The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming ABA Winter CLE Institutes:
ABA National Institutes
Learn and network at these live in-person seminars that draw lawyers from across the nation. January National Institutes include the 2013 E-Discovery and Information Governance, January 23-25 in Tampa, FL. February National Institutes include the 2013 Gaming Law Minefield, February 14-15 in Las Vegas, NV.
Effective for 2013, the Internal Revenue Code will impose a 3.8% tax on investment income and other unearned income. The purpose of the tax is to partially pay for the cost of health care reform.
This new 3.8% Medicare tax applies to individuals who have investment or unearned income and who have modified adjusted gross income above certain thresholds ($200,000 for single individuals or $250,000 for married individuals filing jointly).
Investment or unearned income includes:
- Income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents, less allocable expenses, unless the income is earned in an active business.
- Business income earned in a passive activity (for example, business income earned by a partnership or S corporation in which an individual invests, if the individual does not materially participate in the business activity).
- Net taxable gains attributable to the sale of non-business property.
With respect to shareholders who are active in an S-corporation’s business, the 3.8% Medicare tax will have no effect because their share of the corporation’s active income will not be subject to the new tax. However, if a shareholder is not active in the business, the new tax will apply to pass-through income from the S-corporation.
The new 3.8% Medicare tax also affects limited liability companies (“LLC”) taxed as partnerships. Generally, if a member of an LLC takes the position that his distributive share of the LLC’s income is not subject to self-employment tax on the grounds that he is a limited partner and not active in the business, this income is likely subject to the 3.8% Medicare tax. However, if the member treats a portion of his distributive share of the LLC’s income as income from self-employment on the grounds that he is an active member, the 3.8% Medicare tax would not apply.
Gain from the sale of interests in pass-through entities, such as LLCs, partnerships and S-corporations, can be subject to the 3.8% Medicare tax, to the extent attributable to the entity’s non-business property. For example, if an individual owns an interest in a pass-through entity and sells that interest at a gain, the portion of the gain attributable to the entity’s passive portfolio investments and to business property used in the business in which the individual does not actively participate is subject to the 3.8% Medicare tax.
Finally, with respect to capital gains, the capital gains tax rate will be 20% in 2013 and the 3.8% Medicare tax may apply to certain high income individuals as discussed above.
©2002-2012 Fowler White Boggs P.A.
The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 8th Annual General Counsel Insitute:
Success Strategies: Defining Success and Adding Value as In-House Counsel in the 21st Century.
November 8-9, 2012
Intercontinental Hotel
300 West 44th Street
New York, New York
Adding value as an in-house lawyer in the 21st century requires the ability to define and realize success for yourself, your department and your company. As General Counsel – or as someone reporting to the General Counsel – you need to be an insightful lawyer, thought leader and talent manager who understands your own strengths and “opportunity areas,” commits to grow and develop personally and professionally, and brings innovative change to your organization. Learn new strategies for success at NAWL’s 8th Annual General Counsel Institute.
The National Law Review recently featured an article regarding Medical Marijuana and Employee Terminations written by Christina K. McDonald of Dickinson Wright PLLC:
In a case of significant importance, on September 19, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a private employer may fire an employee for testing positive for medical marihuana in violation of the employer’s drug use policy under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (“MMMA”). The court’s holding in Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., sets the precedent that users of medical marihuana are not a protected class in the private sector and that the MMMA only protects users of medical marihuana from state action, such as arrest and prosecution, for legal use of the drug.
Joseph Casias worked as a Wal-Mart employee in Battle Creek, Michigan for a little over five years when he was terminated for violating the company’s drug use policy. Mr. Casias suffers from sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor and endured ongoing pain as a result of his condition. Mr. Casias’ oncologist recommended that he try medical marijuana to treat the pain associated with his medical condition, so Mr. Casias obtained a medical marihuana registry card form the Michigan Department of Community Health under the MMMA, which was enacted in 2008.
Mr. Casias complied with the state laws governing the use of medical marihuana and never used marihuana at work nor did he come to work while under the influence of the drug. During his employment, Mr. Casias took a drug test in accordance with Wal-Mart’s drug use policy, and he tested positive for the use of marihuana. Wal-Mart did not honor Mr. Casias’ medical marihuana registry card and terminated his employment because the use of marihuana violated the company’s drug use policy. Mr. Casias sued Wal-Mart for wrongful termination.
The federal District Court for the Western District of Michigan held that Wal-Mart’s decision to fire Mr. Casias was lawful because the MMMA only provides medical marihuana users with protection from state action, and not from private action.
In affirming the district court’s decision, the Sixth Circuit specifically held that the MMMA “does not impose restrictions on private employers, such as Wal-Mart.” The court noted that similar medical marihuana laws in other states do not regulate private employment actions either. Finally, the court held that Wal-Mart’s decision to terminate Mr. Casias’ employment was not against public policy.
To read the full text of the court’s opinion, click here. Employers should consult with an attorney before taking any action against an employee for use or suspected use of medical marihuana.
© Copyright 2012 Dickinson Wright PLLC
The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Global Financial Markets – Operational and Technical Changes for FACTA Compliance:
The Operational and Technical Changes for FATCA Compliance Conference will be a two and half day, industry focused event, specific to Senior Executives working in Banks, Insurance and Asset Management Companies. Attendees will address key FATCA requirements, while discussing the practical implications of IGAs and strategies for achieving operational and infrastructural efficiency.
Key Themes of the Operational and Technical Changes for FATCA Compliance Conference Include:
1. Challenges of FATCA regulations and prospects for the final regulation
2. Achieving operational and infrastructural efficiency
3. Coordinating existing AML/KYC procedures with FATCA compliance
4. FATCA from the FFI’s perspective 5. Beyond banking: the challenges of FATCA implementation
6. Coping with the withholding obligation under FATCA
This is not a trade show; our conference series is targeted at a focused group of senior level executives to maintain an intimate atmosphere for the delegates and speakers. Since we are not a vendor driven conference, the higher level focus allows delegates to network with their industry peers.
Kathryn S. Wood of Dickinson Wright PLLC recently had an article, The Best Laid Plans: What To Do If You Go To Trial Unexpectedly, published in The National Law Review:
There is nothing like appearing for a settlement conference only to learn that not only is the case not going to settle, but that the trial that you thought would start in three months is actually starting in less than three weeks. That is precisely what happened to me last week. As I walked back from court to my office, the realities of the time crunch set in. What if my witnesses were unavailable? Would my demonstrative exhibits be able to be prepared in time? Motions in limine and a Daubert motion needed to be considered. Having thought less than an hour before I had three months to prepare my case for trial, how was I going to get ready in such a short time?
Two hours later, I had a plan. But before I launch into explaining the plan, I will state that in my view, the two hours spent crafting the trial plan was the most important part of the plan itself. A trial plan, much like a project management plan, is important for any trial. Listing out the tasks to be completed, the deadlines (both for client review and court submission), and the person or team responsible for the particular task makes for your best hope for an orderly trial preparation (if such a thing exists). But when your time is tight either because the court surprised you by moving the trial date forward or because the press of other business made it impossible to turn your full attention to trial preparation, the trial plan is essential.
For my trial plan, the first order of business was making sure that my witnesses were available and scheduling time for their trial preparations so that they would not be unavailable to me in the days before trial. Next, I outlined the remaining issues I wanted researched and made decisions about what motions I wanted to file. Because of the late notice of the trial, the third task was one I wouldn’t have had to address if the trial had gone in three months, as previously planned; I worked with my partners to completely free my second-chair associate so that he would not have to worry about other work. My legal assistant’s call to folks who create the demonstrative exhibits assured me that I would indeed have the demonstrative exhibits I envisioned. Finally, I made a realistic schedule with respect to preparing my examinations, cross examinations and opening and closing arguments.
That statement, naturally, begs the question as to what “realistic” means. The “realistic” schedule I crafted built in time for the time it would take to get meetings and depositions adjourned that I needed to be at and to reaching out to my partners to cover hearings that were not essential that I argue. The schedule also contemplated the inevitable daily calls that turn one’s attention from the task at hand and for honoring my promise to participate in this blog. Sure, I could have asked that my turn to participate in this blog be moved to a different date, but having some time to step back from the trial preparation and put my mind to something else will allow me to return to my briefs, examinations and exhibits with a cleared mind, which is all part of the plan.
© Copyright 2012 Dickinson Wright PLLC
The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming ABA Conference on Business Acquisition Negotiations:
When
November 01 – 02, 2012
Where
The National Law Review recently featured an article by Kerri L. Barsh of Greenberg Traurig, LLP regarding US Supreme Court Accepts Certiorari in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District — Confiscatory Takings Case:
On Friday, October 5, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, an appeal from the Florida Supreme Court. The questions presented in Koontz are twofold : (1) whether the government can be held liable for a taking when it refuses to issue a land-use permit on the sole basis that the permit applicant did not accede to a permit condition that, if applied, would violate the essential nexus and rough proportionality tests set out in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994), and (2) whether the nexus and proportionality tests set out inNollan and Dolan apply to a land-use exaction that takes the form of a government demand that a permit applicant dedicate money, services, labor, or any other type of personal property to a public use. Petitioner Koontz argues in his Petition for Certiorari (a copy of which is attached) that the demands imposed by the St. Johns River Water Management District on the Koontz family as a condition of issuance of the permit were confiscatory and violated the 5th and 14th Amendments of the US. Constitution.
©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP
The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Law Firm Marketing Boot Camp:
Have you ever gone to a seminar that left you feeling motivated, but you walked out with little more than a good feeling? Or taken a workshop that was great on style, but short on substance?
Ever been to an event that was nothing more than a “pitch fest” that left a bad taste in your mouth? We know exactly how you feel. We have all been to those kinds of events and we hate all those things too. Let me tell you right up front this is not a “pitch fest” where speaker after speaker gets up only trying to sell you something.
We have designed this 2 day intensive workshop to be content rich, loaded with practical content.
We are so confident you will love the Rainmaker Retreat that we offer a 100% unconditional money-back guarantee! At the end of the first day of the Rainmaker Retreat if you don’t believe you have already received your money’s worth, simply tell one of the staff, return your 70-page workbook and the CD set you received and we will issue you a 100% refund.
We understand making the decision to attend an intensive 2-day workshop is a tough decision. Not only do you have to take a day off work (all Rainmaker Retreats are offered only on a Friday-Saturday), but in many cases you have to travel to the event. As a business owner you want to be sure this is a worthwhile investment of your time and money.
Partners at Small Law Firms (less than 25 attorneys) Solo Practitioners and Of Counsel attorneys who are committed to growing their firm. Benefits you will receive:
Solo practitioners who need to find more clients fast on a shoe-string budget. In addition to all the above benefits, solo attorneys will receive these massive benefits:
Law Firm Business Managers and Internal Legal Marketing Staff who are either responsible for marketing the law firm or manage the team who handles the law firm’s marketing. In addition to all the above benefits, Law Firm Business Managers and Internal Legal Marketing Staff will also receive these benefits:
Of Counsel Attorneys who are paid on an “eat what you kill” basis. In addition to all the above benefits, Of Counsel attorneys will also receive these benefits:
Associates who are either looking to grow their book of new clients in the next 6-12 months or want to launch their own private practice. In addition to all the above benefits, Associates will also receive these benefits:
The National Law Review is pleased to bring you today’s edition of the Sunday Funnies, submitted to us by Kendall M. Gray of Andrews Kurth LLP:
This is why patent lawyers need an appellate lawyer who was an arts and crafts major.
Hat tip to Legally Drawn.
