Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lawsuit Winners Lose the Tax Battle
LA Times ^ | 1-25-2005 | By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer

Posted on 01/26/2005 9:50:51 AM PST by det dweller too

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last


For the Record
Earlier versions of this story, which also ran in today's newspaper, incorrectly stated that the ruling will affect cases involving auto accidents and medical malpractice. Federal tax law exempts compensation for such "personal injuries." The ruling is likely to affect taxes on money won in lawsuits that result in punitive damages or for claims such as defamation.


To cover the cost of fighting lawsuits — which can drag out for years — lawyers often require clients to agree from the beginning to pay them as much as 40% of any judgment obtained.

But under the court's ruling, all of the final award will be considered as income to the plaintiff — even though he may receive 60% of that amount.

"It is a fundamental rule of taxation that income is to be taxed to the person who earns it, even when it is paid at the person's direction to someone else," the Justice Department and the IRS told the high court.

In a unanimous decision, the justices reversed the rulings of two lower courts, including the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had held that plaintiffs should pay taxes on the amounts they received after subtracting lawyers' fees.

John W. Banks, fired from his post with the California Department of Education, sued the agency for discrimination. Shortly after the trial began, the two sides settled and the department paid Banks $464,000. His lawyer received $150,000 of it.

However, the IRS said Banks owed income taxes on the entire $464,000, and the Supreme Court agreed in the case of Internal Revenue Service vs. Banks.

In many instances, a plaintiff can take the legal fees as an itemized deduction on his tax form. However, those itemized deductions gradually fade for high-income earners. In addition, as the court noted, taxpayers subject to the alternative minimum tax — the special levy created to make sure wealthy filers could not evade taxation by claiming lots of deductions and credits — are not allowed any miscellaneous itemized deductions.

Beyond that, some lawsuits that drag on for years result in a judge awarding legal fees that far exceed the amount won by the plaintiff. For example, Illinois police Officer Cynthia Spina sued her employer for sex discrimination and harassment and was awarded $300,000 in damages. But a judge awarded her lawyer $1 million in legal fees. The IRS insisted that the total amount of $1.3 million was taxable income to Spina, and she ended up "losing every penny of the award," the court was told in one brief.

In his opinion for the court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy acknowledged the ruling could "lead to the perverse result that the plaintiff loses money by winning the suit."

Congress can change the tax laws, and while this case was pending, lawmakers did exempt from a taxpayer's gross income "attorney fees and courts costs" that arose from "a claim of unlawful discrimination."

Lawmakers said they wanted to shield from taxes legal fees that arose from federal civil rights and job discrimination claims.

In cases involving auto accidents and medical malpractice. federal tax law exempts compensation for such "personal injuries." The ruling, however, is likely to affect taxes on money won in lawsuits that result in punitive damages or for claims such as defamation.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist did not vote in the decision.

 

 

1 posted on 01/26/2005 9:50:52 AM PST by det dweller too
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: det dweller too

The money is double taxed since the Lawyer has to claim it too.


2 posted on 01/26/2005 9:54:15 AM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: det dweller too

This is a tough one.

Who do I want to profit less from lawsuits, lawyers or the government?


3 posted on 01/26/2005 9:58:00 AM PST by KidGlock (W-1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
"The money is double taxed since the Lawyer has to claim it too."

If you use money that was taxed to pay a lawyer to fight a parking ticket you can't deduct his fee. Why should you be able to deduce his fee for any other reason?

4 posted on 01/26/2005 9:59:22 AM PST by norwaypinesavage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus

Correctomundo..the trial lawyers are gonna love this...


5 posted on 01/26/2005 9:59:30 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KidGlock

Who do I want to profit less from lawsuits, lawyers or the government?

What's the difference?


6 posted on 01/26/2005 10:02:11 AM PST by yobid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: det dweller too
I've been here. What is an interesting consequence of the gradual elimination of deductions that arises from the action of Alternative Minimum tax calculations is that, while the legal fees paid by the prevailing party in the lawsuit may end up in large part, or in whole, nondeductible, the actual fees aid to the attorney will also be taxable income to him. This can result in a sort of perverse "Double Taxation" of the same money, once by the winner an another time by the attorney.
7 posted on 01/26/2005 10:02:58 AM PST by drt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: det dweller too
So the lawyers have been ruled tax free by another set of lawyers. If the winner of the suit pays the taxes that the lawyer does not have to pay. Really sounds fishy to me. Before you sue incorporate and let the corporation sue then the lawyer fee would be corporate expense.
8 posted on 01/26/2005 10:05:31 AM PST by YOUGOTIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: det dweller too
One way around the potential 'Double Taxation' pitfall would be to somehow have the attorney's fees awarded directly to him by the Court as opposed to having it awarded to the Plaintiff who then remits it to the attorney. I would think this could somehow be worked out in the determination of the final form of the judgment but not sure.
9 posted on 01/26/2005 10:07:14 AM PST by drt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KidGlock
I have a problem with this, in that if the total is considered income, then the cost of earning that income should be deductible. The cost of earning this income is the lawyer fees...

Just as I would not pay tax on gross receipts of a lawn business (if I had to rent the equipment, or paying an employee - I would get to deduct the cost of doing business),

In this case, the lawyer is my employee. I would send the law firm a 1099, and deduct it as a business expense.
10 posted on 01/26/2005 10:10:11 AM PST by babygene (Viable after 87 trimesters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus

The money is double taxed since the Lawyer has to claim it too.


True, and I don't see Workman's Compensation anywhere in the article, wonder if it will effect those, though I don't see how it would.


11 posted on 01/26/2005 10:10:51 AM PST by gidget7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: YOUGOTIT
"Before you sue incorporate and let the corporation sue then the lawyer fee would be corporate expense."

Don't think that would work. A Corporation formed after the acts forming the basis for the suit would not have standing. A possible way out along those lines though is to claim the act being litigated arises out of the conduct of your own personal business and try to include both income and expenses associated with the suit on Schedule C of your Tax Return.

12 posted on 01/26/2005 10:13:04 AM PST by drt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: drt1

have the attorney's fees awarded directly to him by the Court

They usually are already, in that the lawyer gets the award, and deducts his portion, then issues a check to his client for the remaining amount.

I know a lawyer and this is common practice.


13 posted on 01/26/2005 10:14:24 AM PST by gidget7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: det dweller too
...even if a large portion of it went to lawyers.

Then that portion should be a deductible expense.

14 posted on 01/26/2005 10:14:44 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (All I ask from livin' is to have no chains on me. All I ask from dyin' is to go naturally.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gidget7
While it is true that the Gross amount of the award is often disbursed directly to the attorney, it is not always so and the records of the Court will show the award to the Plaintiff/attorney's client. Also, in cases where subsequent collection action is necessry in executing the judgment the amounts may, or may not, flow in this fashion.

Ex. Court awards 1M$ judgment, Plaintiff hires another collections attorney to effect execution or Plaintiff executes on his own. The originl attorney very probably would not be in the direct flow unless he had filed a lein against the award, for example.

15 posted on 01/26/2005 10:22:38 AM PST by drt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: det dweller too
It is possible, under this scenario, to win a large settlement and owe more in taxes than you net from the judgment.

Voila!

Back door tort reform!

This is almost as good a way to discourage frivolous lawsuits as "loser pays," though I would prefer "loser pays."

16 posted on 01/26/2005 10:25:54 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
Then that portion should be a deductible expense.

We are talking about the IRS here.

Logic does not apply.

17 posted on 01/26/2005 10:27:01 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: det dweller too
One trap I fell into in a previous thread on this case was arguing "what should the law be". However, this should be an arguement about "what is the law". The judges should read the laws and the Constitution and rule on those. If the laws as written are bad, then they should be rewritten by congress not by judges.

I haven't dug deeply enough into the facts of the case to conclude if the Supreme Court did what they should be doing. If they did just rule correctly on a bad law, then the Supreme Court did its job.

18 posted on 01/26/2005 10:33:31 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Blackwell for Governor 2006: hated by the 'Rats, feared by the RINOs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Logic does not apply.

Sorry. I lost my mind. But only for a minute or two.


19 posted on 01/26/2005 10:34:13 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (All I ask from livin' is to have no chains on me. All I ask from dyin' is to go naturally.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: YOUGOTIT
So the lawyers have been ruled tax free by another set of lawyers

Where did you get that from? Both the Plaintiff and the lawyer must pay taxes. The Plaintiff on the entire amount and the lawyer on the attorney fee portion.

20 posted on 01/26/2005 10:37:43 AM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson