The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in Cavanaugh v. Commissioner
) that a settlement payment made by an S corporation with respect to a lawsuit stemming from the overdose of the sole shareholder’s girlfriend was nondeductible. This decision illustrates a circuit split on the treatment of settlement payments for lawsuits against a corporation for activities not related to the business of the corporation.
The case involved James Cavanaugh, Jr., the CEO and sole shareholder of Jani-King International, Inc. (Jani-King), a commercial cleaning company operating as an S corporation. Cavanaugh’s girlfriend, having allegedly been provided drugs by an employee of Jani-King, died in a drug overdose on a Caribbean vacation. The girlfriend’s family sued Cavanaugh and Jani-King, alleging that her death was caused by the Jani-King employees acting in the course and scope of their employment. The parties settled the lawsuit for $2.3 million.
When determining whether litigation expenses, including settlement payments, were “incurred in carrying on a trade or business,” courts generally look to the origin of the claim from which the expenses arose. This approach comes from the case United States v. Gilmore
, 372 U.S. 39 (1963), in which the Supreme Court held that deductibility “depends on whether or not the claim arises in connection with the taxpayer's profit-seeking activities,” not on the “consequences” to the taxpayer “from a failure to defeat the claim.”
In an earlier case, the 4th Circuit considered but factually distinguished Gilmore
in its decision in Kopp's Co. v. United States
, 636 F.2d 59 (4th Cir. 1980). In Kopp’s
, the son of a lumber-company president used a company car loaned to him by his father. The son crashed the company car into another car, seriously injuring the other driver. The injured driver sued the son, the company's president and the company itself. The company settled and deducted its share of the settlement and legal fees. The 4th Circuit agreed that it could, because unlike the taxpayer in Gilmore
, the taxpayer in Kopp’s
was named in the suit, and thus the company had “direct exposure to the risk of a monetary judgment.”
, the taxpayer argued that Jani-King’s settlement payment should be deductible under Kopp’s
because Jani-King was directly named in the lawsuit. The 5th Circuit disagreed and refused to follow the 4th Circuit’s decision in Kopp’s
. The 5th Circuit held for the IRS and against the taxpayer, stating that it believed Kopp’s directly conflicted with the Supreme Court’s decision in Gilmore
. In its holding, the 5th Circuit stressed that Jani-King’s alleged provision of drugs to Cavanaugh’s girlfriend was not done with a corporate profit-seeking motive and was not proximately related to any specific Jani-King business activity.
The 5th Circuit’s decision in Cavanaugh
creates a split between circuit courts. In the 4th Circuit, any settlement paid by a corporation in which the corporation is named as a defendant appears to be a deductible business expense under the Kopp’s
decision. In the 5th Circuit, on the other hand, such a settlement payment is deductible under Cavanaugh
only if the actions that gave rise to the lawsuit were proximately related to the business of the corporation.
Managing Director, Washington National Tax Office
+1 202 861 4116
Tax - Manager, Washington National Tax Office
+1 202 521 1591
Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.