- 13 - As such, we agree with respondent’s position in that the noneconomic damages were the only damages excludable under section 104(a)(2). Petitioner must include his economic and punitive damages within his gross income for taxable year 1995. II. Attorney Contingent Fee Agreements Petitioner also seeks to exclude from his gross income $3,864,012, the portion of the settlement BCal paid directly to Merten, his attorney, pursuant to the two contingent fee agreements. Here again, we consider the broad reach of section 61 and whether, under some theory, the amount paid to petitioner’s attorney should be excluded from gross income. Numerous taxpayers have attempted to find some approach for excluding from income the portion paid to their attorneys from judgment or settlement damages. This Court has not approved any such approach except where the case was appealable to a Court of Appeals with a contrary view. This Court in Kenseth v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 399 (2000), affd. 259 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001), held that a contingent fee agreement did not result in an excludable assignment of income from the taxpayer. See Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940); Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930). In addition, we observed that the right created in an attorney pursuant to a contingent fee agreement was the right to be paid for services rendered--a right created in any creditor-debtor relationship. Under thisPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011