- 5 - not deduct, as an itemized deduction, any expenses related to the malicious prosecution lawsuit. Respondent on March 27, 2002, issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency. In calculating the subject tax deficiency of $157,357, respondent included in petitioner’s gross income the full amount of the lawsuit settlement proceeds and treated the attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred in connection therewith as a miscellaneous itemized deduction. Respondent further determined that petitioner was liable for the section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty in the amount of $31,471 on account of negligence or disregard of rules and regulations. After the instant case was commenced, the parties submitted stipulations of settled issues addressing certain of the adjustments made in the notice of deficiency. As regards the itemized deductions, specifically the contingent attorney’s fees paid directly to Mr. Riley, the parties stipulated: In the Notice of Deficiency, Respondent allowed Petitioner’s contingent attorney’s fees as an itemized deduction. Venue for appeal lies to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The parties agree that Petitioner’s gross income from the damage award does not include the portion of the award paid directly to her attorney, and Petitioner is not entitled to an itemized deduction for the attorney’s fees paid to her attorney. See Srivastava v. Commissioner, 220 F.3d 353, 365 (5th Cir. 2000), rev’g and remanding in part, and aff’g on another issue, T.C. Memo. 1998-362. Concerning the penalty, their stipulation reads: The parties agree that if it is determined that there is an underpayment of Petitioner’s 1998 incomePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011