Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Law firms are required to treat advances to and costs paid on behalf of clients as loans for tax reporting purposes. Because most law firms are cash-basis taxpayers, this practice could represent a significant outlay of cash by a law firm in a given year without being eligible for a corresponding tax deduction. How can your law firm manage its cash requirements for advancing client costs, while maintaining compliance with the tax law requirement that these advances be treated as loans? Through planning, revised fee engagement letters, and close monitoring, your firm can minimize its cash requirements for client costs and reduce its exposure for bad debt.
As determined by various court cases, expenses paid on behalf of a client that will be billed to the client are not ordinary costs of a law firm to operate its business, but rather are considered advances or loans to the client, for which repayment is expected. In other words, these payments are not allowed to be deducted as expenses for tax purposes when paid. The only time these costs can be deducted as expenses is when they are deemed uncollectible. Then they can be deducted as bad debt for tax reporting purposes. Generally, law firms pay taxes on a cash-basis method of accounting. As cash-basis taxpayers, law firms generally deduct expenses when cash is disbursed, and record revenue when cash is received. There are various exceptions to this rule. An exception that will be discussed in this article occurs when a law firm pays expenses on behalf of its client. Sometimes attorneys even pay living expenses of clients while a court case is pending. It's no wonder why, then, at the inception of many law firms, expenses paid for client costs are treated as deductions when paid and then treated as income when recovered. But this practice is incorrect; the correct accounting method is to treat them as loans when paid by the firm and as repayments of loans when reimbursed.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.