Johnson v. LPL Financial Services

517 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 101 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 737, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77129, 2007 WL 3047098
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedOctober 17, 2007
DocketCivil 07cv233 W(LSP)
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 517 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (Johnson v. LPL Financial Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson v. LPL Financial Services, 517 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 101 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 737, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77129, 2007 WL 3047098 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

Opinion

ORDER REGARDING FORM 1099 ISSUING REQUIREMENTS AFTER PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT

LEO S. PAPAS, United States Magistrate Judge.

BACKGROUND

On July 25, 2007, Plaintiff and Defendant reached an agreement to settle Plaintiffs employment discrimination case. Plaintiff agreed to release all claims against Defendant in exchange for Defendant’s payment of a confidential sum. The parties were instructed to draft a settlement agreement memorializing their agreement. Thereafter, the parties stipulated that the undersigned would have jurisdiction to decide, inter alia, all disputes regarding settlement terms arising during the documentation of settlement that could not be resolved by the parties themselves.

The parties negotiated a written settlement agreement but came to an impasse regarding to whom, and in what amount, must Defendant provide Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter “IRS”) information form 1099s (hereinafter “form 1099”).

The Court requested that counsel submit briefs regarding the disputed issues. On August 31, 2007, Plaintiffs counsel *1232 (hereinafter “Attorney”) submitted to the Court a letter brief (hereinafter “Aug. 3 Letter Br.”). On September 5, 2007, Defendant’s counsel submitted to the Court a letter brief (hereinafter “Sept. 5 Letter Br.”). On October 4, 2007, Attorney submitted to the Court a letter brief that responded to Defendant’s Sept. 5 Letter Br. (hereinafter “Oct. 4 Letter Br.”).

Initially, Defendant drafted the settlement agreement to state “Defendant will issue any information statements (e.g., Form 1099) required by law with respect to the payment.” (Sept. 5 Letter Br., Ex. A.) Attorney objected to this language and suggested it be revised to read “Defendant will issue any information statements (e.g. Form 1099) required by law to Johnson’s attorney of record.” (Sept. 5 Letter Br., Ex. B.)

Attorney had originally requested Defendant provide him with a check made payable to both Attorney and Plaintiff, but requested Defendant issue a form 1099 solely to Attorney in the full amount of the settlement payment. Defendant informed Attorney that if Defendant made the settlement check payable to both Attorney and Plaintiff, Defendant would be required to issue form 1099s to both Attorney and Plaintiff. (Sept. 5 Letter Br., Exs. H, I.) Attorney then requested Defendant issue the settlement check solely to Attorney’s client trust account, and again requested Defendant issue a form 1099 solely to Attorney for the full amount of the settlement payment. (Sept. 5 Letter Br., Ex. J.) Defendant informed Attorney that if Defendant were to make the settlement check payable to Attorney’s client trust account, Defendant would continue to be required to issue form 1099s to both Attorney and Plaintiff. (Sept. 5 Letter Br., Ex. K.) Attorney remained steadfast in his position that Defendant should issue only one form 1099 to Attorney for the full amount of the settlement payment. (Sept. 5 Letter Br., Exs. L, O.)

On October 10, 2007, the Court heard arguments regarding to whom, and in what amount, Defendant should provide information statement form 1099s. This Order addresses Defendant’s form 1099 issuing requirements upon payment of a judgment or settlement.

DISCUSSION

1. Issuing Form 1099s

An IRS form 1099 is an informational statement businesses are required to provide to the recipient of a payment in order to report certain transactions to the IRS. 1 The requirement to issue a form 1099 is mandated by the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter “I.R.C.”) and associated Treasury Regulations (hereinafter “Treas. Regs.”). Failure to issue a form 1099 may result in penalties under I.R.C. § 6721.

After January 1, 2007, a Defendant engaged in a trade or business who makes a judgment and/or settlement payment over $600 may be required to issue a form 1099 to Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs Attorney depending on how the payment is made. 2 Whether or not Defendant must issue a *1233 form 1099 to only Plaintiff, to only Attorney, or to both Plaintiff and Attorney, will depend on the specific circumstances of the payment. 3

Pursuant to the I.R.C. and Treas. Regs., the Court must engage in a the three step analysis detailed below to determine what, if any, form 1099s Defendant must issue with regard to a judgment or settlement payment. This Order addresses each form of payment that Defendant may make separately, and the resulting form 1099 issuing requirements.

The Court’s Three Step Analysis:

(1) Is Defendant engaged in a trade or business?

(2) Is the judgment or settlement payment gross income to Plaintiff?

(3) How is Defendant paying Plaintiff?

(a) A check made out only to Plaintiff
(b) A check make out only to Attorney
(c) A check made out to Attorney and Plaintiff
(d) Separate checks to Attorney and Plaintiff
(e) A check made out to multiple Attorneys
(f) Another method of payment such as cash, wire transfer or electronic transfer

(1) Step One: Is Defendant engaged in a trade or business?

The Court begins by determining whether or not the Defendant is a person “engaged in a trade or business and making payment in the course of such trade or business.” 4 If the answer is yes, that *1234 Defendant is required to file form 1099s according to the instructions in the I.R.C. and Treas. Regs, as explained below. If Defendant is not engaged in a trade or business, then Defendant is not required to issue form 1099s.

The Treas. Regs, explain that Defendant is engaged in a trade or business if Defendant performs any activity for gain or profit or is a non-profit organization under I.R.C. §§ 401(a), 501(c), 501(d) or 521. 5 Defendant is not engaged in a trade or business if Defendant is merely an individual or is acting in his or her individual capacity. 6 If the court finds Defendant is engaged in a trade or business, the Court moves to step two in its analysis to determine whether or not the payment is gross income to Plaintiff.

(2) Step Two: Is the judgment or settlement payment gross income to Plaintiff?

The IRS broadly defines what constitutes gross income and allows for few exceptions. Generally, income is “all income from whatever source derived.” 7 Payments of a judgment or settlement will likely fall within the broad scope of taxable income. However, a few exceptions exist. 8

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
517 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 101 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 737, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77129, 2007 WL 3047098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-lpl-financial-services-casd-2007.