BGBC: Court agrees with IRS that advanced client expenses are loans

January 29, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Howard I. Gross, Steven W. Reed, Erika M. Gowan, Casey L. Higgs, and Samuel M. Pollom

An important U.S. Tax Court ruling last year may affect you and your law firm. The case settled a long-standing dispute between attorneys and the Internal Revenue Service regarding advanced client expenses for lawyers who handle cases on a contingency basis. Such lawyers routinely pay litigation expenses (e.g., court fees, medical records, expert witnesses, etc.) on behalf of their clients before ever receiving any funds from them. Whether these lawyers get reimbursed for advanced expenses depends on the agreements with their clients and the results of their particular case.

Many law firms and attorneys take the position that attorneys who work on a contingency basis should be allowed to deduct case expenses advanced to their clients in the year the expenses are paid. Their theory is that because the attorney has no assurance that advanced expenses will ever be reimbursed, a tax deduction should be allowed in the current year. The IRS position has always been that advanced expenses are actually loans to the client and should be capitalized on the books of the attorney until the case is resolved. If the client receives an award or settlement, the advanced expenses can then be deducted as case expenses. If the case is not successful, and no income is received by the lawyer, the advanced expenses can be written off the books as a bad debt.

Many cases between attorneys and the IRS have been heard on this subject, and virtually all have been decided in favor of the IRS. Arguments that lawyers are incurring an expense without the expectation of being reimbursed have been met with little to no success. However, last year a Missouri law firm challenged the IRS position on this matter in the U.S. Tax Court. Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2013-23. The case is significant because the firm offered a well-reasoned argument for the method it used to account for advanced expenses based on real data showing its particular rates of reimbursement. The firm contended this data proved that it was really bearing the cost of expenses advanced in its contingency cases.

The Tax Court was not impressed with this argument. In fact, the court held that the data failed to demonstrate the possibility of reimbursement was remote. Rather, it found there was a significant possibility these advanced expenses would be reimbursed. The court stated that the firm screened its cases and clients, and thus had a very good opportunity to assess the merits of each case before accepting it. Since an attorney is less likely to take a case that has a low probability of success (and a low probability of being reimbursed for advanced expenses), the expectation of reimbursement is generally higher. Additionally, the court agreed with the IRS and found that such advanced expenses are in the nature of loans, not ordinary and necessary business expenses, even if there is a low likelihood of reimbursement.

This case effectively took the wind out of the sails of many law firms and attorneys that have for many years deducted advanced expenses at the time they are paid without regard to the ultimate resolution of the case to which the expenses are related. The decision in Humphrey makes it clear that this method of tax accounting will be challenged by the IRS, and the attorney will most likely lose if he or she attempts to contest the IRS in court.

To add injury to insult, the Tax Court in Humphrey ordered the firm to change its method of accounting by filing Form 3115 with the IRS, which effectively forced the firm to pay tax on the expenses it had already deducted before the related cases were resolved. The IRS considers a change from a current deduction of advanced expenses to capitalization of the expenses to be a material item requiring a change in accounting method. In the case of Humphrey, the firm was required to make a $2.7 million adjustment to its income tax.

Law firms that handle cases on a contingency fee basis should not deduct case expenses advanced on behalf of a client in the current year. Advanced expenses are to be treated as loans to contingent-fee clients. Advanced expenses should be capitalized on the firm’s books until the case is resolved. If the attorney is successful in settling a case or winning in litigation, the associated advanced expenses can then be deducted as an offset to the fees earned by the attorney. If the case is not successful, and the attorney gets no recovery in the form of fees or expense reimbursement, the attorney can then deduct the associated advanced case expenses as a bad debt expense.

If you are an attorney who handles cases on a contingency basis and are affected by this ruling, seek a seasoned tax expert who has experience working with attorneys for assistance in proper accounting treatment of advanced expenses.•


Howard I. Gross, CPA/ABV/CFF, CFP; Steven W. Reed, CPA/ABV; Erika M. Gowan, CPA/CFF, CFE; Casey L. Higgs; CPA/CFF, CFE, CVA, and Samuel M. Pollom, JD, CPA, are with BGBC Partners LLP – Litigation, Forensic and Business Valuation. Contact BGBC at 317-633-4700 or visit The opinions expressed are those of the authors.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues