AMW Investments, Inc. - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         

          ascertain whether the fees are business or personal in nature.              
          United States v. Gilmore, 372 U.S. 39 (1963).  The fact that                
          legal fees are paid by a taxpayer on behalf of another person's             
          criminal defense will not foreclose a deduction by the taxpayer             
          when the alleged criminal activity relates to the taxpayer’s                
          trade or business.  See Commissioner v. Tellier, supra;                     
          Conforte v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1160, 1189-1190 (1980), affd,             
          in part and revd. in part 693 F.2d 587 (9th Cir. 1982);                     
          Johnson v. Commissioner, supra at 347-348 (1979); cf.                       
          Pantages Theatre Co. v. Welch, 71 F.2d 68 (9th Cir. 1934)                   
          (corporation could not deduct legal expenses paid to defend its             
          president and majority shareholder in defense of charges that he            
          raped a prospective client of the corporation); Sturdivant v.               
          Commissioner, 15 T.C. 880 (1950) (partnership could not deduct              
          legal expenses paid to defend two of its partners and an employee           
          charged with the murder of a business associate); Price v.                  
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1973-65 (taxpayer could not deduct                 
          legal fees incurred by management consultant for criminal defense           
          of the fraudulent sale of securities because consultant was not             
          in the trade or business of selling securities).                            
               In Lohrke v. Commissioner, supra at 688, the Court adopted a           
          two prong test for determining when a taxpayer may deduct the               
          legal expenses of another.  First, the Court looked to the                  
          purpose or motive that caused the taxpayer to pay the other                 

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011