翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Commissioner of Registration
・ Commissioner of Revenue and Finance
・ Commissioner of Supply
・ Commissioner of Taxation (Australia)
・ Commissioner of the NBA
・ Commissioner of the NBL Canada
・ Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police
・ Commissioner of the Republic
・ Commissioner of the Republic (Provisional Government)
・ Commissioner of the Revenue
・ Commissioner of Transport for London
・ Commissioner of Yukon
・ Commissioner Roman
・ Commissioner Service
・ Commissioner Street (Johannesburg)
Commissioner v. Banks
・ Commissioner v. Boylston Market Ass'n
・ Commissioner v. Duberstein
・ Commissioner v. Early
・ Commissioner v. First Security Bank of Utah, N.A.
・ Commissioner v. Flowers
・ Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.
・ Commissioner v. Groetzinger
・ Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co.
・ Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co.
・ Commissioner v. Kowalski
・ Commissioner v. LoBue
・ Commissioner v. Soliman
・ Commissioner v. Sunnen
・ Commissioner v. Tufts


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Commissioner v. Banks : ウィキペディア英語版
Commissioner v. Banks

''Commissioner v. Banks'', 543 U.S. 426 (2005), together with ''Commissioner v. Banaitis'', was a case decided before the Supreme Court of the United States, dealing with the issue of whether the portion of a money judgment or settlement paid to a taxpayer's attorney under a contingent-fee agreement is income to the taxpayer for federal income tax purposes. The Supreme Court held when a taxpayer's recovery constitutes income, the taxpayer's income includes the portion of the recovery paid to the attorney as a contingent fee.〔''Id''. at 430〕 Employment cases are an exception to this Supreme Court ruling because of the Civil Rights Tax Relief in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.〔(Avoiding a Contingency Fee Tax Trap Banaitis Commissioner Banks )〕 The Civil Rights Tax Relief amended Internal Revenue Service § 62(a) to permit taxpayers to subtract attorney’s fees from gross income in arriving at adjusted gross income.〔American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, § 703.〕
==Background==
In the first case, John W. Banks, II was fired from his job with the California Department of Education. He retained an attorney on a contingent-fee basis and filed a civil suit against his employer alleging employment discrimination against his employer. Banks settled the case for $464,000 and paid $150,000 to his lawyer. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) contended that the entire amount was income to Banks, a position upheld by the United States Tax Court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of Banks, holding the lawyer's share could be excluded from the taxpayer's gross income. The Court of Appeals reasoned the contingent-fee arrangement “is more like a partial assignment of income-producing property than an assignment of income.” Under this theory, Banks and his attorney were in effect partners in a joint venture who shared a recovery, and who should each be taxed only on his separate part.
In the second case, Sigitas J. Banaitis, a vice president of the Bank of California, retained an attorney on a contingent-fee basis and sued the bank and its successor in ownership, the Mitsubishi Bank, for interference with his employment agreement and wrongful discharge. The parties settled the case. The defendants paid $4.9 million to Banaitis and $3.9 million to his attorney, following the formula set forth in the contingent-fee contract. The IRS viewed the entire amount as gross income to Banaitis. This view was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reasoned that because the state law granted attorneys a superior lien in the contingent-fee portion of any recovery, that part of Banaitis’ settlement was not includable as gross income.
Both cases were then heard by the United States Supreme Court.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Commissioner v. Banks」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.