1 Is THE CONTINGENT LEGAL FEE TAX CONTROVERSY OVER?* Richard Mason** I. INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled 8 to 01 that where a litigant's recovery constitutes income under I.R.C. 61(a), such income includes the total amount of any recovery including any contingent legal fees. 2 The Court's ruling 3 came in the consolidated cases of Commisioner v. Banks, 4 on writ of certiorari to the Sixth Circuit, and Commisioner v. Banaitis,5 on writ of certiorari to the Ninth Circuit. The government appealed the circuit court decisions in both these cases. These cases were representative of the view held by a minority of the circuits that allowed successful litigants to exclude from gross income for income tax purposes the amount of any contingent legal fees paid to counsel. 6 The Supreme Court reversed the circuit courts and remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with their decision. This essay discusses the recent Supreme Court decisions, the relevant statutory change from the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, 7 and provides a summary analysis of the current state of the law on this issue. II. THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION In both Banaitis and Banks, the Supreme Court held that the proper characterization of the attomey-client relationship, including contingency fee arrangements, is that of an agency relationship. The Court applied the anticipatory assignment doctrine, 8 prohibiting the assignment of income away from one * The author is grateful to Professor Steve Johnson of the Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for his valuable insights with respect to this issue. ** PhD, JD, Assistant Professor, University of Nevada, Reno 1 Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. Chief Justice Rehnquist did not participate in the decisions. Banks v. Comm'r, 125 S. Ct. 826 (2005). 2 For a discussion of this issue and the state of the law before the recent statutory changes and the Supreme Court decision, see Richard Mason, Will the Ninth Circuit be Reversed in Banaitis v. Commissioner?, 5 NEV. L.J. 284 (2004). 3 Banks, 125 S.Ct F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 2003) F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2003). 6 Settlements or awards that relate to personal injury or sickness are excluded from income for tax purposes under I.R.C. 104(a)(2). It is only with respect to taxable litigation proceeds that the issue of contingent legal fees arose. 7 Pub. L. No , 118 Stat (enrolled Oct. 22, 2004, amending the I.R.C. by adding 62(a)(19)). 8 The anticipatory assignment doctrine comes from a series of Supreme Court cases beginning with Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930) and Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940).
2 NEVADA LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 5:733 taxpayer to another where the first taxpayer controls the underlying property from which the income is derived. The Court asserted that the motive behind the taxpayer assignment is irrelevant. 9 Applying this anticipatory assignment doctrine to the attorney-client agency relationship, the Court held that the principal, i.e., the litigant, must recognize income to the full extent realized. 1 o This application of the anticipatory assignment doctrine was not surprising. The Court, in agreeing with the Appellant, followed the rationale of the majority of the circuits, and in particular the reasoning of the Second Circuit in Raymond v. United States. 1 Banaitis arose out of a wrongful termination action brought under state law, while Banks emerged from a federal employment discrimination suit. 2 In Banks, the court addressed an additional issue raised by the respondent.' 3 As the cause of action in Banks arose under federal statutes which allow fee awards to prevailing litigant's attorneys, Banks asserted that not permitting exclusion of the attorney's contingency from gross income would undermine the very purpose of the fee-shifting statutes. 14 These statutes are designed in part to encourage claimants to act as private attorneys general and the potentially onerous results of the IRS position would discourage such action. 1 5 Respondent asserted that, in some circumstances, including the fee in the litigant's income could result in a litigant prevailing in their suit, but losing money. 16 The Court did not reach a conclusion on these arguments but relied upon the fact that in Banks the case was settled and the contingent legal fee paid by the Banks to his attorneys was paid solely under the private contingency fee arrangement. 7 The Court indicated that, as there was no courtordered fee-shifting and that neither the private contingency arrangement nor the settlement agreement provided that the fees were in lieu of any courtordered fees, there was no need to address the fee-shifting argument. 8 Three arguments advanced by the respondents or in amici briefs were not addressed by the Court, with the court noting: These arguments, it appears, are being presented for the first time to this Court. We are especially reluctant to entertain novel propositions of law with broad implications for the tax system that were not advanced in earlier stages of litigation and not examined by the Courts of Appeals. We decline comment on these supplementary theories. 19 This doctrine has been called by the Court "the first principle of income taxation." Comm'r v. Culbertson, 337 U.S. 733, (1949). 9 Lucas, 281 U.S. at Banks, 125 S. Ct. at 829. "1 355 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2004). 12 The claim was under 42 U.S.C and 1983, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended by 42 U.S.C. 2000(e) et seq. Banks, 125 S. Ct. at , Banks, 125 S. Ct. at Id. 15 Id. 16 id. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 Id. at 833.
3 Spring 2005]IS CONTINGENT LEGAL FEE TAX CONTROVERSY OVER? 735 The arguments to which the Court referred were: (1) that the contingency fee arrangement created a partnership under Subchapter K I.R.C. 702, 704, and 761 for tax purposes, (2) that litigation recoveries represented dispositions of property and that the legal fees were properly treated as capital expenses under 1001, 1012, and 1016, and (3) that the legal fees represent deductible employee business expenses under I.R.C. 62(a)(2)(A). 2 Each of these alternative arguments ultimately leads to the exclusion by the litigant of contingent legal fees from the computation of gross income. It is not clear how the appellate courts would have responded to these arguments if they had been raised at the trial level. The first of these arguments asserts that the attorney and client establish a partnership for tax purposes when they enter into a contingent fee arrangement. The attorney agrees to contribute his expertise, while the claimant contributes his claim, or property, to the partnership that has as its purpose the realization of value from the claim. Although the Court stated it did not consider this argument, the Court's determination that the attorney-client relationship is a principal/agent relationship appears to implicitly address or subsume this argument. Logically, a claimant must be either a principal or a partner with respect to his counsel, but not both. If presented with the partnership argument, the Court likely would have rejected the partnership interpretation in favor of the agency view adopted, because traditionally the attorney-client relationship has been viewed as an agency relationship. 2 1 Adding weight to this argument, the Sixth Circuit in Banks 2 2 based its decision largely on a partnership or joint venture theory it had initially articulated in Estate of Clarks v. United States. 2 3 Accordingly, if the partnership argument is raised in future cases it would appear to have, at best, only a modest chance of success. The second argument advanced is that the contingent legal fees are capital expenses under the I.R.C. and should be recovered off-the-top in any disposition of a claim. 24 This argument incorporates the Supreme Court's view that the attorney-client relationship is an agency relationship. Essentially, this argument treats the claimant as one disposing of capital property akin to a real estate seller. The underlying claim would be the capital property subject to the disposition. The commissions paid to a real estate agent are recovered off-thetop in determining whether there is a gain or loss on the disposition of the property. The contingent legal fees for a claimant that is disposing of their claim should then be recovered off-the-top in the same manner as the commissions paid to a real estate agent, i.e., before the computation of gain or loss. This argument has not been addressed yet in the courts. This argument has some merit, but also poses some problems in wide applicability. For instance, 20 Id. at 832; Joint Supplemental Brief, for Repondents, Banks, (Nos , ); Brief for Respondent Banaitis, Banks, (No ); Brief for Respondent Banks, Banks (No ). 21 Banks, 125 S. Ct. at 832. The Supreme Court cited RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY 1, cmt (e) 1957 and ABA MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1.3, cmt 1, 1.7 (2002) in this regard. 22 Banks v. Comm'r, 345 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 2003) F.3d 854, 857 (6th Cir. 2000). 24 Banks, 125 S.Ct. at 833. See also Charles Davenport, Why Tort Legal Fees Are Not Deductible, 97 TAX NOTES 703 (2002).
4 NEVADA LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 5:733 some claims may not survive the claimant and those claims are difficult to characterize as a property right. 25 The third argument would treat the contingent legal fees as reimbursed employee business expenses resulting in the off-the-top deduction to the claimant. This theory would likely apply only to claims made in the context of an employment relationship. However, there is a question about whether the employment relationship exists once an employee is either terminated or voluntarily leaves employment. For new awards or settlements, the broad wording of the new statutory changes would cover these claims. But for existing claims that pre-date the new statute, the question of whether the employment relationship exists after termination of voluntary or involuntary employment is unclear. III. THE NEW STATUTORY REGIME - I.R.C. 62(A)(19) 2 6 The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 added an off-the-top deduction for attorney's fees and related litigation costs for a broad array of discrimination and employment-related claims. The amount of the recovery limits the deduction. This new provision means that successful litigants' income can include only the net proceeds, if any, of a settlement or award for the covered types of claims. The new provisions are effective for all covered claims settled or awarded after October 22, The new provisions are: 6 2 (A)(19)[(20)] COSTS INVOLVING DISCRIMINATION SUITS, ETC. - Any deduction allowable under this chapter for attorney fees and court costs paid by, or on behalf of, the taxpayer in connection with any action involving a claim of unlawful discrimination (as defined in subsection (e)) or a claim of a violation of subchapter III of chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code or a claim made under section 1862(b)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(3)(A)). The preceding sentence shall not apply to any deduction in excess of the amount includible in the taxpayer's gross income for the taxable year on account of a judgment or settlement (whether by suit or agreement and whether as lump sum or periodic payments) resulting from such claim. 62(E) UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION DEFINED. - For purposes of subsection (a)(19), the term "unlawful discrimination" means an act that is unlawful under any of the following: 6 2 (E)(1) Section 302 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1202). 62(E)(2) Section 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, or 207 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, or 1317). 25 Michael Coyne, et al., Contingent Legal Fees on Settlements and Awards and the Calculation of Gross Income by Individuals for United States Federal Income Tax Purposes, 2 ATA J. LEGAL TAX RES (2004). 26 The legislation denominated the new I.R.C. deduction as 62(a)(19), but as there already was a 62(a)(19) CCH has denominated this new provision as I.R.C. 62(a)(19) under the expectation that this will actually become subsection twenty. In this essay, the CCH denomination of this new sub-section has been followed. 27 H.R. CONF. REP. No (2004), reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N It was noted that this was a Senate provision and that in the Senate version it would be effective for fees and cost paid after December 31, The compromise was to enact the legislation with a later effective date.
5 Spring 2005]IS CONTINGENT LEGAL FEE TAX CONTROVERSY OVER? (E)(3) The National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.). 6 2 (E)( 4 ) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.). 62(E)(5) Section 4 or 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 623 or 633a). 62(E)(6) Section 501 or 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791 or 794). 62(E)(7) Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1140). 62(E)(8) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C et seq.). 62(E)(9) The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (29 U.S.C et seq.). 62(E)(10) The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C et seq.). 6 2 (E)(l1) Section 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2615). 62(E)(12) Chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code (relating to employment and reemployment rights of members of the uniformed services). 62(E)(13) Section 1977, 1979, or 1980 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, or 1985). 62(E)(14) Section 703, 704, or 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2, 2000e-3, or 2000e-16). 62(E)(15) Section 804, 805, 806, 808, or 818 of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3604, 3605, 3606, 3608, or 3617). 6 2 (E)(16) Section 102, 202, 302, or 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C , 12132, 12182, or 12203). 62(E)(17) Any provision of Federal law (popularly known as whistleblower protection provisions) prohibiting the discharge of an employee, the discrimination against an employee, or any other form of retaliation or reprisal against an employee for asserting rights or taking other actions permitted under Federal law. 62(E)( 18) Any provision of Federal, State, or local law, or common law claims permitted under Federal, State, or local law - 62(E)(18)(1) providing for the enforcement of civil rights, or 6 2 (E)(18)(ii) regulating any aspect of the employment relationship, including claims for wages, compensation, or benefits, or prohibiting the discharge of an employee, the discrimination against an employee, or any other form of retaliation or reprisal against an employee for asserting rights or taking other actions permitted by law. 28 In writing the statute, a clear effort has been made to list all possible federal anti-discrimination provisions. Besides applying federal discrimination statutes, I.R.C. 62(e)(18) applies to civil rights and employment-relationship claims raised under state, local, or common law. The employment-relationship section of the new law is very broad and covers many types of, if not all, legal claims by employees against employers. According to the text of the statute, the new off-the-top deduction for legal fees applies to any federal discrimination claim, as well as any employment-related litigation, however founded. 28 I.R.C. 62(a)(19).
6 NEVADA LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 5:733 IV. CASES SUBSEQUENT TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION The Tax Court has decided three contingent legal fee cases since the Supreme Court's decision in Banks. In these cases, the Tax Court included the total amount of the settlement or award, with legal fees, in income. In Williams v. Commissioner, 2 9 a case arising out of employment discrimination and tort claims and and that had been settled, the Tax Court granted summary judgment to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), relying on Banks. Chief Judge Gerber did note that the petitioners did not raise any of the arguments not considered by the Supreme Court. Petitioners argued only that they neither earned nor had sufficient control of the portion of the settlement representing contingent legal fees to require the inclusion of the legal fees in their income: 30 An argument that is clearly erroneous under Banks. 3 ' In Valia v. Commissioner, 32 petitioner accepted a settlement from a former employer and signed a release for all claims, including discrimination claims. The litigant unsuccessfully tried to claim that a portion of the settlement related to personal injuries, but the evidence did not support this claim. Relying on Banks, the Tax Court held that the portion of the settlement paid as contingent legal fees was includable in income. 33 Again, the petitioner raised none of the arguments that left unanswered by the Supreme Court in Banks. In the third case, Vincent v. Commissioner, 4 the Tax Court also held that the portion of the settlement that represented legal fees was includable in gross income. However, in this case the Tax Court addressed the fee-shifting argument that the Supreme Court in Banks did not reach. In Vincent, the agreement between Vincent and her attorney stated that the attorney "would be entitled to a defined percentage of any recovery, unless, as occurred, the attorney received his fees and costs pursuant to a fee-shifting statute." '35 The Tax Court relied on Sinyard v. Commissioner, 36 a case in which the Ninth Circuit found that, despite the payment of legal fees under a fee-shifting statute, the claimant was in constructive receipt of the legal fees. Accordingly, the claimant was required to include an amount in gross income equal to the fees the defendant paid directly to the attorneys. V. THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW ON THE CONTINGENT LEGAL FEE ISSUE Four basic categories exist into which litigation proceeds and contingent legal fees can be placed: 1. Claims for which proceeds are excluded from income under I.R.C. 104(a)(2). 2. Claims which permit an off-the-top deduction under I.R.C. 62(a)(19). 3. Other claims where only net proceeds of the litigation are reportable as income. 29 T.C.M (Feb. 17, 2005). 30 Id S. Ct. 826 (2005). 32 T.C.M (Feb. 1, 2005). 33 Id. 34 T.C.M (May 3, 2005). 35 Id F. 3d 756 (9th Cir. 2001).
7 Spring 2005]IS CONTINGENT LEGAL FEE TAX CONTROVERSY OVER? Claims which are fully includable in income and not subject to the off-the-top deductions under I.R.C. 62(a)(19). A. Personal Injury Exclusion Under I.R.C. 104(a)(2) Proceeds resulting from claims for personal injury or sickness are totally excluded under I.R.C. 104(a)(2). 37 Although a discussion of the claims for which awards are excluded from income under this provision is beyond the scope of this essay - essentially, only awards arising out of claims relating to physical injury and sickness are covered. 38 The contingent legal fees paid for recovery of claims which fall fully under this exclusion are not in issue, because the exclusion of any income received renders the contingent legal fee question irrelevant. However, punitive damage awards are not excluded under. I.R.C. 104(a)(2), and when there is an allocation of legal fees paid for the punitive component of any award or settlement, the fees allocable to the includable amounts would place that portion of the fees into category 4 described above. To make things worse, taxpayers are unable to get an advance ruling from the IRS on the issues of excludability or allocation of damage awards. 3 9 Uncertainty regarding treatment of particular claims and the advantage afforded by exclusion has led many taxpayers to attempt to exclude damage awards and settlements under I.R.C. 104(a)(2) and has resulted in much litigation over the propriety of these attempted exclusions. The new off-the-top deduction afforded by I.R.C. 62(a)(19) may reduce some of the litigation, but so long as the advantage to taxpayers of exclusion remains, and the IRS will not give advance determinations, it is likely there will continue to be some volume of litigation in this area. B. Claims covered by LR.C. 62(a)(19)[201 I.R.C. 62(a)(19) covers many categories of claims. I.R.C. 62(e) defines "discrimination," but in a way that appears to be far broader than one would expect to apply in discrimination claims. Specifically, any legal claim under federal, state, common, or local law that relates to employment may be covered, as per I.R.C. 62(e)(18)(ii), for: "regulating any aspect of the employment relationship, including claims for wages, compensation, or benefits... any other form of retaliation or reprisal against an employee for asserting rights or taking other actions permitted by law." On its face, the statute appears to cover almost any litigation between employer and employee. In dicta, the Supreme Court interpreted this statute as covering the wrongful termination claim in Banaitis. 4 It is easy to envision litigation to determine which claims fall under I.R.C. 62(a)(19) for the off-the-top deduction of legal fees just as there has been litigation to determine which claims fall under 17 For a discussion of the history of this section and its impact, see Donald J. Zahn, Personal Injury Exclusion: Is the Slashing of Wrists Necessary? 13 AKRON TAX J. 129 (1997). 38 For a discussion of those awards that are excludable, see Brent B. Nicholson, Recent Developments Concerning the Taxation of Damages Under Section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, 61 ALB. L. REV. 215 (1997). 39 Rev. Proc , I.R.B Banks, 125 S.Ct. at 831.
8 NEVADA LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 5:733 I.R.C. 104(a)(2). However, if a claim is covered under I.R.C. 62(a)(19) , the proceeds of the litigation minus the legal fees and costs, but not less than zero, are includable in income. Although Congress' discussion of present law concentrated on the contingent legal fee issue, all legal fees are now deductible if the claim is covered under I.R.C. 62(a)(19). Hence, any distinction between contingent legal fees and other legal fees is now moot. C. Other Claims Where Only the Net Proceeds of the Litigation are Reportable as Income. Additional claims fall outside of I.R.C. 62(a)(19) and I.R.C. 104(a)(2) but remain under either fee-shifting statutes where the court awards legal fees directly to counsel or under "qualified settlement funds" covered by C.F.R B-1 4 " and the taxability of distributions under Reg B Consider a claim in the securities class-action area with a large number of plaintiffs. The damages in such a case would not be excludable under I.R.C. 104(a)(2) nor would they be discrimination or employment-related under I.R.C. 62(a)(19). Accordingly, the damages would be includable in income. However, the majority of securities class-action cases result in the establishment of a "qualified settlement fund." Legal fees are paid directly from the settlement fund to the attorneys and only the net amount distributed to claimants is taxed under C.F.R B-4. Thus, for a claim in this category the contingent legal fees are effectively deducted off-the-top by operation of the relevant treasury regulations. D. Claims Not Covered in Other Categories Any claims not falling into the three previous categories must fall into the remaining category where the proceeds of the claim are includable in income and the legal fees are either not allowed an off-the-top deduction as employment or discrimination-related or effectively deducted by operation of regulation. This category includes many traditional non-personal injury tort claims, such as slander or libel, as well as all other non-discrimination, non-employment-related, and non-personal injury claims. For claims in this category the ruling in Banks applies, requiring the inclusion of the total amount of proceeds in income and deducting the legal fees as a miscellaneous itemized deduction under I.R.C. 212 as an expense incurred for the production of income. Such deductions are subject to the two-percent of adjusted gross income floor and are disallowed for alternative minimum tax purposes effectively negating the value of the deductions for many taxpayers C.F.R B-1 (2004) C.F.R B-4 (2004). TAXABILITY OF DISTRIBUTIONS TO CLAIMANTS. - Whether a distribution to a claimant is includible in the claimant's gross income is generally determined by reference to the claim in respect of which the distribution is made and as if the distribution were made directly by the transferor. For example, to the extent a distribution is in satisfaction of damages on account of personal injury or sickness, the distribution may be excludable from gross income under section 104(a)(2). Similarly, to the extent a distribution is in satisfaction of a claim for foregone taxable interest, the distribution is includible in the claimant's gross income under section 61(a)(4). 43 See, e.g., Mason, supra note 2, at
9 Spring S CONTINGENT LEGAL FEE TAX CONTROVERSY OVER? 741 VI. CONCLUSION Congress took a big step in resolving the contingent legal fee tax conundrum with the enactment of I.R.C. 62(a)(19), but did not fully resolve the issue. There remains yet some uncertainty as to exactly which claims are covered under I.R.C. 62(a)(19) and which claims are left out of the categories that either exclude the income or provide for either a stated or de facto off-thetop deduction for contingent legal fees. Despite Banks, there is still uncertainty remaining as to how the courts will react to the three aforementioned arguments which the Supreme Court declined to address. These three arguments: that the contingency fee arrangement created a partnership for tax purposes, that litigation recoveries represented dispositions of property for which legal fees were properly treated as capital expenses, and that the legal fees represent deductible employee business expenses under I.R.C. 62(a)(2)(A) have yet to be directly addressed at the trial court, or any other, level. The merits of these arguments are briefly discussed above, but with the exception of the implicit rejection of the partnership argument in Banks, these arguments have not been truly tested. There are probably some cases for which the third alternative argument is applicable which have not yet come to light. There are also likely many cases that fall in the fourth category still to come to the courts on this issue that will advance the first two of the alternative arguments. Given the Supreme Court's message with regard to these alternative arguments they probably will be raised by counsel at the appropriate level where there is even a chance of applicability. Due diligence would seem to require counsel to do so. Although these arguments were not seen in the two Tax Court cases since Banks, it would seem to be only a matter of time until they appear. Having inconsistent tax consequences regarding attorney's contingency fees produces a landscape which fails to provide horizontal equity for taxpayers and can only result in additional litigation over the contingent legal fee issue. The Supreme Court heard Banks in order to resolve a division in the circuit courts. There may again develop a circuit split once the alternative arguments reach the several appellate courts. Of course, Congress may choose to resolve this issue by statute. Since Congress was willing to address this issue for discrimination and employment-related claims, it is not hard to envision additional legislation providing for a broader base of claims to receive the off-the-top deduction. This would be preferable to continued litigation. To answer the question posed in the title of this piece, until such time as the tax consequences to all legal claimants are the same, the controversy will likely continue.
NOTE: This article was referenced in the June 2005 In Brief in the article entitled, Taxes on Attorney Fees. It is a more detailed explanation of the issues discussed in that article. Our thanks to Philip
Tax Consequences of Employment Cases Elizabeth Erickson & Ira B. Mirsky, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP Employment-related litigation is not only a major business concern it involves substantial tax ramifications
Tax Aspects of Settlements and Judgments Dominic L. Daher, MAcc, JD, LLM in Taxation Director of Internal Audit and Tax Compliance Adjunct Professor of Law University of San Francisco Dawn G. Mayer, JD,
INCOME TAX ADVANTAGES OF STRUCTURING ATTORNEY FEES IN THIRD PARTY LIABILITY AND WORKER S COMPENSATION SETTLEMENTS By John J. Campbell, Esq. Introduction The use of structured settlements to settle third
SETTLEMENTS AND JUDGMENTS YOU MEAN I HAVE TO PAY TAXES? By: Geoffrey N. Taylor, Esq. I. INCOME TO PLAINTIFF A. Distinction between settlements and judgments. B. Basic rule is the origin of claims test.
TAX TREATMENT OF RECOVERIES IN EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES Committee on Labor & Employment Law AUGUST 2009 THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 42 WEST 44 TH STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10036 TAX TREATMENT
Employment Tax Considerations for Businesses When Addressing Litigation with Employees or Former Employees William Hays Weissman Littler Mendelson, P.C. San Francisco, California It is a common fact of
2005, Davis, Malm & D Agostine, P.C. QUALIFIED SETTLEMENT TRUSTS A Useful Tool in Multi-Party Litigation Marjorie Suisman, Esq. Davis Malm & D Agostine P.C. I. Introduction. A Designated Settlement Fund
,QWHUQDO5HYHQXH6HUYLFH Number: 200121031 Release Date: 5/25/2001 Index No.: 104.03-00 Department of the Treasury Washington, DC 20224 Person to Contact: Telephone Number: Refer Reply To: CC:ITA:1 PLR-122136-00
I. Introduction RETAINER AGREEMENT: CIVIL RIGHTS CASE The undersigned, hereinafter referred to as the "Clients," hereby retains the KENNEDY LAW FIRM, hereinafter referred to as the "Attorneys," for the
PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE. T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-156 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RONALD W. RAMEY AND JONI J. RAMEY,
No. 11-1197 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- VERNON HADDEN,
T.C. Memo. 2007-271 UNITED STATES TAX COURT SARA J. BURNS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 11924-04. Filed September 12, 2007. John W. Sunnen, for petitioner. Erin
Qualified Settlement Funds: A Quick Guide for Trial Lawyers By Jason D. Lazarus, Esq. Introduction Assume you just settled a personal injury case for John Doe who is married to Jane. John has a significant
SETTLING CASES AND TAXES WILLIAM A. ROBERTS The Roberts Law Firm (972) 661-1040 firstname.lastname@example.org State Bar of Texas 28 TH ANNUAL ADVANCED CIVIL TRIAL COURSE August 31 September 2, 2005 - Austin
NO. CV 01 0506140S : SUPERIOR COURT RENAISSANCE MANAGEMENT : TAX SESSION COMPANY, INC. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF v. : NEW BRITAIN COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES : SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Case: 15-60341 Document: 00513365306 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT LARRY WILLIAMS; DORA WILLIAMS, Petitioners - Appellants United States Court
Employers' Responsibilities When Making Settlements in Employment-Related Claims Contributed by: Elizabeth Erickson * & Ira B. Mirsky **, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP Employee litigation alleging discrimination
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE TAXATION OF PARTNERSHIP EQUITY-BASED COMPENSATION John Gatti For various non-tax reasons, the use of entities that are taxed as partnerships including limited liability companies,
WORKERS COMPENSATION BASICS COORDINATION OF BENEFITS Hank Patterson Patterson Harkavy LLP Chapel Hill, North Carolina September 19, 2011 I. Introduction A comprehensive knowledge of government and private
Office of Chief Counsel Internal Revenue Service Memorandum Number: 20141002F Release Date: 3/7/2014 CC:LB&I:CTM: ----:---------- POSTF-148188-13 date: January 28, 2014 to: ---------------, Team Manager,
7 Attorney s Fees: Limitations And Awards 7.01 INTRODUCTION TO ATTORNEY S FEES IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LITIGATION To the old adage that death and taxes share a certain inevitable character, federal judges
USING IRC 7430(g) AS A STRATEGIC LITIGATION TOOL I. Internal Revenue Code ( IRC ) 7430 grants taxpayers the right to recover costs, including fees of experts and attorneys, paid or incurred in connection
DEDUCTIBILITY OF ATTORNEYS' FEES: HALF A LOAF? 1 by Robert W. Wood It is now well-known that most lawsuit proceeds received by way of settlement or judgment represent taxable income. Logic suggests that
September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Payments Are Tax- Free The Service has confirmed that periodic payments from the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund to victims of the terrorist attacks will
NOTIFICATION AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEE ANTIDISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION ACT OF 2002 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:01 May 20, 2002 Jkt 099139 PO 00174 Frm 00001 Fmt 6579 Sfmt 6579 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL174.107 APPS10 PsN:
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 03-987 LAWANDA THEODILE VERSUS RPM PIZZA, INC. ********** APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION - # 4 PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 03-02178 SHARON
Avoiding Tax Surprises In Trust And Estate Litigation: Transfer Tax Aspects Of Settlements Julie K. Kwon A. Introduction 1. Parties negotiating the resolution of their disputes regarding interests in trusts
2015 IL 118143 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (Docket No. 118143) ALMA McVEY, Appellee, v. M.L.K. ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. (Southern Illinois Hospital Services, d/b/a Memorial Hospital of Carbondale,
Reprinted with permission from the Florida Law Weekly: [ 35 Fla. L. Weekly D1438a Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Attorney's fees -- Paralegal fees -- Multiplier -- Circuit court did not depart
Case :-cv-00-rsm Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS, INC., in its capacity as sponsor and fiduciary for CGI
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
\ ~~/ g65-r7 sitj > THE * COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECISION >½h7;,. OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON. D. C. 2054B FILE: B-199291 DATE: June 19, 1981 MATTER OF:EEO Regulations - Attorney Fees DIGEST: 1. Title
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6072 In re: Tenny Shikaro Zahn, f/k/a Terry Shikaro Garner, Debtor. Tenny Shikaro Zahn, Debtor-Appellant, Appeal from the United States
Case 3:06-cv-00701-MJR-DGW Document 526 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #13631 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ANTHONY ABBOTT, et al., ) ) No: 06-701-MJR-DGW Plaintiffs,
2015 YLD Bridge the Gap Seminar Taxation of Terminations, Settlements and Judges 11:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Presented by: David Repp Dickinson Mackaman Tyler & Hagen PC 699 Walnut St. Suite 1600 Des Moines,
BRB No. 09-0360 A.B. v. Claimant-Petitioner GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION/ELECTRIC BOAT DIVISION and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY Employer/Carrier- Respondents DATE ISSUED: 09/23/2009 DECISION and ORDER
T.C. Memo. 2014-106 UNITED STATES TAX COURT WHISTLEBLOWER 10949-13W, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 10949-13W. Filed June 4, 2014. Sealed, for petitioner. Sealed,
NO CV 03 0519616S LAURA A. GAVIGAN, ET AL. : SUPERIOR COURT : TAX SESSION v. : NEW BRITAIN COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES : FEBRUARY 20, 2004 NO CV 03 0519924S DENNIS M. GAVIGAN : SUPERIOR COURT : TAX
NO. CV 04 4002676 ROSE KRAIZA : SUPERIOR COURT : TAX SESSION v. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF : NEW BRITAIN COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES STATE OF CONNECTICUT : FEBRUARY 2, 2009 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION
Litigation Costs in Contingent Fee Contracts - Loans or Business Expenses An Update By Daniel L. Britt, Jr., and Christopher Eastwood 1 January 31, 2012 Risk is endemic to any business enterprise; none,
T.C. Memo. 2011-100 UNITED STATES TAX COURT LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 13109-08. Filed May 9, 2011. Steven
Nos. 03-892 and 03-907 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. JOHN W. BANKS, II, Respondent. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. SIGITAS
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 0 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 17th day of October, 200, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2005-C -249 CHARLES ALBERT AND
Settling a False Claims Act Case: Practicalities and Pitfalls Brian A. Hill email@example.com Jeffrey M. Hahn firstname.lastname@example.org Overview Because the vast majority of FCA cases are settled, every FCA practitioner
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 Comptroller General of the United States Decision Matter of: U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: Retroactive Reimbursement of Professional
T.C. Memo. 2011-55 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ROBERT K.K. AND DORIS K. PANG, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 916-09. Filed March 9, 2011. In 2002 P-H was involved in
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1802 SOUTHWESTERN LIFE INSURANCE GROUP, Plaintiff, and JOY MOREHEAD, Defendant - Appellant, versus FEWKES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
T.C. Memo. 1999-30 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOHN C. AND KAROL BOWDEN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 11152-95. Filed February 1, 1999. David P. Leeper, for petitioners.
5 Discrimination Based on Disability I. Overview 5.1 Darcie R. Brault Allyson A. Miller II. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) A. The Purpose of the ADA 5.2 B. Who Must Comply with the ADA
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
Internal Revenue Service Number: 200442011 Release Date: 10/15/2004 Department of the Treasury Washington, DC 20224 Index Number: 382.12-08, 468B.02-00 ---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
T.C. Memo. 2010-254 UNITED STATES TAX COURT THOMAS M. AND DONNA GENTILE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 14226-08. Filed November 18, 2010. R determined a deficiency
TO : Suzanne Haynes Chief of Records Analysis and Systems Through: Ronald Russo Director Policy and Systems Office of Programs FROM : Steven A. Bartholow General Counsel SUBJECT : Limited Liability Company
Statement of Andrew D. Pike * Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law American University, Washington College of Law before the Senate Finance Committee October 24, 2003 Mr. Chairman and
PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE. T.C. Summary Opinion 2005-57 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ANTHONY M. FLORES AND SANDRA L. FLORES,
Contingency Fee Agreements: REMEDYING THE ENORMOUS TAX BURDEN OF THE AMT TO CLIENTS. by Andrew J. Foti, JD Candidate MANY CIVIL INJUSTICES EXIST in the world today and normally citizens attempt to remedy
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BARBARA JANE KNUDSEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. No. 13-72077 Tax Court No. 18048-09
WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS20519 ASBESTOS COMPENSATION ACT OF 2000 Henry Cohen, American Law Division Updated April 13, 2000 Abstract. This report
TAXING BANKRUPTCY LIQUIDATION SALES I. Introduction By Bruce A. Emard 1 California taxes liquidation sales of tangible personal property (TPP) under its Sales and Use Tax Law (the Sales and Use Tax Law
RONALD WARRUM, in his capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOSEPH F. SAYYAH, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. No. 04-3753 UNITED STATES COURT
T.C. Memo. 2013-149 UNITED STATES TAX COURT LORI M. MINGO AND JOHN M. MINGO, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket Nos. 17753-07, 21906-10. Filed June 12, 2013. Harold A. Chamberlain,
G Department of Energy No. AL 2014-03 Acquisition Regulation January 6, 2014 ACQUISITION LETTER This Acquisition Letter is issued under the authority of the Senior Procurement Executives of DOE and NNSA.
THE PARTNER S PERSPECTIVE by Charles R. Levun, Esq. Charles R. Levun, JD, CPA, is a Partner in the Chicago-area law firm of Levun, Goodman & Cohen, Adjunct Professor of Law at the IIT Chicago-Kent Graduate
Lien Law: Recognizing and Management in the Personal Injury Case I. INTRODUCTION At first blush, a personal injury plaintiff's procurement of proceeds either through settlement or adjudication may seem
Alert Secured Lender Primes Earlier Federal Tax Lien in Fourth Circuit Split Decision November 19, 2014 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, on Oct. 31, 2014, held in a split decision that
Determining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases This article originally appeared in The Legal Intelligencer on May 1, 2013 As an intellectual property attorney, the federal jurisdiction of patent-related
The Whistleblower Stampede And The New FCA Litigation Paradigm Richard L. Shackelford King & Spalding LLP Actions under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act ( FCA ), 31 U.S.C. 3730(b)-(h), are
SO YOU THINK YOU VE WON THE TAXATION OF SETTLEMENTS AND JUDGMENTS December 7, 2011 Michal E. Yarborough, CPA Carruthers & Roth, P.A. 235 N. Edgeworth Street Post Office Box 540 Greensboro, North Carolina
LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD R. BURKE 21SHERWOOD PLACE POST OFFICE BOX 4078 GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT 06831 WWW.BURKE-LEGAL.COM MEMBER, STATE AND FEDERAL BARS TELEPHONE (203) 219-2301 OF CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK
2005 Davis, Malm & D Agostine, P.C. The "Physical" Requirement in IRC 104(a)(2) and Taxable Interest in a Settlement or Judgment Marjorie Suisman, Esq. Davis, Malm & D Agostine, P.C. The Physical Requirements
SECOND DIVISION FILED: July 3, 2007 No. 1-06-3178 MELISSA CALLAHAN, ) APPEAL FROM THE ) CIRCUIT COURT OF Plaintiff-Appellant, ) COOK COUNTY ) v. ) ) No. 05 L 006795 EDGEWATER CARE & REHABILITATION CENTER,
The Advantages of Qualified Settlement Funds Pi-Yi Mayo* and Bryn Poland 5223 Garth Road Baytown, Texas 77521 *Certified Elder Law Attorney by the National Elder Law Foundation Nothing in this paper is
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: CHERYL A. HERALD f/k/a CHERYL A. ROE, Debtor. FOR PUBLICATION CASE NO. 99-20788 DECISION & ORDER David D. MacKnight, Esq. Kenneth W. Gordon,
GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate September 2005 TAX ADMINISTRATION Systematic Information Sharing Would Help IRS Determine the Deductibility
For more information please visit Strategic Capital Corporation at www.strategiccapital.com, or contact us at Toll Free: 1-866-256-0088 or email us at email@example.com. ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 25th day of February, 2003, are as follows: BY KIMBALL, J.: 2002-C - 1634 RONALD J.
U.S. Supreme Court City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (1986) City of Riverside v. Rivera No. 85-224 Argued March 31, 1986 Decided June 27, 1986 477 U.S. 561 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
Part I Section 61.--Gross Income Defined 26 CFR 1.61-6: Gains derived from dealings in property. (Also 82, 1001; 1.82-1, 1.6045-4) Rev. Rul. 2005-74 ISSUE Whether the transactions in the following situations
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION CHAPTER 585 An Act to amend and reenact 38.2-2206 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 7 of Chapter 3 of Title 8.01 a
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 12 3067 LAWRENCE G. RUPPERT and THOMAS A. LARSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs Appellees, v. ALLIANT
BRB No. 13-0356 SAM CASTILLO v. Claimant-Petitioner SUNDIAL MARINE TUG AND BARGE WORKS, INCORPORATED and SAIF CORPORATION Employer/Carrier- Respondents DATE ISSUED: Apr. 24, 2014 DECISION and ORDER Appeal
What s News in Tax Analysis That Matters from Washington National Tax Foreign Currency Options Section 1256 Contracts or Not? A federal appellate court treated certain over-the-counter foreign currency
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.