Frequently, parties in both civil and criminal cases where fraud or corporate misconduct is being alleged attempt to defend themselves by arguing that they lacked unlawful intent because they relied upon the advice of counsel. Such an assertion instantly raises two fundamental questions: 1) what advice did the party’s attorney actually give?; and 2) what facts and circumstances did the party disclose, or fail to disclose, in order to obtain that opinion? It is well understood that raising an advice of counsel defense consequently waives attorney/client privilege.
A Perilous “Advice of Counsel” Defense Results in Disclosure, Not Only of Attorney/Client Communications, but of Attorney Work Product Material as Well
- $25.8 billion in education, “the most in history.” This includes free tuition at public colleges and universities for middle-class students;
- $100 billion for infrastructure investment in projects at LaGuardia Airport, Penn Station, the Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange, and the Kosciusko Bridge, among others;
- $10 million to the Liberty Defense Project to provide free legal assistance to immigrants, and to enforce anti-discrimination and hate-crimes laws through the newly established $1 million Hate Crimes Task Force; and
- $2 billion over five years for the Clean Water Infrastructure Act.
There is no end in sight for legal challenges to state government efforts to tax remote sales. The latest involves a lawsuit that Bloomberg made available online, filed by NetChoice and the American Catalog Mailers Association. They say that a new Tennessee administrative rule violates the precedent established in the now familiar 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case, Quill Corp. v North Dakota, which made it unconstitutional for states to impose a use tax collection duty on out of state sellers with no physical presence in that jurisdiction.
The new administrative rule that the suit is premised on contains a nexus provision calling for “[o]ut-of-state dealers who engage in the regular or systematic solicitation of consumers in this state through any means,” with sales to in-state consumers of more than $500,000, to register with the Department, and collect the applicable sales and use taxes on those sales.
In 2016, 17 states, primarily located in the southeastern U.S., offered sales tax holidays, down from a peak of 19 states in 2010, according the Tax Foundation. In the think tank’s 2016 special report characterizing such events at “politically expedient but poor tax policy,” the authors contend that tax holidays distract policymakers and taxpayers from real, permanent, and economically beneficial tax reform. Sales tax holidays introduce unjustifiable government distortions into the economy without providing any significant boost to the economy. They represent a real cost for businesses without providing substantial benefits. They are also an inefficient means of helping low-income consumers and an ineffective means of providing savings to consumers.
In a March 2017 evaluation, the California Department of Finance, Office of State Audits and Evaluations revealed that the California State Board of Equalization’s (BOE) work is problematic because of its operational culture. This has “impact[ed] its ability to report accurate and reliable information to decision makers.” Moreover, “certain board member practices have intervened in administrative activities and created inconsistencies in operations, breakdowns in centralized processes, and in certain instances result in activities contrary to state law and budgetary and legislative directives.”
HOMS Solicitors are continuing our support of Pieta House with the upcoming Darkness Into Light 5km event on Saturday, 6th May 2017.
Seán Fitzgerald and Rachael O’Shaughnessy, Senior Solicitors in our litigation department, attended the launch of this unique event at the Clayton Hotel on 5th April 2017 and are pictured with the Mayor of Limerick City and County, Kieran O’Hanlon, and representatives of the Limerick City Darkness Into Light Committee.
ATED relief is denied for the whole of the ATED tax year in which the non-qualifying occupation takes place, unless there was a qualifying tenant renting the property as part of a property rental business prior to the non-qualifying occupation (in which case relief will be allowed for the period of ‘qualifying’ occupation).
Relief is also denied for up to the next three ATED tax years, until such time as there is ‘qualifying occupation’.
ATED relief is withdrawn for the previous ATED tax year if, in fact, there was no qualifying occupation during that tax year. (This could be the case if the company was taking steps to rent out the property, such as alterations or redecoration, for which ATED relief is available if the steps are taken without undue delay).
The look forward and look back provisions can result in companies owing ATED for tax years in which it was thought that an ATED relief was due. The position needs to be corrected by submission of an amended ATED tax return for all years affected, as quickly as possible as time deadlines apply to the tax return filing.