The Fruit Of The Tree

 

I have a friend who is pressing an employment lawsuit.

It is not pretty: falsified records, deleted files, retaliatory firings. The legal process itself is glacial: may we live long enough to see the end. They enter discovery soon. I suspect the employer/defendant will then seek to settle rather than risk any further public disclosure.

I suppose I am my friend’s tax advisor.

The taxation of litigation is not what it used to be.

Let’s travel back to 2005. The Supreme Court was hearing two cases involving income recognition and legal contingency fees.

ISSUE: You sue for $100 grand. If you win, the attorney takes 30 percent. Are you taxed on $100 grand or on $70 grand?

The Appeals courts had split, which is how the Supreme Court got involved.

We will restrict ourselves to one case: Banks v Commissioner. Banks had brought an employment lawsuit. Before going to trial, he settled for $464,000 and paid a contingency fee of $150 grand. The Sixth Circuit reasoned there was no extant income when the contingency was created, making the agreement more akin to a division of property (the claim) than a division of spoils (the settlement). Banks did not have a sufficiently uninterrupted claim to require reporting of the entire amount ($464,000).

The Supreme Court took a different tack and saw anticipatory assignment of income. This is a classic tax doctrine; one I learned in school as “fruit of the tree.” The concept is that income (the fruit) should be taxed to the person earning or generating it (the tree). An example would be my working all week but having my paycheck go to my child. I earned the paycheck and cannot avoid taxation by redirecting its payment.

This result could have been disastrous to Banks, requiring him to pay taxes on $150 grand which he did not receive. Pause to consider that his attorney was also reporting the same $150 grand in income, so the contingency fee was being taxed twice. Unless there was a safety valve somewhere, this was not taxation – it was confiscation.

But Banks fortunately had a safety valve: itemized deductions. Take a look at this itemized deduction schedule (Schedule A) for 2015: 

             

Go to the bottom where you see “Miscellaneous Deductions.”

You know what was a miscellaneous deduction? Yes, contingency fees paid an attorney on a legal judgement or settlement.

Was it a perfect answer? No. The deduction came after Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), so a tax attribute based on AGI would be unfortunately skewed. It was an itemized deduction, and the taxpayer may not have been itemizing except for the contingency fee. And it was a “miscellaneous” itemized deduction, meaning that the taxpayer had to subtract 2% of AGI off-the-top before getting to the deductible amount.

Still, it was something and much better than nothing.

Then the tax law changed with the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA).

One of the things that the TCJA did was to eliminate almost all miscellaneous itemized deductions, beginning in 2018.

Those contingency fees were no longer deductible.

Congress argued that it was simplifying the tax Code by reducing the number of taxpayers who were itemizing. While this result did happen, Congress also eliminated the economic handcuff to the Banks case: a deduction somewhere on a tax return to offset that severe 100% income recognition.

COMMENT: Let’s clarify this issue by separating legal fees between business and nonbusiness lawsuits. Business legal fees are still deductible. Nonbusiness legal fees (think employment lawsuits) are generally nondeductible. There still exists a narrow deduction for selected nonbusiness litigation (such as certain discrimination and whistleblower claims), but for the vast majority of nonbusiness litigation there simply is no deduction for legal fees.

Let’s look at the Eiler case.

James and Kathryn Eiler sued LexisNexis, Equifax, Experian and Trans Union for inaccurate, incomplete or otherwise injurious information on their credit reports. The parties settled for $64,750, of which $4,700 went to the Eilers.

COMMENT: The comment writes itself, I would say.

The IRS came in, eyes gleaming and jaws slavering, with a Notice of Deficiency totaling over $11 grand.

The Eilers were in a tough spot. Under Banks the IRS was correct, and there remained only a few ways to deduct related nonbusiness legal fees. The Eilers started thinking: we brought action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which is kinda-sorta like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), which has explicit discrimination protections. If the FCRA is like the ECOA, and if “unlawful discrimination” includes “enforcement of civil rights,” and if the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie …

The Eilers wanted a deduction because of civil rights discrimination.

To be accurate, the Eilers just wanted a deduction. They were being creative on how to get there.

And the Tax Court shot them down.

They received $4,700 and owed over $11 grand.

My thoughts?

I question whether the Supreme Court would decide Banks the same way given today’s tax Code. When a line of reasoning (assignment of income rather than co-ownership of a claim) leads to absurd results (such as double taxation of the same “fruit”), a sober and responsible person would conclude that the reasoning is flawed.

And there you have the taxation of nonbusiness litigation since 2018.

Our case this time was Eiler v Commissioner, 167 T.C. No. 3, Docket No. 16903-22, 7/14/2026.

If Only

 

It isn’t much. The Tax Court decision itself is scarcely 4 pages long.

Still, it made me laugh.

It also made me think that - if he could pull it off - this might have been best tax planning idea I ever came across.

His name is Kelby Daniel Reyes Barrios (Barrios). He lives in California and he appears to be a gig worker.

He filed a 2022 tax return showing $8,964 of total income.

The IRS was chasing him for $3,842 of additional tax on unreported income of $15,206.

COMMENT: I still don’t see how that is enough money to live on, not to mention … California.

Barrios filed a timely petition with the Tax Court.

Then he disappeared.

The IRS motioned for summary judgement. The Court, to its credit, provided Barrios a final opportunity to respond.

He ghosted.

The only thing the Court had to review in his favor was his declaration on the Court filing:

On his petition he asserted that he did not report the income because the tax ‘forms were mailed to a [previous] address’ and he received them only after filing his return.”

We have probably all heard a version of this logic: no form, no tax.

The IRS held for the IRS, of course. The tax Code asserts that all income is reportable, whether it draws a 1099 or not (granted, the “not” is an increasingly endangered species).

Still, think about it: one could beat the tax man by getting a return in before 1099s are distributed.

If only.

Our case this time was Kelby Daniel Reyes Barrios, T.C. Memo 2026-32.

Paying Tax Without Setting Foot In California

 

I expect that many tax practitioners would consider state taxes to be a bane in their professional practice. I – unsolicited and without trying – have known more than a few.

Let’s limit our discussion to state income tax.

Mind you, we are not discussing the right of a state to tax. I practice within a Tristate area (Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio) and all three states impose business and personal income taxes. Yes, it can get messy. Take bonus depreciation, for example. This is a federal tax provision allowing the accelerated deduction of equipment and similar asset purchases. Some states will follow along with the federal treatment, others will ignore it completely, and yet others will have some odd hybrid. Take a relatively simple business return with activities across multiple states, and depreciation alone can raise the difficulty level of the return.

Mind you, some states are user-friendly with their tax laws (at least, as much as possible), but some states do not even pretend to be.

I am going to crimp from a notorious California tax case, changing the underlying taxpayer just a smidge to someone you will recognize.

Let’s take a partially retired Cincinnati tax CPA. He has several California clients, both business and personal. He consults, prepares returns and assists with tax agency correspondence and issues.  He of course invoices for his work, and some of those California clients issue him a Form 1099 to memorialize the payment. Critically, he never sets foot in California, and he has not for decades.

Does our Cincinnati tax CPA need to file a California income tax return?

Let’s walk through this.

The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) annually matches 1099s to filed returns to identify individuals who may not have filed required California returns. The FTB saw those California-origin 1099s and contacted our valiant protagonist, who explained that he did not live in California, had not been in California in years, and – given its current deterioration – had no intention to ever visit California for any reason.

The FTB rejected his explanation, explaining that he had performed services for California businesses and thus had California-source income. The FTB sent a Proposed Assessment for tax, penalty and interest.

Our scrappy hero protested the assessment.

The Office of Tax Appeals (a/k/a Vought) decided as follows:

California imposes a tax on the taxable income of every nonresident, broadly defined as “gross income and deductions derived from sources within this state.”

There is no dispute that appellant, as owner of a sole proprietorship … conducted his … business as a sole proprietor.”

Regulation 17951-4 does not define the term ‘unitary business,’ but the definition can be inferred from Regulation 17951-4(b) … applying to a nonresident’s business, trade or profession … conducted partly within and partly without the state, where the part conducted within the state and the part conducted without the state are not so separate and distinct from and unconnected to each other to be separate businesses, trades or professions.”

Here, appellant … conducted a one-service business …. Therefore, we find that appellant was conducting a unitary business.”

What is the point of all this gum flapping?

California wants to apportion the California invoices to California. They do not even care if you were ever there.

Under the statutory grant of authority of R&TC section 25136(b), the FTB promulgated Regulation 25136-2, which provides detailed market-based sales factor sourcing provisions that implement and interpret R&TC section 25136.”

Pray tell, oh Oracle. How shall R&TC section 25136 be interpreted?

Regulation 25136-2(c) states that sales from services are assigned to [California] to the extent the customer of the taxpayer receives the benefit of the service in [California].”

Here is the wrap:

       

I do not mean to distract the lofty legal minds at the big-building-with-marble columns, but don’t you have to start with more-than-one if you are uniting down to one? Is there a trick-of-the-language thing happening here? Asking for a friend.

The case we are discussing (with some literary license) is Appeal of Bindley (CA OTA, May 30, 2019, No. 18032402).

What got me thinking about Bindley is the (very) recent case of Xavier Garcia-Rojas v FTB, A172054, CA Ct of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, 5/1/26.

Garcia-Rojas was a radiologist from Texas. He read images from around the nation, some of which came from California. The FTB wanted its pound of flesh, relying on Appeal of Bindley above.

This is, BTW, how bad tax law metastasizes. The first court misses the pitch altogether, and the next court just piggybacks.

The Court fortunately recognized the issue:

Here is the decision:

Bindley held that a “self-employed screenplay writer” in Arizona was a unitary business, and thus could be taxed under regulation 17951-4(c). (Bindley, at pp. 1, 4–5.) But in doing so, it focused on the tests to determine whether two different businesses are unitary. (Bindley, at pp. 4–5.) It ignored that there must be separate business activities to unite. (Ibid.; Bunzl Distribution USA, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd., supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 991.) The Board also relies on regulation 25120, subdivision (b), but that regulation states it applies only if there are “two or more businesses of a single taxpayer.” Thus, the Board failed to show that Garcia-Rojas is a unitary business as a matter of law.

It took it a while but they eventually got it right. This did not help Bindley, however, who was robbed on an issue a second-year accounting student could spot.

This seems to be an awful lot of work just to determine if our winsome-CPA-hero-of-the-story needs to file a nonresident California tax return. It is also why many CPAs consider state tax to be the bane of their practice.