<script type="application/ld+json"> { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "FAQPage", "mainEntity": [ { "@type": "Question", "name": "What is the Plaintiff Double Tax?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "The Plaintiff Double Tax is the result of Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005), which held that a plaintiff's gross income includes the full recovery — including the portion paid to the attorney as a contingent fee. The plaintiff pays income tax on 100% of the recovery while the attorney also pays tax on the same fee amount, creating an effective double taxation on the attorney fee portion." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "How did TCJA 2017 change legal fee deductions for plaintiffs?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-97) suspended all miscellaneous itemized deductions for tax years 2018 through 2025 under IRC § 67(g). Before TCJA, plaintiffs could deduct attorney fees as a miscellaneous itemized deduction subject to the 2% AGI floor. After TCJA, that deduction was eliminated for most plaintiffs, significantly worsening the double tax problem." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "What is IRC § 67(g) and how does it affect plaintiffs?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "IRC § 67(g), enacted by TCJA 2017, suspends all miscellaneous itemized deductions for tax years 2018 through 2025. Attorney fees in most civil litigation cases were deductible as miscellaneous itemized deductions prior to TCJA. The suspension under § 67(g) eliminated that deduction, leaving plaintiffs with no federal tax relief for contingent attorney fees in non-qualifying cases." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "What is the IRC § 62(a)(20) above-the-line deduction?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "IRC § 62(a)(20), enacted by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, provides an above-the-line deduction for attorney fees and court costs paid in connection with claims under certain discrimination statutes and whistleblower actions. This deduction is not subject to the 2% AGI floor and was not suspended by TCJA. It allows qualifying plaintiffs to deduct attorney fees directly from gross income." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "Why doesn't IRC § 62(a)(20) cover most plaintiffs?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "IRC § 62(a)(20) applies only to a narrow category of claims: unlawful discrimination cases, certain whistleblower claims under IRC § 7623, and claims against the federal government. The vast majority of civil litigation — personal injury, breach of contract, business disputes, mass torts — does not qualify. Plaintiffs in those cases receive no above-the-line deduction and bear the full double tax burden." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "What cases qualify for the IRC § 62(a)(20) above-the-line deduction?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "Qualifying cases under IRC § 62(a)(20) include claims under federal and state unlawful discrimination statutes (employment discrimination, civil rights violations), IRS whistleblower awards under IRC § 7623, SEC and CFTC whistleblower awards, and certain claims against the federal government. Personal injury, wrongful death, breach of contract, and most tort claims do not qualify." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "How do structured settlements help with the Plaintiff Double Tax?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "Structured settlements under IRC § 104(a)(2) exclude physical injury and sickness recoveries from gross income when paid as periodic payments through a qualifying annuity. For qualifying physical injury cases, structured settlements eliminate federal income tax on the recovery entirely. However, structured settlements do not resolve the double tax problem in taxable cases such as employment discrimination, breach of contract, or business disputes." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "What is a Plaintiff Recovery Trust and how does it solve the double tax?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "A Plaintiff Recovery Trust (PRT) is a trust-based structure administered by Eastern Point Trust Company that addresses the attorney fee double tax created by Commissioner v. Banks and TCJA 2017. The PRT separates the attorney fee portion of a settlement from the plaintiff's taxable recovery, allowing each party to recognize income on their respective portion only, eliminating the double taxation. Eastern Point Trust Company has saved plaintiffs $30 million or more through PRT structures." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "What did Commissioner v. Banks establish about plaintiff taxation?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005), held that a litigant's gross income includes the portion of a litigation recovery paid to the attorney as a contingent fee. The Supreme Court applied the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine from Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930), reasoning that the plaintiff controls the litigation proceeds at the moment of recovery and cannot assign income already earned to a third party tax-free." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "How can a Plaintiff Recovery Trust be implemented before final settlement?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "A Plaintiff Recovery Trust can be established in coordination with a Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) before final settlement distributions occur. The QSF receives the settlement proceeds, preserving the plaintiff's planning window. The PRT structure is then implemented during the QSF administration period, before taxable distributions are made. Eastern Point Trust Company administers both QSF 360 and PRT structures, enabling seamless integration from settlement funding through tax-optimized distribution." } } ] } </script>
You agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy by your Additional Use of this site.

10 Things to Know About the Plaintiff Recovery “Double Tax”

June 16, 2023

Discover the tax consequences of plaintiff recoveries, including double tax issues, deductions, penalties, and ways to reduce taxes for plaintiffs with taxable recoveries. Learn how to increase after-tax recovery and address taxes before and after settlement.

The taxation of plaintiff litigation recoveries is confusing. But it’s important to know the right answers. This is because the income tax consequences are so significant, especially where there are “double tax” issues.

10 things to know:

1. Recoveries in connection with personal injuries are not always tax-free.

2. Many other types of individual plaintiff recoveries are taxable.

Compensatory and emotional distress damages for physical injuries are tax-free, but the related punitive damages and interest are taxable.

These include non-physical injuries and related emotional distress, mental anguish, defamation, breach of contract, malpractice, fraud, securities law violations, intellectual property and more.

3. Many individual plaintiffs receiving taxable recoveries CANNOT DEDUCT their legal fees.‍‍

Personal attorney fees are “miscellaneous itemized deductions,” which are nondeductible. IRC §67(g). There are limited exceptions (e.g., employment discrimination, whistleblower). It’s important to know whether the IRC permits the deduction of your attorney fee.

4. The U.S. Supreme Court held that plaintiffs must include the attorney fee portion of their taxable recovery in income – creating the double tax.

This is the 2004 ruling in Commissioner v. Banks. As a result, in taxable cases where the attorney fee is not deductible, both the plaintiff and lawyer pay tax on the attorney fee portion of the recovery – hence the “double tax.”

5. In “double tax” situations, plaintiffs in high-tax jurisdictions end up with little or nothing.

A plaintiff might keep 10% after paying 40% to their lawyer and 50% in taxes. (Looking at you California!) And if their lawyer had significant expenses that are not covered by the contingent fee, the plaintiff may end up with nothing.

6. Defendants are subject to huge 1099 penalties in taxable cases if they don’t issue a 1099, or if they exclude the attorney fee portion.

The penalty can be 10% of the unreported amount, without limit. IRS Regulation 1.6041-1(f); IRC §6722(e).

7. Plaintiff lawyers must consider client tax issues.

American Bar Association (ABA) materials advise that “competent representation” of plaintiffs requires “considering the tax implications of the settlement.” ABA, Ethical Guidelines for Settlement Negotiations (August, 2002). Ethics rules require that personal injury lawyers tell clients the consequences of not addressing taxes or seeking competent tax advice.

8. Many suggested ways of reducing plaintiff recovery taxes don’t work.

These include reporting to the IRS only the portion of the recovery received by the plaintiff (excluding the attorney fee portion), treating the attorney-client relationship as a partnership or business, or excluding the structured portion of the attorney’s fees. Not only do these not work, they subject the plaintiff to massive penalties and interest if the IRS finds out.

9. Plaintiffs with taxable recoveries can increase their after-tax recovery if they act before a final resolution of the claim.

One way to do so is to draft the complaint or settlement agreement to consider the taxes (to the extent the facts allow). Another way to avoid taxation on the attorney fee portion of the recovery is to contribute the claim to a Plaintiff Recovery Trust (PRT). A PRT uses a traditional charitable trust planning arrangement, modified to the litigation context to achieve this result. There are other methods to reduce the taxes associated with a taxable recovery, such as selling the claim.

10. Addressing taxes after settlement is hard.

Tax planning to reduce plaintiff taxes on their recoveries is possible while the case is contingent and doubtful, i.e., not finally resolved. Careful planning is required. There are limited opportunities once the claim resolves. In this regard, few accountants are familiar with plaintiff recovery taxation matters and they tend to get involved only after the recovery, when it’s too late.

For a comprehensive overview of tax minimization strategies, see our guide on minimizing tax liability on lawsuit settlements.

Learn how the Plaintiff Recovery Trust addresses the attorney fee double tax created by Commissioner v. Banks.

Frequently Asked Questions

Under IRC § 61, all income from whatever source derived is taxable unless a specific exclusion applies. Lawsuit settlements are included in gross income by default. The key exceptions are physical injury and physical sickness recoveries under IRC § 104(a)(2), which are excluded from gross income when received as compensation for a physical injury or physical sickness claim.

IRC § 104(a)(2) excludes from gross income damages received on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness. The exclusion applies to compensatory damages only. The injury or sickness must be physical — emotional distress damages, employment discrimination recoveries, breach of contract proceeds, and punitive damages do not qualify for the exclusion and are taxable.

Yes. Punitive damages are taxable as ordinary income regardless of whether the underlying claim involves a physical injury. IRC § 104(a)(2) does not exclude punitive damages. Even in a physical injury case where compensatory damages are excluded, any punitive damages awarded are included in the plaintiff's gross income and subject to federal income tax.

For most plaintiffs, no. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 suspended miscellaneous itemized deductions under IRC § 67(g) for tax years 2018 through 2025, eliminating the attorney fee deduction for most civil litigation recoveries. IRC § 62(a)(20) provides an above-the-line deduction only for qualifying discrimination and whistleblower cases. Plaintiffs in personal injury, breach of contract, and most tort cases cannot deduct attorney fees under current law.

A Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) under IRC § 468B separates the timing of the defendant's payment from the plaintiff's taxable receipt of funds. The defendant transfers proceeds to the QSF and takes an immediate tax deduction. The plaintiff does not recognize taxable income until distribution from the QSF, preserving a planning window to implement structured settlements, Plaintiff Recovery Trusts, Special Needs Trusts, or other tax-minimization strategies before receiving taxable income.

A Plaintiff Recovery Trust (PRT), administered by Eastern Point Trust Company, addresses the attorney fee double tax created by Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005), and worsened by TCJA 2017. The PRT separates the attorney fee portion of the settlement from the plaintiff's taxable recovery, allowing each party to recognize income only on their respective portion. Eastern Point Trust Company has saved plaintiffs $30 million or more through PRT structures. The PRT is implemented during the QSF administration window before taxable distributions occur.

You Have Needs,
We Have Expertise

Discover trust and settlement solutions you won’t find anywhere else – thoughtfully designed to protect assets, simplify processes, and deliver peace of mind.
Expert guidance, every step of the way.

Contact Us
By submitting this form, you agree to be contacted by Eastern Point Trust Company, as well as agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.