Reference no: EM13682749

Each student is to submit briefs of two (2) articles relevant to the federal tax area and published within the last 1 year. Each article can only be briefed once during the semester, so the first student to choose an article has the rights to it. Articles are reserved with a posting in the appropriate Discussion area. These briefs should be exactly that, no more than 3 pages in length.. Also, below is an example of what a good brief may look like (this is a brief of a case, but the same applies to an article brief):

Issue

At the time the contract was formed, was the plaintiff acting as a police officer charged with a legal duty to catch criminals without further reward?

Facts

Plaintiff makes a verbal contract with defendant. In return for $500, plaintiff will find defendant's stolen jewels.
Plaintiff had knowledge of whereabouts of jewels at contract formation.
Plaintiff is a special police officer and has dealings with prosecutor's office.
Defendant published advertisement for reward.
Plaintiff finds stolen goods and arranges return.
Rule of Law

A public officer cannot demand or receive remuneration or a reward for carrying out the duty of his job as a matter of public policy and morality
However, it is not against public policy for a police officer to receive a reward in performance of his legal duty if the legislature passes a statute giving the reward to the public at large in furtherance of some public policy - such as preventing treason against the US.
Reasoning

Court finds sufficient evidence to characterize this fellow as a public official.
His interaction with the prosecutor's office weighed in as a factor in suggesting he had a legal duty.
Since he is characterized within the rule as a public official, he cannot, as a matter of law, receive a reward for the performance of his duties.
Conclusion

Court reverses decision of lower court in favor of the plaintiff since he was characterized as a public official.