BNSF Railway Co. v. Loos
Issues
Are damages for lost wages in a personal injury suit brought under the Federal Employers Liability Act taxable as “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act?
In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether time lost awards are taxable as “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act. BNSF Railway Company argues that such awards are taxable because they fall within the employer-employee relationship, especially when the Railroad Retirement Tax Act is read in conjunction with the Railroad Retirement Act. Michael Loos counters that the plain text of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act does not include time lost awards in its definition of “compensation” and that regardless, Internal Revenue Code (“I.R.C.”) § 104(a)(2) excludes personal injury awards from taxation. The outcome of this case will determine the contours of the definition of “compensation” in the Railroad Retirement Tax Act as well as the extent to which the Railroad Retirement Tax Act and the Railroad Retirement Act should be interpreted as a unified statutory scheme.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether a railroad’s payment to an employee for time lost from work is subject to employment taxes under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
Respondent Michael Loos (“Loos”) is a former employee of Petitioner, BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”). Loos v. BNSF Railway Company at 3. During his employment with BNSF, Loos incurred a number of attendance policy violations, some of which Loos attributed to “flare-ups” of a workplace injury. Id. at 4–6. Due to repeated attendance policy violations, BNSF terminated Loos’s employment on November 29, 2012. Id.
Written by
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Michael Arndt and Christopher Collier, Looking Forward to Oral Argument in BNSF v. Loos, Law 360 (August 9, 2018).
- Autumn Callan, Supreme Court Adds Maritime and Employment Cases to Next Term’s Docket, Jurist (May 14, 2018).
- Amy Howe, Two New Grants, One CVSG Today, SCOTUSblog (May 14, 2018).
- John Elwood, Relist Watch, SCOTUSblog (May 9, 2018).