Employers who are faced with sexual harassment or sexual abuse claims by a current or former employee now have another problem to consider – are the settlement payment and related attorney’s fees incurred in settling the claim deductible? Unfortunately, the answer to that question may now be no.
The enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Act”) on December 22, 2017 resulted in many significant changes in our tax laws. One item of significance to employers is the inclusion of a new provision that restricts the ability of an employer to deduct certain settlements or payments relating to sexual harassment or sexual abuse claims.
Specifically, the Act added a new Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) section, 162(q), which provides that “[n]o deduction shall be allowed . . . for (1) any settlement or payment related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse if such settlement or payment is subject to a nondisclosure agreement, or (2) attorney’s fees related to such a settlement or payment.”
The impetus for the enactment of this new code section was of course the concern that confidentiality provisions tied to sexual harassment/sexual abuse settlements could potentially protect sexual predators and enable them to offend again. However, confidentiality provisions are a common component in settlement agreements involving the settlement of employment-related claims including sexual harassment and can be of critical importance to employers.
Given the broad scope of the statutory language, there are a number of uncertainties with respect to what deductions are permissible. For example, neither the statute nor the accompanying legislative history includes a definition of the term “related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse.” Does the statute preclude the deduction of the entire amount of a settlement in a case where sexual harassment is only one of many claims brought? As we know, employment-related lawsuits very often include a claim for sexual harassment along with a variety of other claims. Can a settlement be allocated between the various claims so that only the portion of the settlement (and related attorney’s fees) allocated to sexual harassment is nondeductible in cases where a nondisclosure provision is included in the settlement agreement? Is a deduction allowed if a nondisclosure provision is included in the settlement agreement with the specification that it only applies to claims other than the sexual harassment/sexual abuse claim?
Since there are currently no regulations or other rulings interpreting this IRC section, there are unfortunately no answers to the above questions at this time. As such, while it may be advisable to include an allocation between claims in a settlement agreement, until further guidance is issued, an employer wanting to ensure the deductibility of its settlement payment (and related attorney’s fees) in a sexual harassment or sexual abuse case will need to avoid including a nondisclosure provision in the settlement agreement. Alternatively, if a nondisclosure provision is critical to an employer, the employer will need to take into account the fact that the settlement payment and related attorney’s fees will not be deductible in determining the amount for which it is willing to pay to settle the claim.
- Partner
Cindy is head of the firm's business and tax team and represents both for profit and nonprofit clients in all types of general corporate transactional matters including entity formations, corporate governance, compensation ...
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- California Supreme Court Issues Groundbreaking Decision Applying Prevailing Wages to Non-Construction Work for Sanitation District
- California Reinstates COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave
- Department of Labor Rescinds Independent Contractor and Joint Employer Rules from Previous Administration
- President Biden’s Administration Halts Department of Labor’s Final Rule for Worker Classification
- Rotational Employees Can Have Their “On” And “Off” Weeks Counted Against Their FMLA Leave Entitlement
- Ninth Circuit Issues Important Decision on Per Diem Pay
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Victory for Trucking Industry: California Meal and Rest Break Rules Preempted by Federal Law as to Commercial Drivers
- They Say Never Discuss Politics In Polite Company, But How Can Employers Handle Impolitic Off-Duty Conduct?
- DOL Permits Back-of-the-Restaurant Staff to Share in Servers’ Tips
- Can California Employers Be Liable For Failure To Prevent Something That Never Happened?
Popular Categories
- (135)
- (44)
- (40)
- (2)
- (22)
- (31)
- (6)
- (26)
- (6)
- (22)
- (14)
- (1)
- (5)
- (6)
- (4)
- (3)
- (14)
- (3)
- (9)
- (2)
- (2)
- (1)
- (3)
- (1)
- (3)
- (1)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Christopher S. Andre
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Sarkis A. Atoyan
- Alicia A. Belock
- Eddy R. Beltran
- Rex Darrell Berry
- William M. Betley
- Brigham M. Cheney
- Michele L. Collender
- Kevin R. Dale
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- William A. Diedrich
- Alfonso Estrada
- Lauren D. Fierro
- Paul S. Fleck
- Robert Fried
- L. Brent Garrett
- Carol A. Gefis
- Kieran D. Hartley
- Amber S. Healy
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Joshua N. Lange
- Catherine M. Lee
- Thomas A. Lenz
- David M. Lester
- Martin S. Li
- Mia A. Lomedico
- Jorge J. Luna
- Michael J. Morphew
- Ronald W. Novotny
- Michael J. O'Connor, Jr.
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Joseph E. Pelochino
- Justin R. Peters
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Casandra P. Secord
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Ann K. Smith
- Amber M. Solano
- Susana P. Solano
- Ethan G. Solove
- Susan M. Steward
- April Szabo
- Jay G. Trinnaman
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Robert L. Wenzel
- Brian M. Wheeler
- Glen A. Williams
- Kimberley A. Worley
Archives
2021
2020
- December 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- January 2020
2019
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
2018
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
2017
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
2016
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
2015
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
2011
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011