Canelo v. CommissionerCanelo v. Commissioner
These consolidated appeals challenge the Tax Court’s decision that a law partnership on a cash basis may not deduct as ordinary and necessary business expenses the various litigation costs advanced for clients on contingent-fee eases in which the advances are to be repaid from the amount recovered for the client. The opinion of the Tax Court is reported at
The Tax Court held that the advances were in the nature of loans, citing Burnett v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
In Hearn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
The decision of the Tax Court is consistent with the cited cases and with the Congressional intent expressed in Section 162.
Affirmed.