🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
Ezel / Tax Rulings / CT
CT Ruling 89-1 Occupational Tax 1989-02-27

Did a pro hac vice federal-court appearance count as practicing law in Connecticut under Ruling 89-1?

Short answer: Yes, if the attorney was admitted by the judges of the superior court. Admission pro hac vice to represent a client in federal district court at Bridgeport counted as engaging in the practice of law in Connecticut during 1988.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1989. Ezel answers yours, under current Connecticut tax law, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1989
Subsequent statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later rulings may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, rate, or position mentioned here.
Disclaimer: This 1989 Connecticut Department of Revenue Services Ruling addressed whether one attorney's pro hac vice federal-court appearance constituted practicing law in Connecticut during 1988 for occupational-tax purposes. It does not state that it is current, and later changes may affect attorney admission, practice-of-law, or tax rules. This summary is informational only and is not legal or tax advice. Consult a licensed Connecticut tax professional about current requirements.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official state tax ruling. The original ruling (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ruling (PDF)

Plain-English summary

If the requester had been admitted as an attorney by the judges of the superior court, admission pro hac vice to represent a client in federal district court at Bridgeport constituted engaging in the practice of law in Connecticut during 1988.

What this means for you

The ruling made its conclusion conditional on the attorney's admission status and limited the stated result to the 1988 Connecticut activity described.

Common questions

What court appearance was involved? A pro hac vice appearance in federal district court at Bridgeport.

Did it count as practicing law in Connecticut? Yes, if the attorney satisfied the stated superior-court admission condition.

What period did the ruling address? 1988.

Citations and references

  • Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-81b, as cited in the ruling.

Source

Original ruling text

Ruling 89-1, Occupational Tax

If you were "admitted as an attorney by the judges of the superior court"; Conn. Gen. Stat. §51-81b; then admission pro hac vice to represent a client in the federal district court at Bridgeport constituted being "engaged in the practice of law"; id.; during 1988 in Connecticut.

LEGAL DIVISION

February 27, 1989

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1989 ruling on this question. Ezel checks current Connecticut tax law and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.