Author: National Law Forum

A group of in-house attorneys developed the National Law Review on-line edition to create an easy to use resource to capture legal trends and news as they first start to emerge. We were looking for a better way to organize, vet and easily retrieve all the updates that were being sent to us on a daily basis.In the process, we’ve become one of the highest volume business law websites in the U.S. Today, the National Law Review’s seasoned editors screen and classify breaking news and analysis authored by recognized legal professionals and our own journalists. There is no log in to access the database and new articles are added hourly. The National Law Review revolutionized legal publication in 1888 and this cutting-edge tradition continues today.

Domestic Visa Processing – Application Slots Now Available

On January 29, 2024, the Department of State’s stateside visa pilot renewal program began accepting DS-160s for qualifying individuals seeking to renew their existing H-1B visas while they are in the United States. As discussed in our previous blog post about this new program, the program allows individuals in the United States who are renewing an H-1B visa issued by US consular sections in Canada between 1/1/2020 and 4/1/2023 or one issued by US consular sections in India from 1/2/2021 and 9/30/2023 to do so online through the Department’s CEAC website rather than having to travel outside the US to obtain the visa.

Under the pilot program, each week for five weeks the Department will release 4000 application slots—2000 for applicants whose most recent H-1B visa were issued in Canada, and 2000 for those whose most recent H-1B visas were issued in India. If all designated slots are filled before the next week’s allotment becomes available, the Department will lock the portal until the next group is released. Applications can be submitted online at https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/employment/domestic-renewal.html, where you can also find program FAQs published by the Department of State.

The first group of application slots was released on Monday, January 29. Later groups will be released on February 5, February 12, February 19, and February 26. The program will end when all available slots are filled or on April 1, 2024, whichever happens first.

Listen to this post.

CalRecycle Seeks Stakeholder Feedback on Single-Use Packaging EPR Program

Tomorrow, February 1, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) will host a hybrid question and answer session to discuss the draft rulemaking on their extended producer responsibility (EPR) program, as discussed below. A 45-day public comment period will follow. Members of the regulated community who wish to attend can find in-person and virtual information on the session here.

Members of B&D’s Plastics and Packaging team will attend the public meeting and will be prepared to answer any questions clients and contacts may have. A more substantive update on what to expect from CalRecycle and the rulemaking process is forthcoming.

Background

In June 2022, the California legislature passed a transformational law creating an EPR program with ambitious goals to ensure 100% of single-use packaging and plastic food ware is recyclable or compostable by 2032. The law creates responsibility for producers, typically manufacturers that are brand owners (although it applies to others as well), to join a producer responsibility organization (PRO) that will develop a plan to implement the law, including raising $5 billion from industry members over 10 years. CalRecycle has selected the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) as the PRO and is developing regulations to implement the law.

Companies potentially impacted by the SB 54 regulations should monitor the rulemaking process and prepare to submit comments within the upcoming 45-day public comment period. To receive periodic updates on CalRecycle’s implementation of SB 54, subscribe to the Agency’s SB 54 listserv here.

Reminder to Employers Regarding Mandatory Workplace Posters

As employers march through the beginning of the new year, they should ensure they are in compliance with the various mandatory workplace notice and posting requirements under applicable state and federal laws.

To that end, the U.S. Department of Labor provides a poster advisory tool for employers to reference. Similarly, most state department of labor websites will, at the very least, provide a list of required state employment posters. Many of these websites also provide links for employers to download mandatory posters for free.

For Texas employers, for example, the Texas Workforce Commission’s website contains a list of optional and required posters. In addition to federally mandated posters, private Texas employers are required to post information related to the Texas Payday law and unemployment compensation, and workers’ compensation, if the employer has workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Further, as of January 8, 2024, Texas employers must post a “Reporting Workplace Violence” notice in both English and Spanish.

Federal and state laws typically require that required posters be physically posted conspicuously at each of the employer’s facilities and/or work sites that are convenient and easily accessible to employees and, in some cases, job applicants. Because many employers have transitioned to or otherwise permitted hybrid and remote-work environments, such employers should remember that federally mandated notices may be electronically provided to remote employees, as well as displayed in the physical workspace for hybrid workforces. But, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s guidance, electronic posting or access should be at least as effective as a physical posting, and employees should be able to access the electronic posting without having to request permission to view it. Employers should verify whether the applicable state law allows for electronic delivery or posting of mandatory notices to remote and hybrid employees. In Texas, employers should look to federal guidance regarding the same.

As Three Recent Settlements Demonstrate, Whistleblowers Are the Key to Enforcement of Section 301 Tariffs

The Section 301 tariffs on Chinese-made goods—at the time, known as the Trump Tariffs, although President Biden has embraced them as well—were put in place in 2018. Only recently, more than five years later, have enforcement efforts begun to show up publicly. And, as is often the case, whistleblowers are the tip of the enforcement spear. In particular, over the course of two weeks at the end of 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced settlements of three qui tam cases, brought under the False Claims Act, that alleged evasion of Section 301 tariffs. These are the first such settlements to be made public, but likely signal the beginning of a wave of settlements or litigation in the coming years.

Starting in July of 2018, and pursuant to Title III of the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 301 through 310, 19 U.S.C. §§ 2411-2420), titled “Relief from Unfair Trade Practices,” and often collectively referred to as “Section 301,” the United States imposed additional tariffs on a wide range of products manufactured in China. The Section 301 tariffs were rolled out in tranches, but they fairly quickly covered a majority of all Chinese-made products imported into the United States. The Section 301 tariffs imposed an additional 25% customs duty on those products.

As is always the case when high tariffs are imposed on imported goods, the Section 301 tariffs were met with a mix of responses by importers. In some cases, importers simply paid the additional 25% duties. In some cases, the importers found new sources, outside of China, for the products they wished to import. And in many cases, the importers started cheating—evading the tariffs either by lying to Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) about what was being imported, or engaging to transshipping schemes to make it appear that the products were actually made in some country other than China.

Evasion of customs duties violates the False Claims Act, a federal law that, among other things, outlaws the making of false statements to avoid payment of money owed to the government. Evasion of customs duties will almost always involve such false statements because when goods are imported into the United States, the importer must provide CBP with a completed form, called an Entry Summary (also known as a Form 7501), in which the importer provides information about the nature, quantity, value, and country-of-origin of the goods being imported. To avoid or reduce the payment of duties, the importer will almost always lie on the Entry Summary about one or more of those, thus exposing the importer to liability under the False Claims Act.

The False Claims Act has a qui tam provision, which means that a private person or company may bring a lawsuit in the name of the government against the importer that has evaded payment of duties. If the qui tam lawsuit is successful, most of the money goes to the government. But the person or company that brought the lawsuit typically referred to as a whistleblower or, more technically, as the “relator”—gets an award that is between 15% and 30% of the amount recovered for the government.

When a qui tam case is first filed, it is put “under seal” by the court, meaning that it is secret and not available to the public. The case stays under seal, often for multiple years, as DOJ investigates the claims made in the case. But once DOJ decides to pursue a case, the seal is lifted, and the case becomes public. Often, this happens almost simultaneously with the announcement of a settlement of the case.

That is what happened with three cases that became public in late 2023. The first announcement came on November 29, 2023, when the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia announced a $1.9 million settlement in a case captioned United States ex rel Chinapacificarbide Inc. v. King Kong Tools, LLC. In that case, the whistleblower that had brought the qui tam lawsuit was a competitor company which alleged that King Kong Tools was manufacturing cutting tools in a factory in China, shipping them to Germany, and then importing them from Germany into the United States, claiming falsely that the tools were made in Germany. The whistleblowing company received an award of $286,861.

The second such announcement came on December 5, 2023, when the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas announced a $2.5 million settlement in a case captioned United States ex rel. Reznicek et al. v. Dallco Marketing, Inc. In that case, the whistleblowers were two individuals who alleged that the defendants evaded the Section 301 tariffs by underreporting the value of the products they were importing from China into the United States. The whistleblowers received an award of $500,000.

The third such announcement case on December 13, 2023, when the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Texas announced a settlement of $798,334 in a case captioned United States ex rel. Edwards v. Homestar North America LLC. Like the Dallco Marketing case, the Homestar case was also brought by an individual who alleged that the importer had lied to the government about the value of the goods being imported from China into the United States, in order to avoid payment of Section 301 tariffs. The whistleblower received an award of $151,683.

Accordingly, over the course of just two weeks in late 2023, three Section 301 settlements were publicly announced in quick succession. And notably, all three were whistleblower qui tam cases. This demonstrates the key role that whistleblowers play in the enforcement of customs tariffs and duties. No doubt, many other such cases remain under seal, and will start to become public as DOJ concludes its investigations. And because the Section 301 tariffs remain in place to this day, additional qui tam cases will almost certainly continue to be brought by both individual whistleblowers and competing companies seeking to level the playing field. Accordingly, these three settlements are likely just the early signs of a wave of Section 301 cases that will crest in the coming years.

CNN, BREAKING NEWS: CNN Targeted In Massive CIPA Case Involving A NEW Theory Under Section 638.51!

CNN is now facing a massive CIPA class action for violating CIPA Section 638.51 by allegedly installing “Trackers” on its website. In Lesh v. Cable News Network, Inc, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California by Bursor & Fisher, plaintiff accuses the multinational news network of installing 3 tracking software to invade users’ privacy and track their browsing habits in violation of Section 638.51.

The Evolution of California Invasion of Privacy Act:

We know the California Invasion of Privacy Act is this weird little statute that was enacted decades ago and was designed to prevent ease dropping and wiretapping because — of course back then law enforcements were listening into folks phone calls to find the communist.

638.51 in particular was originally enacted back in the 80s and traditionally, “pen-traps” were employed by law enforcement to record outgoing and/or incoming telephone numbers from a telephone line.

The last two years, plaintiffs have been using these decades-old statues against companies claiming that the use of internet technologies such as website chat boxes, web session recording tools, java scripts, pixels, cookies and other newfangled technologies constitute “wire tapping” or “eavesdropping” on website users.

And California courts who love to take old statutes and apply it to these new technologies – have basically said internet communications are protected from being ease dropped on.

Now California courts will have to address whether these new fangled technologies are also “pen-trap” “devices or processes” under 638.51. These new 638.51 cases involve technologies such as cookies, web beacons, java scripts, and pixels to obtain information about users and their devices as they browse websites and or mobile applications. The users are then analyzed by the website operator or a third party vendor to gather relevant information users’ online activities.

Section 638.51:

Section 638.51 prohibits the usage or installation of “pen registers” – a device or process that records or decodes dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information (commonly known as DRAS) and “trap and trace” (pen-traps) – devices or processes traditionally used by law enforcement that allow one to record all numbers dialed on outgoing calls or numbers identifying incoming calls — without first obtaining a court order.

Unlike CIPA’s 631, which prohibits wiretapping — the real-time interception of the content of the communications without consent, CIPA 638.51 prohibits the collection of DRAS.

638.51 has limited exceptions including where a service provider’s customer consents to the device’s use or to protect the rights of a service provider’s property.

Breaking Down the Terminology:

The term “pen register” means a device or process that records or decodes DRAs “transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is transmitted, but not the contents of a communication.” §638.50(b).

The term “trap and trace” focuses on incoming, rather than outgoing numbers, and means a “device or process that captures the incoming electronic or other impulses that identify the originating number or other dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic communication, but not the contents of a communication.” §638.50(c).

Lesh v. Cable News Network, Inc “CNN” and its precedent:

This new wave of CIPA litigation stems from a single recent decision, Greenley v. Kochava, where the CA court –allowed a “pen register” claim to move pass the motion to dismiss stage. In Kochava, plaintiff challenged the use of these new internet technologies and asserting that the defendant data broker’s software was able to collect a variety of data such as geolocation, search terms, purchase decisions, and spending habits. Applying the plain meaning to the word “process” the Kochava court concluded that “software that identifies consumers, gathers data, and correlates that data through unique ‘fingerprinting’ is a process that falls within CIPA’s pen register definition.”

The Kochava court noted that no other court had interpreted Section 638.51, and while pen registers were traditionally physical machines used by law enforcement to record outbound call from a telephone, “[t]oday pen registers take the form of software.” Accordingly the court held that the plaintiff adequately alleged that the software could collect DRAs and was a “pen register.”

Kochava paved the wave for 638.51 litigation – with hundreds of complaints filed since. The majority of these cases are being filed in Los Angeles Country Superior Court by the Pacific Trial Attorneys in Newport Beach.

In Lesh v. Cable News Network, Inc, plaintiff accuses the multinational news network of installing 3 tracking software to invade users’ privacy and track their browsing habits in violation of CIPA Section 638.51(a) which proscribes any “person” from “install[ing] or us[ing] a pen register or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order.”

Plaintiff alleges CNN uses three “Trackers” (PubMatic, Magnite, and Aniview), on its website which constitute “pen registers.” The complaint alleges to make CNN’s website load on a user’s browser, the browser sends “HTTP request” or “GET” request to CNN’s servers where the data is stored. In response to the request, CNN’s service sends an “HTTP response” back to the browser with a set of instructions how to properly display the website – i.e. what images to load, what text should appear, or what music should play.

These instructions cause the Trackers to be installed on a user’s browsers which then cause the browser to send identifying information – including users’ IP addresses to the Trackers to analyze data, create and analyze the performance of marketing campaigns, and target specific users for advertisements. Accordingly the Trackers are “pen registers” – so the complaint alleges.

On this basis, the Plaintiff is asking the court for an order to certify the class, and statutory damages in addition to attorney fees. The alleged class is as follows:

“Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 382, Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as all California residents who accessed the Website in California and had their IP address collected by the Trackers (the “Class”).

The following people are excluded from the Class: (i) any Judge presiding over this action and members of her or her family; (ii) Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or their parents have a controlling interest (including current and former employees, officers, or directors); (iii) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (iv) persons whose claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (v) Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel; and (vi) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.”

Under this expansive definition of “pen-register,” plaintiffs are alleging that almost any device that can track a user’s web session activity falls within the definition of a pen-register.

We’ll keep an eye out on this one – but until more helpful case law develops, the Kochava decision will keep open the floodgate of these new CIPA suits. Companies should keep in mind that unlike the other CIPA cases under Section 631 and 632.7, 638.51 allows for a cause of action even where no “contents” are being “recorded” – making 638.51 easier to allege.

Additionally, companies should be mindful of CIPA’s consent exceptions and ensure they are obtaining consent to any technologies that may trigger CIPA.

PFAS MDL Settlements: Red Herrings For Downstream Companies

Leading up to the aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) MDL litigation bellwether trial in June 2023, questions circulated regularly about the end game for the water utilities that had filed lawsuits alleging PFAS contamination to drinking water. With several hundred utilities with pending lawsuits seeking the costs for technology needed to filter PFAS from drinking water, monitoring wells, testing equipment, disposal costs, etc., and potentially thousands of other water utilities with similar potential lawsuits, the damages seemed astronomical. So, too, did the amount of time it would take to litigate each case to get the water utilities monetary relief. These two competing forces, plus the pressure of an actual trial date looming, led Dupont and 3M to announce PFAS MDL settlements in June 2023. At $1.185 billion by Dupont and between $10.3 billion and $12.5 billion by 3M, with the intention of both settlement funds to resolve all pending and potential water utility claims in the United States, it seemed to many that a resolution had been achieved that would address PFAS in drinking water systems without burdening utility customers or the utilities themselves.

The issue, though, is that over 9,000 water utilities were estimated to be in need of treatment technology to meet the EPA’s newly proposed drinking water standards. The American Water Works Association (AMWA) reminded everyone that their own estimates of the costs of compliance to the EPA’s level would cost utilities over $3.2 billion annually. Even buying into the old joke that lawyers are horrible at math, it does not take long for one to realize the significant gap in the proposed settlement amounts and AMWA’s estimates. Water utilities accepting money under the Dupont and 3M settlement funds are not all going to receive 100% of the necessary funding for remediation. How then will this deficit be resolved?

Water utilities will be reluctant to pass on all of the costs to customers, although pricing increases could provide a stopgap measure for water utilities on top of the MDL settlement funds. State or even federal funding may be available under grant, loan or other programs that can also assist. However, when the dust settles, it is likely that water utilities are going to look to a particular group of parties to pursue damages from – companies that discharged PFAS into waterways that fed into the water utility facilities. Lawsuits already abound nationally filed by private citizens against such companies for property damage, bodily injury and medical monitoring. Why then would water utilities finding themselves in need of significant money to properly treat drinking water not take similar legal action? Couple this with pressure water utilities are starting to receive in the form of finding themselves sued in class action lawsuits by private citizens, and the legal notion of contribution begins to ring very true for water utilities looking to minimize their own damages in such lawsuits and find sources of funding for remediation technology.

Companies that have historically discharged effluent into waterways that feed drinking water supplies must therefore keep all of the above in mind and not be lulled into a false sense of complacency that the Dupont and 3M settlements in the MDL are going to mean the end of PFAS drinking water litigation. I predict quite the opposite.

It is of the utmost importance that businesses along the whole commerce chain that have or believe that they might have used PFAS in certain processes take steps now to understand their PFAS risk. Public health and environmental groups urge legislators to regulate PFAS at an ever-increasing pace. Similarly, state level EPA enforcement action is increasing at a several-fold rate every year. Companies that did not manufacture PFAS, but merely utilized PFAS in their manufacturing processes, are becoming targets of costly enforcement actions at rates that continue to multiply year over year. Lawsuits are also filed monthly by citizens or municipalities against companies that are increasingly not PFAS chemical manufacturers. The only way to manage future risk is to fully understand what that risk picture looks like, and companies would be well-advised to invest in proper diligence for the PFAS risk question.

January 2024 Update: US Department of State Announces Pilot Program for Stateside H-1B Visa Renewals

On January 18, 2024, the Department of State published an online tool that H-1B visa applicants can use to determine if they are eligible for the stateside visa renewal pilot program. Over time, it is likely that the Department of State will expand eligibility. We expect the online tool for the program described below to be updated as the program expands.

Domestic Visa Renewal Eligibility Assessment

In December 2023, the US Department of State announced a pilot program for stateside renewal of certain visas. For the first time in nearly two decades, a limited number of H-1B nonimmigrants will be able to renew their visas from within the United States.

All nonimmigrant visas are currently issued by US Embassy and Consular officials outside of the United States. Beginning on January 29, 2024, the State Department will begin allowing certain nonimmigrants to renew their expired and expiring visas inside the United States. Applicants meeting the requirements of the program may submit an online application between January 29 and April 1, 2024. This is welcome news as visa processing at Consulates and Embassies abroad has become increasingly unpredictable and fraught with delays.

This is a pilot program that will be available on a very limited basis initially. However, the State Department has indicated a desire to expand the program after the pilot allows for the resolution of any operational issues.

This pilot program will allow for limited renewal of nonimmigrant visas in the United States. Eligibility will be limited to applicants who(se):

are renewing H-1B visas (H-4 and other visa classifications are not part of the pilot program);
prior H-1B visa being renewed was issued by either:
Mission Canada (i.e., US Consular posts located in Canada) with an issuance date from January 1, 2020 through April 1, 2023 OR
Mission India (i.e., US Consular posts located in India) with an issuance date of February 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021;
are nationals of countries which are not subject to reciprocity fees for H-1B visas;
are eligible for a waiver of the usual in-person interview requirement;
have submitted ten fingerprints in connection with a previous visa application;
prior H-1B visa does not contain a “clearance received” notation;
does not have an ineligibility basis that requires a waiver prior to visa issuance;
10.has an approved and valid H-1B petition;
11.was most recently admitted to the US in H-1B status;
12.is currently maintaining H-1B status in the US;
13.period of authorized H-1B admission has not expired; and
14.intends to reenter the US in H-1B status after temporary travel abroad.

Beginning January 29, 2024, eligible applicants may submit an application online through the State Department website. The State Department will allow approximately 4,000 applications each week, with 2,000 for applicants whose prior H-1B visas were issued by Mission Canada, and another 2,000 for applicants whose prior H-1B visas were issued by Mission India. Once the application limit has been reached, the application portal will be locked until the next allotment of application slots are released based on the schedule. On each Monday in February, the website will reopen for new submissions. The application period for the program will end the earlier of when all available application slots have been filled, or on April 1, 2024.

Applicants will be asked to complete an online application including:

a self-assessment of eligibility for the pilot program;
a Form DS-160 online visa application;
payment of the $205 non-refundable Machine-Readable Visa (MRV) fee; and
required documents, including:
- a properly completed, electronically filed Form DS-160;
- one photograph meeting Department of State specifications;
- original passport, valid for at least 6 months beyond the visa application date;
- original or copy of current Form I-797 Notice of Action (H-1B approval notice);
- original or copy of the applicant’s Form I-94 (available online here); and
- fee payment confirmation.

Processing time is expected to be approximately 6 to 8 weeks, with visaed passports returned to applicants via US postal service or courier. All documents must be submitted by April 15, 2024. The State Department aims to complete processing of all applications under this pilot program by the program’s conclusion date of May 1, 2024.

Prior to 2004, the State Department ran a similar program, allowing for H, L, O, I, E, and P visas to be renewed by mail through a State Department office in Washington, DC. Visa revalidation in the US was terminated in July 2004 due to the State Department’s inability to collect biometric data in the US as required by post-9/11 security enhancements.

The return of this program, and the ability of participants to secure a needed visa before departing the United States, will help alleviate the uncertainty associated with foreign travel for those who must secure new visas while abroad in order to return to the United States.

FDA Lists Regulations Under Development and Updates Priority Guidance Topics for Foods Program

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Foods Program has posted a new website listing regulations it plans to publish by October 2024 and long-term regulations it is prioritizing for publication at a later date. Additionally, FDA has updated the list of guidance topics it is considering and expects to publish by the end of 2024.
Regulations are officially announced in the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions published each spring and fall. Some of the regulations FDA has listed on its website include use of the “healthy” nutrient content claim, the use of ultrafiltered milk in cheese and cheese related products, and front-of-package nutrition labeling, among others.
The following five topics have been added to the list of guidance documents the FDA expects to publish by the end of December 2024:
- Notifying FDA of a Permanent Discontinuance in the Manufacture or an Interruption of the Manufacture of an Infant Formula; Draft Guidance for Industry;
- Action Levels for Lead in Food Intended for Babies and Young Children: Guidance for Industry;
- The Food Traceability Rule: Questions and Answers; Draft Guidance for Industry;
- Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food; Chapter 12: Preventive Controls for Chemical Hazards: Draft Guidance for Industry; and
- Voluntary Sodium Reduction Goals: Target Mean and Upper Bound Concentrations for Sodium in Commercially Processed, Packaged, and Prepared Foods (Edition 2): Draft Guidance for Industry
Public comments on the list of guidance topics can be submitted to www.regulations.gov using Docket ID FDA-2022-D-2088.

Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024

On January 17, 2024, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) released a bill, the “Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024” (“TRAFA” or the “bill”). All of the provisions in the bill are taxpayer favorable, except those that apply to the “employee retention tax credit”.

In short, the bill, if enacted as introduced, would:
• Allow taxpayers to deduct rather than amortize domestic research or experimental costs until 2026. Under current law, domestic research and experimental expenditures incurred after December 31, 2021 must be amortized over a 5-year period. Starting in 2026, taxpayers would once again be required to amortize those costs (as under current law) over five years (rather than deducting them immediately).
• Allow taxpayers to calculate their section 163(j) limitation on interest deductions without regard to any deduction allowable for depreciation, amortization, or depletion (i.e., as a percentage of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) rather than earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT)) for tax years 2024-2026. This provision would generally increase the limitation and allow greater interest deductions for taxpayers subject to section 163(j).
• Retroactively extend the 100% bonus depreciation for qualified property placed in service after December 31, 2022 until January 1, 2026 (January 1, 2027, for longer production period property and certain aircraft). 100% bonus depreciation, enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “TCJA”), expired for most property placed into service after December 31, 2022. Under existing law, bonus depreciation is generally limited to 80% for property placed into service during 2023, 60% for 2024, and 40% for 2025.
• Increase the maximum amount a taxpayer may expense of the cost of depreciable business assets under section 179 from $1.16 million in 2023 for qualifying property placed in service for the taxable year, to $1.29 million. The $1.16 million amount is reduced by the amount by which the cost of the property placed in service during the taxable year exceeds $2.89 million. Under the bill, the $2.89 amount is increased to $3.22 million. The provision applies to property placed in service in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.
• Effectively grant certain tax treaty benefits to residents of Taiwan, including (i) reducing the 30% withholding tax on U.S.-source interest and royalties from 30% to 10%, (ii) reducing the 30% withholding tax on U.S.-source dividends from to 15% or 10% (if the recipient owns at least 10% of the shares of stock in the payor corporation), and (iii) applying the “permanent establishment” threshold (rather than the lower “trade or business” threshold) for U.S. federal income taxation.
• Extend the qualified disaster area rules enacted in 2020 for 60 days after the date of enactment of the bill; exempt from tax certain “qualified wildfire relief payments” for tax years beginning in 2020 through 2025; exempt certain “East Palestine train derailment payments” from tax.
• Enhance the low income housing tax credit and tax-exempt bond financing rules.
• Increase the threshold for information reporting on IRS forms 1099-NEC and 1099-MISC from $600 to $1,000 for payments made on or after January 1, 2024 and increase the threshold for future years based on inflation.
• End the period for filing employee retention tax credit claims for tax years 2020 and 2021 as of January 31, 2024, and increase the penalties for aiding and abetting the understatement of a tax liability by a “COVID–ERTC promoter”.
• Increase the maximum refundable portion of the child tax credit from $1,600 in 2023 (out of the $2,000 maximum per child tax credit under current law) to $1,800 in 2023, $1,900 in 2024, and $2,000 in 2025; modify the calculation of the maximum refundable credit amount by providing that taxpayers first multiply their earned income (in excess of $2,500) by 15 percent, and then multiply that amount by the number of qualifying children (so that a taxpayer with two children would be entitled to double the amount of refundable credit); adjust the $2,000 maximum per child tax credit for inflation in 2024 and 2025; and allow taxpayers in 2024 and 2025 to use earned income from the prior taxable year to calculate their credit. These provisions would be effective for tax years 2023-2025, after which the maximum per child credit would revert to $1,000.

The bill does not increase the $10,000 limit on state and local tax deductions, or increase the $600 reporting threshold for IRS Form 1099-K (gift cards, payment apps, and online marketplaces).
The bill cleared the House Ways and Means Committee by a vote of 40 to 3 and awaits a vote by the full House (which is not expected to occur before January 29). Although the bill appears to have broad partisan support so far, the timing of final passage and enactment is uncertain.
The remainder of this blog post provides a summary of the key business provisions included in TRAFA.

Summary of Key Business Provisions
1. Retroactive extension for current deduction of domestic research or experimental costs that are paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, and before January 1, 2026 under Section 174.
Under current Section 174, specified research or experimental expenditures incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021 may not be currently deducted. Instead, the expenditures must be capitalized and amortized ratably over a 5-year period (or, in the case of expenditures that are attributable to research that is conducted outside of the United States, over a 15-year period). Before the TCJA, enacted in 2021, research or experimental expenditures were generally deductible in the year in which they were incurred.
The bill proposes to allow taxpayers to deduct domestic research or experimental costs until 2026. However, foreign research or experimental expenditures would continue to be amortizable over 15 years (as under current law).
Generally, a taxpayer who had already amortized the appropriate portion of its domestic research or experimental costs incurred in the 2022 tax year but wanted to switch to deducting these costs would be able to do so by electing to treat the application of the TRAFA provision as a Section 481(a) adjustment for the 2023 tax year and the adjustment would be taken into account ratably in the 2023 and 2024 federal income tax returns.
2. Retroactive extension to allow depreciation, amortization, or depletion in determining the limitation on business interest expense deduction under Section 163(j) for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2026.
Under current section 163(j), a deduction for business interest expense is disallowed to the extent it exceeds the sum of (i) business interest income, (ii) 30% of adjusted taxable income (“ATI”), and (iii) floor plan financing interest expense in the current taxable year. Any disallowed business interest expense may be carried forward indefinitely to subsequent tax years. The interest limitation generally applies at the taxpayer level (although special rules apply in the case of partnerships and S-corporations). Furthermore, in the case of a group of affiliated corporations that file a consolidated return, the limitation applies at the consolidated tax return filing level.
For tax years beginning before January 1, 2022, the ATI of a taxpayer was computed without regard to (i) any item of income, gain, deduction, or loss that is not properly allocable to a trade or business, (ii) business interest expense and income, (iii) net operating loss deductions under section 172, (iv) deductions for qualified business income under section 199A, and (v) deductions for depreciation, amortization, or depletion (“EBITDA computation”). However, for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, ATI is computed taking into account deductions for depreciation, amortization, or depletion (“EBIT computation”). The EBIT computation generally allows less interest deductions than the EBITDA computation.
The bill proposes to apply the EBITDA computation (instead of the EBIT computation) for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2026. the bill provides that this proposal generally is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023, but includes an elective transition rule, details to be provided by the Secretary of the Treasury, to allow a taxpayer to elect to apply the EBITDA computation for tax years beginning after December 31, 2021.
3. Extension of 100% bonus depreciation deduction for certain business property placed in service during the years 2023 through 2025 under Section 168(k).
A taxpayer generally must capitalize the cost of property used in a trade or business or held for the production of income and recover the cost over time through annual deductions for depreciation or amortization. Changes to section 168(k), under the TCJA, allowed an additional first-year depreciation deduction, known as bonus depreciation, of 100% of the cost of MACRS property with a depreciable life of 20 years or less, water utility property, qualified improvement property and computer software placed into service after September 27, 2017 and before January 1, 2023. Under current law, property placed in service from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2026 qualifies for partial bonus depreciation – 80% bonus depreciation for 2023, 60% bonus depreciation for 2024, 40% bonus depreciation for 2025 and 20% bonus depreciation for 2026.
The bill proposes to extend the 100% bonus depreciation for property placed in service during the years 2023 through 2025 and to retain the 20% bonus depreciation for property placed in service in 2026.
4. Increase in limitations on expensing of depreciable business assets under Section 179 to $1.29 million and increase the phaseout threshold amount to $3.22 million.
Generally, under Section 179, a taxpayer may elect to immediately deduct the cost of qualifying property, rather than to claim depreciation deductions over time, subject to limitations discussed below. Qualifying property is generally defined as depreciable tangible personal property, off-the-shelf computer software, and qualified real property (including certain improvements (e.g., roofs, heating, and alarms systems) made to nonresidential real property after the property is first placed in service) that is purchased for use in the active conduct of a trade or business. Under current law, the maximum amount a taxpayer may expense is $1 million of the cost of qualifying property placed in service for the taxable year and the $1 million is reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the cost of qualifying property placed in service during the taxable year exceeds $2.5 million. The $1 million and $2.5 million amounts are indexed for inflation for taxable years beginning after 2018. For taxable years beginning in 2023, the total amount that may be expensed under current law is $1.16 million, and the phaseout threshold amount is $2.89 million.
The bill proposes to increase the maximum amount a taxpayer may expense to $1.29 million, reduced by the amount by which the cost of qualifying property exceeds $3.22 million, each in connection with property placed in service in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023. The $1.29 million and $3.22 million amounts would be adjusted for inflation for taxable years beginning after 2024.
5. Adoption of the United States-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act, “treaty-like” relief for Taiwan residents and the United States-Taiwan Tax Agreement Authorization Act, a framework for the negotiation of a tax agreement between the President of the United States and Taiwan.
The United States does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and therefore negotiating a tax treaty with Taiwan raises significant difficulties.
Under the bill, new section 894A would grant certain tax treaty-like benefits to qualified residents of Taiwan. A reduced rate of withholding tax would apply to interest, dividends, royalties, and certain other comparable payments from U.S. sources received by qualified residents of Taiwan. Instead of the 30% withholding tax rate generally imposed on U.S.-source income received by nonresident aliens and foreign corporations, interest and royalties would be subject to a 10% withholding tax rate and dividends would be subject to a 15% withholding tax rate (or a 10% withholding tax rate if paid to a recipient that owns at least ten percent of the shares of stock in the corporation and certain other conditions are met).
Additionally, under new section 894A, income of a qualified resident of Taiwan that is effectively connected to a U.S. trade or business would be subject to U.S. income tax only if such resident has a permanent establishment in the U.S., which is a higher threshold than the U.S. trade or business standard generally applied to non-U.S. persons under the Internal Revenue Code. Furthermore, only the taxable income effectively connected to the United States permanent establishment of a qualified resident of Taiwan would be subject to U.S. income tax.
No U.S. Tax would be imposed under section 894A on wages of qualified residents of Taiwan in connection with personal services performed in the United States and paid by a non-U.S. person.
Also, the proposal would impose general anti-abuse standards similar to those in section 894(c) to deny benefits when payments are made through hybrid entities. The proposed rules are applicable only if, and when, the Secretary of Treasury determines that reciprocal provisions apply to U.S. persons with respect to income sourced in Taiwan.
The bill also provides a framework for the negotiation of a tax agreement between the President of the United States and Taiwan. Specifically, the bill would authorize the President to negotiate and enter into one or more non-self-executing tax agreements to provide for bilateral tax relief with Taiwan beyond that provided for in proposed section 894A. Any such negotiation would only be permitted after a determination by the Secretary of the Treasury that Taiwan has provided benefits to U.S. persons that are reciprocal to the benefits provided to qualified residents of Taiwan under proposed section 894A. Furthermore, the bill would require that any provisions in such a tax agreement must conform with provisions customarily contained in U.S. bilateral income tax conventions, as exemplified by the 2016 U.S. Model Income Tax Convention, and any such tax agreement may not include elements outside the scope of the 2016 U.S. Model Income Tax Convention.
6. Changes in threshold for reporting on Forms 1099-NEC and 1099-MISC for payments by a business for services performed by an independent contractor or subcontractor and for payments of remuneration for services from $600 to $1,000 and for payments of direct sales from $5,000 to $1,000.
Under current law, a person engaged in a trade or business who makes certain payments aggregating $600 or more in any taxable year to a single recipient in the course of the trade or business is required to report those payments to the IRS. This requirement applies to fixed or determinable payments of income as well as nonemployee compensation, generally reported on Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Information, or Form 1099-NEC, Nonemployee Compensation. In addition, any service recipient engaged in a trade or business and paying for services is required to file a return with the IRS when aggregate payments to a service provider equal $600 or more in a calendar year. Additionally, a seller who sells at least $5,000 in the aggregate of consumer products to a buyer for resale anywhere other than a permanent retail establishment is required to report the sale to the IRS.
The bill proposes to set the reporting threshold for the payments described in the preceding paragraph at $1,000 for a calendar year (indexed for inflation for calendar years after 2024), effective for payments made after December 31, 2023.
7. New Enforcement Provisions with Respect to COVID-Related Employee Retention Tax Credit
Under current law, an eligible employer can claim a refundable Employee-Retention Tax Credit (ERTC) against applicable employment taxes for calendar quarters in 2020 and 2021 in an amount equal to a percentage of the qualified wages with respect to each employee of such employer for such calendar quarter. The percentage is 50% of qualified wages paid after March 12, 2020, and before January 1, 2021, and 70% of qualified wages for calendar quarters beginning after December 31, 2020, and before January 1, 2022, subject to a maximum amount of wages per employee. An eligible employer may claim the ERTC on an amended employment tax return (Form 941-X) if the employer did not claim (or seeks to correct) the credit on its original employment tax return. For tax year 2020, an amended employment tax return must be filed by April 15, 2024, and for tax year 2021, by April 15, 2025.
The bill proposes to end the period for filing ERTC claims for both 2020 and 2021 as of January 31, 2024. Additionally, the bill would impose large penalties on any “COVID–ERTC promoter” who aids or abets the understatement of a tax liability or who fails to comply with certain due diligence requirements relating to the filing status and amount of certain credits. A COVID–ERTC promoter is defined as any person that provides aid, assistance or advice with respect to an affidavit, refund, claim or other document relating to an ERTC or to eligibility or to the calculation of the amount of the credit, if the person (x) charges or receives a fee based on the amount of the ERTC refund or credit, or (y) meets a gross receipts test. The proposed penalties for an ERTC promoter that aids and abets understatement of a tax liability is the greater of $200,000 ($10,000 in the case of an ERTC promoter that is a natural person) or 75% of the gross income of the ERTC promoter from providing aid, assistance, or advice with respect to a return or claim for ERTC refund or a document relating to the return or claim.
Furthermore, the bill would extend the statute of limitations period on assessment for all quarters of the ERTC to six years from the later of (1) the date on which the original return for the relevant calendar quarter is filed, (2) the date on which the return is treated as filed under present-law statute of limitations rules, or (3) the date on which the credit or refund with respect to the ERTC is made.

2024 FLSA Checklist for Employers in the Manufacturing Industry

Wage and hour issues continue to challenge most employers, especially those in the manufacturing industry. The manufacturing industry tends to be more process- and systems-oriented and generally employ many hourly workers who are not exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

It is imperative manufacturers ensure they are on the right side of legal compliance. Indeed, non-compliance can trigger audits, investigations, and litigation — all of which can be disruptive, time-consuming, and costly for manufacturers. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), which is charged with investigating alleged violations under the FLSA, assesses hundreds of millions of dollars each year in penalties to employers.

With the new year, we offer this short (by no means exhaustive) checklist of common pay issues the manufacturing industry:

1. Donning and Doffing

The FLSA requires employers to compensate non-exempt employees for all time worked, as well as pay the minimum wage and overtime compensation. Whether pre-shift (donning) and post-shift (doffing) activities are included as compensable time is not always clear. Activities including putting on or taking off protective gear, work clothes, or equipment could be compensable time under the FLSA depending on the unique facts of the situation. At bottom, to be compensable, such activities must be found to be integral and indispensable to the “principal activity” of the employer’s work under the FLSA and the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947.

Courts differ on whether time spent donning and doffing is compensable because these issues often implicate mixed questions of law and fact. Moreover, collective bargaining agreements can affect whether time spent changing clothes and washing is compensable for the purposes of determining hours worked for minimum wage and overtime calculations under the FLSA. Employers should carefully review their policies to ensure the compensability of pre-shift or post-shift activities being performed by non-exempt employees.

2. Rounding Time

Accurately keeping up with time worked by non-exempt employees is critical to compliance with the FLSA. Further, employees forgetting to clock-in and clock-out timely is a persistent issue. While the FLSA allows employers to round employees’ clock-in and clock-out times rather than pay by the minute, it is generally unnecessary (and not recommended) with today’s sophisticated time clocking systems. If employers choose to round time, they must ensure that any rounding policy is neutral on its face and neutral in practice — that is, the policy rounds both in the favor of the employer and the employee at roughly an equal weight. For employers engaging in rounding, audits are crucial as even a facially neutral rounding policy that, in practice, has disproportionately benefited the employer and cumulatively underpays the employees can be found to violate the FLSA.

3. Meal Breaks

Under the FLSA, employers must compensate for short rest breaks that last 20 minutes or less. However, employers do not have to compensate employees for a bona fide meal break, which ordinarily lasts at least 30 minutes. Importantly, an employee must be completely relieved from work duties during this uncompensated time and cannot be interrupted by work (even for a short time). Indeed, some courts have held that, where a meal break has been interrupted by work, the entire meal break (not just the time when work was performed) becomes compensable.

To ensure compliance under these rules, employers should have policies and practices in place so that employees can take an uninterrupted meal break. Employers should also have a well-communicated reporting system in place for employees to record any interrupted meal break to ensure the employee is compensated for the meal break or, when possible, a new meal break is scheduled.

4. Regular Rate

A common and incorrect assumption many employers make is that overtime pay under the FLSA is calculated at one-and-a-half times a non-exempt employee’s hourly rate when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek. In fact, the FLSA states overtime is calculated based on the non-exempt employee’s “regular rate” of pay. The FLSA requires that all payments to employees for hours worked, services rendered, or performance be included in the “regular rate” unless the payment is specifically excluded in the law. Thus, any non-discretionary bonuses, shift differential pay, and other incentive payments such as commissions should be included in the regular rate of pay calculation for purposes of calculating overtime under the FLSA.
This is relatively easy when a bonus is paid during a week where the non-exempt employees work more than 40 hours, but it can become complicated when the additional pay is paid on a monthly or quarterly basis. In this scenario, the payment must be averaged out over that longer time period to determine the regular rate such that overtime can be properly calculated. Thus, employers should review their payment processes on the front end to ensure compliance before any small errors or omissions (quite literally) multiply out of control.

Finally, state wage laws should always be top of mind as well. Employers should work with their employment counsel to ensure compliance with all state wage requirements.

Author: National Law Forum

Domestic Visa Processing – Application Slots Now Available

Like this: