Commissioner v. Banks
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Commissioner_v._Banks an entity of type: Thing
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. Employment cases are an exception to this Supreme Court ruling because of the in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The Civil Rights Tax Relief amended Internal Revenue Code § 62(a) to permit taxpayers to subtract attorney's fees from gross income in arriving at adjusted
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Commissioner v. Banks
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
v.
rdf:langString
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
rdf:langString
John W. Banks II
rdf:langString
Sigitas J. Banaitis
xsd:integer
14611546
xsd:integer
992139935
rdf:langString
Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
426
xsd:integer
543
xsd:gMonthDay
--11-01
xsd:integer
2004
rdf:langString
Commissioner v. Banks,
xsd:gMonthDay
--01-24
xsd:integer
2005
rdf:langString
Stephen
rdf:langString
Jennifer L.
rdf:langString
Leah Witcher
rdf:langString
v.
rdf:langString
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
rdf:langString
John W. Banks II
rdf:langString
Sigitas J. Banaitis
rdf:langString
When a litigant's recovery constitutes income, the litigant's income includes the portion of the recovery paid to the attorney as a contingent fee.
rdf:langString
Jackson
rdf:langString
Black
rdf:langString
Loomis
rdf:langString
Commissioner v. Banks
rdf:langString
Kennedy
xsd:integer
47
113
115
rdf:langString
A Capital Gains Anomaly: Commissioner v. Banks and the Proceeds from Lawsuits
rdf:langString
Taxation of Contingent Attorney Fees: Did the Supreme Court Correctly Decide Commissioner v. Banks?
rdf:langString
Won the Legal Battle, but at What Tax Cost to your Client: Tax Consequences of Contingency Fee Arrangements Leading up to and after Commissioner v. Banks
xsd:integer
33
43
57
xsd:integer
2005
2006
2011
rdf:langString
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. Employment cases are an exception to this Supreme Court ruling because of the in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The Civil Rights Tax Relief amended Internal Revenue Code § 62(a) to permit taxpayers to subtract attorney's fees from gross income in arriving at adjusted gross income.
rdf:langString
Baylor L. Rev.
rdf:langString
N. Ky. L. Rev.
rdf:langString
St. Mary's L.J.
rdf:langString
Rehnquist
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
10092