Tax Law On Deductibility of Harassment Settlements Needs Honing
A provision in the new tax law intended to limit deductibility by companies of confidential payments for sexual misconduct settlements may inadvertently harm the victims it was intended to help.
March 12, 2018 at 11:00 AM
2 minute read
A provision in the new tax law intended to limit deductibility by companies of confidential payments for sexual misconduct settlements may inadvertently harm the victims it was intended to help.
The new section reads as follows: “No deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for (1) any settlement or payment related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse if such settlement or payment is subject to a nondisclosure agreement, or (2) attorney's fees related to such a settlement or payment.”
Confidentiality provisions have protected some perpetrators, perhaps enabled them, allowing them to avoid public scrutiny and be free to repeat their misconduct against other victims. Some businesses may have regarded the payments as costs of doing business, rather than serving to remediate “bad” behavior, and the confidentiality provisions guard against additional lawsuits. On the other hand, confidentiality provisions are often effective to protect careers and reputations in marginal cases where companies decide to settle for practical business reasons, but want to protect innocent executives.
The goal of the new limitation was to limit the tax code's subsidizing offenders by allowing deductions for what amounts to “hush money,” a laudable goal, but it may have unintended consequences. Will fewer cases settle as companies lose the incentive of confidentiality and protecting their reputations and offer less money to victims? Will the value of victims' cases be diminished when they can no longer offer confidentiality? What about victims themselves who seek confidentiality so they can move on with their lives and avoid embarrassment or retaliation?
The public sector has long lived with non-confidentiality provisions in the payment of these awards. Congress, on the other hand, is not affected by the new provision, since the United States government is not a taxpayer. Ironically, tax-exempt religious organizations, some of whom have paid significant awards, are not affected and will continue to be able to make confidential settlements.
The provision also raises questions of allocation if other employment related claims are raised, such as discrimination or retaliation. Can an employer allocate a small amount to the settlement of the harassment claim with the balance allocated to other causes of action?
We support the concept of limitation of deductibility for payment of sexual harassment and abuse claims. Maybe the confidentiality requirement should be eliminated.
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
© 2025 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 AllABC's $16M Settlement With Trump Sets Bad Precedent in Uncertain Times
8 minute readAs Trafficking, Hate Crimes Rise in NJ, State's Federal Delegation Must Weigh in On New UN Proposal
4 minute readAppellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Some Thoughts on What It Takes to Connect With Millennial Jurors
- 2Artificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
- 3The New Global M&A Kings All Have Something in Common
- 4Big Law Aims to Make DEI Less Divisive in Trump's Second Term
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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