Preserving Privilege
In light of Textron, some companies might want to reevaluate their tax accrual workpaper policies.
October 31, 2009 at 08:00 PM
6 minute read
The Textron case on work-product privilege centered on the company's tax accrual workpapers. The memos are a normal part of a company's financial statements, showing the analysis a company (and, often, its lawyers and accountants) used to calculate the reserves it sets aside for uncertain tax positions, which are common in tax law. In laymen's terms, tax accrual workpapers embody that math-class platitude to “show your work.”
Companies handle tax accrual workpapers differently, and, especially in light of Textron, some might want to reevaluate their policies. But it's a tricky balance to go into enough detail without destroying privilege.
“In the Textron case, it sounds like it was just a spreadsheet with numbers on it, and that may not have helped Textron very much in arguing that it was protected work product,” says Michael Jacobs, a Reed Smith partner.
Some companies, Jacobs says, go into much more detail in their memos, and he says that can look more like they were prepared “in anticipation of litigation”–the wording the en banc 1st Circuit used to deny work-product privilege in Textron.
“You'd probably have more chance of succeeding wit the work-product doctrine argument if you had more detailed workpapers,” Jacobs says. “But the flip side of that is that if you turn those types of detailed materials over to your accountants, you've now given up any sort of attorney-client privilege protection. And you really then are relying entirely on the work-product doctrine, with Textron proves can be a little risky.”
If he has clients who want to go into more detail in their memos and who have attorneys involved, Jacobs often advises that the attorney create the detailed memos and then keep them on file–but not actually put them into the workpaper files.
“You might discuss it with the accountants, but you don't actually turn over the documents to the accountants,” he says. “That way you can at least preserve your attorney-client privilege down the road.”
The Textron case on work-product privilege centered on the company's tax accrual workpapers. The memos are a normal part of a company's financial statements, showing the analysis a company (and, often, its lawyers and accountants) used to calculate the reserves it sets aside for uncertain tax positions, which are common in tax law. In laymen's terms, tax accrual workpapers embody that math-class platitude to “show your work.”
Companies handle tax accrual workpapers differently, and, especially in light of Textron, some might want to reevaluate their policies. But it's a tricky balance to go into enough detail without destroying privilege.
“In the Textron case, it sounds like it was just a spreadsheet with numbers on it, and that may not have helped Textron very much in arguing that it was protected work product,” says Michael Jacobs, a
Some companies, Jacobs says, go into much more detail in their memos, and he says that can look more like they were prepared “in anticipation of litigation”–the wording the en banc 1st Circuit used to deny work-product privilege in Textron.
“You'd probably have more chance of succeeding wit the work-product doctrine argument if you had more detailed workpapers,” Jacobs says. “But the flip side of that is that if you turn those types of detailed materials over to your accountants, you've now given up any sort of attorney-client privilege protection. And you really then are relying entirely on the work-product doctrine, with Textron proves can be a little risky.”
If he has clients who want to go into more detail in their memos and who have attorneys involved, Jacobs often advises that the attorney create the detailed memos and then keep them on file–but not actually put them into the workpaper files.
“You might discuss it with the accountants, but you don't actually turn over the documents to the accountants,” he says. “That way you can at least preserve your attorney-client privilege down the road.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250