Judge rules NJ couple's lottery annuity payments can't be taxed retroactively

Comment #25

KY Floyd — Wed, 19 Oct 2016 04:37:40 GMT

Did a state ever promise you that your income tax rate would never change

Comment #24

maximillions — Tue, 18 Oct 2016 23:23:50 GMT

Here is an excellent example for why one should choose the cash value option and avoid future shenanigans and the ensuing, expensive legal hassles

Comment #23

GoForTheGold — Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:29:41 GMT

So what happens if you choose the annuity in a state where there is a tax on the lottery winnings already but the tax percentage either increases or decreases over the period of the annuity? Are you subject to the increase or awarded with the decreased percentage over the remaining period of the annuity?

In the case of New Jersey has a legal precedent been set so that going forward if a tax increase on lottery winnings were to happen that winners under the lower tax percentage would not be s... [ More ]

Comment #22

KY Floyd — Tue, 18 Oct 2016 04:05:02 GMT

There's no reason this case would set a precedent, since it turned on long established principles of contract law. The deciding factor was that in exchange for buying a lottery ticket the state promised that any winnings wouldn't be subject to state taxes, and they can't unilaterally change the terms of the contract.

Comment #21

Artist77 — Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:02:47 GMT

But normally money is taxed in the year it is received, not owed. I like this decision but doubt it will become the precedent in all jurisdictions. I guess the new statute made it the deciding factor.

Comment #20

cbr$ — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:07:03 GMT

I am glad the judge rule in this couple favor. Asking for retroactive tax payments after the win. This couple win when it was tax free. When they win the new law wasn't on the books yet. It sound like NJ. just want free tax money.

Comment #19

Think — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:16:47 GMT

The Michigan lottery used to be Michigan tax free before about 1988. People who won before that who got annuities were slapped with the state income tax in 1989. They sued and won and the rest of their annuity payments were free of Michigan tax. People who won after that had to pay the tax. Michigan now has the same type of Schizo policies with anonymity. Some winners can remain anonymous while others can't

Comment #18

mypiemaster — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 06:42:22 GMT

Looks like someone is looking for free money to get more HOHOS

Comment #17

DELotteryPlyr — Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:27:13 GMT

How about the citizens of NJ do a vote at the end of the lawmakers term and if they don't like the job done they Retroactively LOSE their pay

Comment #16

Gleno — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:52:58 GMT

Throw the Bums Out

Comment #15

Raven62 — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:42:47 GMT

In Tyranny: The war between good and evil is over: The forces of evil have won.

Comment #14

dpoly1 — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:47:29 GMT

Zoo Jersey Courts have a rare lucid moment.

Now if they could only recognize the Second Amendment as Law.

Comment #13

Bleudog101 — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 23:40:10 GMT

Thanks for the tip to keep us future lottery winners safe from the bottom feeders out there

Comment #12

music* — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 23:35:21 GMT

CHUBB Insurance Co. is on my list to buy Umbrella coverage from. I think that they may call it Excess Liability Insurance. All major lottery winners have a target on their back for lawsuits. Nuisance lawsuits.

Comment #11

Skibunnylk — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 20:48:44 GMT

There is no way I would have mailed it in. With expiration looming I would have hand delivered that ticket right to lottery headquarters. Glad the judge sided with them as NJ got very greedy in their attempt at extorting taxes that were not legally owed.

Comment #10

KY Floyd — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:54:33 GMT

In a third case, the players were a group all from the same company,

I presume that must be the group of employees who worked for Chubb Insurance and won a very large (at that ie) MM jackpot shortly before NJ enacted the state tax on lottery winnings. I know that one NJ winner filed a lawsuit over the retroactive tax, and I think it was one of the Chubb winners, but I've never seen anything about a resolution to the case.

Comment #9

golfer1960 — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:36:27 GMT

Wow, the taxpayers finally win one!!!! Good for the Milligans.

Comment #8

Raven62 — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:30:50 GMT

Thanks LottoAce: Good Luck

Comment #7

Bleudog101 — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:17:02 GMT

So glad the Judge did the right thing. Still remember guy's wife being ticked @ him just mailing the ticket to Trenton like it was no big deal.

Comment #6

LottoAce — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:46:35 GMT

I will second that motion Mr. Raven62

Comment #5

music* — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 14:14:37 GMT

I am grateful for the Judicial system that we have here in the U.S. Intelligent participants following the law.

Voters deciding who will make the laws.

Comment #4

haymaker — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 14:12:31 GMT

WOW !

Justice in Jersey...who'd of ever thunk it

Comment #3

Raven62 — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:54:06 GMT

Time to Vote the Legislators that opt to Tax retroactively Out-of-Office.

Comment #2

MaximumMillions — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:52:04 GMT

And mailed it in! No way I would have chanced that, my butt would have been on a plane/in a car barreling down the highway.

Comment #1

LiveInGreenBay — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:41:49 GMT

He forgot the ticket in the junk drawer for a year? Oh man

Judge rules NJ couple's lottery annuity payments can't be taxed retroactively

Lottery Post — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:33:58 GMT

A New Jersey Tax Court judge has sided with a couple who won $46 million in the state lottery in 2000 and elected to have their winnings distributed in annual installments as a multiyear annuity payment, holding that the state did not have the right to retroactively tax their winnings after passing a new statute.

Plaintiffs Melvin Milligan and Kim Lawton-Milligan, who won the Big Game Lottery jackpot drawing in 2000, opted for 26 annual payouts of $1.77 million. They argued that the 2009 sta... [ More ]