On April 28, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, withdrew its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities. This original initiative, which was commenced at the 20th Anniversary of the ADA in 2010, was expected to result in a final NPRM setting forth website accessibility regulations for state and local government entities later this year. Instead, citing a need to address the evolution and enhancement of technology (both with respect to web design and assistive technology for individuals with disabilities) and to collect more information on the costs and benefits associated with making websites accessible, DOJ “refreshed” its regulatory process and, instead, on May 9, 2016, published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) in the federal register.
Monthly Archives: May 2016
DOJ Refreshes Its Efforts to Promulgate Title II Website Accessibility Regulations and Other Accessible Technology Updates – What Does It All Suggest for Businesses?
This quarter has seen the Loan Market Association (LMA) publish a template insurance broker’s letter in an attempt to streamline and improve the process of agreeing broker letters in LMA real estate finance transactions. Anyone who has had the pleasure of negotiating and agreeing these letters will know that at times the process can be arduous and even delay a transaction.
For those unfamiliar with broker letters, their aim is to obtain various confirmations in respect of property insurance to lenders so that the lenders may place reliance on the underlying insurance. Amongst other things, confirmations usually include statements such as that the insurance complies with loan covenants, premiums have been paid and the broker is not aware of anything that would invalidate the insurance. The LMA broker letter has been pulled together by law firms, traditional and non-traditional lenders, insurance bodies and insurers, with the aim of creating a balanced position for both insurers and lenders.
Within the construction industry there appears to be uncertainty as to the circumstances in which a party can terminate a contract and the consequences of a wrongful termination. There would also seem to be a general lack of understanding of the concept of a “repudiatory breach” of contract, and how this is relevant to termination.
Disputes and differences are commonplace in construction projects; likewise their resolution (via various routes). Previously, we saw that it was only in rare circumstances that a relationship had broken down to such an extent and/or there were sufficiently serious breaches of obligations, where termination became a consideration. (Termination, in this sense, means bringing the contractual relationship to an end.)
- Supreme Court quashes TRAI Regulations on call drops
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has quashed the Telecom Consumers Protection (Ninth Amendment) Regulations dated October 16, 2015 (“Regulations”) issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”). The Regulations, which prescribed a financial disincentive (Rs. 1 for each call drop limited to a maximum of three calls per day) to be paid by the Telecom Service Providers (“TSPs”) to their customers w.e.f. January 1, 2016 had been challenged by the TSPs before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on the grounds of being arbitrary, unreasonable and without basis. The High Court however, upheld the validity of the Regulations on February 29, 2016 and further stated that since the same had not been stayed by the court during the proceedings, TRAI was at liberty to take appropriate steps towards its compliance.
We’re less than three weeks away from our Annual Conference, which will be held this year in one of my favorite cities, Boston! We’re looking forward to meeting up with our delegates from all over the world, for an excellent conference, which means that at the moment, we’re deep in the final stages of making sure all of the final details are taken care of!
But I took a short break to bring you this week’s top posts from around the Network from ILNToday:
Insurance companies keep reserves for unanticipated events, such as fires, floods and storms, says Raman Johal in an interview with CBC News. However, the reserves start to dwindle or deductibles may increase in those areas that are more prone to natural disaster, explains Raman. Read the full article to learn more about the potential effects of the Fort Mac fire on the insurance industry.
Many states recognize a “right of publicity,” which prohibits the commercial use of an individual’s name, likeness, or identity without consent. When aspects of a well-known person’s identity are incorporated into an expressive work, however, what emerges is a tension between the individual’s right of publicity and the artist’s freedom of expression as protected by the First Amendment.
On May 12, 2016, OSHA published significant amendments to its recordkeeping rule, requiring many employers to submit work-related injury and illness information to the agency electronically. The amendments also include provisions designed to prevent employers from retaliating against employees for reporting injuries and illnesses at work. The information employers provide will be “scrubbed” of personally identifiable information and published on OSHA’s website in a searchable format.
n recently issued final and temporary regulations, the IRS has clarified the tax treatment of partners in a partnership that owns a disregarded entity for which the partners work as employees. The regulations, issued on May 4, 2016, clarify that the IRS did not intend to create a distinction between a disregarded entity owned by an individual and a disregarded entity owned by a partnership in the application of the self-employment tax rules. As a result, partners must pay self-employment tax, even if they work for a business entity with a single owner that is “disregarded” as an entity separate from its owner for federal income tax purposes.
Treatment of Partners as Employees
The Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) long-standing position is that an individual cannot for federal income tax purposes be both an employee and a partner of an entity that is taxed as a partnership.
According to our calculations there are presently 60 taxes in force in Hungary. Value added tax accounts for 25% of central tax revenues whereas the personal income tax accounts for 13%. However, most taxes account for less than 1% of these tax revenues. The figure of 60 different taxes seems slightly excessive also in an international context.
How do others do it?
There is a lot of criticism aimed at the fragmented nature of the Hungarian tax system. We did some counting and there are currently 60 different kinds of taxes in Hungary. At first sight this seems to be too much. However, is it too much also compared to other countries?