justice? Or just ...

While looking for a case indicating the liability specifically of the individual owner/operator, rather than the corporate entity, I thought "Grace!" I couldn't find the final court decision, only some motions regarding evidentiary matters. The media, however, carried it. They don't cite case numbers, unfortunately. One of the respondents was quoted saying something along the lines of "it's regretable that anyone was injured, but that's not what this case was about." What did he think it was about? Or was he just weasel-wording it to separate public health from environmental contamination? The U.S. lost its case. I'd really like to read the opinions to see what the justification was, for morbid curiosity, if nothing else. Especially, given that quotation, to see which law was cited as being violated.

Colt v. US

COLT INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee No. 89-1165 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 880 F.2d 1311; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 10672; 89-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9450; 64 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5231; 30 ERC (BNA) 1179; 19 ELR 21450 July 24, 1989, Decided Taxpayer was assessed civil penalties in a consent decree because it failed to eliminate violations of the Clean Air Act. In satisfaction of the civil penalties imposed by the consent decree, the taxpayer remitted payment. The taxpayer then claimed the payment as an ordinary business deduction under I.R.C. § 162(a). Does anything more clearly demonstrate the fact businesses see non-compliance fines as just an ordinary business cost?