New England Legal Foundation
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission & History
    • Annual Reports
    • Board of Directors
    • State Advisory Councils >
      • Connecticut
      • Maine
      • Massachusetts
      • New Hampshire
      • Rhode Island
      • Vermont
    • Trustees
    • Members
    • Staff
    • Job & Internship Opportunities
  • News & Events
  • Docket
  • Briefs
  • Donate
  • Contact

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Banks

2/2/2005

 
Supreme Court Leaves For Another Day Question of Whether Attorneys’ Fees Paid by the Federal Government to a Public Interest Law Firm Under a Federal Fee-Shifting Statute Are Taxable to the  Public Interest Law Firm’s Client 

The issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in this case was whether income taxable to a plaintiff includes the portion of the recovery paid to the plaintiff’s lawyer as a contingency fee.  In its decision issued on January 24, 2005, the Supreme Court held in the Commissioner’s favor that the contingency fee amount had to be included in the plaintiff’s income, thereby resolving a split that had developed in the Circuit Courts on this issue.  

An amicus curiae brief was filed by NELF and other nonprofit Public Interest Law Firms (“PILFs”) including Mountain States Legal Foundation (which was the principal drafter of the brief), because of a concern among PILFs that the IRS would view a favorable result in this case as support for its recently developed position that, likewise, when attorneys’ fees are paid by the federal government to a PILF under a federal fee-shifting statute (for example under 42 U.S.C. § 1988), those fees are taxable to the PILF’s client.  NELF and the other amici argued that if the Supreme Court’s decision gave any credence to this position it would have a severely adverse impact on the PILFs’ ability to undertake their vital role in the judicial system of providing free legal services in matters of broad public interest to clients who could not otherwise afford legal representation.  In such cases, while NELF and the other amici do not charge for legal representation, Congress intended for them to take advantage of various federal fee-shifting statutes.  This intent would be violated if the IRS attempted to tax clients for amounts paid to organizations like NELF under these statutes.  

Acknowledging these concerns in its decision, the Supreme Court stated that, in its view, it did not have to address them because, first, in the matter before it the fees paid to attorneys were calculated solely on the basis of private contingent fee contracts and, second, the Jobs Creation Act (“Act”) of 2004, which was passed after this case arose, “redresses the concern for many, perhaps most, claims governed by fee-shifting statutes.”  Specifically, Section 703 of the Act  amended the Internal Revenue Code by adding a section that allows a taxpayer, in computing adjusted gross income, to deduct “attorney fees and court costs paid by, or on behalf of, the taxpayer in connection with any action involving a claim of unlawful discrimination.”  The Act defines “unlawful discrimination” to include a number of specific federal statutes, any federal whistleblower statute, any federal, state or local law “providing for the enforcement of civil rights” or “regulating any aspect of the employment relationship….,” etc.  It should be noted that the Act was signed into law on October 22, 2004, well after all briefs were filed in this case. 

 



Comments are closed.

    The Docket

    To obtain a copy of any of NELF's briefs, contact us at info@nelfonline.org.

    Categories

    All
    1st Circuit Court Of Appeals
    2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    Business Litigation Session
    CT
    CT Superior Court
    CT Supreme Court
    Employer Employee Relationships
    February 2018
    February 2019
    Government Regulation/Administration Of Justice
    MA
    MA Appeals Court
    MA Division Of Administrative Law Appeals
    March 2015
    MA Superior Court
    MA Supreme Judicial Court
    MA US District Court
    ME
    ME Supreme Judicial Court
    NH
    NH Supreme Court
    Property Rights
    RI
    RI Supreme Court
    SCOTUS
    United States Supreme Court
    US Court Of Appeals Federal Circuit
    US District Court ME
    VT
    VT Supreme Court

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2020
    June 2020
    January 2020
    June 2019
    April 2019
    October 2018
    June 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    October 2016
    June 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    June 2014
    February 2014
    October 2013
    June 2013
    February 2013
    October 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    October 2010
    June 2010
    February 2010
    October 2009
    February 2009
    October 2008
    June 2008
    February 2008
    October 2007
    June 2007
    October 2006
    June 2006
    February 2006
    October 2005
    June 2005
    February 2005
    October 2004
    June 2004
    February 2004
    October 2003
    May 2003
    February 2003
    September 2002
    May 2002
    February 2002
    May 2001