A plaintiff and attorney who enter into a contingent fee contract have a unique relationship. The plaintiff has hired the attorney to maximize his return on a potential legal claim. He could proceed pro se, but he believes that the attorney's experience will yield a more favorable judgment despite the fact that his attorney receives, pursuant to their contract, a portion of the judgment or settlement. In reality, the plaintiff is never able to access the attorney's portion of the recovery. Nonetheless, under current tax law, a plaintiff in certain jurisdictions must pay federal income taxes on the attorney's share of the judgment or settlement.' Because the attorney has a strong contractual right tantamount to an ownership interest in the settlement or judgment,2 and, alternatively, because the plaintiff has no effective means to gain dominion over the entire recovery, this Comment argues that courts should permit plaintiffs to exclude contingent attorneys' fees from their gross income for tax purposes. Currently, courts disagree on whether to permit exclusion. Some courts have disallowed exclusion because of the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine. According to this doctrine, a taxpayer cannot avoid taxation by assigning his income to another. The assignment of income doctrine, however, evolved from a set of cases that can