¹See Kenneth Alexander, 72 F3d 938 (1st Cir. 1995); David Raymond, 355 F3d 107 (2d Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed, S.Ct., 4/9/04; Walter OBrien, 38 TC 707 (1962), affd, 319 F2d 532 (3d Cir. 1963), cert. den.; Louise Young, 240 F3d 369 (4th Cir. 2001); Eldon Kenseth, 259 F3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001); Hughes Bagley, 121 F3d 393 (8th Cir. 1997); Ivor Benci-Woodward, 219 F3d 941 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. den.; Franklin Coady, 213 F3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. den; James T. Sinyard, 268 F3d 756 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. den.; Nancy Hukkanen-Campbell, 274 F3d 1312 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. den.; Jack Baylin, 43 F3d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

²See Ethel West Cotnam, 263 F2d 119 (5th Cir. 1959); Est. of Arthur Clarks, 202 F3d 854 (6th Cir. 2000); Willie Mae Davis, 210 F3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2000); Sudhir Srivastava, 220 F3d 353 (5th Cir. 2000); Sigitas Banaitis, 345 F3d 373 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. granted, S.Ct., 3/29/04; John Banks II, 345 F3d 373 (6th Cir. 2003), cert. granted, S.Ct., 3/29/04.

³See Wood, More Confusion on Tax Treatment of Attorneys Fees: Whose Law Applies?, 20 BNA Emp. Discrim. Rept 701 (5/21/03); see also Wood and Flora, Employment Lawyers Face Hidden Final IRS Rules on Forms 1099 for Attorneys, 19 BNA Emp. Discrim. Rept 347 (9/25/02).

⁴See OBrien, Benci-Woodward, Coady, Sinyard and Hukkanen-Campbell, note 1 supra.

⁵Banks, note 2 supra.

⁶Banaitis, note 2 supra.

⁷Raymond, note 1 supra.

⁸James T. Sinyard, TC Memo 1998-364, affd, 268 F3d 756 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. den.

⁹The IRS conceded that the plaintiff was entitled to a miscellaneous itemized deduction, subject to the 2%-of-AGI floor and disallowance for AMT purposes.

¹⁰Old Colony Trust Co., 279 US 716 (1929).

¹¹Benci-Woodward, note 1 supra.

¹²Eirhart v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 726 FSupp 700 (ND IL 1989), affd, 996 F2d 837 (7th Cir. 1993).

¹³See Brian Nelson, TC Summ. Op. 2001-44; Kevin Hamblin, TC Summ. Op. 2001-73; Michael Fawcett, TC Summ. Op. 2001-65; and Richard Waters, TC Summ. Op. 2001-46. Of course, under Sec. 7463(b), Tax Court summary opinions may not be treated as precedent.

¹⁴See Nelson, note 13 supra.

¹⁵Kenseth, note 1 supra.

¹⁶IRS Letter Rulings 200222001 (2/28/02), 200316040 (4/18/03), 200106021 (11/7/01) and 200025023 (3/22/00). Of course, under Sec. 6110(k)(3), letter rulings may not be used or cited as precedent, but they can be very helpful in deducing the Services current position on particular tax matters.

¹⁷Rev. Rul. 80-364, 1980-2 CB 294.

¹⁸See, e.g., Taylor Miller, TC Memo 2001-55 and William Westmiller, TC Memo 1998-140, and cases cited therein (collectively, the State Farm Cases).

¹⁹See Kraszewski, 912 F2d 1182 (9th Cir. 1990).

²⁰See, e.g., Neil Hardin, TC Memo 1998-202.

²¹Arthur McKean, 33 Fed. Cl. 535 (1995).

²²This example may seem far-fetched, but it actually happens; see Spina v. Forest Preserve District of Cook County, 207 FSupp 2d 764 (ND IL 2002) (a Chicago police officer won a sex discrimination suit, only to find that her recovery resulted in her having to pay $99,000 more in taxes than she actually recovered).

²³Under the common fund theory of recovery, class counsel may petition the court directly for attorneys fees; see, e.g., Boeing v. Van Gemert, 444 US 472, 478 (1980).

²⁴See IRS Letter Rulings 200222001, 200316040, 200106021 and 200025023, note 16 supra.