Bill to Waive Tax on Counsel Fees and Costs in Discrimination and Qui Tam Cases Moves Forward
New Jersey lawmakers have moved one step closer to allowing successful plaintiffs in fee-shifting discrimination and qui tam cases to claim a gross income tax exclusion for counsel fees and costs.
September 17, 2018 at 03:02 PM
2 minute read
New Jersey lawmakers have moved one step closer to allowing successful plaintiffs in fee-shifting discrimination and qui tam cases to claim a gross income tax exclusion for counsel fees and costs.
The Assembly Judiciary Committee on Monday voted unanimously to recommend final passage of the bill, S-784, which passed the full Senate without opposition last April. If the bill passes the Assembly, it would go to Gov. Phil Murphy for his consideration.
The bill is sponsored by Sen. Paul Sarlo, D-Bergen, the chairman of the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. He was not immediately available for comment.
The bill would provide a “victim of certain unlawful discrimination or unlawful retaliation with a gross income tax exclusion for attorney's fees and costs received in connection with claims or actions for that discrimination or retaliation,” according the accompanying statement.
The measure was introduced in response to the 2004 federal Civil Rights Tax Relief Act, which was part of the American Jobs Creation Act. The CRTRA was designed to eliminate the double taxation of attorney fees and costs at the federal level to both the attorney who is ultimately paid the fees and to the litigant who is awarded the fees.
The act accomplished that goal by allowing the litigant to take a deduction for the recovery of or payment of fees and costs in connection with any action or claim of unlawful discrimination or retaliation.
However, New Jersey's tax laws were not amended when Congress enacted the CRTRA that year, according to the measure.
As a result, the statement said, counsel fees and costs incurred in connection with such claims are still taxable to both firm and client at the state level, even though the client never actually receives the fees.
Under the bill, “attorney's fees” and “costs” would be liberally construed to include all compensation for expenditures for the victim, including counsel fees, paralegal fees, court costs, litigation expenses, and expenses for experts and consultants.
Attorneys who receive counsel fees and are reimbursed for costs would still be subject to taxation.
The Office of Legislative Services said it could not estimate what the cost to the state would be in terms of lost tax revenues.
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 AllHit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
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