
James F. McDonough
Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: James F. McDonough
Date: February 28, 2018

Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.comThe new tax reform bill contains a wide range of changes that New Jersey businesses must consider. Some are not exclusively financial. In response to the increased attention on sexual harassment in the workplace, a provision was added to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that discourages companies’ use of nondisclosure agreements in harassment and sexual assault settlements.

As has been widely reported in the media, the alleged victims of Harvey Weinstein and Bill O’Reilly all executed nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) that prohibited them from publicly discussing their harassment claims. The agreements not only helped protect the reputations of their employers but also qualified as a tax-deductible business expense.
The use of nondisclosure agreements or nondisclosure clauses is one of the best ways to shield such information assets from unintended disclosure. At the most basic level, a nondisclosure agreement is a contract. The parties exchange mutual promises, the disclosing party to release the confidential information and the receiving party promises to protect the confidentiality of the information disclosed. Non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”) are useful in business acquisitions where the information of the target is protected from disclosure and unfair use by the acquirer. In the intellectual; property arena, NDAs provide an opportunity for a company to evaluate the IP without obtaining the right to use or copy it.
Through a nondisclosure agreement or clause, businesses can go a long way toward ensuring that their information stays confidential. In cases where information is wrongfully shared or misused, nondisclosure agreements should provide legal recourse, including at a minimum, the ability to petition the court for an injunction to prevent further disclosure. In litigation settlements, it is paramount that the settlement contains NDA language to prevent future disclosure.
Under Section 162 of the U.S. Tax Code, companies are authorized to deduct ordinary and necessary expenses of conducting business, with certain exceptions. Accordingly, companies are generally able to deduct the payment of a judgment or settlement of a suit or claim arising out of a business matter, such as employment claims. Employers have also relied on this deduction to cover the costs of counsel defending such claims.
Internal Revenue Code Section 162(q) now expressly denies taxpayers the ability to deduct as a business expense any payment made: 1) in settlement related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse, or 2) for attorney’s fees related to any settlement of a sexual harassment or sexual abuse claim if such settlement or payment is subject to a nondisclosure agreement. The new tax law provision applies to any payments made on or after December 22, 2017.
Notably, Section 162(q) does not define the terms “sexual harassment” or “sexual abuse.” It also does not address how to determine whether any particular payment would be “related to” such claims within the meaning of the new provision. We expect that the Internal Revenue Service will provide guidance on these topics in the near term. If the payment is non-deductible, the cost of settlement has become more expensive. What is clear is that public companies have their work cut out in order to explain settlement to the shareholders and auditors.
The tax reform law adds another layer of analysis for businesses seeking to resolve sexual harassment claims. NDAs are an effective means of reducing the public relations fallout. However, they because they no longer have the same financial benefit, it may not make sense to add an NDA to every settlement agreement.
In cases involving particularly egregious or salacious allegations, the inability to write off the settlement may be inconsequential. However, in other cases, businesses should consider whether an NDA is worth the financial cost.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, James McDonough, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!