3theleastofus
Edmund Burke 360x1000
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 360x1000
1confidencegames
1albion
3albion
2jesusandjohnwayne
lifeinmiddlemarch1
5albion
Tad Friend 360x1000
14albion
Susie King Taylor 360x1000
Stormy Daniels 360x1000
Lafayette and Jefferson 360x1000
2paradise
Spottswood William Robinson 360x1000
9albion
1madoff
Susie King Taylor2 360x1000
1lauber
2lafayette
2transadentilist
Thomas Piketty1 360x1000
11albion
4albion
4confidencegames
1empireofpain
storyparadox2
George M Cohan and Lerarned Hand 360x1000
Anthony McCann2 360x1000
13albion
1falsewitness
Margaret Fuller3 360x1000
Mary Ann Evans 360x1000
Office of Chief Counsel 360x1000
7confidencegames
lifeinmiddlemarch2
3defense
7albion
8albion'
1paradide
Maurice B Foley 360x1000
1trap
399
Betty Friedan 360x1000
1lookingforthegoodwar
5confidencegames
James Gould Cozzens 360x1000
Learned Hand 360x1000
Margaret Fuller1 360x1000
2trap
Margaret Fuller5 360x1000
Thomas Piketty3 360x1000
2confidencegames
10abion
12albion
Margaret Fuller 2 360x1000
299
Richard Posner 360x1000
2theleastofus
2gucci
Gilgamesh 360x1000
LillianFaderman
1lafayette
11632
Margaret Fuller 360x1000
1jesusandjohnwayne
3paradise
2lookingforthegoodwar
Samuel Johnson 360x1000
Maria Popova 360x1000
1transcendentalist
2falsewitness
Storyparadox1
Adam Gopnik 360x1000
199
1defense
6albion
Anthony McCann1 360x1000
Mark V Holmes 360x1000
Margaret Fuller2 360x1000
Brendan Beehan 360x1000
1gucci
3confidencegames
storyparadox3
AlexRosenberg
Margaret Fuller4 360x1000
2albion
2defense
George F Wil...360x1000
1theleasofus
499
Thomas Piketty2 360x1000
6confidencegames

Julian Block has agreed to help me in my effort to become the Tom Sawyer of blogging. 

Ordinarily, deductible business expenses include payments to settle disputes, whether the payments are made to satisfy judgments or as out-of-court settlements. But the IRS is clear that it will allow the deduction only if the argument arose from a business-related activity, as opposed to a personal matter.
And when it comes to your reputation, the line between business and personal is thin indeed. What controls the outcome are the particular circumstances.
 
For example, a federal appeals court refused to allow a write-off for the cost of settling a will contest, notwithstanding that the taxpayer settled to protect his reputation as a lawyer. Apparently because of a close friendship, attorney William McDonald was named the major beneficiary in the will of a client, an elderly widow. The New York lawyer had not prepared the original will, but did draft a later codicil that modified the will by including him among the beneficiaries. That circumstance prompted some of the widow’s relatives to contest the will on the basis that he had exerted undue influence. He agreed to an out-of-court settlement of $121,000, and the written agreement states that “it appears the litigation of the issues would engender much publicity and would endanger the reputation of McDonald as an attorney.”
The court barred a business expense for the $121,000. The proper standard for deductibility here, said the court, is the “origin-of-the-claim” test. The origin of the lawyer’s rights under the will was his personal relationship with the client, not his law practice. Consequently, it made no difference that his primary purpose in agreeing to the settlement was to protect his reputation as a lawyer. 
 
The origin-of-the-claim test also tripped up pro-football star Michael Hayden when he tried to deduct a payment to hush a sex scandal. While the former safety for the Los Angeles Raiders and co-captain for the Denver Broncos was negotiating a contract renewal with Denver, ex-girlfriend Michelle Moore filed a sexual-assault charge against him for what happened when he visited her home in an unsuccessful attempt to make amends after they had an argument. The Broncos found out and threatened to trade or release him if the matter became public.
 
To stop this, Michael paid Michelle $25,000 for dropping the complaint and keeping quiet. The Broncos then signed him to a five-year contract. He deducted the $25,000 as a “professional development expense.” His reasoning: He wouldn’t have made it if his job hadn’t been jeopardized.
 
The IRS tossed it out as a nondeductible personal expense and the U.S. Tax Court agreed. The 1991 decision held that the origin of the charge leading to the payment arose out of Michael’s personal relationship with Michelle, not out of his job. That the consequences of the allegations against the athlete were business-related didn’t make the payoff deductible.
J. C. McCaa, an Arkansas auto dealer who disapproved of divorce, settled a claim for personal injuries resulting from his having struck a girlfriend of his married son. A skeptical Tax Court concluded that the payment was made to shield him and his family from potential scandal, not to avoid cancellation of his dealer’s franchise
 
William Harper taught high-school science and owned rental property. He paid damages and legal expenses to settle an invasion-of-privacy suit brought against him by a tenant. She asserted that William installed a listening device in her apartment and connected it to his office so he could hear what was said and done in the apartment. The suit, noted the Tax Court, might make it more difficult for William to do business in his West Virginia community, but the payments weren’t deductible because they were made for his own personal protection.
 
_________________________________________________________________________________
 
Julian Block writes and practices law in Larchmont, N.Y. and was formerly with the IRS as a special agent (criminal investigator) and an attorney. He is frequently quoted in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, and has been cited as: “a leading tax professional” (New York Times); “an accomplished writer on taxes” (Wall Street Journal); and “an authority on tax planning” (Financial Planning Magazine). This article is excerpted from “Julian Block’s Year Round Tax Savings,” available at julianblocktaxexpert.com. The National Association of Personal Financial Advisers .” says the book is “Easy to read and well-organized and can be helpful to planners in advising clients”