Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Divorce Attorney Fees
More frequently than not, the divorce attorney will receive a call from the client who has paid his or her bill, inquiring as to what portion of attorney's fees paid can be deductible for income tax purposes. The client's accountant advised that he/she needed an opinion from his/her attorney and a letter allocating the deductible portion of what was paid for income tax purposes. The client may have paid a princely sum and will want to deduct as much as possible.
Unless the attorney is one who limits his or her practice to tax matters and gave advice solely concerning the tax consequences of a proposed marital settlement agreement, the portion of fees that can be tax deductible will be severely limited. The client will be in for a surprise because attorneys' fees for the services of the divorce lawyer are deductible only for services attributable to tax advice, and which were incurred for the production of taxable income; to-wit: alimony that meets the provisions of I.R.C. ' 71.
Furthermore, even for fees that are attributed to services that are in fact deductible, they are such only as part of the miscellaneous itemized deductions. These miscellaneous itemized deductions can only be deducted to the extent that, in the aggregate, they exceed 2% of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. Taxpayers whose miscellaneous itemized deductions do not total more than 2% of adjusted gross income will not be able to deduct any amount of attorneys' fees.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.