Debra Susan Dickerson - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
          portion used to satisfy attorney’s fees and court costs and                 
          related legal expenses.3                                                    
               B. Earned Income Credit                                                
               In 1995, petitioner lived with Jeffery S. Roland (Mr.                  
          Roland).  Although petitioner and Mr. Roland were not married,              
          they lived together as common-law husband and wife.  Mr. Roland’s           
          younger sister, Amanda Roland (Amanda), lived with petitioner and           
          Mr. Roland for a portion of the year.  At the time, Amanda was 20           
          years old.                                                                  
               Petitioner filed a joint return for 1995 with Mr. Roland.              
          On that return, petitioner and Mr. Roland claimed both a                    
          dependency exemption for, and an earned income credit with                  
          respect to, Amanda, who was described as their foster child.                




               3 At trial, respondent conceded that the portion of the                
          $40,000 recovery that was used to pay attorney’s fees and court             
          costs and related legal expenses does not constitute gross                  
          income.  See Davis v. Commissioner, 210 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir.                
          2000), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1998-248.  In Davis, the Court           
          of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit followed the Court of Appeals           
          for the Fifth Circuit and held that under Alabama law, amounts              
          paid to an attorney, subject to a contingency fee arrangement,              
          are excludable from gross income.  See Cotnam v. Commissioner,              
          263 F.2d 119 (5th Cir. 1959), affg. in part and revg. in part 28            
          T.C. 947 (1957).  Although we do not share this view, see Kenseth           
          v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 399 (2000), under the so-called Golsen            
          rule we follow the law of the circuit to which a case is                    
          appealable.  See Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970),                
          affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971).                                        
               Consistent with respondent’s concession, petitioner is not             
          entitled to deduct the portion of the recovery that was used to             
          pay attorney’s fees and court costs and related legal expenses.             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011