Tax Law Includes Big Change for Family Law

The U.S. Congress and President Trump just passed an overhaul of U.S. tax law. There are big changes across a variety of taxes, deductions and exemptions. The law was hotly debated, and it remains controversial.

One of the changes that impacts family law in a big way is the change in the way alimony payments are taxed. Until now, the person who paid alimony or spousal support to an ex-spouse could deduct that amount from their income. The person who received alimony had to pay taxes on the amount that they received.

The new tax law reverses that. Now, you have to pay taxes on alimony that you pay. You don’t have to pay taxes on alimony that you receive. The new rule applies throughout the United States. Each state may determine their own laws for how much alimony to pay or receive. However, taxation rules set by the federal government apply throughout the country.

Supporters of the new law say that more taxes overall will be collected by the government. They say that payers have higher tax rates, so the government will collect more net taxes. They say the changes won’t make a difference in divorce figures, because most people don’t make a decision about whether to file for divorce based on how the government taxes alimony. Opponents say that alimony payers may fight paying alimony if they know that they have to pay taxes on what they pay. They say that it’s hard enough for divorcing couples to resolve their disputes without penalizing an alimony payer with taxes.

The change makes alimony tax rules mirror child support laws. Child support recipients don’t pay taxes on the amounts they receive. Instead, the person who pays child support pays the taxes on the amounts that they pay. Now, alimony laws work the same way.

Justices Question Lawyers In Case That Could Dramatically Affect Public Sector Unions

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument relating to an important case that could determine whether public sector unions can collect involuntary fees from nonmembers. Based on the questions the justices asked, experts believe that the outcome of the case could be determined by the newest member of the court, Neil Gorsuch, who did not ask any questions during the proceedings.

Arguments lasted about an hour, and the questions that came from the court’s conservative wing seem to suggest that they were sympathetic with the arguments made by anti-union groups. They argued that forcing nonmembers to pay fees to the unions — to cover costs related to negotiating collective bargaining agreements with local and state governments — was tantamount to restricting the freedom of speech of those nonmembers. Conversely, justices who represent the liberal wing of the court asked questions that suggest that they were supportive of continuing the fees.

At issue was whether negotiating collective bargaining agreements was a political activity. The conservative justices seem to think that it is, while the unions and their liberal supporters on the court insist that negotiating the contracts is separate from their political activities.

Outside the court, protesters on both side of the issued attempted to get their voice heard on the issue. Those supporting union rights held signs that insisted that the country needed good union jobs, while their counterparts held signs that stated that they were standing with Mark. The latter refers to Mark Janus, who is a an Illinois state worker and the plaintiff in the case.

Currently, more than 20 states require around 5,000,000 workers to pay these fees, which are called “agency fees.” If these fees were disallowed, it would be a major setback to unions, and could affect what can spend in political races. Commonly, unions support Democratic candidates over Republicans.

Supreme Court Argues Merits Of Old Law When Applied To Modern Technology

The United States Supreme Court discussed on Tuesday the practical application of an older law in regards to modern technology. The court, during oral arguments, considered the legalities of federal warrants being issued by prosecutors to gain access to emails sent and received by drug dealers stored on Microsoft servers based in Europe.

Justices of the court have been given the task of interpreting what is known as the Stored Communications Act which was passed in 1986. Legal experts say that the case highlights the conflict that exists between law enforcement officials and tech firms that have a vested interest in keeping private the information their customers share with them.

Michael Dreeben, United States Deputy Solicitor General, maintains that prosecutors have the legal right to access these emails due to the fact that Microsoft is headquartered in the United States. Dreeben opines that the issue is not international in scope and urges colleagues not to be fooled by the slight of hand trick that Microsoft attempts to play.

E. Joshua Rosenkranz, an attorney representing Microsoft, counters the argument made by Dreeben by declaring that the law gives jurisdiction to where the emails are held and the United States prosecutors are not entitled to access emails held in the country of Ireland.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, appears to agree with Microsoft on the matter and is among a group of justices that have suggested to Congress that the law is in need of revision to provide better clarity on the matter.

Ginsburg goes on to express that in 1986 cloud storage was something unimaginable. She would also say that specific legislation should be drafted if Congress wishes to regulate these modern technologies.

Supreme Court Will Not Hear DACA Case

Last year, President Trump announced that the Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals law would be ended on March 5, 2018. At that time, no one would be able to renew their status under the program if they had not already done so. DACA, as the law is referred to, currently covers about 700,000 people who were brought to the United States as children by their parents who were illegal immigrants.

Congress has been debating DACA for many months since the president’s announcement. The Democratic Party even went so far as to allow a government shutdown over DACA. Congress has so far not been able to come to an agreement regarding DACA or immigration reform.

Since the Congress has not been able to come to a resolution regarding DACA, the courts have become involved. Federal Judge William Alsup from the Northern District of California ruled against the Trump administration by stating that renewals must continue to be granted under DACA even past the March 5 deadline.

Usually, any appeals of a district court judge’s ruling would have to be heard by a federal court of appeals. However, the Trump administration wanted to bypass this and take the appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

On Monday, February 26, the Supreme Court refused to hear the Trump administration’s appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that the case must work its way up through regular channels. This means that any appeal will now be heard by the Ninth District Court of Appeals.

For the most part, the Ninth District has not ruled favorably for positions advocated by the Trump administration. The president has been very critical of the court and its decisions.

Legal experts believe that it will take approximately one year for the case to reach the Supreme Court again. Until the ruling is overturned, DACA and its provisions will remain in place.

California Law Struck Down as Unconstitutional

As one of the biggest economies and most populated states in the country, California can seem like a land of its own. Whether its products “known to cause cancer in the state of California” or battles over sanctuary cities, the Golden State sets its own rules. It’s no surprise the state recently tried to limit IMDb’s right to free speech – but the results of the case are unexpected.

 

Because California is home to Hollywood, the state often finds itself advocating for the special interests of its most-taxed citizens. The California Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, recently joined up with SAG-AFTRA, a union for professional actors, to uphold a state law, AB1687. The law passed in 2016 but has been under an injunction since 2017. If allowed, the law would prevent the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), from publishing the real age of any actor who paid for a subscription to IMDbPro. Becarra and SAG-AFTRA argued that IMDbPro creates a special relationship between actors and IMDb.com, and this relationship limits IMDb’s free speech rights.

 

The same judge who put the law on hold last year has ruled against Becerra and SAG-AFTRA. Judge Vince Chhabria called AB1687 “clearly unconstitutional” according to the  Los Angeles Times.  IMDb has argued its right to free speech is violated by the law, and Judge Chhabria seems to agree. The Judge was particularly unmoved by the state’s argument that the law was necessary to protect actresses from age-related discrimination, calling that defense unclear.

 

SAG-AFTRA is already planning an appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The guild issued a statement claiming Judge Chhabria failed to understand the central argument of the case. It’s unclear for Becerra will join in the appeal efforts.

Who Will Gain And Who Will Lose From The GOP Tax Overhaul

The GOP tax plan received a lot of attention and rightly so. It created significant changes for companies and completely overhauled existing tax law. It is expected that the new tax bill will produce some big winners and perhaps some losers. Let us look at who the expected winners will be and how the law will impact varying businesses.

The highlight of the new tax bill is undoubtedly the fact that corporate tax rates have been slashed from 35% to 21%. This is a significant drop of 14%. If you are a company making $100 million a year in corporate profits, then the new tax law will save you $14 million a year. Now that is not pennies or chump change isn’t it?

Given this fact, it is expected that the biggest beneficiaries of the new tax law will be companies that have been charged at the highest tax rate. Naturally, they will see the most significant reduction in the amount of taxes they pay on their profits. Whether they reinvest those tax savings back into the business, raise wages, give benefits, or pay shareholders is a whole different issue altogether. We have seen bonuses given out, and salaries increased for many employees though, which shows that the tax law has positively impacted certain sectors of the economy.

There is another component of the new tax law, that is often overlooked, but is very important, especially for large multinational corporations. The new tax bill lets multinational corporations such as Apple repatriate or bring back overseas profits at a one time significantly reduced rate. These companies can then use this overseas money to reinvest in the USA or just insert funds into the US economy. This can be a major deal and can further jump-start the economy.

As far as I can tell, for now, there is only one group of losers from new tax laws enacted by the GOP Congress and President Trump. State and local deductions will now be capped. This will result in some people in high tax states such as Illinois and California paying more money to the federal government than under previous tax statutes.

Public Defenders In Los Angeles Protest Hiring Of New Boss

A group that included over 150 public defenders that work for the county of Los Angeles protested on Monday in response the appointment of their new chief. The source of the conflict stems from the fact that many feel the newly hired public defender Nicole Davis Tinkham is not qualified for the position that has been granted to her.

Deputy public defender Alisa Blair has been vocal In expressing her displeasure with the hire points out that Tinkham has not tried one criminal case in her legal career. This, Blair says, would qualify Tinkham for only an entry-level position with the office if ordinary standards were followed.

Some deputy public defenders are also concerned with Tinkham’s past work history of defending sheriff’s deputies working with the county both while involved in private practice and later as an employee working for the Office of the County Counsel. Tinkham’s detractors believe that this history from Tinkham could make It more difficult for public defenders to gain the trust of those they are instructed to defend.

Approximately 390 of the 650 public defenders that work for Los Angeles County added their signatures to a letter that addressed these concerns before the hiring of Tinkham was made final.

Monday’s protest took place at lunchtime on a day that the Los Angeles Superior Court was closed for business. Christine Rodriquez, a Deputy Public Defender that took part in the protests, said this time was chosen in order to avoid any disruption of the work of public defenders.

Brenden Woods, Alameda County Public Defender, was present at the protest and spoke in support of Tinkham’s hiring. Protesters have also gained the support of Jeff Adachi, Public Defender of San Francisco as well as the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

Federal Court Decision Could Make Embedding Tweets Illegal

For online publishers, one of the most useful features of the social network known as Twitter is the ability to embed tweets, a function that can be accomplished by means of copying a snippet of HTML code and pasting it onto a web page; however, a recent federal court decision appears to have ruled such an action to be a violation of American copyright law.

According to a news article published by Reuters, Judge Katherine Forrest of the Manhattan Federal District Court issued an opinion that a photograph taken by Justin Goldman in New York, which would later end up posted on Twitter, should not have been embedded by several online news organizations such as Breitbart.com, Yahoo News, Time magazine, and the New England Sports Network. The photo was taken on a public setting, and it featured NFL quarterback engaged in conversation with retired NBA player Danny Ainge, an influential figure in the Boston Celtics back office. Goldman shared the photo on the Snapchat mobile network, and it did not take long for the image to be shared on Twitter.

Goldman sued more than a dozen news websites that embedded the tweet featuring the photo he took, which in 2016 fueled speculation about a potential signing of a contract by NBA star Kevin Durant to play with the Celtics, a move that would have required the influence of Tom Brady.

In her opinion, Judge Forrest did not agree with the arguments presented by defendant such as the Boston Globe, a newspaper that claimed to be protected since the photo they embedded has never been stored on their servers or content management systems.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a strong advocate of free speech on the internet, filed an amicus brief urging Judge Forrest to reconsider her opinion, citing the 2007 precedent known as Perfect 10 v. Amazon, which protects publishers who embed digital content from sources such as Twitter. Judge Forrest actually relied on the American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo decision in 2014, which determines that servers alone do not determine copyright infringement.

Jeremy Goldstein Gives His Stance On EPS And Employee Incentives

Getting better prospects within the company that you are working with is always something that every salaried employee is looking forward to. The number of people that human resource departments receive asking for raises or any kind of incentives within a fairly large company every month is enormous. Large corporates are sometimes in the position to grant these incentives but choose to not for some of the other reason. Smaller companies, in particular, face the issue of wanting to grant their employees with incentives, but not being able to do so because of the many restrictions that come their way. It is a constant tug of war that corporates and employees face when it comes to the matter of incentives. Learn more: https://nycinquirer.com/2018/01/15/nyc-lawyer-jeremy-goldstein-recommends-compromise-for-employment-incentives/

 

 

Jeremy Goldstein, a notable corporate lawyer from New York had outlined, in an article the various aspects of employee incentives and their implications. In particular, he spoke about EPS, which is an employee based incentive program that a number of well-known corporates have been known to employ. This program has proven to be incredibly effective in determining the amount that people need to be able to receive, and the conditions of them receiving this incentive. However, Goldstein outlined that just because this system is in place doesn’t mean that it is the best, or implemented in the best way possible. There are times when corporates decide no take the road that leads to employees not getting paid and them getting used to their services with no incentives to do better.

 

 

In the article, Goldstein outlined how compromise is one of the best routes to take when trying to come up with incentives that can benefit companies and the employees working for them as well. It is one of the best ways to also be able to form a platform through which employers can receive knowledge of what the employees need and vice versa for the betterment of both parties.

 

 

Jeremy Goldstein is a prominent corporate lawyer and expert in financial law who has been practicing in the state of New York for the past several years. He has worked with some of the biggest names in the industry and leads his own law firm called Jeremy Goldstein And Associates. The company has been offering legal services to clients coming to them from all around the country and stands as one of the most sought-after corporate law firms in the city.

 

Florida Senators Get Law Enforcement To Help In Puerto Rico

Florida Senators are trying to send out law enforcement in order to curb the crime in Puerto Rico. Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio sent a letter to Jeff Sessions on Thursday. The letter urged Sessions to work with law enforcement in order to curb the crime. There have been several reports of increased crime in Puerto Rico. Many of the businesses in the area are closed. Some places still do not have any power.

There were 46 murders last month. This is twice as many murders as there were last year around this time. Many of these murders are due to gang activity. Gang activity has been on the rise because of diminished police presence.

It has been four months since Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico. It is estimated that 500,000 people in this country do not have any power. Christina Rodriquez has talked about how difficult it is to live in a place without any power. She said that she cannot buy any milk or eggs. She also stated that she cannot buy any eggs.

Christina and her husband Luis have been eating spam and canned sausages for months. She stated that might die of high blood pressure because of the massive amount of sodium. Despite the fact that there is a lot of crime in Puerto Rico, many people are coming together and making the most of a bad situation. Christina stated that many people are coming together and helping each other.

They do not have much, but they are sharing what they have. Christina and Luis cook for several people each day. They were serving 300 meals per day at one point.