- 15 - 113 T.C. 152 (1994); Coady v. Commissioner, 213 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000), affg. T.C. Memo. 1998-291; O’Brien v. Commissioner, 319 F.2d 532 (3d Cir. 1963). In a recent case, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit3 held that a defendant’s payment of a plaintiff’s attorney’s fees under a fee shifting statute results in income to the plaintiff. Sinyard v. Commissioner, 268 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2001), affg. T.C. Memo. 1998-364. That same result pertains even though the attorney was hired under a contingent fee agreement. Id. In Sinyard, the court applied the discharge of indebtedness and constructive receipt doctrines as the rationale for its holding. We find nothing in the case at bar to cause us to differ from our previous analyses in this regard. The fact that the attorney’s fees were paid directly from petitioner’s settlement proceeds does not alter the amount of petitioner’s total settlement recovery. Petitioner settled the case for $8,728,559. The defendants wrote one check to petitioner for $4,864,547 and one check to petitioner’s attorney, Charles J. Merten, for $3,864,012. The fact that two checks were written does not change the facts that (1) petitioner was owed $8,728,559 from the defendants for the settlement amount and (2) Merten was 3 Petitioner’s case would be appealable to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.Page: 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