Court Opinion

ID: 9578050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:41:00.405201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:28.515866
License: Public Domain

Brachtenbach, C.J.
(concurring) — I agree with the result reached by the majority. I note, however, that the opinion misstates the scope of the tax exclusion embodied in Rule 207 (WAC 458-20-207). This rule excludes " [CJourt costs *773advanced by an attorney . . . from the attorney's income upon the reimbursement by the client or recovery of such amount in an action at law." (Italics mine.) Thus, this exclusion, which like all other exclusions must be narrowly construed, is limited to court costs accrued through litigation. It does not include, contrary to the majority's assertion, costs of filing, registering or maintaining patents. To include such costs is contrary to the general rules of judicial construction, and it also opens the door to other exclusions by analogy. Moreover, it is not necessary to draw such an analogy to reach the correct result. For these reasons, I do not join in the portion of the opinion that discusses Rule 207.
Nonetheless, because such patent costs are "advances" within the meaning of Rule 111, the majority properly excludes them from the gross income of the attorney. I concur, therefore, in the result.
Stafford, J., concurs with Brachtenbach, C.J.