Eldon R. Kenseth and Susan M. Kenseth - Page 87




                                        - 87 -                                          
         because the recoveries related to taxpayer’s wrongful termination              
         as an employee, that the fees so deducted by the taxpayer were                 
         employee business expenses properly treated as itemized                        
         deductions subject to the 2-percent floor and the AMT.  In so                  
         doing, the courts rejected the taxpayer’s argument that the                    
         deductible legal fees were Schedule C expenses because,                        
         notwithstanding his wrongful termination as an employee, he had                
         thereafter gone into the management consulting business as an                  
         independent contractor.  The settlement proceeds were                          
         compensation ordinary income and did not represent amounts                     
         received on the disposition of intangible assets.  Consequently,               
         the legal fees were not incurred in a disposition and could not                
         be netted against the settlement proceeds received.58                          


               58 Respondent argues in the alternative in the case at hand              
          that if Mr. Kenseth was able to assign an interest in his cause               
          of action to Fox & Fox, that assignment was itself a taxable                  
          transaction.  Mr. Kenseth entered into the contingent fee                     
          agreement in 1991; that year is not before us.  Therefore, we are             
          not required to consider the tax consequences, if any, of the                 
          signing of the contingent fee agreement.  See Schulze v.                      
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-263 (assignment of claim in 1975 by             
          husband to wife in connection with divorce shifted burden of                  
          taxation on amounts recovered on that claim in 1976; we found it              
          unnecessary to consider the Commissioner's alternative argument               
          that the assignment was a taxable event in the earlier year,                  
          because that year was not before us).                                         
               The Justice Department in its brief on appeal to the Court               
          of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Davis v. Commissioner,                 
          T.C. Memo. 1998-248, affd. per curiam     F.3d     (11th Cir.                 
          2000) (see supra note 36), also made the alternative argument--               
          not raised by the Commissioner in the Tax Court--that the                     
          contingent fee agreement is a transfer of an interest in the fee              
                                                               (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011