No. 2000 CA 1063 Precedential Processed

Crawford v. American National Petroleum Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed December 28, 2001 · 805 So. 2d 371

Cited by

University of New Orleans Research and Technology Foundation, Inc. v. Norman White Chief Financial … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
Barfield v. Bolotte 185 So. 3d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Odebrecht Construction, Inc. v. Louisiana Department of Revenue 182 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Haygood v. Louisiana State Board of Dentistry 101 So. 3d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
American Moving and Storage of Leesville, Inc. v. Cynthia Bridges, Secretary of Dept. of … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
American Moving and Storage of Leesville, Inc. v. Bridges 53 So. 3d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Cochrane v. Louisiana Tax Com'n 905 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
HANOVER COMPRESSOR v. Department of Revenue 838 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003

Opinion text

[ iFITZSIMMONS, Judge, concurring, with reasons. Whether Louisiana law allows recovery of a punitive damage award for tortious interference is not the focus of this ease. The fact that the award could not have been validly or legally earned in Louisiana does not in itself exempt the income from the definition of taxable income. Illegally acquired income can be taxed. Indeed, the failure to declare and pay tax on illegal transactions can be the basis for a criminal investigation and conviction. Rutkin v. United States, 343 U.S. 130 , 72 S.Ct. 571 , 96 L.Ed. 833 (1952). The pertinent inquiry is whether the punitive damages income was earned or derived from sources in Louisiana and thus qualified as a Louisiana apportionment. See La.R.S. 47:241, 287.11, 287.67, *386 & 287.69. After a review of the facts of this particular case, the record reasonably supports a finding that punitive damages in this case did not derive from and cannot be attributed to a source in Louisiana. The punitive damages award arose from wrongful conduct that occurred in Texas, where the business between the two litigants was transacted. Thus, I respectfully concur.