Legal Opinion
Boccardo v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided April 21, 1987No. 382-85TPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MAYER, Judge.
Plaintiffs claim they were improperly denied a deduction for unrecovered litigation expenses paid under contingent fee agreements. There are no material facts in dispute and the case is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment.
Background
Plaintiff James F. Boccardo1 is the senior partner in the Boccardo Law Firm (the firm) in California. The firm’s practice *185consists primarily of personal injury cases handled on a contingent fee basis. The standard contingent fee agreement states that the firm would “pay all preparation and trial costs,” which typically include…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Herron v. State Farm Mutual InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- United States of America and Dennis J. Hanzel, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service v. Jay T. WillCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1982
- Canelo v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1969
- Reginald G. Hearn and Mary L. Hearn, Husband and Wife v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
- Hearn v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1961
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Gulf Life Insurance v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1996
- James F. Boccardo Lorraine v. Boccardo v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Boccardo v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1993
- Gulf Life Insurance Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- Gulf Life Insurance Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.