Comments on: $1.6 billion tax break for plaintiff’s lawyers

By: DAM

DAM — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:18:37 +0000

This is a non-story. All this bill would do is allow contingent-fee lawyers to deduct expenses the same year in which they are incurred (which is the norm in the business world), rather than in the year
in which the case to which those expenses relate is resolved. What is wrong with that? More specifically, why is this an “atrocity”?

By: throckmorton

throckmorton — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:23:21 +0000

Of course this can not be applied to medicine where physicians receive no tax breaks for government enforced uncompensated care. We can not deduct expenses, time or the increased liability insurance that we have to carry.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:16:43 +0000

Since other businesses get to deduct expenses when they are incurred, I don’t see the problem.

By: Soronel Haetir

Soronel Haetir — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 04:40:26 +0000

Reading the Volokh post on this I am not sure this is unreasonable. Sounds like an accounting shift rather than anything real.

By: BG

BG — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 02:54:28 +0000

locomotivebreath1901,
If the case isn’t settled then there’s a provision for nomination to a Cabinet post.

By: SmartDude

SmartDude — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:19:19 +0000

“You cannot have a stand alone bill to help lawyers … so we have to tuck it into something.”

Translation: “This atrocity against justice has to be completely hidden from any oversight or media attention, secreted at 3AM into one of our massive 2000 page legislations, unread by any Congressman or Senator, and voted into law at 10 AM the next day.”

By: locomotivebreath1901

locomotivebreath1901 — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:50:07 +0000

Congressional democrats championing legislation for lawyers.

Gee. Who’d have thunk it!

I guess the campaign contributions from lawyers to congress must be pretty rich this year.

If passed, what would happen to those deductions if the case is never settled?