Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Business Crimes BulletinKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Recent Guidance Regarding Deduction of Fines

By David E. Kahen and Elliot Pisem
August 01, 2016

Internal Revenue Code section 162(f), which relates to fines and penalties that would otherwise constitute ordinary and necessary expenses deductible under Code ' 162(a), provides: “No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any fine or similar penalty paid to a government for the violation of any law.” The provision was added to the Code in 1969 as a codification of prior case law, under which certain such expenses were held nondeductible because allowing a deduction would be inconsistent with public policy. See H. Rep. No. 91-782 (1969), at 331; Tank Truck Rentals v. Commissioner, 356 U.S. 30 (1958).

The controversies that continue to arise under ' 162(f) are illustrated by two memoranda released within the past few months that address whether an amount paid to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and representing a disgorgement of profits from activities undertaken in violation of law is a “fine or similar penalty,” or whether it is compensatory in nature and therefore not subject to disallowance under ' 162(f). These memoranda also address whether the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) ' a self-regulatory organization with federally mandated duties under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act) ' is a “corporation or other entity serving as an agency or instrumentality of” the federal government within the meaning of the regulations interpreting 162(f) (Reg. ' 1.162-21(a)(3)), such that an amount paid to FINRA should be treated as an amount paid to a government for purposes of this provision.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

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 DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

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.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

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.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

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.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.