According to Forbes, transferring lawsuit claims can trigger significant tax consequences for both plaintiffs and buyers. The timing of transfers is critical, with early assignments potentially shifting tax liability while late transfers may be disregarded under the assignment of income doctrine. These transactions require careful consideration of valuation, documentation, and IRS reporting requirements.
Table of Contents
Understanding Assignment of Income Doctrine
The assignment of income doctrine represents one of the most challenging areas in tax law, rooted in the fundamental principle that income should be taxed to the person who earns it. This doctrine becomes particularly complex in litigation settlements where the timing of claim transfers can determine whether the original plaintiff or the transferee bears the tax burden. The IRS applies a “fruit and tree” analogy – you cannot assign the fruit (income) while keeping the tree (the claim itself). This creates a legal gray area where transfers occurring too close to settlement may be recharacterized as the original plaintiff constructively receiving the income.
Critical Timing and Valuation Challenges
What the source analysis doesn’t fully explore are the practical difficulties in valuing contingent legal claims. Unlike traditional assets, lawsuit valuations involve assessing probability of success, potential recovery amounts, and timing uncertainties. This creates significant compliance risks, as taxpayers must establish fair market value at the time of transfer for both gift tax and income tax purposes. The IRS frequently challenges these valuations, particularly in intra-family transfers where arms-length pricing is difficult to establish. Additionally, plaintiffs who remain involved in the litigation after transferring their claim risk having the entire transaction recharacterized under the step transaction doctrine.
Growing Secondary Market Implications
The emergence of a robust secondary market for legal claims has created new compliance challenges for all parties involved. Third-party litigation funders and claim buyers now operate in a regulatory gray area where Form 1099 reporting obligations become ambiguous. When defendants pay settlements to claim purchasers rather than original plaintiffs, the information reporting chain can break down, creating audit exposure for all parties. This market evolution also raises questions about whether claim purchases should be treated as debt instruments, equity investments, or something entirely different for tax purposes – a classification that dramatically affects the buyer’s tax treatment upon ultimate recovery.
Strategic Planning Considerations
The landscape for claim transfers is likely to become more complex as the litigation finance industry matures. We anticipate increased IRS scrutiny of these transactions, particularly as larger amounts move through secondary markets. Sophisticated plaintiffs and investors should consider obtaining private letter rulings for significant transfers and implementing robust documentation practices that establish business purpose beyond mere tax avoidance. The timing element cannot be overstated – transfers occurring before the claim has substantially ripened toward resolution generally withstand challenge better than last-minute assignments. As financial publications continue covering this niche area, expect more guidance from both courts and the IRS as these transactions become more common.
