Home Blog Page 18

The Great Fire of Romulus

0

On July 19, 64 AD, flames erupted near the ancient chariot-racing stadium known as the Circus Maximus. Fueled by oils and other flammable goods in the merchant’s sector, as well as the tinder provided by poorly constructed and overlapping shanties, the fire raged for nine days. Over two thirds of the city was destroyed, causing a refugee crisis of unseen proportions. The populace blamed Emperor Nero for the disaster, Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and the event became so fraught with controversy it went down in history as the Great Fire of Rome.

True to form, Star Trek cleverly paid homage to the crisis in Star Trek (2009). The movie explains that, in the prime timeline, the Romulan homeworld is destroyed by a devastating supernova that eradicates over ninety percent of the Romulan race. One of the few remaining Romulans, Captain Nero, seeks vengeance against the Federation for what he perceives as a deliberate failure to intervene. Like its real-world inspiration, the Star Trek movie offers a glimpse into the social and emotional impact of such a cataclysmic event. Rather than address the political and moral crises that arise in the aftermath of such events, however, the movie focuses only on Nero and his singular, unhinged quest for vengeance. While this made for an exciting action story, it failed to deliver on any deep exploration of moral, political or social questions related to events like these: the very thing Star Trek does best.

This may be about to change. Star Trek fans have received confirmation that the new Star Trek: Picard series will address the destruction of Romulus and the failures of the Federation leading up to and following the crisis. The Countdown comic books offer a glimpse into the difficulties then-Admiral Picard faced in his mission to evacuate the doomed planets. The focus on the virtuously conflicted Picard as well as the promise of a “less utopian” Federation promise a more thoughtful, critical look at the treatment of refugees and other sociopolitical implications of extinction level events.

It couldn’t come at a better time. Natural disasters and climate-related crises are displacing people at record levels and are only continuing to get worse. The treatment of asylum seekers has become a controversial topic in the United States and other developed countries, fueled by the rise of nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment. The current legal system surrounding refugees is ill equipped to handle current levels of displacement, much less future projections.

Indeed, under current international law the Romulans wouldn’t even be considered refugees. Article 1(A)(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees defines a refugee as an individual who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence who is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on his or her race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. People displaced by natural disasters or other crisis events are not considered refugees, and do not have the basic rights of refugees outlined in the 1951 Convention.

Even if these rights did apply, they would not help the Romulans much. The basic right afforded to refugees in the international law context is known as “non-refoulement,” or the prohibition against the return of refugees to territories in which their life or freedom would be at risk. This right does not guarantee asylum to refugees, nor to aid or quarter in any meaningful way. And even this right has its limits: any person who threatens the “national security” of the host country may not claim protection under this principle. As the Trump administration’s Muslim ban demonstrates, this exception can be construed broadly. Given that the Romulans have a history of conflict with the Federation, and are widely perceived as an aggressive and warmongering people, it would be entirely unsurprising to see Federation planets refuse to receive Romulan refugees on similar grounds.

Perhaps, in this future world, the principles of unity and cooperation established by the Federation will win the day. But even the most utopian of ideals has its detractors. In 2018, the U.N. approved the Global Compact on Refugees. This non-binding compact set out measures to share responsibility to help those who are forced to flee their countries because of conflict or persecution, and ease the burden on the small number of nations that host the majority of refugees. In an effort to elicit the cooperation of richer, less affected countries, the well-meaning document seeks to recast refugees as an economic benefit to nations that receive them. It does little to impose any actual obligations or goals for global cooperation during refugee crises. Despite this, the United States is one of two countries that refused to join the compact.

Throughout the show’s history, Star Trek has shown a unique ability to hold a mirror to our world and reflect on the social and moral conflicts contained therein. It will be interesting to see where the show goes with such rich material as a basis for exploration. Perhaps one day we can, ourselves, escape the Mirror Universe and make the vision of a more egalitarian society “so”. I, for one, will be eagerly watching the series with earl grey, hot, in hand.

How to Defend Ben Solo

0

Ben Solo was very busy as Kylo Ren commiting murder, war crimes, kidnapping, torture, and workplace bullying. Did the Dark Side: 1) Destroy Ben Solo’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong? or 2) Make him act under a delusional compulsion? Judge Carol Najera and Sylvia La Rosa joined me to discuss the possible defenses for Ben Solo for the crimes he committed as Kylo Ren. 

A Fist Full of Mandos

0
Photo Credit: Disney+, The Mandalorian

What do you do if your space shrimp fishing village is attacked by bandits? That is the question that the residents of a village on the planet of Sorgan find themselves in during the events of Episode 4 of Disney+’s The Mandalorian. Now, if you haven’t seen the show you should check it out because it’s quite good. If you want to watch the show before reading this article I won’t blame you, and you probably should, but if you want to plow ahead then I’ll try to make this as spoiler free as possible. That said, here’s the spoiler summary from the show so far: The Mandalorian (or Mando), a bounty hunter, was hired to return a bounty. The bounty turned out to be internet sensation Baby Yoda. Mando decided he didn’t want the Baby experimented on, so he steals him from the remnants of the Empire and goes on the run. Thus, he finds himself on Sorgan confronted by two space shrimp farmers. This brings us back to the original question, what do you do if you find your village attacked by Klatoonian raiders? Well, you really only have a few options: option 1 you run away and find somewhere else to live, option 2 you do nothing and keep giving them what they want from your village and hope they don’t kill you (hint: probably not your best option), option 3 you rally the villagers and fight back, option 4 you hire a professional bounty hunter who’s a bit down on his luck and protecting the internet’s new cutest thing ever. Guess which option these guys picked. If you guessed option 4, you are correct (incidentally, if you guessed option 3 you’re kind of right but it wasn’t what we were going for so half points).

Now, let’s make a slight tweak to the show here and make Mando a law abiding citizen who doesn’t really want to go out and straight murder these raiders for money. Does Mando have some legal justification that will let him keep his newfound law abiding attitude and still take the payment the villagers offered him? It might surprise some to learn that the law does make some accommodations for the use of deadly force that might let Mando take this job without looking at the next rest of his life in a New Republic prison. They are called justification defenses and in broad terms they all look like this: the Defendant (Mando in our case) says, “yes I killed all those raiders but I was legally justified in killing them because of …” whatever specific defense applies. Let’s look at three justification defenses and see if they’ll help our friend Mando out of the dilemma he finds himself in. All three of these defenses are fairly standardized across the jurisdictions (at least at the basic level we’re going to cover here) so I’m going to use Oregon’s laws as examples. If you want the law where you live, check your local law library. Also, at this point it seems worth a reminder that in real life by the time you’ve gotten to the point of considering what defenses might apply to an action you are already in deep trouble so take a few steps back and avoid trouble where at all possible. Now, back to the Mando.

The first defense we should consider is perhaps the most famous, Self-Defense. In its purest form a case of self-defense looks like this. You’re minding your own business sitting in a bar, maybe getting hired to run some passengers off world, when all of a sudden a Rodian drops in across from you and points a blaster at your head. Were that Rodian to say something about your dead body being the idea of the situation you would be fully justified to shoot him first. Let’s break this down into the elements of the defense. Looking at Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 161.209 we see that a person is entitled to use self-defense when they reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of having unlawful physical force used against them and that they may respond with whatever degree of force they believe is reasonably necessary. Subject to some limitations, but we’ll get back to that later. Applying the self-defense rule to our bar example above: our hero reasonably believes that the Rodian is imminently going shoot him, because the Rodian has just told him that’s the idea. There’s nothing lawful about shooting someone in a bar because they have a bounty on their head placed there by a crime lord (look, if it’s not obvious at this point that we’re talking about Han and Greedo in the cantina during A New Hope you might want to go watch the original Star Wars movies). So, Han reasonably believes he is going to be killed unlawfully by Greedo and he gets to shoot him in self-defense, but what about Mando and the raiders? Well, we run into one problem right away. Unlike the cantina example the Raiders aren’t threating Mando himself so self-defense is out.  Luckily, there is another. No, not another Skywalker (well yes apparently one of those too) but another defense.

Closely related to self-defense is the defense of others. It has the same elements, reasonable belief, imminent treat, and reasonable response but you are acting in defense of someone else instead of in defense of yourself. This looks more like what Mando might rely on to attack the raiders. The villagers are certainly in danger and it is reasonable for Mando to believe that they are. The trouble is, there is very little to indicate that the danger is imminent. Put another way, it is not an imminent threat for me to type in this article that I’m going to shoot you. I don’t own a gun and I don’t know who you are or where to find you. You have no right to self-defense against me because of that line in an article you read online (keep that in mind please). Similarly, even a vague threat from the raiders that they’ll be back isn’t enough for a threat to be imminent. When we make justification defenses available in the law they are meant to be available as last resorts.

The final justification defense we might look at is defense of property. ORS 161.229: A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief (damaging or destroying someone else’s property) of property. At first blush, this looks promising for Mando. The raiders are certainly committing theft and criminal mischief against the villagers. The trouble Mando will run into in asserting defense of property is that it limits the use of deadly force which is, if we’re being honest, Mando’s go to. See ORS 161.229. The limit on deadly force is something of a reflection on our values as a society. You aren’t privileged to kill someone over property because we value life more than stuff, at least that’s the theory. Mando would be privileged to use deadly force if, and only if, he were defending the premises and not the stuff there, which he is by the end of the episode. He is privileged to defend the premises by deadly force if necessary because by this point he is trying to prevent the raiders (who are trespassing) from committing a felony by force or violence (wholesale murder of the village). There’s a problem though, Mando and Cara Dune baited the raiders into attacking. This would make sense if you’re a mercenary hired to protect a village, but it would also negate any self-defense claim. Recall that you are only privileged to use self-defense if you are in danger, but you are lose that privilege if you provoke that danger with the aim of then being able to defend yourself. For example, if you attack a raider camp with the aim of provoking them into attacking you so that you can defend yourself, you do not get to claim self-defense when you then kill all the raiders and destroy their AT-ST. The reason for this is of course because we don’t want to make it legal for someone to provoke someone into a fight just so they could beat or kill them and then claim self-defense. Self-defense is designed to be a rare event reserved for those situations when you are truly under threat and don’t have a choice other than to defend yourself.

The real problem we run into in this analysis is that when legislatures create these types of justification defenses they are created for individuals not communities. For the protection of communities we typically create police forces or militaries depending on if we’re looking to protect from internal or external threats respectively. These laws simply weren’t made for the situation the Sorgan farmers found themselves in and unfortunately we don’t get enough background on the planet to know what form of government it might have and if that government has any protection to offer the farmers. It seems clear though that rather than looking at justification defenses for the assaults, murders, and various other crimes Mando commits (or allegedly commits) it makes more sense to look at this as a quasi-governmental action to protect the village. If you look at in that light, a sovereign entity like the village is perfectly at liberty to protect its sovereignty from outside threats like other governments or raiders. Sovereignties can do things like preemptive strikes or hiring mercenary forces that individuals can’t and under those parameters Mando and Cara’s actions were entirely justified.

Neglect on Navarro: Charges Against the Empire for the Abuse of The Child

0
Photo Credit: Disney+, The Mandalorian

The finale of The Mandalorian contained twists, turns, and a fair share of action to send off the series’ characters at the end of their first season. However, much of the action centered around the Mandalorian’s small travel companion and his pursuit by the remnants of the Empire. Despite the innumerable atrocities committed by the Empire, none were more prevalent in this chapter than the abuse suffered by Baby Yoda (we use this name for convenience and acknowledge that the life form may have no relation to Yoda whatsoever). So how exactly could the New Republic hold the Empire accountable in this scenario?

** Spoilers for The Mandalorian Ahead**

From the very first chapter, the Empire has been on an intense man(baby?)hunt for the young bounty. However, it was not until this chapter that they took him into their custody. At the end of the seventh chapter, we see two scout troopers gun down Kuiil before making off with Baby Yoda. This is in itself likely constitutes a crime.

Reckless Endangerment

Connecticut defines reckless endangerment as when a person, with extreme indifference to human life, recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of serious physical injury to another person. C.G.S. § 52a-63(a). Given that we see smoke rising from Kuiil’s body at the end of the seventh chapter it’s safe to assume that the scout troopers fired on him while he was attempting to get Baby Yoda back to the Razor Crest. The shots surely created a risk of serious physical injury to Baby Yoda as it clearly resulted in the death of Kuill. Not only could one of the shots have hit Baby Yoda, but the resulting crash (unseen, but assumed since Baby Yoda was found on the ground) could also have caused serious physical injury. 

Risk of Injury to a Minor

It is not as clear if the scout troopers could be charged with risk of injury to a minor. Connecticut’s charge for risk of injury to a minor makes it a crime to place a child under the age of 16 in a situation where that child is at risk of life endangerment, injury to health or moral impairment, or to otherwise do anything likely to cause impairment to that child’s health or morals. C.G.S. § 53-21(a)(1). From chapters one and two, we know that the bounty was originally described to the Mandalorian as being 50 years old. Despite the fact that Baby Yoda objectively acts like a child, there is little question that he does not fit the age requirement under this law. As a result, and even though the shots fired at Kuiil could represent a risk of life endangerment to Baby Yoda,  it is unlikely that the scout troopers could be charged with risk of injury to a minor. 

Kidnapping

The more obvious charge here would be kidnapping as it was the scout trooper’s clear intent to whisk Baby Yoda back to the clutches of the Empire. Kidnapping in the first degree and the second degree both require the abduction of another person. C.G.S. §§ 53a-92a – 53a-94. However, to be kidnapping in the first degree the abduction has to be for a ransom, for inflicting physical injury or sexual abuse, for accomplishing the commission of a felony, or for terrorizing the victim or a third person. Id.  It is clear from the troopers’ actions that Baby Yoda was abducted, as we see in the opening minutes of the eighth chapter. In that scene we see the scout trooper played by Jason Sudekis (now disowned by Second City Theater for his reprehensible actions) physically punch Baby Yoda. 

At this point, not only can we establish the assault of Baby Yoda (the cause of physical injury to a person with the intent to cause such harm see C.G.S. § 53a-61), but this also satisfies the second element of kidnapping in the first degree since Baby Yoda certainly suffered from physical abuse. In fact, given that this kidnapping occurred with the use of firearms (regardless of how inaccurate any of the shots may be), this would constitute kidnapping in the first degree with a firearm. C.G.S. § 53a-92a. This charge carries a mandatory one year sentence that cannot be reduced. 

Liability for the Empire

There is little doubt that the scout troopers could be held criminally liable for their actions against Baby Yoda. Were it not for the actions of the recommissioned nurse droid IG-11 those scout troopers would still be at large. As a result, they cannot be held responsible for their crimes. However, the Empire, or its remnants, may also be held liable for those same actions. Although most jurisdictions hesitate to extend vicarious liability to employers for the criminal acts of their employees, individual employers can still be held liable on conspiracy charges in certain circumstances. Conspiracy is described as follows:

A person is guilty of conspiracy when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one of them commits an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy. C.G.S. § 53a-48. 

Presuming the scout troopers were acting under the orders of Moff Gideon when they absconded with, and subsequently held Baby Yoda, then it could be presumed that Moff Gideon had agreed with them to commit the kidnapping. In fact, although we do not see this in the show, it can be presumed that Moff Gideon ordered the scout troopers to obtain Baby Yoda. Given that the scout troopers were successful in their attempt to whisk away Baby Yoda, this would suffice in committing an overt act in pursuance of the kidnapping of Baby Yoda. Likewise, Moff Gideon, or anyone directing the actions of the scout troopers, could be held liable for conspiracy of other criminal acts of the scout troopers if it can be shown that persons supervising the scout troopers agreed to engage in such conduct. For example, since the scout trooper (Jason Sudeikis) only hit Baby Yoda in retaliation for being bitten (understandably), no one else in the Empire had conspired with the scout trooper to commit that act.  Thus the elements for conspiracy to commit battery would not be met. 

While Baby Yoda is safe, at least for the moment, we cannot ignore the great harm he was subjected to in the season finale at the hands of the Empire. It will be up to the New Republic to hold the last remnants of the Empire responsible for their actions. Even if Baby Yoda’s age doesn’t make him a child according to the risk of injury to a minor statute, the public will still not stand for this travesty. 

Is Dr. Smith Falsely Imprisoned on the Jupiter 2?

0

When you are Lost in Space, what do you do with a stowaway that has committed everything from identity theft to murder? In the case of the Robinson family on the Jupiter 2, they lock that person in a storage compartment. Don’t worry, the “prisoner” gets fed and escorted to the bathroom while handcuffed.

Problem: Is that legal? Sure, the Robinson family is literally lost in space, but that does not give license to just violate civil rights. On the flip side, you can’t have a manipulative psychopath running around. Think of the risk to the children.

Is Confining Dr. Smith to a Storage Compartment False Imprisonment?

False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another. Cal. Pen. Code § 236. This can be further described as a false arrest, where there is an unlawful taking of a person into custody. Roberts v. City of Los Angeles, 109 Cal.App.3d 625, 634 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). As neither of the Robinson parents are law enforcement, it is easy to see the confinement of Dr. Smith as a false arrest and thus false imprisonment. However, that ipso facto analysis would ignore the fact Dr. Smith has committed many crimes ranging from murder aboard the Resolute, identity theft, false impersonation, fraud, battery upon Will Robinson by tying him up, false imprisonment of Will Robinson, and kidnapping Maureen.

Maureen and John Robinson have a strong argument they have placed Dr. Smith under citizen’s arrest. The law states a private person may arrest another:

    1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
    2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
    3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

Cal. Pen. Code § 837.

Dr. Smith kidnapped Maureen when Smith forced Maureen to the alien wreck in season 1, episode 9, Resurrection. That crime was committed in Maureen’s presence, since she was the victim of the crime. That is grounds enough to confine Dr. Smith. Add in the crimes against Will Robinson, it is amazing Dr. Smith was not tossed out an airlock. However, the fact Dr. Smith was placed in confinement, demonstrated an intent to follow due process and not the collapse of civil society, despite the fact of being lost in space. If the family is ever reunited with the Resolute, Dr. Smith can be turned over to the authorities for her crimes.

Legal Analysis of Mandalorian Chapters Six and Seven

0

Prison escapes! Accessory Liability! Martial Law! Infants Flying Spaceships! Abandoned Droids! Gabby Martin, Thomas Harper, and I, took deep drives into the many legal issues in The Mandalorian Chapters 6 and 7.

Taxation at Christmas Time – The Tax Consequences of Clark’s Jelly of the Month Club Subscription

0

“Ah taxation at Christmas time!” – Me

“Clark, that’s the gift that keeps on giving the whole year.” – Cousin Eddie

“That it is Edward, that it is.” – Clark Griswold

It’s the happiest time of year, and I don’t know about you, but in my house, “we’re going to have the hap-hap-happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap-danced with Danny f***ing Kaye!”[i]

Ah, Clark Griswold, that tragic bit of wonderful Americana.  All of us have a Clark in our lives (some of us are the Clark Griswolds in our lives).  But most of us have the ability to connect with Clark and his family’s holiday adventures.  National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation is a holiday staple in many houses.  The hilarity of Clark stuck in the attic, the awkwardness of the grandparents invading the kids’ space, the uptight neighbors getting their comeuppance.  All of it is pure holiday gold.

But, as with everything wonderful, there is a tax aspect that should be considered.  Clark was expecting a Christmas bonus in order to cover the down payment he made on a new swimming pool, when instead, Clark is enrolled in a “Jelly of the Month” subscription.  After a family kidnapping[ii] Clark’s boss reinstates the cash Christmas bonuses, plus 20% compared to what Clark received the year before.  At this point, everyone is focused on the actions of Frank Shirley to rectify his “jelly of the month club” wrong, but let us, for a moment, consider the tax implications to Clark of his company’s actions.

First, we have to acknowledge that there are potentially two taxable issues at hand here: 1) what is the taxation of the jelly of the month club Clark is originally enrolled in; and 2) what is the taxability of Mr. Shirley’s bonus after he changes his mind?

1.       Bonus as a Fringe Benefit

Generally speaking gifts, prizes, and awards of tangible personal property (other than cash or cash equivalents, such as gift certificates or gift cards) of less than a nominal amount, in total per year per employee, are excludable from the employee’s gross income as a de minimis “fringe benefit.”  The nominal amount dollar threshold is not defined by the IRS so taxpayers are forced to determine what is appropriate for them as there is no specific IRS threshold for what is considered de minimis.

When the Tax Code was overhauled in 1984, the goal of the revision was to ensure that all gains were included under Section (§) 61 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as gross income, including all types of fringe benefits.  This created a huge headache for the IRS and resulted in numerous calls to congress from upset constituents.  Because application of this standard to noncash benefits was one of the most difficult problems in developing generalized rules for the taxation of incidental fringe benefits, Treasury responded to congressional directives providing detailed regulations addressing many of the most frequently encountered valuation issues.

The general rule of inclusion under §61 is limited by §132, which provides the framework for permissible exclusion of certain fringe benefits from gross income.  Section 132 provides eight excluded types of benefits: (1) no-additional cost services;[iii] (2) qualified employee discounts;[iv] (3) working condition fringes;[v] (4) de minimis fringes;[vi] (5) qualified transportation fringes;[vii] (6) qualified moving expense reimbursements (suspended for 2018 through 2025 except for certain active military duty);[viii] (7) qualified retirement planning services;[ix] and (8) qualified military base realignment and closure payments.[x]  Clark’s issue is narrowly contained within the de minimis fringe benefit rule.

a.       De Minimis Fringe Benefits —

De minimis fringe benefits are an excludable incidental fringe benefit, meaning it is not included in the wages of the employee receiving it.

Any property or services provided to an employee qualifies as a de minimis fringe benefit and may be excluded from the employee’s income if the fair market value of the property or service is so small that accounting for the property or service would be unreasonable or administratively impracticable.[xi]  Thus, the scope of benefits covered in practical terms is determined by such benefits’ size and by administrative and accounting constraints.  Where the amount is small, and the administrative burden of accounting for such is difficult, the benefit may be excluded from the taxable wages of the employee.

The character of the de minimis exclusion, particularly the fact that the benefits are, by definition, too insignificant to account for, limits the extent to which other restrictions can be applied. Thus, the nondiscrimination rules, line of business requirements and recipient limitations do not apply.

Clark’s enrollment in the Jelly of the Month club can avoid taxation potentially as a gift as well.  The IRS has utilized its regulatory authority to confirm its long-standing position[xii] that traditional gifts on holidays, birthdays or similar occasions of property of low fair market value are de minimis fringe benefits.[xiii]  These include such items as a turkey given for a year-end holiday, although the frequency with which such gifts are provided must be taken into account.  I would think that it would be reasonable to put a “jelly of the month” club subscription into this same category.

Here, while, there is a specific cost of the Jelly of the Month club to the company, there is no such readily ascertainable value to Clark and “all of the other employees [Frank Shirley] rear ended this year.”[xiv]  Therefore, Clark should be able to avoid having to pick up income associated with his Jelly of the Month club membership.

There is a different rule for cash, gift cards, or gift certificates that are distributed to employees, as there is a readily ascertainable value to such, and the employee is required to pick up such income annually and pay tax on it.  Congress codified the IRS’s long-standing position[xv] that a cash fringe benefit or a cash equivalent fringe benefit (e.g., a gift certificate or gift card) is not excludible as a de minimis fringe benefit even if the benefit would have been excludible if provided in kind.  [§274(j)(3)(A)(ii), added by Pub. L. No. 115-97, §13310, applicable to amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 2017.]   In short, cash and cash equivalent fringe benefits (gift cards, charge cards, and credit cards) are never excluded from employee’s wages as de minimis benefits, regardless of the amount. These types of gifts must be included in the employee’s wages as taxable income on their W-2.

2.       Bonuses as Taxable Wages

Generally speaking, bonuses are considered taxable wages to the employee.  As noted above §61 provides that gross income includes all income from whatever source derived.  Therefore, gross income specifically includes any bonus payment.  In order for a bonus to be conserved wages, Clark must be an employee of NutratoX.

IRC §3121(d)(2) states the general rule that the term “employee” means any individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer- employee relationship, has the status of an employee.  Considering Clark indicates he has worked for the NutratoX for 17 years, we can be comfortable in the assumption that he is an employee for all federal tax purposes.

Sections 3121(a) and 3306(b) of the IRC provide that the term “wages” means all remuneration for employment, with certain exceptions.  Section 3401(a) of the IRC similarly defines “wages” as all remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer.

In order for remuneration to be “wages” for purposes of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), and state and federal income tax withholding, it must be remuneration for services in employment, performed by an employee for the person employing him.  Thus, in order for remuneration to be “wages” for income tax withholding purposes, it must be for services performed by an employee for his employer.

In Rev. Rul. 64-40,[xvi] the Service considered the issue of whether amounts distributed by a nonprofit membership organization to its employees out of a Christmas fund contributed to by the entity’s members constitute compensation in the hands of the recipients for Federal income tax purposes and wages for Federal employment tax purposes. In that case, the members each year collected a Christmas fund which it distributed among its employees. The revenue ruling concluded that the distributions constituted compensation for services performed by the club’s employees.

While there is not much to go on here with regard to Clark’s status as an employee, and any receipt of funds as “wages,” there is nothing to lead us to a contrary conclusion either.  Clark has worked for NutratoX for 17 years, received a “Christmas bonus” every year, and generally meets the requirements for employee, therefore any payments made by the company to Clark should qualify as wages.

When Mr. Shirley has a change of heart and decides to give Clark the same bonus he received the year before, plus 20%, such a monetary payment would be included as taxable wages to Clark.  Clark would have to pay FICA, FUTA, and all applicable state and federal withholdings on the amount of the bonus.

a.       Bonus as Supplemental Wages

Cash bonuses, or even gift cards with a monetary value are considered “compensation” just like wages, and are therefore subject to tax as ordinary income reported on Form W-2 to the individual at the end of the year.  This means, cash bonuses or gift cards in any amount will be subject to Social Security Tax, Medicare Tax, and income tax withholding (both state and federal).  However, generally speaking bonuses are considered “supplemental wages” and are subject to withholding at the flat rate of 25%.  The IRS specifies a flat “supplemental rate” of 25% for the federal withholding part of the bonus; this is the reason why the actual bonus amount ends up being much smaller than the original amount.

Well, there it is, a Christmas post about taxes.  “Hallelujah! Holy s**t! Where’s the Tylenol?” — Clark Griswold.  Have a very happy holiday everyone, and a prosperous new year!

[i] As so eloquently stated by Clark Griswold.

[ii] Ellen claims, “it’s our family’s first kidnapping,” but this is a bald-faced lie, as in the original vacation, the family kidnaps the security guard at Wally World, played by John Candy.

[iii] IRC §132(a)(1).

[iv] IRC §132(a)(2).

[v] IRC §132(a)(3).

[vi] IRC §132(a)(4).

[vii] IRC §132(a)(5).

[viii] IRC §132(a)(6).

[ix] IRC §132(a)(7).

[x] IRC §132(a)(8).

[xi] IRC §132(e)(1); Treas. Reg. §1.132-6(a). Compare TAM 200437030, where the IRS National Office advised that employer-provided $35 gift coupons redeemable at local stores were not excludible from employees’ wages as a de minimis fringe benefit because the gift coupons had a readily ascertainable value.

[xii] Rev. Rul. 59-58; Berkley Machine Works & Foundry Co. v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 1968-278, aff’d per curiam, 422 F.2d 362 (4th Cir. 1970).

[xiii] Treas. Reg. §1.132-6(e)(1).

[xiv] Clark Griswold, addressing Frank Shirley about not getting a Christmas bonus.

[xv] Rev. Rul. 71-53.

[xvi] 1964-1 C.B. 68