Of Chivalry and Attorney Fees

Thanks for sharing!
Image source: www.wpclipart.com

Where else but at the tax court can you learn about The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes, and of Malta, which was established in the mid-eleventh century, and qui tam litigation, which first showed up in the thirteenth century–all in the same case?

Other than the history lesson, most of T.C. Memo. 2010-272 (Pace) is fairly mundane, merely another litany of poor recordkeeping on the part of the taxpayer, who is a Knight in Obedience in the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes, and of Malta. One issue of interest is the proper treatment of lawyers’ litigation expenses in contingency cases.

In general, out-of-pocket expenses paid by an attorney prior to the settlement of a case are deductible in the year paid (assuming cash basis). There’s an exception for contingency cases, where the lawyer gets paid a portion of the settlement if the case is successful. In that situation, treatment of the expenses depends on whether the lawyer has a contractual right to be reimbursed for expenses, or simply collects a percentage of the settlement without a separate reimbursement.

Having a contractual right for reimbursement (called a net fee contract) means the expenses are deductible in the year incurred. No contractual arrangement (called a gross fee contract) has no tax consequences when the expenses are paid–the advance of costs is treated like a loan, and excluded from income. If the lawyer fails to win the case and receives no compensation, the advanced expenses are deductible as a bad debt in the year the case is closed.

In this case, in addition to other litigation costs for non-contingency cases, the taxpayer deducted the costs of a gross fee contract in the year of settlement, when he received his contingent fee. The court said he should have excluded the costs, as opposed to deducting them, though the end result is the same.

The problem? The amount of the costs was in dispute, because of the taxpayer’s poor records.

The court sorted verifiable costs between contingency and non-contingency cases and the taxpayer ended up with only a partial deduction. To quote the tax court, “the Code imposes a more exact and less merciful accounting: business expenses, charitable contributions, and the costs of everyday life must be identified, segregated, and substantiated by reliable documents and credible testimony.”

Taxing Lesson: Learn from history: Paperwork is required, even if you’re a knight.

***

Other posts you might enjoy

Decisions — Point of Interest Image source: wpclipart.com   What's the point? In 149 T.C. No. 17 (CreditGuard of America, Inc.), the court answers the question of when a corporation has to start paying interest on a tax liability. The taxpayer, a credit counseling organization, was incorporated in Florida in 19...
Decisions — Which came first? Image source: openclipart.org   What came first, tax law or exclusions from tax law? In a situation involving the taxation of self-employment income, the exclusion from self-employment tax for rentals from real estate and from personal property leased with the real estate came about at t...
Decisions — Form matters Image source: ©Stevies ID 1869706 Dreamstime Stock Photos   Currently, the IRS website has about 900 forms that can be downloaded for filing purposes. Using the right form can make a difference when you're seeking a refund as an innocent spouse (Palomares) or trying to convince the IRS t...
Decisions — Canine silence Image source: wpclipart.com   In the Arthur Conan Doyle short story, Silver Blaze, fictional detective Sherlock Holmes solved the case by inferring intent from silence—the significance of a dog who didn't bark. In a tax court case this week (149 T.C. No. 2, Gregory), internal revenue ...
Posted in Taxing Lessons From Court Decisions Tagged with: , ,