June 8, 2008
The Democrats' frivolous lawsuit tax break (updated)
According to the Washington Examiner, Democrats in Congress are bypassing normal procedures for approving new tax legislation in order to give class action plaintiffs' attorney a $1.575 billion tax break.
The bill previously passed the House without the usual notice to the Treasury Department for an official analysis of its provisions. The rush to judgment in both chambers of Congress, otherwise known as cramming it down opponents' throats, is objectionable. The trial-lawyer tax break is appalling. Together, they are an outrage
The new provision is being given political cover by being added on to legislation that extends several popular current tax laws such as the research and development tax credit and the ability of individual taxpayers to claim an itemized deduction for sales taxes in lieu of a deduction for state income taxes.
Under current law the expenses connected with a contingent fee lawsuit must be treated as a loan to the client. If the case is decided in the client's favor, the expenses are repaid out of the proceeds. If the client loses, the lawyer deducts the costs at that time. Because such lawsuits can remain pending for more than a decade, law firms specializing in such litigation need to have access to significant financial resources. By allowing the expenses to be deducted up front, the cost of capital to these law firms will be greatly reduced. A lower cost of capital means they will be able to pursue lawsuits that have a lower chance of an outcome in their clients' favor, i.e. "creative causes of action" a/k/a the frivolous lawsuit.
The plaintiff's bar contributes millions of dollars to the Democratic Party. The plaintiffs' bar is also under increasing scrutiny for both the corruption of some of its members and the economic coast of abusive lawsuits. In 2006 many Democrat candidates for Congress ran as reformers. If this is what they meant by reform, contemplate change we can believe in.
Update: Only one of the class of 2006 "Blue Dog" Democrats who ran on a platform of reform voted against this bill in the house. That was Nick Lampson TX-22. Vote is here I hope the GOP challengers pound on this issue.
Update: Only one of the class of 2006 "Blue Dog" Democrats who ran on a platform of reform voted against this bill in the house. That was Nick Lampson TX-22. Vote is here I hope the GOP challengers pound on this issue.
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- Transgender Armageddon: The Zizian Murder Spree
- Jasmine Crockett, Queen of Ghettospeak
- The Racial Content of Advertising
- Why Liberal Judges Have a Lot to Answer For
- Dismissing Evil and Denying the Holocaust — What’s the Endgame?
- The Witkoff Warning: Will Jordan’s King Fall?
- Can Trump Really Abolish the Department of Education?
- Carney’s Snap Election -- And Trump Saw It Coming
- We Can Cure Democracy, But Can We Cure Stupid?
- George Clooney: Master of Cringe
Blog Posts
- Two new revelations about the Signal leak, along with two theories
- Big Tech’s Invisible Hand: How Google and Meta manipulate our elections
- New report: Netherlands is now euthanizing minors
- Tantalizing tidbits: Five news stories about leftists, and sea lions, acting aggressively
- Rockets to Roses: Israel’s bizarre trade cycle with Aza
- Fort Knox? Gold cams!
- There is no birthright citizenship for illegal aliens
- Turn off the phone. Close the laptop.
- Nine reasons Democrats are doomed to irrelevance
- Wagner College should restore Trump’s honorary degree—and set a national example against cancel culture
- The Signal Scandal was a nothingburger, but the WSJ takes the opportunity to attack Vance
- The Trump effect: An unprecedented investment surge and economic renewal
- Hydrocarbon-friendly Trump a match for energy-hungry India
- And Big Bird can’t sing
- The DC appellate court order affrming Judge Boasberg dishonestly ignores its lack of jurisdiction