business Archives - Page 39 of 92 - The National Law Forum

The FCC Approves an NOI to Dive Deeper into AI and its Effects on Robocalls and Robotexts

AI is on the tip of everyone’s tongue it seems these days. The Dame brought you a recap of President Biden’s orders addressing AI at the beginning of the month. This morning at the FCC’s open meeting they were presented with a request for a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to gather additional information about the benefits and harms of artificial intelligence and its use alongside “robocall and robotext”. The following five areas of interest are as follows:

First, the NOI seeks, on whether and if so how the commission should define AI technologies for purposes of the inquiry this includes particular uses of AI technologies that are relevant to the commission’s statutory response abilities under the TCPA, which protects consumers from nonemergency calls and texts using an autodialer or containing an artificial or prerecorded voice.
Second, the NOI seeks comment on how technologies may impact consumers who receive robocalls and robotexts including any potential benefits and risks that the emerging technologies may create. Specifically, the NOI seeks information on how these technologies may alter the functioning of the existing regulatory framework so that the commission may formulate policies that benefit consumers by ensuring they continue to receive privacy protections under the TCPA.
Third, the NOI seeks comment on whether it is necessary or possible to determine at this point whether future types of AI technologies may fall within the TCPA’s existing prohibitions on autodial calls or texts and artificial or prerecorded voice messages.
Fourth, NOI seeks comment on whether the commission should consider ways to verify the authenticity and legitimately generate AI voice or text content from trusted sources such as through the use of watermarks, certificates, labels, signatures, or other forms of labels when callers rely on AI technology to generate content. This may include, for example, emulating a human voice on a robocall or creating content in a text message.
Lastly, seeks comment on what next steps the commission should consider to further the inquiry.

While all the commissioners voted to approve the NOI they did share a few insightful comments. Commissioner Carr stated “ If AI can combat illegal robocalls, I’m all for it” but he also expressed that he does “…worry that the path we are heading down is going to be overly prescriptive” and suggests “…Let’s put some common-sense guardrails in place, but let’s not be so prescriptive and so heavy-handed on the front end that we end up benefiting large incumbents in the space because they can deal with the regulatory frameworks and stifling the smaller innovation to come.”

Commissioner Starks shared “I, for one, believe this intersectionality is clinical because the future of AI remains uncertain, one thing is clear — it has the potential to impact if not transform every aspect of American life, and because of that potential, each part of our government bears responsibility to better understand the risks, opportunities within its mandate, while being mindful of the limits of its expertise, experience, and authority. In this era of rapid technological change, we must collaborate, lean into our expertise across agencies to best serve our citizens and consumers.” Commissioner Starks seemed to be particularly focused on AI’s ability to facilitate bad actors in schemes like voice cloning and how the FCC can implement safeguards against this type of behavior.

“AI technologies can bring new challenges and opportunities. responsible and ethical implementation of AI technologies is crucial to strike a balance, ensuring that the benefits of AI are harnessed to protect consumers from harm rather than amplifying the risks in increasing the digital landscape” Commissioner Gomez shared.

Finally, the topic around the AI NOI wrapped up with Chairwoman Rosenworcel commenting “… I think we make a mistake if we only focus on the potential for harm. We needed to equally focus on how artificial intelligence can radically improve the tools we have today to block unwanted robocalls and robotexts. We are talking about technology that can see patterns in our network traffic, unlike anything we have today. They can lead to the development of analytic tools that are exponentially better at finding fraud before it reaches us at home. Used at scale, we cannot only stop this junk, we can use it to increase trust in our networks. We are asking how artificial intelligence is being used right now to recognize patterns in network traffic and how it can be used in the future. We know the risks this technology involves but we also want to harness the benefits.”

California Governor Signs a Handful of Tax-Related Bills into Law

This fall, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed several tax-related bills into law on a diverse array of topics ranging from the use tax to the gun tax.

Use tax: On October 7, 2023, Governor Newsom signed a bill into law changing the threshold for a California business to register to pay use tax. Prior to enactment of the new law, a qualified purchaser that had more than $100,000 in annual gross receipts was required to register with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (“CDTFA”) to pay use tax on purchases from out-of-state sellers. Under the new law, a qualified purchaser must make more than $10,000 in purchases per year from an out-of-state seller on which use tax has not been paid and remitted by the remote seller in order to be required to register with CDTFA. The bill’s sponsor described the purpose of the bill as to update the “outdated and burdensome” old system which was in effect before the Supreme Court decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. generally allowed states to collect use tax from out-of-state sellers. As California adopted a law post-Wayfair that requires out-of-state sellers that sell more than $500,000 in property in California to register to collect and remit use tax, the legislature determined that the old use tax registration requirements should be updated and streamlined.

Gun tax: While the change to the use tax registration did not garner much attention from the press, one bill that did was one signed by Governor Newsom on September 26, 2023, that doubled the taxes on sales of guns and ammunition in California. While federal law already taxes gun and ammunition sales at either 10 or 11 percent depending on the type of gun, the new law adds an additional 11 percent California tax on top of that, making California the only state to impose its own tax on guns and ammunition. The Governor’s office described the legislation as a “first-in-the-nation effort to generate $160 million annually on the sale of bullets to improve school safety and fund a gun violence intervention program.”

Settlement authority of the CDTFA: On October 8, 2023, Governor Newsom signed into law a bill that makes changes to certain tax administration provisions, including a provision giving the CDTFA sole authority to approve settlement agreements reducing a taxpayer’s liability for tax or penalties by up to $11,500, with periodic adjustments to be made to that threshold for inflation. Prior to the enactment of the new law, settlements involving a reduction of tax or penalties of up to $5,000 required joint approval from the executive director of CDTFA and the chief counsel’s office.

Extension of disaster relief deduction: On September 30, 2023, Governor Newsom signed a bill extending the State’s disaster relief loss deduction through December 31, 2028, for both individual and corporate taxpayers. The disaster relief loss deduction allows a taxpayer to declare a loss related to a California disaster declared by the President of the United States or the Governor of California. Prior to the enactment of the new law, the disaster relief loss deduction was scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2023.

IRS Process for Withdrawing Employee Retention Credit Claims

On October 19, 2023, the IRS announced a process which is intended to allow employers who were pressured or misled by marketers or promoters into filing ineligible claims for the Employee Retention Credit (ERC), but who have not yet received a refund, to withdraw their claim. This process permits employers whose ERC claims are still being processed to withdraw their refund claims and avoid the potential that the IRS would deny the claim after the credit is received, thus avoiding the need to repay any refunded amounts, and avoiding potential interest and penalties.

When properly claimed, the ERC is a refundable tax credit designed for employers that were fully shut down or partially suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic or that had a significant decline in gross receipts during the eligibility periods.

The move to permit the withdrawal of claims comes after the IRS placed abusive ERC promotions on its Dirty Dozen, an annual list aimed at helping raise awareness to protect honest taxpayers from aggressive promoters and con artists. After placing abusive ERC promotions on the Dirty Dozen, on September 14, 2023, the Commissioner of the IRS ordered that processing of any new ERC claims be stopped until December 31, 2023. However, the IRS stated that it would continue to process and pay out previously filed eligible ERC claims, as well as audit ERC claims and pursue criminal investigations of promoters and businesses filing dubious claims.

Who Can Withdraw an ERC Claim
To be eligible to withdraw an ERC claim, an employer must meet all of the following criteria:

The ERC must have been claimed using an adjusted employment return, i.e. Forms 941-X, 943-X, 944-X, or CT-1X
The ERC must be the only adjustment claimed on the return
The employer must withdraw the entire amount of the ERC claim (this refers to each calendar quarter, rather than all calendar quarters, for which an ERC claim was made)
The ERC claim cannot have been paid by the IRS or, if it has been paid, the employer has not yet cashed or deposited the refund check

How to Withdraw an ERC Claim

The notice provides a step-by-step menu for withdrawing a claim. If the employer filed adjusted returns to claim ERCs for more than one calendar quarter and wishes to withdraw all ERC claims, it must follow the steps below for each calendar quarter for which it is requesting a withdrawal. The IRS also has a dedicated page with sample form, which can be found here.

Employers that have not received a refund and have not been notified their claim is under audit may request a withdrawal by following these steps:

Make a copy of the adjusted return with the claim you wish to withdraw
In the left margin of the first page, write “Withdrawn”
In the right margin of the first page:
- Have an authorized person sign and date it
- Write their name and title next to their signature
Fax the signed copy of your return using your computer or mobile device to the IRS’s ERC claim withdrawal fax line at 855-738-7609. The employer should keep a copy with its tax records. The notice even provides a template for a simple claim withdrawal request.

Employers that have not received a refund and have been notified of an audit can still withdraw ERC claims using the above procedure, but must check with their examiner about how to fax or mail the withdrawal request directly to the examiner or, if an examiner has not yet been assigned, should respond to the audit notice with the withdrawal request, using the instructions in the notice for responding.

Special instructions are also included in the notice for employers that have received a refund check but have not cashed or deposited it.

Once a withdrawal is submitted, the employer should expect to receive a letter from the IRS about whether their withdrawal request was accepted or rejected. A withdrawal is not effective until accepted by the IRS. If the IRS accepts the withdrawal, the employer may need to amend its income tax return (if it previously amended that return to reflect ERCs that had been claimed).

ERC Refunds Already Received

Employers that are not able use the above withdrawal process may still be able to file another adjusted return if they need to:

Reduce the amount of their ERC claim
Make other changes to their adjusted return

However, it should be noted that the IRS is also working on separate guidance for ineligible employers that were misled into making ERC claims and have already received the payment.

Continued Risk for Fraudulent Claims

Withdrawn ERC claims will be treated as if they were never filed and the IRS will not impose penalties or interest. However, ineligible employers should note that withdrawing an ERC claim will not remove the possibility that they or their advisor could be subject to potential criminal investigation or prosecution for filing a fraudulent ERC claim.

Study: Vehicles with Higher Front Ends Pose Greater Risk to Pedestrians

According to a recently published study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), vehicles with higher, more blunt front ends are more dangerous to pedestrians. IIHS says that vehicles with a hood height higher than 40 inches are 45% more likely to cause fatalities in pedestrian accidents than vehicles with a hood height of 30 inches or less.

Pedestrian accident deaths have risen 80% since their lowest point in 2009. In 2021, more than 20 people died per day after being hit by a vehicle.

Over the last 30 years, the average vehicle has gotten about 4 inches wider, 10 inches longer, 8 inches taller, and 1,000 pounds heavier in the US. Many vehicles are more than 40 inches tall at the leading edge of the hood.

The IIHS study examined 17,897 crashes involving a single passenger vehicle and a single pedestrian. Using Vehicle Identification Numbers to identify the vehicles, they calculated front-end measurements corresponding to 2,958 unique car, minivan, large van, SUV, and pickup models. Vehicles with pedestrian automatic emergency braking systems were excluded from the study, along with others that could affect the likelihood of a fatality, such as speed limit, and age of the struck pedestrian.

Front-End Height affects Fatalities

The study found that vehicles with hoods more than 40 inches off the ground at the leading edge and a grille sloped at an angle of 65 degrees or less, were 45% more likely to cause pedestrian fatalities than those with a similar slope and hood heights of 30 inches or less. Vehicles with hood heights of more than 40 inches and blunt front end angled at greater than 65 degrees were 44% more likely to cause fatalities.

Researchers looked at several other vehicle characteristics, including the angle of the windshield, the length of the hood, and the angle of the hood. Among these, the slope of the hood had the biggest effect. There was a 25% increase in the risk of fatality for vehicles with flat hoods (those with angles of 15 degrees or less) compared to vehicles with more sloping hoods.

Researchers found that vehicles taller than 35 inches were more dangerous to pedestrians because they tend to cause more severe head injuries. Of the vehicles taller than 35 inches, those with more blunt front ends were more dangerous than those with sloped front ends, because they cause more frequent and severe torso and hip injuries.

“Manufacturers can make vehicles less dangerous to pedestrians by lowering the front end of the hood and angling the grille and hood to create a sloped profile,” IIHS Senior Research Transportation Engineer Wen Hu, the lead author of the study, said in a statement on Tuesday. “There’s no functional benefit to these massive, blocky fronts.”

European Citizens Sue States for Breach of Human Rights Resulting from Failure to Take Stronger Climate Action

On September 27, 2023, six “Portuguese young people” were heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in a lawsuit against 32 European governments, including all EU member states, alleging that their failure to act fast enough against climate change has violated the applicants’ human rights to life, physical and mental wellbeing. The applicants claim that the respondents are failing to fulfil their obligations under the Paris Agreement to limit global warming.

The original application cites a number of contributions to climate change made by the respondent states: (i) permitting the release of emissions within national territory and offshore areas over which they have jurisdiction; (ii) permitting the export of fossil fuels extracted on their territory; (iii) permitting the import of goods, the production of which involves the release of emissions into the atmosphere; and (iv) permitting organizations within their jurisdiction to contribute to the release of emissions overseas. Taken together, the applicants say, the respondents have contributed to climate change and, while mitigation measures have been adopted, contributions to adverse climate change continues. The applicants are seeking an order from ECtHR requiring the respondent governments to take more ambitious action.

Describing the impact on them, the applicants say that climate change has contributed to harm to human health. In an expert report commissioned to supplement their application, the applicants say that Portugal is already experiencing the impact of climate change, including an increase in mean and extreme high temperatures, with heatwaves becoming more frequent. As a result, the region is also prone to wildfires – 120 people died and 500,000 hectares of land were burned during wildfires preceded by heatwaves. Responding to the application, a lawyer on behalf of Greece claimed that climate change cannot be directly linked to an adverse impact on human health, stating “[the] effects of climate change, as recorded so far, do not seem to directly affect human life or human health.” Lawyers on behalf of Portugal stated that the applicants failed to provide evidence of the specific damages caused by climate change on their lives.

The case was originally filed in September 2020. The September 27 hearing was one of the largest before the ECtHR, with 22 judges and 86 government lawyers, and took place following one of the hottest summers on record in Europe. A decision is expected in 2024.

Taking the Temperature: The claims made in this case echo certain conclusions reached in the United Nations’ first global stocktake on parties’ achievements under the Paris Agreement. The UN acknowledged that although significant progress has been made, there is a crucial need for nations to significantly enhance their clean energy ambitions if they are to achieve their Paris-aligned objectives.

In July 2023, we discussed the Grantham Institute’s report on trends in climate litigation and the types of strategies being employed by claimants. One of these included so-called government framework actions in which plaintiffs focus on a government’s response to climate change and potentially, its failure to implement policies or legislation. The case brought by the six Portuguese young people falls squarely within this category.

In June 2023, we discussed the lawsuit filed by, among others, Greenpeace and 12 Italian citizens against ENI S.p.A. alleging that ENI knew of the detrimental effect of fossil fuel burning since around 1970 but through “lobbying and greenwashing” continued to encourage extraction, thereby contributing to climate change, and violating the citizens’ rights to life, health and private and family life. In March of this year, a group of Swiss citizens accused the Swiss government of infringing on the right to life and health of elderly women via its climate-related policies. The case is pending in the European Court of Human Rights.

Comparable cases have also been filed in the U.S. In Montana, 16 residents—ranging from ages 2 to 18—commenced litigation claiming that they “have been and will continue to be harmed by the dangerous impacts of fossil fuels and the climate crisis,” and that the defendants have violated the Montana Constitution by fostering and supporting fossil fuel-based energy policies in the state that led to these conditions. In September this year, the court struck down on state constitutional grounds certain provisions of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which restricted Montana from incorporating the impact of greenhouse gas emissions or other forms of climate change in environmental reviews. Similar constitution-based climate-related suits against state governments are pending in other U.S. states.

NYC Council Passed Bill to Require Added Sugar Icons for Chain Restaurant Menu Items

On November 2, the New York City Council passed a bill that will require chain restaurants with 15 or more locations to post added sugar icons and factual warning statements on menus or menu boards next to menu items and on or near food items on display that exceed a specified level of added sugars. The icon must be displayed on food items that exceed 100% or more of the daily value for added sugars as determined by the FDA (i.e., 50g) or another amount as specified by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH).
This new legislation, Int 0687-2022, builds on the “Sweet Truth Act,” which was passed in 2021 and requires the same added sugar notifications on certain prepackaged food items at covered NYC establishments.
The bill has been sent to the Mayor for a hearing and signature, to be held on November 17. If signed, covered establishments will be required to display the added sugar icons no later than one year after the DOHMH issues its rules for the bill. Any covered restaurant that violates the provisions of the bill is liable for a civil penalty of $200.

Surge in Class Actions Under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act

This year has seen a substantial increase in the number of class action lawsuits filed against employers under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA). More than 20 suits have been filed this year, a stark contrast to zero filed in 2022 and only two in 2021.

Like its federal counterpart the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), GIPA prohibits employers, and agents acting on their behalf, from “directly or indirectly” soliciting, requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information from a person as a condition of employment or from using genetic information in a discriminatory manner against an employee or applicant. Genetic information is defined to include information from genetic tests or the manifestation of a disease or disorder of an individual or their family members.

Under the claims filed, plaintiffs allege that during the hiring process prospective employers collected family medical history and required pre-employment physicals or health interviews, which sought the protected information. These exams and interviews were often conducted by third-party occupational health services providers. The damages sought included “statutory damages” under the Act of $15,000 for each intentional and/or reckless violation and $2,500 for each negligent violation. In addition, GIPA has no statutory cap on punitive or compensatory damages and no statute of limitations, exposing employers to potentially massive damage awards.

Because these cases are in their infancy and currently only in Illinois, there is little guidance on the scope of GIPA and any exceptions that may exist. This means that we will need to wait and see how courts will interpret the Act and what impact the cases will have beyond Illinois.

In light of these developments, all employers should consider the following:

Disclaimer Use on Authorizations and Information Packets: Consider adding a written disclaimer to any authorization and pre-employment questionnaires that requests applicants not to provide any genetic information when responding to requests for medical information. The disclaimer should be provided to the applicant/employee for their information.
Review Third-party Provider Practices: Evaluate the practices of third-party medical providers, including documents provided to applicants/employees in their evaluation process, and request that family medical history not be obtained.
Assess Contracts/Indemnification Obligations: Review and assess the indemnification provisions of contracts with third-party medical providers. It is important that the hold harmless and indemnification obligations of the provider include reference to GIPA obligations in the scope of protection for the employer.

Probate & Fiduciary Litigation Newsletter – November 2023

Voluntary Personal Representative Is a “Prior Appointment” For Purposes of the Limitation Period for Commencing Formal Probate

In The Matter of the Estate of Patricia Ann Slavin, 492 Mass. 551 (2023)

Does the position of voluntary personal representative under G. L. c. 190B, § 3-1201 constitute a “prior appointment,” which operates to exempt an estate from the requirement contained in G. L. c. 190B, § 3-108 that probate, testacy, and appointment proceedings be filed within three years of a decedent’s death? The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered this question in the affirmative In The Matter of the Estate of Patricia Ann Slavin, 492 Mass. 551 (2023).

This case arose out of the murder of Patricia Slavin in May 2016 in circumstances allegedly giving rise to claims for wrongful death. A few months after her death, the decedent’s daughter (petitioner) filed a voluntary administration statement in the Probate and Family Court pursuant to § 3-1201 and thereafter became the voluntary personal representative of her mother’s estate. The petitioner’s status as voluntary personal representative allowed her to administer her mother’s small estate without initiating probate proceedings.

More than three years later, the petitioner—having realized her position as voluntary personal representative did not grant her authority to pursue a wrongful death claim—filed a petition for formal probate in the Probate and Family Court seeking court appointment as personal representative. The petitioner argued that the three-year statute of limitations governing probate proceedings was inapplicable because it excepts otherwise untimely filings for estates in which there has been a “prior appointment.” The Probate and Family Court dismissed the petition as untimely, finding that her position as voluntary personal representative did not qualify as a “prior appointment” under the statute. The judge’s decision relied on a procedural guide published by an administrative office of the Probate and Family Court which provided that the authority of a voluntary personal representative does not result in an official appointment by the court.

The SJC granted the petitioner’s application for direct appellate review and held that both the plain language of G. L. c. 190B, §§ 3-108 and 3-1201 and the purpose of the MUPC support the conclusion that the position of voluntary personal representative is indeed a “prior appointment.” The SJC reversed the judgment of dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

First, the SJC concluded that the plain language of § 3-1201 constitutes an “appointment” given that the register of probate may “issue a certificate of appointment to [a] voluntary personal representative”—language that the SJC refused to consider as mere surplusage. This language plainly contradicted the administrative guide the Probate and Family Court judge relied on. The SJC also considered the plain language of § 3-108, which does not limit the type of “prior appointment” that qualifies for an exception from the statute of limitations.

Second, the SJC held that this conclusion was consistent with the purpose of the ultimate time limit. Section 3-108 is intended to establish a basic limitation period within which it may be determined whether a decedent left a will and to commence administration of an estate. Where a voluntary personal representative has been named, the determination of whether a will exists has been made, and administration of the estate has commenced.

Finally, the SJC held that this interpretation was consistent with the legislature’s goal of “flexible and efficient administration” of estates in that it incentivizes people to continue to utilize voluntary administration for smaller estates without fear that they could not increase their authority beyond three years.

Takeaway: Voluntary administration can be used for administration of smaller estates without risk that the three-year limitation period for commencing formal probate proceedings will bar future probate, testacy, or appointment proceedings, if necessary.

Conformed Copy of Will Not Admitted to Probate

In Matter of Estate of Slezak, 218 A.D.3d 946 (3rd Dep’t July 13, 2023)

Where a conformed copy of a will was located where the decedent said his will could be found, no potential heir contested the validity of the will and testimony established that the will was not revoked, should the conformed copy of the will be admitted to probate? In Matter of Estate of Slezak, 218 A.D.3d 946 (3^rd Dep’t July 13, 2023), New York’s Appellate Division, Third Department, answered that question in the negative, indicating how difficult it can be to probate a copy of a will rather than the original

In Slezak, testimony established that the decedent told a witness that his will was in a lockbox under his bed, and that he had left everything to a certain beneficiary. When the lockbox was opened, there was a conformed copy of the will, with the decedent’s and the witnesses’ signatures indicated with “s/[names].” The will left everything to the beneficiary indicated by the testimony. No potential heir contested the validity of the conformed copy. Nonetheless, the Surrogate denied probate and the Appellate Division affirmed.

New York SPCA § 1407 and Third Department case law provide that “A lost or destroyed will may be admitted to probate only if [1] It is established that the will has not been revoked, and [2] Execution of the will is proved in the manner required for the probate of an existing will, and [3] All of the provisions of the will are clearly and distinctly proved by each of at least two credible witnesses or by a copy or draft of the will proved to be true and complete.” The Surrogate found that petitioner had established the first two elements, but had fallen short on the third. The Appellate Division agreed that “petitioner failed to show that the conformed copy of decedent’s will was ‘true and complete,’” stating that “[a]lthough petitioner tendered a conformed copy of decedent’s will, there was no other proof from the hearing confirming that the conformed copy was identical to decedent’s original will.”

Takeaway: Slezak reinforces the importance of being sure that the original version of a will is available. While there appears to have been no contest to the validity of the conformed copy of the will, the courts followed the statute strictly and denied probate when one of the statutory elements for admitting the conformed copy was lacking.

Beneficiary Has a Right to an Accounting Despite the Trustee’s Return of Funds

Kaylie v. Kaylie, 2023 WL 6395345 (1st Dep’t October 3, 2023)

Can the beneficiary of a trust require a trustee to provide an accounting despite the trustee’s return to the trust of the funds said to have been diverted? In Kaylie v. Kaylie, 2023 WL 6395345 (1^st Dep’t October 3, 2023), New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, answered that question in the affirmative, reversing the trial court’s determination that no accounting was necessary under the circumstances.

In Kaylie, a beneficiary of a family trust commenced an Article 77 proceeding in Supreme Court upon learning that trust bank accounts unexpectedly had zero balances. In response, the trustee argued, among other things, that the trust “irrefutably has been made whole by the restoration of those funds, thus obviating any purported need on the part of [the beneficiary] for an accounting of those funds.” The trustee also argued that she had been removed as trustee since the dispute arose, limiting her access to the bank records of the trust. The trial court agreed, holding that since the beneficiary had not “show[n] misappropriation of funds” and the trustee no longer held that position, “the intrusion of an [accounting] is not warranted….”

The Appellate Division disagreed and reversed, in a decision reaffirming the principle that a beneficiary “is entitled to a judicial accounting by reason of the fiduciary relationship between” the beneficiary and the trustee. The court stated: “The fact that respondent has returned the trust’s funds with interest does not affect petitioner’s right to an accounting.”

Takeaway: The Kaylie decision confirms the primacy of a beneficiary’s right to an accounting from the trustee of a trust, even where the trustee has a “no harm, no foul” argument based on the return of funds to a trust and the trustee’s departure as trustee.

2023 Goulston & Storrs PC.

By Charles R. Jacob III , Jennifer L. Mikels , Molly Quinn , Gary M. Ronan , Nora A. Saunders of Goulston & Storrs

For more news on Probate & Fiduciary Updates, visit the NLR Estates & Trusts section.

Taxpayer Makes Offer, But IRS Refused

James E. Caan, the movie actor most famous for playing Sonny Corleone in The Godfather, got into IRS trouble regarding the attempted tax-free rollover of his IRA.

Caan had two IRA accounts at UBS, a multinational investment bank and financial services company. One account held cash, mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETF) and the other account held a partnership interest in a hedge fund called P&A Multi-Sector Fund, L.P.

Because the hedge fund was a non-publicly traded investment, UBS required Caan to provide UBS with the year-end fair market value to prepare IRS Form 5498. Caan never provided the fair market value as of December 31, 2014. UBS issued a number of notices and warnings to Caan and finally on November 25, 2015, UBS resigned as custodian of the P&A Interest. UBS issued Caan a 2015 Form 1099-R reporting a distribution of $1,910,903, which was the value of the P&A Interest, used as of December 31, 2013. Caan’s 2015 tax return reported the distribution as nontaxable.

In June 2015, Caan’s investment advisor Michael Margiotta resigned from UBS and began working for Merrill Lynch. In October 2015, Margiotta got all UBS IRA assets to transfer to a Merrill Lynch IRA, except for the P&A Interest. The P&A Interest was ineligible to transfer through the Automated Customer Account Transfer Service. In December 2016, Mr. Margiotta directed the P&A Fund to liquidate the P&A Interest and the cash was transferred to Caan’s Merrill Lynch IRA in three separate wires between January 23 and June 21, 2017.

In April 2018, the IRS issued a Notice of Deficiency for the 2015 tax year asserting that distribution of the P&A Interest was taxable. On July 27, 2018, Caan requested a private letter ruling asking the IRS to waive the requirement that a rollover of an IRA distribution be made within 60 days. In September 2018, the IRS declined to issue the ruling.

Caan died July 6, 2022. In the Estate of Caan v. Commissioner, 161 T.C. No. 6 (October 18, 2023), the Tax Court ruled that Caan was not eligible for a tax-free IRA rollover of the P&A Interest for three reasons. First, to be a nontaxable rollover the taxpayer may not change the character of any noncash distributed property, but here, the P&A Interest was changed to cash before being rolled-over. Second, the contribution of the cash occurred long after the 60-day deadline. Third, only one rollover contribution is allowed in any one-year period, but Caan had three contributions. The Court also determined the 2015 fair market value of the P&A Interest.

Finally, the Tax Court determined that it has jurisdiction to review the IRS denial of the 60-day waiver request and that the applicable standard of review is an abuse of discretion. The Court ruled there was no abuse of discretion because Caan changed the character of the rollover property and even if the IRS waived the 60-day requirement, the rollover would still not be tax-free.

The case highlights some of the potential dangers in holding non-traditional, non-publicly traded assets in an IRA.

New FEHA Regulations Alter How, When Employers Can Consider Applicant’s Criminal Histories

IN DEPTH

THE LAW

Under the FEHA, employers are prohibited from inquiring into a job applicant’s criminal history prior to extending a conditional offer of employment, including through job applications, background checks and internet searches.

The FEHA also requires that if an employer is considering taking an adverse action with respect to a job applicant or employee, the employer must first conduct an individualized assessment of the job applicant’s criminal history—including determining whether the applicant’s criminal history has a “direct and adverse” effect on their ability to perform the functions of the position.

While the thrust of the law remains the same, the new regulations expand the scope of who is covered by the FEHA, the kinds of inquiries the law prohibits, the kinds of evidence employers must accept and consider regarding an applicant’s justification for the past offense in question and the process for recission of a conditional offer of employment.

EXPANDED COVERAGE

First, the new FEHA regulations expand the definitions of “employer” and “applicant.” Previously, an “employer” was defined as “a labor contractor or client employer.” The updated regulations clarify that the definition of employer additionally encompasses any direct or joint employers, agents of the employer, staffing agencies, entities that evaluate the applicant’s criminal history on behalf of an employer, and entities that select or provide workers to an employer from a pool or availability list.

Similarly, the updated regulations clarify that an “applicant” may include, in addition to an individual who has been conditionally offered employment, existing employees who have applied to a different position with their current employer, those who have indicated a specific desire to be considered for a different position with their current employer, and even an existing employee who is subjected to a review and consideration of their criminal history because of a change in ownership, management, policy or practice.

Employers should note that job applicants are still considered “individuals who have been conditionally offered employment” even if they have commenced employment during the post-conditional offer review and criminal background check process. In other words, employers cannot transition an applicant to an employee before beginning the background check process to avoid the FEHA.

EXPANDED PROHIBITIONS

The new regulations make clear that employers are prohibited from including statements in job advertisements, postings, applications or other materials indicating that they will not consider applicants with criminal histories, including statements such as “no felons” or “must have clean record.”

In addition, employers are prohibited from conducting pre-hire internet searches on job applicants, and they cannot consider criminal history even if voluntarily provided by the job applicant during the application or interview process.

Moreover, employers are now barred, at any stage of the hiring process, from the following:

Refusing additional evidence voluntarily provided by an applicant contextualizing the offense in question (or another party at the applicant’s request);
Requiring an applicant to submit additional evidence, or a specific type of documentary evidence, regarding the offense in question; and
Requiring an applicant to disclose their status as a survivor of domestic abuse or comparable statuses, medical records, or the existence of a disability or diagnosis.

EXPANDED ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION REQUIREMENTS

Currently, employers are required to conduct an individualized assessment of an applicant’s criminal offense and its bearing on the individual’s candidacy before rescinding a conditional offer of employment if the decision is based in whole or in part on the applicant’s criminal history. However, the updated regulations explain that employers must additionally conduct a reassessment after the job applicant has had an opportunity to respond to the pre-adverse action notice and before making a final decision. The result is a four-step process: (1) the initial individualized assessment, (2) the pre-adverse action notice and applicant response, (3) reassessment and (4) the final decision. We discuss each step below.

1 – INITIAL INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENT

The new regulations expand the scope of the employer’s individualized assessment. The regulations require the assessment to be reasoned and evidence-based, take place prior to sending the pre-adverse action letter and consider the following factors:

The nature and gravity of the offense or conduct;
The time that has passed since the offense or conduct;
The nature of the job held or sought; and
Evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances.

2 – THE PRE-ADVERSE ACTION NOTICE AND APPLICANT RESPONSE

If an employer wishes to rescind a conditional offer of employment after conducting an individualized assessment, the employer must notify the applicant in writing. The notice requirements largely remain the same: Employers must identify the conviction(s) they based their decision on, provide a copy of all the reports they utilized (including internet search results), inform the applicant that they have a right to respond before the decision is finalized and explain the kinds of evidence the applicant may provide evidence as part of their response. However, the new regulations do make a few notable changes to the notice requirement:

The regulations require the employer to provide the job applicant with notice of their right to respond to a pre-adverse action notice and with a response deadline that is at least five (5) business days from the date the applicant receives the notice.
If an applicant timely notifies the employer in writing that additional time is needed to respond, the employer must give the applicant at least five additional business days to respond to the notice before making a final decision. The regulations contain ambiguity regarding what is a “timely” notification.
If the pre-adverse action notice is sent to the applicant through email, the notice is deemed received two business days after it is sent, meaning that the five-day response deadline begins to run after the second day post-transmittal.

3 – REASSESSMENT

If the applicant provides evidence related to mitigating circumstances or their rehabilitative efforts since the conviction at issue, the employer must consider the information—a process the new regulations call “reassessment.” The employer must consider factors such as the applicant’s conduct during incarceration, employment history since the conviction or release from incarceration, community service and engagement, and other rehabilitative efforts.

4 – FINAL DECISION

There are no new requirements for employers to consider when making their final decision to rescind a conditional offer of employment.

EMPLOYER LIABILITY IMPOSED BY FEHA

Job applicants may allege violations of the FEHA by arguing that there is a less discriminatory policy or practice that serves the employer’s goals as effectively as its current background check policy or practice without significantly increasing the cost or burden on the employer. These allegations can be lodged through a complaint filed with the CRD or a civil lawsuit for discrimination. A variety of remedies are available for possible violations of the FEHA, such as reinstatement of back pay and benefits, compensatory damages for emotional distress and out-of-pocket losses, injunctive relief and punitive damages. Courts also regularly award attorneys’ fees if job applicants prevail.

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND NEXT STEPS

Employers with background check programs can start implementing the following key action items in response to the updated FEHA regulations:

Review and update job postings and applications to ensure that they do not include statements suggesting that job applicants are barred from the process because of their criminal history, including “no convicted felons,” “criminal background check required” and language referring to “ex-offenders.”
Review background check policies as necessary to ensure compliance with the FEHA’s new requirements, including expanded time periods in communications with job applicants consistent with the four-step process above if considering an adverse action.
Ensure detailed and organized documentation of all discussions with job applicants who may be subject to an adverse action in preparation for future challenges to the employer’s hiring process under the new regulations.
Consider providing additional or updated trainings to human resources professionals who handle the application and new-hire process, especially to emphasize that internet searches (including social media) of job applicants are strictly prohibited prior to extending a conditional offer of employment. All inquiries should be saved until after a conditional offer of employment has been extended.

Tag: business

The FCC Approves an NOI to Dive Deeper into AI and its Effects on Robocalls and Robotexts

Like this:

California Governor Signs a Handful of Tax-Related Bills into Law

Like this:

IRS Process for Withdrawing Employee Retention Credit Claims