- 12 - Petitioners argue in the alternative that they are in the "identical position as the taxpayers in Cotnam and Davis." See Cotnam v. Commissioner, 263 F.2d 119 (5th Cir. 1959), affg. in part and revg. in part 28 T.C. 947 (1957); Davis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-248. While as to the salient facts this may be true, petitioners' legal position is not the same. In Cotnam v. Commissioner, supra at 125, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that under 46 Ala. Code sec. 64 (1940), attorneys have the same right over "suits, judgments, and decrees for money" as their clients, so the taxpayer in that case did not realize income as to her attorneys' interests of 40 percent in her cause of action and judgment. Davis v. Commissioner, supra, involving the case of a taxpayer who was a resident of Alabama, followed Cotnam. See Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971). The law of Alabama, as analyzed in Cotnam, is not the law of California, the State of petitioners' residence during all times relevant here. The parties have not brought to our attention any statute of California regulating attorney's liens, and we are aware of none. Nevertheless, the case law of California is clear that liens for attorney's fees, whether created expressly or implied from a retainer agreement, do not transfer to the attorney an ownership or proprietary interest in the client'sPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011