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 AllDOJ: TD Bank Agrees to Pay $3B Over Anti-Money Laundering Program Violations
2 minute readClass Action Lawsuit Targets 40 Private Colleges and Universities Over Alleged Price-Fixing
3 minute readWave of Office Closures Highlights the Weighty Stakes Surrounding Law Firm Growth
7 minute readSLIDESHOW: Associate Justice John Jay Hoffman Takes Seat on New Jersey Supreme Court
1 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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