Master Supreme Court held that a litigant must include in gross income the full amount of a recovery, including contingent attorney's fees, when the recovery itself constitutes income. with this comprehensive case brief.
Commissioner v. Banks is a foundational Supreme Court decision at the intersection of federal income tax and civil litigation practice. It resolves a long-standing circuit split over whether a plaintiff who wins or settles a case on a contingent-fee basis must include the attorney's contingent share in the plaintiff's gross income. The Court held that when a recovery is taxable, the entire amount is includible in the plaintiff's gross income, even if a portion is paid directly to the plaintiff's lawyer under a contingent-fee agreement. The decision rests squarely on the anticipatory assignment-of-income doctrine, reinforcing the principle that a taxpayer cannot assign away taxable income by contractual arrangement.
The case matters far beyond tax procedure. It shapes how settlements and judgments are structured, negotiated, and reported. For many employment and civil-rights plaintiffs, Banks once posed the risk of tax on amounts the client never actually received in hand. Although Congress later enacted an above-the-line deduction for attorney's fees in certain claims, Banks remains the governing rule in all cases where those statutory relief provisions do not apply and continues to be a prime teaching vehicle for the reach of Internal Revenue Code section 61 and the assignment-of-income line of cases.
543 U.S. 426 (2005) (U.S. Supreme Court)
The case consolidated two taxpayers with similar situations. Each taxpayer brought civil claims against former employers and retained counsel on a standard contingent-fee basis, agreeing that counsel would receive a fixed percentage of any recovery. In each matter, the litigation concluded with a monetary recovery in which the defendant paid a portion directly to the plaintiff's attorney pursuant to the contingent-fee agreement, with the balance remitted to the plaintiff. On their federal income tax returns, each taxpayer reported only the net amounts personally received and excluded the contingent-fee portion that had been paid to their lawyers. The Internal Revenue Service determined deficiencies, asserting that under Internal Revenue Code section 61 the plaintiffs were required to include the full recoveries in gross income, including the amounts remitted to counsel. The taxpayers challenged the deficiencies, arguing, among other things, that under state law their attorneys had property interests or liens in the causes of action or proceeds such that the contingent-fee portion was never the taxpayers' income. Conflicting lower court decisions, including opinions giving weight to state attorney-lien laws, created a split that the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve.
When a litigant's recovery constitutes income, must the litigant include in gross income the portion of the recovery that is paid to the litigant's attorney under a contingent-fee agreement?
Gross income under Internal Revenue Code section 61(a) includes all income from whatever source derived. Under the anticipatory assignment-of-income doctrine (e.g., Lucas v. Earl; Helvering v. Horst), a taxpayer cannot exclude income by assigning to another the right to receive it when the taxpayer retains control over, or originates, the income-producing asset. In the litigation context, the cause of action is the income-producing asset, and the attorney, retained by the plaintiff, functions as the plaintiff's agent. Therefore, when a recovery constitutes income, the entire recovery is includible in the plaintiff's gross income, including any contingent attorney's fees paid directly to the attorney. State law characterizations, such as attorney liens or purported property interests in the recovery, do not alter this federal income tax result.
Yes. When a litigant's recovery constitutes income, the litigant's gross income includes the portion paid to the attorney under a contingent-fee agreement.
The Court grounded its analysis in section 61's broad definition of gross income and the anticipatory assignment-of-income doctrine. The cause of action is the income-generating property, and the plaintiff retains ultimate dominion over it: the plaintiff decides whether to sue, settle, or proceed to judgment, and on what terms. The attorney engaged to prosecute the claim acts as the plaintiff's agent. Because the plaintiff controls the asset that produces the income, the income is attributable to the plaintiff even if a portion is directed to another person, here the attorney. This aligns with precedents like Lucas v. Earl, which prevents taxpayers from avoiding tax on earnings by contractual division, and Helvering v. Horst, which treats the power to dispose of the income as the equivalent of ownership. The Court rejected arguments that state attorney-lien statutes or state-law characterizations of attorneys' interests changed the federal tax result. Although state law determines the existence and nature of legal interests, federal law determines the tax consequences. Attorney liens secure payment for services; they do not transfer ownership of the income-generating claim in a manner that defeats the assignment-of-income doctrine. Similarly, the fact that the defendant might pay the contingent fee directly to counsel is a routing choice that does not alter who realized the income. Treating the fees as part of the plaintiff's gross income also coheres with the Internal Revenue Code's structure: attorney's fees are generally a cost of producing income and are properly addressed, if at all, through deductions rather than by excluding part of the recovery from gross income. The Court noted that Congress had, by the time of decision, enacted targeted above-the-line deductions for attorney's fees and court costs in certain employment discrimination and related claims, confirming that any relief from the general inclusion rule is a matter for legislative, not judicial, line drawing. Finally, the Court observed that its holding promoted uniformity and administrability by preventing disparate federal tax outcomes based on varying state lien laws or retainer arrangements.
Banks is a cornerstone case for understanding how the federal income tax reaches litigation recoveries and how the assignment-of-income doctrine operates across substantive areas. For law students, it illustrates the primacy of federal tax principles over state-law labels, the agency rationale in attributing income, and the Code's preference to address litigation costs through deductions rather than exclusions. Practically, the decision affects how plaintiffs and counsel structure engagements and settlements, how they report recoveries, and how they evaluate after-tax outcomes. It also provides doctrinal context for subsequent congressional action granting above-the-line deductions for attorney's fees in certain enumerated claims and underscores that any broader relief must come from statute, not judicial exception.
If a recovery is excluded from gross income under section 104(a)(2) because it is on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness, then Banks does not cause inclusion of the attorney's fees. Banks governs only when the underlying recovery constitutes income. To the extent a recovery is partially excludable and partially taxable, allocation is required, and only the portion attributable to taxable components (for example, back pay or punitive damages) is included, along with the proportionate share of fees.
The method of payment does not alter the result. Under Banks, routing the contingent fee directly to counsel is simply a matter of convenience or obligation under the fee agreement; the plaintiff is treated as having realized the entire taxable recovery, including the portion remitted to the attorney.
Banks addressed contingent-fee arrangements and held that the plaintiff includes fees in income when the recovery is income. The Court did not definitively resolve all scenarios in which a statute might grant the attorney an independent right to fees payable by the defendant. Many courts have nevertheless applied Banks to treat fee awards as income to the plaintiff when they arise from the plaintiff's claim. Always check the governing statute and circuit law, but absent a clear statutory assignment of the fee to the attorney independent of the plaintiff's claim, Banks typically controls.
Congress enacted above-the-line deductions for attorney's fees and court costs in certain cases, notably employment discrimination, civil rights, and certain whistleblower claims (see section 62(a)(20) and (21), with definitions in section 62(e) and related provisions). These deductions allow taxpayers to offset the included fee portion without the limitations that apply to miscellaneous itemized deductions. Outside those enumerated categories, fees may be deductible only under general provisions and, in some years, may be limited or disallowed by other Code rules. Thus, while Banks establishes inclusion, the Code provides targeted relief by deduction in specified cases.
No. Banks squarely rejected reliance on state attorney-lien statutes or similar state-law characterizations to avoid inclusion. While state law defines legal interests, federal law determines tax consequences. An attorney's lien secures payment for services but does not transfer ownership of the income-producing claim in a way that defeats the assignment-of-income doctrine. The plaintiff still controls the cause of action, so the income is attributed to the plaintiff.
Commissioner v. Banks establishes a clear federal tax rule: when a plaintiff's litigation recovery is taxable, the plaintiff must include the entire amount in gross income, including the portion remitted to counsel under a contingent-fee arrangement. The decision applies the assignment-of-income doctrine to litigation claims, treating the attorney as the client's agent and the cause of action as the income-producing property.
For practitioners and students, Banks remains essential reading. It highlights how federal tax principles can shape civil litigation strategy and underscores the importance of understanding both inclusion and deduction mechanics when advising clients, negotiating settlements, and planning for after-tax outcomes. It also demonstrates that any exceptions to broad inclusion must come from Congress, not from state-law labels or private agreements.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →