plaintiff.” We read the applicable case law to leave the deductibility of taxes from profits to the district court, exercising its discretion in equity. See, e.g., New Line Cinema Corp. v. Russ Berrie & Co., 161 F.Supp.2d 293, 304 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (exercising equitable dis cretion and allowing deduction of taxes from profits of the infringer). See also L.P. Larson, Jr., Co. v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 277 U.S. 97, 99-100, 48 S.Ct. 449, 72 L.Ed. 800 (1928) (rejecting deduction of taxes for a willful infringer, but holding that deductibility depends on the circumstances); W.E. Bassett Co. v. Revlon, Inc., 435 F.2d 656, 665 (2d Cir.1970) (allowing defendants to deduct income tax payments despite willful infringement); In Design v. K-Mart Apparel Corp., 13 F.3d 559, 566-567 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Under this case law, deductibility of the
holding nonwillful infringer was entitled to deduct taxes paid on its innocentlyacquired unlawful profits holding unemployment taxes accrued when employees were terminated not when the amount of compensation taxes are determinable holding petitioner could not deduct real estate taxes imposed on property he did not own because these taxes were not imposed on him holding that taxes were a claim against the estate that had to be filed in probate court thus reversing an order requiring heirs to pay taxes on estate property because the district court did not have jurisdiction holding that a refund may include additional taxes paid after the filing of a refund claim so long as the total does not exceed the portion of tax paid prior to the administrative claim