accepted adjusting damage awards to compensate the Plaintiff for that bill. A 2019 California Appellate Court decision denied a defendant’s motion to reverse a lower court’s approval of a damage award adjustment to account for the incremental taxes the Plaintiff would pay on his award.[2] Subsequent to this decision, more and more economists are applying a “tax neutralization” calculation to their analyses of damages in employment matters.

The calculation is relatively straightforward. The first step it to calculate the present value of the likely Federal and State taxes he would have paid had the termination never occurred (TNT). To the extent your client will have alternative earnings during his remaining work life, a calculation of the present value of his likely taxes on those earnings is also necessary (TWT). Finally, the taxes on the damage award are determined (TD). The difference between the present values of your client’s total tax bill on his alternative earnings plus the taxes on the damage award and the taxes he otherwise would have paid but-for his termination is the adverse tax effect of the lump sum damage award (ATE = TWT + TD – TNT). Using the example from above, let’s assume the present value of your client’s taxes on earnings without termination are $260,000, while the combination of the taxes on his alternative earnings and damage award sum to $900,000. The adverse tax effect is $640,000 and if left unadjusted, would reduce your clients damage award to $860,000, net of the tax effect. Since the amount of the damage award put your client in the highest tax bracket (close to 50% when combining Federal and California state tax rates), it is easy to see that to eliminate the negative effect of the taxes on his award, the Court should award your client an additional $1,280,000 in damages. To see how this makes your client whole, consider that the additional $1.28 million will be taxed at 50%, leaving your client with $640,000 in additional award, which is how much extra he will pay in taxes due to the award.

While the calculation of tax neutralization adjustments is typically more complicated than this simple example, economic experts can, and do, perform them regularly. As can be seen, tax neutralization can have a dramatic impact on the ultimate award Plaintiff’s receive as compensation for their harm.

 

[1] Barry Ben-Zion, “Neutralizing the Adverse Tax Consequences of a Lump-Sum Award in Employment Cases,” Journal of Forensic Economics, 13(3), 2000, pp. 233-244.

[2] Economy v. Sutter East Bay Hospitals, 31 Cal. App. 5th 1147 – -Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 4th Div. 2019.

 

Share this article:


Charles Mahla pic
Charles Mahla
has extensive experience in the calculation of damages arising from patent infringement and the misappropriation of trade secrets and trade dress. Dr. Mahla has been engaged to calculate damages (both lost profits and reasonable royalties) by both plaintiffs and defendants across a wide array of industries and products, including medical equipment, GPS navigation equipment,COX-2 inhibitors, […]
Read More about Charles Mahla
Company
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • India
Resources
  • News / Events
  • Podcasts
Practice Areas
  • Antitrust
  • Damages
  • Employment
  • Energy
  • Health Care
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Arbitration
  • Data Analytics
  • Valuation
  • Finance & Securities
Location
  • Chennai
  • Denver
  • Houston
  • Los Angeles
  • Memphis
  • New Delhi
  • New York, NY
  • Sacramento
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Careers
  • Sitemap
  • Social Media

EconOne © 2022