- 27 -
abide by a client’s decision whether to accept an offer
of settlement of a matter. * * *
Although petitioner may have entrusted Fox & Fox with the details
of his litigation, ultimate control was not relinquished. If
petitioner wanted to proceed without Fox & Fox, he could have
obtained new representation.
The assignment of income doctrine was originated by the
Supreme Court and has evolved over the past 70 years. See
Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122 (1940); Helvering v. Horst, 311
U.S. 112 (1940); Lucas v. Earl, supra. Although legislation may
result in anomalous or inequitable results with respect to
particular taxpayers, we are not in a position to address those
policy questions. So, for example, if the AMT computation
effectively renders de minimis a taxpayer’s recovery due to the
nondeductibility of the attorney’s fees, we should not be tempted
to modify established assignment of income principles to remedy
the situation. That could result in a certain class of
taxpayer’s (those who receive reportable income from judgments)
being treated differently from all other taxpayers who are
subject to the AMT. These are matters within Congress’ authority
to decide. Congress, not the Courts, is the final arbiter of how
the tax burden is to be borne by taxpayers.
Even if we were willing to follow the Cotnam and/or Estate
of Clarks “attorney’s lien” rationale, our analysis of the
Wisconsin statutes and case law would not result in excluding the
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011