Legal Finance Updated: May 24, 2026 Reading time: 21 min

The TCJA Trap: Modeling Contingency Fee Tax Drag in Commercial Settlements

Quick Answer: Why Are Commercial Plaintiffs Taxed on the Attorney’s Fee They Never Received?

Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), effective 2018, the IRS treats the entire gross settlement as the commercial plaintiff’s taxable income — including the portion paid directly to their attorney as a contingency fee. Because the TCJA suspended miscellaneous itemized deductions through 2025, the plaintiff cannot offset that tax by deducting the fee. The result:

  • Plaintiff receives $300,000 net from a $500,000 commercial settlement (after 40% attorney fee)
  • IRS treats the full $500,000 as the plaintiff’s ordinary income
  • At a 37% marginal rate, plaintiff owes $185,000 in federal income tax
  • Effective take-home: $300,000 − $185,000 = $115,000 on a $500,000 settlement
  • That is 23 cents on the dollar from the gross — not the 60 cents the plaintiff expected

This calculation changes entirely for physical injury cases under IRC Section 104(a)(2). The distinction between physical and non-physical claims is the most consequential tax fact in commercial litigation.

37%Top federal marginal rate on commercial settlement income in 2026
$0Deductible attorney fees for most commercial plaintiffs post-TCJA
2018Year TCJA eliminated miscellaneous itemized deductions for individuals
23¢Take-home from $1 gross settlement at 37% rate with 40% contingency fee

The TCJA Change That Created the Trap

Before 2018, a commercial plaintiff who paid a 40% contingency fee could deduct that fee as a miscellaneous itemized deduction on Schedule A, subject to a 2% of AGI floor. It was imperfect — the floor reduced the benefit and the deduction was unavailable to plaintiffs in AMT territory — but it existed. A plaintiff who received $300,000 net from a $500,000 settlement and paid $200,000 to their attorney at least had a mechanism to offset part of the tax on that $200,000.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 changed that. Effective tax year 2018, TCJA Section 11045 suspended all miscellaneous itemized deductions subject to the 2% floor under IRC Section 67(g) through December 31, 2025. The suspension was extended under subsequent legislation and remains in effect for 2026. Attorney fees paid in connection with commercial litigation are miscellaneous itemized deductions under this provision. They are no longer deductible by individuals on Schedule A.

The income inclusion side of the equation was not changed. Under the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Commissioner v. Banks, the full gross settlement — including the attorney’s fee portion — is the plaintiff’s gross income. The plaintiff has an “anticipatory assignment of income” theory applies: the plaintiff earned the right to the settlement, then paid a portion to the attorney. That payment is treated as if the plaintiff received the full amount and then chose to pay the attorney from their own funds.

The post-TCJA result in plain English: A commercial plaintiff is taxed on the gross settlement. They cannot deduct the contingency fee. They pay taxes on money that went directly from the defendant to their attorney without ever passing through their bank account. This is not a loophole or a planning failure. It is the explicit mathematical consequence of the current Tax Code applied to commercial litigation outcomes.
🏛
IRS Guidance: Publication 525 — Taxable and Nontaxable Income The IRS addresses the tax treatment of lawsuit settlements and damages in Publication 525. Physical injury exclusions under IRC Section 104, taxable commercial recoveries, and the treatment of punitive damages are all addressed: IRS Publication 525: Taxable and Nontaxable Income

Physical Injury vs. Commercial Litigation: The Tax Fork in the Road

The single most important tax fact in settlement negotiations is whether the underlying claim is rooted in a physical injury or physical sickness. IRC Section 104(a)(2) creates an exclusion from gross income for damages received on account of a physical injury — and that exclusion is comprehensive. It covers the gross settlement including attorney fees, it applies to both compensatory and punitive damages arising from a physical injury, and it survives the TCJA intact.

Commercial litigation claims — fraud, breach of contract, defamation, trade secret misappropriation, non-physical employment claims — do not qualify for this exclusion. Neither does emotional distress, unless the emotional distress is directly caused by a physical injury. Every dollar of a commercial settlement is ordinary income. Every dollar of an attorney fee paid from that settlement is potentially taxable income the plaintiff cannot deduct.

✓ Physical Injury Claims (IRC §104(a)(2))

  • Auto accidents with physical injury
  • Slip-and-fall and premises liability
  • Medical malpractice (physical harm)
  • Products liability (physical injury)
  • Workers’ comp and third-party tort (physical)
  • Sexual assault or battery claims
✓ Gross settlement EXCLUDED from income — attorney fees included in exclusion

✗ Commercial / Non-Physical Claims

  • Breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty
  • Fraud, misrepresentation, business torts
  • Defamation and reputational harm
  • Trade secret or IP misappropriation
  • Employment discrimination (non-physical)
  • Securities fraud / investor claims
✗ Gross settlement FULLY TAXABLE — attorney fees not deductible post-TCJA

The Mixed-Character Settlement Problem

Many commercial disputes produce settlements that contain both physical and non-physical components. A wrongful termination case might include back wages (taxable), emotional distress from a physical injury (excludable), and punitive damages (taxable). How those components are allocated in the settlement agreement — and whether the IRS is bound by that allocation — is one of the most contested areas of settlement tax planning.

The IRS uses an “origin of the claim” test. The tax treatment of a payment depends on the nature of the claim that generated it, not how the parties label it in the settlement agreement. A settlement agreement that designates $300,000 as “compensation for physical injury” when the underlying claim was a breach of contract dispute will not survive IRS scrutiny. The allocation must have economic substance and be consistent with the actual claims litigated.

Practitioner note: The settlement agreement’s characterization of damages matters but is not determinative. The IRS will examine the underlying complaint, the claims asserted, and the nature of the harm alleged to determine which IRC section governs each payment. A well-drafted settlement agreement supported by complaint allegations that match the claimed characterization is far more defensible than a post-hoc recharacterization designed solely to minimize taxes.

Modeling Tax Drag: The Core Formula Every Commercial Litigator Needs

Tax drag is the incremental tax cost created by the TCJA’s elimination of the miscellaneous itemized deduction for attorney fees. It is not the total tax on the settlement. It is the additional tax the plaintiff pays because they cannot deduct the fee — the tax on the attorney’s portion of the settlement that flowed directly to the attorney and never to the plaintiff.

Tax Drag Formula:
Tax Drag = Attorney Fee Amount × Plaintiff Marginal Tax Rate

Where:
Attorney Fee Amount = Gross Settlement × Contingency Fee Percentage
Plaintiff Marginal Tax Rate = Federal + State combined marginal rate

Full Tax Drag Calculation:
Step 1: Attorney Fee = $500,000 × 40% = $200,000
Step 2: Tax on Attorney Fee = $200,000 × 37% = $74,000
Step 3: Tax on Plaintiff Net Share = $300,000 × 37% = $111,000
Step 4: Total Tax = $74,000 + $111,000 = $185,000
Step 5: Plaintiff Take-Home = $300,000 (net after fee) − $185,000 (total tax) = $115,000

Without the TCJA trap (pre-2018 with fee deductible):
Tax would have been: $300,000 × 37% = $111,000
Pre-2018 Take-Home: $300,000 − $111,000 = $189,000
TCJA Cost to This Plaintiff: $74,000

That $74,000 is not a rounding error. It is the difference between a settlement that felt adequate and a settlement that financially crippled the plaintiff. On a $1 million commercial settlement with a 40% fee, the tax drag at 37% is $148,000 — an amount that exceeds the annual income of most plaintiffs involved in commercial disputes.

The Effective Tax Rate on the Net Recovery

The most useful number for a plaintiff to understand before accepting a settlement offer is not the statutory rate. It is the effective tax rate on their actual net recovery — the portion they will receive after fees. Because they are taxed on the gross, their effective tax rate on the net is always higher than their marginal rate.

Effective Tax Rate on Net Recovery:
Effective Rate = Total Tax ÷ Net Recovery (after fees)

Example: Total Tax $185,000 ÷ Net Recovery $300,000 = 61.7% effective rate

At a 37% marginal rate with a 40% fee:
The plaintiff pays 61.7% of their net recovery in federal income tax alone.
Add a 10% state income tax layer: effective rate on net recovery exceeds 77%.

Tax Drag Severity by Fee Percentage and Marginal Rate

33% fee, 22% marginal rate (moderate income plaintiff) Manageable — tax drag ~$73K on $1M gross
33% fee, 32% marginal rate (upper-income plaintiff) Significant — tax drag ~$106K on $1M gross
40% fee, 35% marginal rate (corporate plaintiff / executive) Severe — tax drag ~$140K on $1M gross
40% fee, 37% marginal rate + 10% state (high-tax state resident) Critical — tax drag exceeds $188K on $1M gross
45% trial fee, 37% federal + 13.3% CA state (California resident) Maximum Exposure — effective rate on net exceeds 90%
Physical injury claim, any fee rate, any income level No Tax Drag — IRC §104 exclusion applies

The Gross-Up: Negotiating a Settlement Offer That Actually Leaves You Whole

Understanding tax drag changes the negotiating posture of every commercial plaintiff. The question is not “Is this settlement offer acceptable?” The question is “What gross amount do I need to negotiate so that my after-tax, after-fee recovery equals my minimum acceptable outcome?”

This is the gross-up calculation. It works backwards from the plaintiff’s target net-of-everything take-home amount and computes the gross settlement required to produce that outcome after fees and taxes.

Gross-Up Formula for Commercial Settlements:
Let:
  T = Target plaintiff take-home (after fee AND after tax)
  F = Contingency fee percentage (e.g., 0.40 for 40%)
  R = Combined marginal tax rate (federal + state, e.g., 0.47)

Gross Settlement Required = T ÷ [(1 − F) × (1 − R)]

Example: Plaintiff needs $200,000 take-home; 40% fee; 37% federal + 5% state = 42% combined
Gross = $200,000 ÷ [(1 − 0.40) × (1 − 0.42)]
Gross = $200,000 ÷ [0.60 × 0.58]
Gross = $200,000 ÷ 0.348
Required Gross Settlement = $574,713

A $400,000 settlement offer that “feels” like enough leaves this plaintiff with $139,200 — $60,800 short.

Why Defendants Often Accept the Gross-Up

A sophisticated defendant who understands the plaintiff’s post-TCJA tax situation will often accept a gross-up negotiation because the economics are favorable. The defendant deducts the entire settlement payment as a business expense regardless of how it is structured, provided it meets the ordinary and necessary business expense requirements under IRC Section 162. The defendant’s tax cost of paying $575,000 versus $400,000 is offset by the larger deduction.

If the defendant is a corporation in the 21% federal bracket, increasing the settlement by $175,000 costs them $175,000 gross but only $138,250 after the deduction ($175,000 less $36,750 in tax savings). The plaintiff, conversely, needs the full $175,000 increase just to maintain the same take-home. The gross-up negotiation is not a zero-sum fight — it is a tax asymmetry that creates room for agreement.

Negotiation Tip for Commercial Counsel: Present the gross-up calculation to defense counsel with the tax math fully shown. Most sophisticated corporate defendants have in-house tax counsel who understand the IRC Section 162 deductibility mechanics. Reframing the negotiation as “what number makes the plaintiff whole after tax” rather than “what is the maximum we can extract” often produces more productive settlement discussions at the mediation table.

Punitive Damages: Always Taxable, Always Overlooked

Punitive damages are taxable as ordinary income in virtually every commercial settlement. This is true even when the underlying claim involves a physical injury — the Section 104 exclusion applies to compensatory damages received on account of a physical injury, not to punitive damages. The only narrow statutory exception is in wrongful death cases in states where applicable law provides exclusively for punitive damages, which is rare in practice.

For commercial settlements, punitive damages add a layer of tax exposure that is often poorly understood at the negotiating table. A $2 million commercial settlement that includes $500,000 in punitive damages means that $500,000 is fully taxable ordinary income with no possibility of exclusion, no above-the-line deduction (unless the claim qualifies under IRC Section 62(a)(20)), and no offsetting attorney fee deduction under the current TCJA framework.

Tax Treatment of Damages by Category
Damage Type Physical Injury Case Commercial Case IRC Authority
Compensatory — physical injury/sickness Excluded from income Not applicable (no physical injury) IRC §104(a)(2)
Compensatory — lost profits / business damages Taxable (not physical) Fully taxable as ordinary income IRC §61; Banks (2005)
Compensatory — back pay / lost wages Taxable Taxable; may be subject to payroll tax IRC §61; Rev. Rul. 2004-110
Compensatory — emotional distress Excluded if caused by physical injury Taxable if unrelated to physical injury IRC §104(a); Reg. 1.104-1(c)
Punitive damages Taxable (except narrow wrongful death exception) Fully taxable as ordinary income IRC §104(c); O’Gilvie (1996)
Attorney fees — discrimination claims only Not applicable (exclusion covers gross) Above-the-line deduction per IRC §62(a)(20) IRC §62(a)(20)–(21)
Attorney fees — all other commercial claims Not applicable (exclusion covers gross) Not deductible post-TCJA for individuals IRC §67(g) (TCJA)
Interest on settlement (pre- or post-judgment) Taxable as ordinary income Taxable as ordinary income IRC §61; Rev. Rul. 70-601

This table provides general guidance only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Specific settlement components may have different tax treatment depending on the facts. Always engage qualified tax counsel before finalizing settlement allocation language.

The Settlement Agreement Allocation Clause and Punitive Damages

A settlement agreement that does not allocate the proceeds between compensatory and punitive damages gives the IRS the authority to make that allocation on audit. Without a specified breakdown, the IRS may treat the entire settlement as non-excludable income. For any commercial settlement with a punitive component, the allocation between compensatory and punitive amounts should be explicit, supported by the claims actually litigated, and reviewed by tax counsel before execution.

The Above-the-Line Deduction Lifeline: IRC Section 62(a)(20) and Who Qualifies

The TCJA’s elimination of miscellaneous itemized deductions does not reach above-the-line deductions. Congress carved out a specific category of attorney fee deductions under IRC Section 62(a)(20) and (21) that are deductible from gross income — meaning they reduce AGI directly and are available to taxpayers who take the standard deduction.

The above-the-line deduction applies to attorney fees paid in connection with:

  • Unlawful discrimination claims — employment discrimination based on race, sex, age, disability, religion, national origin, and other protected categories under federal law (Title VII, ADA, ADEA, etc.)
  • Whistleblower claims — cases brought under the False Claims Act or under IRS or SEC whistleblower programs
  • Certain civil rights violations — claims under specific federal civil rights statutes enumerated in Section 62(e)
  • Certain veterans’ reemployment rights claims
Who this saves: An employment discrimination plaintiff who recovers $400,000 (including $160,000 attorney fees at 40%) can deduct the full $160,000 as an above-the-line deduction if the claim qualifies under Section 62(a)(20). Their taxable income is $240,000 (net recovery), not $400,000 (gross settlement). The tax drag disappears entirely.

Who This Does NOT Save

The Section 62(a)(20) lifeline is specifically and narrowly targeted. It does not apply to breach of contract claims, even when the contract had an anti-discrimination purpose. It does not apply to fraud or misrepresentation claims. It does not apply to defamation, trade secret, or IP cases. And crucially, it does not apply to the majority of commercial disputes between businesses, even when the conduct was discriminatory in a colloquial sense.

Corporate plaintiffs — entities rather than individuals — are also outside the personal income tax framework entirely. A corporation that settles a commercial dispute receives income taxed at the corporate rate. There is no Section 104 exclusion for corporate plaintiffs and no personal income tax attorney fee problem, because the corporation deducts legal fees as ordinary business expenses on its corporate return. The TCJA trap is, in this sense, a problem specific to individual commercial plaintiffs.

🏛
IRS Publication 4345 — Settlements Taxability The IRS publishes a dedicated resource on the taxability of lawsuit settlements, organized by claim type and damage category. Essential reading for any plaintiff or counsel modeling settlement tax consequences: IRS Publication 4345: Settlements — Taxability

Settlement Allocation Strategy to Minimize Tax Drag

Where the facts of the underlying litigation permit, plaintiff counsel and their tax advisor can use allocation strategy to shift settlement proceeds toward lower-tax or excluded categories. This is not aggressive tax planning — it is the application of well-established tax law to the economic reality of what the plaintiff actually lost.

Strategies That Work

✓ Strategies That Reduce Tax Drag

  • Physical injury component identification: If any component of a mixed claim involves physical injury (e.g., stress-induced hypertension, physical symptoms from workplace harassment), isolate and document that component with medical evidence for Section 104 exclusion
  • Structured settlement for installment payments: Spreading taxable income across multiple tax years reduces the impact of marginal rate compression; consult a structured settlement broker for annuity options
  • Qualified settlement fund (QSF) for deferral: Establishing a QSF can allow the plaintiff’s tax year to be deferred while lien resolution and allocation planning proceed
  • Attorney fee allocation to above-the-line claims: In mixed cases, allocate fees to discrimination or whistleblower components first to maximize Section 62(a)(20) deductions
  • Corporate plaintiff structure: Where a business entity was harmed, evaluate whether the claim can be brought at the entity level to access corporate-rate taxation and full fee deductibility

✗ Strategies That Don’t Work

  • Labeling commercial damages as physical injury in the settlement agreement: The IRS uses the origin of the claim test; recharacterization without substantive basis is a red flag and will fail on audit
  • Directing payment of attorney fees to the attorney only: Under Banks, this does not avoid income inclusion for the plaintiff regardless of payment routing
  • Allocating excessive amounts to non-taxable categories: Allocation must reflect the actual claims and damages proved or alleged; implausible allocations invite audit scrutiny
  • Charitable donation of gross settlement: A charitable donation reduces taxable income but is itself subject to AGI limitations and itemized deduction rules; it does not eliminate the original tax drag
  • Contingency fee reduction near settlement: Attorney fee reductions close to settlement can raise assignment of income issues and do not retroactively solve the tax drag problem for the year of settlement

State Income Tax: The Second Layer of Tax Drag

Federal tax drag at 37% is the primary exposure, but state income tax creates a second, compounding layer that is frequently underestimated in settlement analysis. In high-tax states, the combined rate can push the effective rate on net recovery above 80%.

Combined Federal + State Tax Drag on $1M Commercial Settlement at 40% Fee
Plaintiff State Top State Income Rate Federal Rate (37%) Combined Rate Tax Drag on $400K Fee Effective Rate on $600K Net
California13.3%37%50.3%$201,20083.5%
New York (NYC)12.7%*37%49.7%$198,80082.2%
New Jersey10.75%37%47.75%$191,00079.0%
Oregon9.9%37%46.9%$187,60077.6%
Minnesota9.85%37%46.85%$187,40077.5%
Illinois4.95%37%41.95%$167,80069.4%
Texas / Florida0%37%37%$148,00061.2%
Wyoming / Nevada0%37%37%$148,00061.2%

*New York City residents face the state rate (10.9%) plus the NYC local income tax (3.876%), which when combined with SALT deduction limitations results in an effective combined rate shown above. Rates current as of 2026. State rates subject to change. This table is illustrative only.

The California plaintiff at maximum exposure: A California resident with a $1 million commercial settlement at 40% contingency fee and a 50.3% combined marginal rate pays $503,000 in total federal and state income taxes on $1 million gross income. After the $400,000 attorney fee, they receive $600,000 net but owe $503,000 in tax. Take-home: $97,000 from a $1 million settlement. This is the mathematical reality of the TCJA trap in its most severe form, and it is why California commercial litigation counsel routinely advise clients to model the gross-up before entering mediation.

Three Worked Examples Across Commercial Case Types

Example A: Breach of Contract — Software Licensing Dispute

Case Setup

B2B Software Vendor vs. Enterprise Client — Breach of Contract

Gross Settlement$750,000
Contingency Fee (post-filing, 40%)($300,000)
Plaintiff Net After Fee$450,000
IRS Taxable Income (the full $750,000 gross)$750,000
Federal Income Tax at 37%($277,500)
State Income Tax at 5% (hypothetical)($37,500)
Total Tax($315,000)
Plaintiff Actual Take-Home$135,000
Effective Rate on Net Recovery70.0%
Tax Drag Amount (tax on fee that was never received)$126,000
Gross-up required for $300,000 take-home target: Gross = $300,000 ÷ [(1−0.40)×(1−0.42)] = $862,069. The plaintiff should have negotiated $862K, not $750K, to achieve their take-home target.

Example B: Employment Discrimination — Title VII Claim (Above-the-Line Deduction Available)

IRC §62(a)(20) Qualified Claim

Title VII Race Discrimination — Back Pay, Front Pay, and Emotional Distress

Gross Settlement$400,000
Contingency Fee (40%)($160,000)
Plaintiff Net After Fee$240,000
IRS Taxable Income (gross)$400,000
IRC §62(a)(20) Above-the-Line Deduction for Attorney Fee($160,000)
Adjusted Gross Income$240,000
Federal Income Tax on $240,000 at ~24%–32% blend($57,600)
Plaintiff Actual Take-Home$182,400
Effective Rate on Net Recovery24.0%
The Section 62(a)(20) deduction eliminates the tax drag entirely. The plaintiff pays tax only on what they actually received. This is the correct outcome Congress intended for discrimination claimants — and precisely why knowing whether a claim qualifies for the above-the-line deduction is the first question in any commercial settlement tax analysis.

Example C: Business Fraud — Investment Loss Recovery with Punitive Damages

Maximum Tax Drag Scenario

Securities Fraud / Ponzi Scheme Recovery — Mixed Compensatory and Punitive Award

Gross Settlement$2,000,000
Settlement Allocation — Compensatory (return of principal)$1,200,000
Settlement Allocation — Punitive Damages$800,000
Contingency Fee (40% of gross)($800,000)
Plaintiff Net After Fee$1,200,000
Tax Treatment: Compensatory — Return of Capital$0 taxable (basis recovery)
Tax Treatment: Punitive Damages$800,000 fully taxable
Tax Treatment: Fee on Punitive Portion ($800K × 40%)$320,000 taxable, not deductible
Total Taxable Income$1,120,000
Federal Tax at 37%($414,400)
State Tax at 9.9% (Oregon)($110,880)
Total Tax($525,280)
Plaintiff Actual Take-Home$674,720
The basis recovery on the compensatory component eliminates tax on $1.2M of the gross. However, the punitive damages component and the attorney fee allocated to those damages creates $1.12M in taxable income. The plaintiff recovers two-thirds of a $2M settlement but takes home only $674,720. The gross-up required to produce a $1M take-home on the taxable component is substantially higher than the additional $800K in punitives suggests.

FAQs for Commercial Settlement Tax Drag

Are commercial litigation settlements taxable income?

Yes. Commercial litigation settlements — including fraud, breach of contract, defamation, trade secret misappropriation, and non-physical employment claims — are generally taxable as ordinary income to the plaintiff. The exclusion under IRC Section 104(a)(2) applies only to damages received on account of a physical injury or physical sickness. Non-physical injury settlements do not qualify for this exclusion regardless of how the settlement agreement is drafted.

Can a commercial plaintiff deduct their attorney contingency fee after the TCJA?

Generally no, unless the claim qualifies for the above-the-line deduction under IRC Section 62(a)(20) or (21). The TCJA suspended all miscellaneous itemized deductions subject to the 2% floor, including attorney fees paid in connection with commercial litigation. As a result, most commercial plaintiffs must report the full gross settlement as income but cannot deduct the contingency fee portion they never actually received. The exception for discrimination and whistleblower claims under Section 62(a)(20) is the primary relief valve.

Does the settlement agreement’s characterization of damages bind the IRS?

Not conclusively. The IRS uses an “origin of the claim” test that looks at the nature of the underlying claim, not only the parties’ characterization in the settlement documents. A settlement that designates payments as physical injury damages when no physical injury was alleged or proved will not survive audit scrutiny. That said, a well-reasoned allocation in a settlement agreement that is consistent with the claims actually litigated carries significant evidentiary weight and should always be included. Work with tax counsel before finalizing settlement language.

Can a structured settlement reduce the tax drag for commercial claims?

A structured settlement paid over multiple years spreads taxable income across multiple tax years, which can reduce the effective marginal rate on the settlement income by preventing rate compression. However, it does not eliminate the tax drag from the attorney fee — the plaintiff is still taxed on the attorney’s share in each year it is received, based on the portion of each structured payment attributable to fees. The primary benefit of structuring is rate smoothing and potential deferral; it does not solve the fundamental TCJA exclusion problem for the fee component.

How do commercial plaintiffs who are businesses (LLCs, corporations) handle this issue?

The TCJA trap — being taxed on gross settlement including attorney fees without a deduction — is specifically a problem for individual taxpayers. A corporation or LLC that is itself the plaintiff in commercial litigation reports the gross settlement as business income but deducts attorney fees as ordinary and necessary business expenses under IRC Section 162. The net taxable income is the net recovery. Corporate plaintiffs should still model the after-tax settlement value and the gross-up for comparative analysis, but the mechanics are fundamentally different from the individual plaintiff scenario.

What should a forensic accountant calculate before advising on a settlement offer?

A forensic accountant advising a commercial plaintiff should calculate: (1) the gross settlement amount, (2) the attorney fee under all applicable sliding-scale tiers, (3) the plaintiff’s projected taxable income including the full gross settlement, (4) the estimated federal and state income tax liability, (5) the after-tax after-fee net take-home, (6) the effective rate on the net recovery, (7) the tax drag amount (tax attributable to the fee the plaintiff never received), (8) the gross-up amount required to produce the plaintiff’s minimum acceptable take-home, and (9) whether any above-the-line deduction or Section 104 exclusion applies to reduce or eliminate the drag. Only then is the plaintiff in a position to evaluate whether a settlement offer is genuinely adequate.