-10-
shifting statute. Sinyard v. Commissioner, 268 F.3d 756 (9th
Cir. 2001), affg. T.C. Memo. 1998-364; Vincent v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2005-95.
Petitioner agreed to pay Mr. Faust 40 percent of the jury
award, which percentage amounted to $928,576. Petitioner
stipulated that $537,841 of that amount represented the funds
received under FEHA’s fee-shifting statute. Subtracting $537,841
from $928,576 leaves a $390,735 remainder. Petitioner argues
that she is entitled to exclude from income the entire amount
paid to Mr. Faust. We disagree.
The $537,841 portion paid pursuant to FEHA’s fee-shifting
statute is not excludable under Sinyard v. Commissioner, supra,
and Vincent v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioner failed to
distinguish Sinyard or Vincent, both of which we find
controlling.
We next consider the $390,735 additional amount paid to Mr.
Faust. Petitioner admits that she did not enter into a written
fee agreement with her attorney at the start of the
representation. Petitioner also admits that, after the State of
California paid her the jury award, she orally agreed to pay Mr.
Faust 40 percent of the jury award. Petitioner argues that she
did not pay her attorney a contingent fee because the agreement
between her and Mr. Faust was reached after she received the jury
award. A contingent fee is present, however, if an attorney
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011