11 Temmuz 2012 Çarşamba
What the U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Doesn't Want You to Know About Your Workplace Rights
10 Temmuz 2012 Salı
8 Temmuz 2012 Pazar
What the U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Doesn't Want You to Know About Your Workplace Rights
They sued. At least, they got together under the umbrella of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to sue. They got a temporary injunction in the DC federal courts to stop the rule. They really, really don’t want you to see this poster. It must really be subversive, huh?
Well, see for yourself. Here’s exactly what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn’t want you to know about your workplace rights:
Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) guarantees the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively with their employers, and to engage in other protected concerted activity or to refrain from engaging in any of the aboveactivity. Employees covered by the NLRA are protected from certain types of employer and union misconduct. This Notice gives you general information about your rights, and about the obligations of employers and unions under the NLRA.
Contact the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Federal agency that investigates and resolves complaints under the NLRA, using the contact information supplied below, if you have any questions about specific rights that may apply in your particular workplace.
Under the NLRA, you have the right to:
• Organizea union to negotiate with your employer concerning your wages, hours, and otherterms and conditions of employment.• Form,join or assist a union.•Bargain collectively through representatives of employees’ own choosing for acontract with your employer setting your wages, benefits, hours, and otherworking conditions.•Discuss your wages and benefits and other terms and conditions of employment orunion organizing with your co-workers or a union.• Takeaction with one or more co-workers to improve your working conditions by, amongother means, raising work-related complaints directly with your employer orwith a government agency, and seeking help from a union.•Strike and picket, depending on the purpose or means of the strike or thepicketing.•Choose not to do any of these activities, including joining or remaining amember of a union.
Under the NLRA, it is illegal for youremployer to:
•Prohibit you from talking about or soliciting for a union during non-work time,such as before or after work or during break times; or from distributing unionliterature during non-work time, in non-work areas, such as parking lots orbreak rooms.
Under the NLRA, it is illegal for a union orfor the union that represents you in bargaining with your employer to:
•Threaten or coerce you in order to gain your support for the union.
Wow.That’s it, you say? What’s the BFD? Well, I think it’s mostly these provisionsbig employer doesn’t want you to see:
Discussing wages and benefits with coworkers: The poster says, “Underthe NLRA, you have the right to discussyour wages and benefits and other terms and conditions of employment . . . withyour co-workers or a union.” Yet many employers take desperate measures to makesure you don’t know what coworkers are making and what benefits they have. Someput out written policies or put restrictions in contracts. That’s flat-outillegal. If you have a contract or if your employer has a policy saying you can’tdiscuss wages and benefits with coworkers, you can file a ChargeAgainst Employer with NLRB right now. The other part they don’t want you toknow about here is your right to grouse about working conditions withcoworkers. You can grumble and complain during breaks, on Facebook, in Twitter,as long as you’re doing it with coworkers and they can’t fire or discipline youfor it.
Discussing work-related complaints and workingconditions with coworkers: The poster says, “Under the NLRA, you have the rightto take action with one or more co-workers toimprove your working conditions by, among other means, raising work-related complaintsdirectly with your employer or with a government agency, and seeking help froma union.” If you complain about conditions on your own and on behalf ofyourself, you aren’t protected. But you have the absolute right (assuming youaren’t a supervisor) to complain about working conditions on behalf ofcoworkers, to get together with coworkers to discuss and complain, and to gettogether to try to negotiate better working conditions. That is huge.
Employerslike to crack down on employees who complain. They want to create an atmospherewhere employees shut up and accept things as they are. Most of the time, it’sbest to keep your mouth shut. But sometimes, you have to speak up. If workingconditions are intolerable, if it feels like a prison, if you are being paidunfairly, if there’s a bully in the workplace, sometimes you have to speak up.You probably have the right to do so, as long as you aren’t a supervisor, andas long as you’re not alone.
7 Temmuz 2012 Cumartesi
What the U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Doesn't Want You to Know About Your Workplace Rights
They sued. At least, they got together under the umbrella of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to sue. They got a temporary injunction in the DC federal courts to stop the rule. They really, really don’t want you to see this poster. It must really be subversive, huh?
Well, see for yourself. Here’s exactly what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn’t want you to know about your workplace rights:
Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) guarantees the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively with their employers, and to engage in other protected concerted activity or to refrain from engaging in any of the aboveactivity. Employees covered by the NLRA are protected from certain types of employer and union misconduct. This Notice gives you general information about your rights, and about the obligations of employers and unions under the NLRA.
Contact the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Federal agency that investigates and resolves complaints under the NLRA, using the contact information supplied below, if you have any questions about specific rights that may apply in your particular workplace.
Under the NLRA, you have the right to:
• Organizea union to negotiate with your employer concerning your wages, hours, and otherterms and conditions of employment.• Form,join or assist a union.•Bargain collectively through representatives of employees’ own choosing for acontract with your employer setting your wages, benefits, hours, and otherworking conditions.•Discuss your wages and benefits and other terms and conditions of employment orunion organizing with your co-workers or a union.• Takeaction with one or more co-workers to improve your working conditions by, amongother means, raising work-related complaints directly with your employer orwith a government agency, and seeking help from a union.•Strike and picket, depending on the purpose or means of the strike or thepicketing.•Choose not to do any of these activities, including joining or remaining amember of a union.
Under the NLRA, it is illegal for youremployer to:
•Prohibit you from talking about or soliciting for a union during non-work time,such as before or after work or during break times; or from distributing unionliterature during non-work time, in non-work areas, such as parking lots orbreak rooms.
Under the NLRA, it is illegal for a union orfor the union that represents you in bargaining with your employer to:
•Threaten or coerce you in order to gain your support for the union.
Wow.That’s it, you say? What’s the BFD? Well, I think it’s mostly these provisionsbig employer doesn’t want you to see:
Discussing wages and benefits with coworkers: The poster says, “Underthe NLRA, you have the right to discussyour wages and benefits and other terms and conditions of employment . . . withyour co-workers or a union.” Yet many employers take desperate measures to makesure you don’t know what coworkers are making and what benefits they have. Someput out written policies or put restrictions in contracts. That’s flat-outillegal. If you have a contract or if your employer has a policy saying you can’tdiscuss wages and benefits with coworkers, you can file a ChargeAgainst Employer with NLRB right now. The other part they don’t want you toknow about here is your right to grouse about working conditions withcoworkers. You can grumble and complain during breaks, on Facebook, in Twitter,as long as you’re doing it with coworkers and they can’t fire or discipline youfor it.
Discussing work-related complaints and workingconditions with coworkers: The poster says, “Under the NLRA, you have the rightto take action with one or more co-workers toimprove your working conditions by, among other means, raising work-related complaintsdirectly with your employer or with a government agency, and seeking help froma union.” If you complain about conditions on your own and on behalf ofyourself, you aren’t protected. But you have the absolute right (assuming youaren’t a supervisor) to complain about working conditions on behalf ofcoworkers, to get together with coworkers to discuss and complain, and to gettogether to try to negotiate better working conditions. That is huge.
Employerslike to crack down on employees who complain. They want to create an atmospherewhere employees shut up and accept things as they are. Most of the time, it’sbest to keep your mouth shut. But sometimes, you have to speak up. If workingconditions are intolerable, if it feels like a prison, if you are being paidunfairly, if there’s a bully in the workplace, sometimes you have to speak up.You probably have the right to do so, as long as you aren’t a supervisor, andas long as you’re not alone.
Can You Be Fired If You Are Sick After Your Vacation? Probably
I asked the doctor if I could go to work Thursday and he said absolutely not. I was contagious and had to stay home. I couldn't go back until Monday. He said he'd write me a note.
Fortunately, I didn't need a note. I'm my own boss. And I'm not heartless enough to go in and contaminate my staff. But I wondered: what would happen to my clients if they came back from their vacations sick?
The answer is sad. They're probably fired or disciplined. I have seen this time and again. Many bosses are royally ticked if you return from your fun in the sun only to say you're too sick to work. Contagion be darned. They don't want to hear excuses. They want you in the office.
There are a few laws that may protect you if you're sick right after vacation. Here are some:
Family and Medical Leave Act: If your company has at least 50 employees within 75 miles of your office, and you've worked at least a year, you may be covered by FMLA. This means if you miss work for a serious medical condition requiring medical treatment, you must be restored to the same or an equivalent position when you return. It's a bit tricky, but you should notify HR as soon as you can if you think you qualify for FMLA. There are forms for your doctor to fill out. While the company is supposed to tell you if you report an illness that should be covered, many don't, either because they don't understand the law or don't care.
Americans With Disabilities Act: My pneumonia is probably not a covered disability under the ADA. But if you have a chronic respiratory condition or some other medical condition that the pneumonia exacerbates, then you might be protected under ADA.
Health Laws: If you work in an industry that has laws prohibiting you from working when you have a communicable illness (such as health care or food service) then you may be protected as a whistleblower if you refuse to violate the law and come in to work.
OSHA: If you are contagious, you might be protected under the OSH Act, which requires that employers provide a safe workplace. And if your company makes someone contagious come in, you may be entitled to refuse to work with them (but beware: the ability to refuse to work is limited, so contact OSHA before you take drastic measures).
My recommendation? Unless you're flat on your back or in the hospital after your vacation, go in sick. If you're contagious with something dangerous, such as swine flu, plague, or smallpox (as opposed to the common cold or flu), get a doctor's note and submit it to your supervisor and HR. If you are still ordered to come to work, go in, even if you have to go in on a stretcher. Don't give them an excuse to say you were insubordinate. (A well-placed cough or two in the jerky boss's direction might be called for in that case).
Even if your boss tells you to stay home, that doesn't mean they can't hold it against you later. Your review might say you had excessive absences or question your loyalty. If you aren't legally protected, there isn't much you can do except to try not to miss any more work for awhile (and don't put in for another vacation for a long time).
FIDUCIARIES TAGGED UNDER FEDERAL PRIORITY STATUTE
Fiduciaries (trustees, executors, personal representatives) normally are not personally liable for the obligations of the trusts and estates they administer. As mentioned here previously, a major exception to this is the federal priority statute (a/k/a the federal claims statute) under 31 USC §3713(b)/Code § 6901(a)(1)(B). This little gem can create personal liability for a fiduciary that pays out estate or trust assets (including by reason of a distribution to beneficiaries) with knowledge that there are existing federal liabilities (such as taxes) that are unpaid, if the estate or trust is unable to later satisfy those liabilities.
This is not an abstract risk, but a very real liability for fiduciaries, 
The case is illustrative of various aspects of the statute.
A. The executor was liable for personal property that was distributed to beneficiaries. This is a common problem since by the time the family gets to the lawyers, they have often already made these distributions. This can be a problem under the claim statute, and also state statutes regarding priority of expenses and distributions.
B. The executor was liable for rent payments made by the estate. Such payments are subordinate in priority to the federal claim for taxes.
C. The executor was NOT liable for funeral and last illness expenses. While the federal statute does not on its face allow an exception for these items and other administrative expenses, case law exceptions to these payments exist to the extent they have a priority for payment under state law.
D. The trustee of a revocable trust got caught up in the statute because the trustee was deemed to be the equivalent of a representative of the estate due to the obligation of the trust to pay the decedents debts.
E. The fiduciaries had taken income tax charitable deductions for over $1.1 million that had been set aside to fund charitable bequests. Such bequests were subordinate to the federal claim, so the fiduciaries were held personally liable for those set-aside amounts because the court found that the funds were beyond the reach of the IRS. Presumably, since those set-aside amounts were still held in the trust, the fiduciaries will have direct access to those funds to pay the liability, but perhaps the charities can somehow block that in the same fashion that the IRS and the court found that the IRS did not have access to those funds. In the case, the amount of the other expenditures that created liability for the fiduciaries was minuscule compared to this potential $1.1 million exposure.
F. The fiduciaries were liable for legal and other expenses they paid for the charities. The court noted that payment of legal fees of the estate and trust for administrative purposes are generally not subject to the claim statute, but since these were obligations of third parties then they were not exempt under the statute.
G. The fiduciaries do not have to receive formal notice or a claim from the IRS, to be on notice for purpose of the statute. The court provided:
the knowledge requirement is not actual knowledge. Leigh, 72 T.C. at 1110. It is sufficient to show that the fiduciary had “notice of such facts as would put a reasonably prudent person on inquiry as to the existence of the unpaid claim.” Id. Neither Marshall nor Hilliard contend that they were never told that the IRS might try to make a claim against Stevens for the unpaid gift taxes on the Gift. In fact, they admit that they were both told that the IRS might try to assert a claim against Stevens's Estate for donee liability on the Gift.
H. The fact that the fiduciaries did not believe the IRS’ claim was valid, or that they relied on their professionals, did not relieve them of liability. The court noted:
[T]hey argue that they did not believe the IRS's claim against Stevens was valid for various reasons. But, as the government points out, Marshall and Hilliard's belief in the validity of the government's claim is not the test. Marshall and Hilliard had sufficient notice of the claim to put a reasonably prudent person on notice. It is regrettable that they received incorrect advice on that point, but poor legal advice is not a defense. Despite their belief that the government's claim was not valid, Marshall and Hilliard were required by § 3713 to preserve the funds to pay the government's claim—should it be proved valid.
U.S. v. MACINTYRE, 109 AFTR 2d 2012-XXXX, (DC TX), 06/25/2012
5 Temmuz 2012 Perşembe
IRS DISAPPROVAL OF VALUATION METHOD DOES NOT PREVENT THERE BEING A QUALIFIED APPRAISAL
To obtain a charitable deduction for many contributions of property, the taxpayer is required to obtain a “qualified appraisal” and submit that appraisal with the income tax return. Treas. Regs. §1.170A-13(c)(ii) contains a laundry list of items that 
If the IRS can show that no qualified appraisal was submitted, then it will seek to disallow the charitable deduction in full. If, instead, the IRS contests the appraised value, then the parties will negotiate, or fight out in court, over what is the appropriate value for deduction purposes. Obviously, for a taxpayer, it is better to be in the latter scenario (some deduction) than the former (no deduction).
In a recent case, the Tax Court had ruled that the above descriptive requirement was not met when an appraisal for a donated conservation easement described the appraisal method as the before-and-after method, using a fixed percentage reduction in the after-contribution value to determine the before value, and thus the value of the contribution. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has now reversed the Tax Court. In its opinion, the Court noted that the above qualified appraisal requirement did not require that the valuation method be one that the IRS accepted – the requirement only goes to whether the method was properly identified. More particularly, the Court said:
For the purpose of gauging compliance with the reporting requirement, it is irrelevant that the IRS believes the method employed was sloppy or inaccurate, or haphazardly applied—it remains a method, and Drazner described it. The regulation requires only that the appraiser identify the valuation method “used”; it does not require that the method adopted be reliable.
Scheidelman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (6/15/12)
What the U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Doesn't Want You to Know About Your Workplace Rights
They sued. At least, they got together under the umbrella of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to sue. They got a temporary injunction in the DC federal courts to stop the rule. They really, really don’t want you to see this poster. It must really be subversive, huh?
Well, see for yourself. Here’s exactly what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn’t want you to know about your workplace rights:
Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) guarantees the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively with their employers, and to engage in other protected concerted activity or to refrain from engaging in any of the aboveactivity. Employees covered by the NLRA are protected from certain types of employer and union misconduct. This Notice gives you general information about your rights, and about the obligations of employers and unions under the NLRA.
Contact the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Federal agency that investigates and resolves complaints under the NLRA, using the contact information supplied below, if you have any questions about specific rights that may apply in your particular workplace.
Under the NLRA, you have the right to:
• Organizea union to negotiate with your employer concerning your wages, hours, and otherterms and conditions of employment.• Form,join or assist a union.•Bargain collectively through representatives of employees’ own choosing for acontract with your employer setting your wages, benefits, hours, and otherworking conditions.•Discuss your wages and benefits and other terms and conditions of employment orunion organizing with your co-workers or a union.• Takeaction with one or more co-workers to improve your working conditions by, amongother means, raising work-related complaints directly with your employer orwith a government agency, and seeking help from a union.•Strike and picket, depending on the purpose or means of the strike or thepicketing.•Choose not to do any of these activities, including joining or remaining amember of a union.
Under the NLRA, it is illegal for youremployer to:
•Prohibit you from talking about or soliciting for a union during non-work time,such as before or after work or during break times; or from distributing unionliterature during non-work time, in non-work areas, such as parking lots orbreak rooms.
Under the NLRA, it is illegal for a union orfor the union that represents you in bargaining with your employer to:
•Threaten or coerce you in order to gain your support for the union.
Wow.That’s it, you say? What’s the BFD? Well, I think it’s mostly these provisionsbig employer doesn’t want you to see:
Discussing wages and benefits with coworkers: The poster says, “Underthe NLRA, you have the right to discussyour wages and benefits and other terms and conditions of employment . . . withyour co-workers or a union.” Yet many employers take desperate measures to makesure you don’t know what coworkers are making and what benefits they have. Someput out written policies or put restrictions in contracts. That’s flat-outillegal. If you have a contract or if your employer has a policy saying you can’tdiscuss wages and benefits with coworkers, you can file a ChargeAgainst Employer with NLRB right now. The other part they don’t want you toknow about here is your right to grouse about working conditions withcoworkers. You can grumble and complain during breaks, on Facebook, in Twitter,as long as you’re doing it with coworkers and they can’t fire or discipline youfor it.
Discussing work-related complaints and workingconditions with coworkers: The poster says, “Under the NLRA, you have the rightto take action with one or more co-workers toimprove your working conditions by, among other means, raising work-related complaintsdirectly with your employer or with a government agency, and seeking help froma union.” If you complain about conditions on your own and on behalf ofyourself, you aren’t protected. But you have the absolute right (assuming youaren’t a supervisor) to complain about working conditions on behalf ofcoworkers, to get together with coworkers to discuss and complain, and to gettogether to try to negotiate better working conditions. That is huge.
Employerslike to crack down on employees who complain. They want to create an atmospherewhere employees shut up and accept things as they are. Most of the time, it’sbest to keep your mouth shut. But sometimes, you have to speak up. If workingconditions are intolerable, if it feels like a prison, if you are being paidunfairly, if there’s a bully in the workplace, sometimes you have to speak up.You probably have the right to do so, as long as you aren’t a supervisor, andas long as you’re not alone.
Arizona Employers Want to Ask Employees About Sex Lives, Contraceptives
That's not quite what actually passed and got signed, but Arizona now has a law that allows employers to refuse to provide insurance coverage for birth control pills that aren't issued for medical reasons.
Rep. Debbie Lesko's version wanted to provide an exemption for any employer who claimed religious beliefs or moral objections to contraceptives. The final version narrowed this exemption to any entity whose articles of incorporation "clearly state that it is a religiously motivated organization and whose religious beliefs are central to the organization's operating principles."
The original version also let employers mandate the employee provide proof to them, but the signed version apparently only allows insurance companies to collect the proof of medical necessity.
I won't even research what Arizona is saying about insurance coverage of Viagra. If any of my faithful readers know, I'd be curious. I'm willing to bet that men don't have to jump through the same hoops as women. But maybe I'm being overly pessimistic.
I can think of quite a few problems employers who do ask about employee contraceptives might run into. Sex discrimination, sexual stereotyping, privacy issues, HIPAA violations, disability discrimination - the list goes on. It will be interesting to watch what happens with this very weird law.
4 Temmuz 2012 Çarşamba
What the U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Doesn't Want You to Know About Your Workplace Rights
They sued. At least, they got together under the umbrella of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to sue. They got a temporary injunction in the DC federal courts to stop the rule. They really, really don’t want you to see this poster. It must really be subversive, huh?
Well, see for yourself. Here’s exactly what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn’t want you to know about your workplace rights:
Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) guarantees the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively with their employers, and to engage in other protected concerted activity or to refrain from engaging in any of the aboveactivity. Employees covered by the NLRA are protected from certain types of employer and union misconduct. This Notice gives you general information about your rights, and about the obligations of employers and unions under the NLRA.
Contact the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Federal agency that investigates and resolves complaints under the NLRA, using the contact information supplied below, if you have any questions about specific rights that may apply in your particular workplace.
Under the NLRA, you have the right to:
• Organizea union to negotiate with your employer concerning your wages, hours, and otherterms and conditions of employment.• Form,join or assist a union.•Bargain collectively through representatives of employees’ own choosing for acontract with your employer setting your wages, benefits, hours, and otherworking conditions.•Discuss your wages and benefits and other terms and conditions of employment orunion organizing with your co-workers or a union.• Takeaction with one or more co-workers to improve your working conditions by, amongother means, raising work-related complaints directly with your employer orwith a government agency, and seeking help from a union.•Strike and picket, depending on the purpose or means of the strike or thepicketing.•Choose not to do any of these activities, including joining or remaining amember of a union.
Under the NLRA, it is illegal for youremployer to:
•Prohibit you from talking about or soliciting for a union during non-work time,such as before or after work or during break times; or from distributing unionliterature during non-work time, in non-work areas, such as parking lots orbreak rooms.
Under the NLRA, it is illegal for a union orfor the union that represents you in bargaining with your employer to:
•Threaten or coerce you in order to gain your support for the union.
Wow.That’s it, you say? What’s the BFD? Well, I think it’s mostly these provisionsbig employer doesn’t want you to see:
Discussing wages and benefits with coworkers: The poster says, “Underthe NLRA, you have the right to discussyour wages and benefits and other terms and conditions of employment . . . withyour co-workers or a union.” Yet many employers take desperate measures to makesure you don’t know what coworkers are making and what benefits they have. Someput out written policies or put restrictions in contracts. That’s flat-outillegal. If you have a contract or if your employer has a policy saying you can’tdiscuss wages and benefits with coworkers, you can file a ChargeAgainst Employer with NLRB right now. The other part they don’t want you toknow about here is your right to grouse about working conditions withcoworkers. You can grumble and complain during breaks, on Facebook, in Twitter,as long as you’re doing it with coworkers and they can’t fire or discipline youfor it.
Discussing work-related complaints and workingconditions with coworkers: The poster says, “Under the NLRA, you have the rightto take action with one or more co-workers toimprove your working conditions by, among other means, raising work-related complaintsdirectly with your employer or with a government agency, and seeking help froma union.” If you complain about conditions on your own and on behalf ofyourself, you aren’t protected. But you have the absolute right (assuming youaren’t a supervisor) to complain about working conditions on behalf ofcoworkers, to get together with coworkers to discuss and complain, and to gettogether to try to negotiate better working conditions. That is huge.
Employerslike to crack down on employees who complain. They want to create an atmospherewhere employees shut up and accept things as they are. Most of the time, it’sbest to keep your mouth shut. But sometimes, you have to speak up. If workingconditions are intolerable, if it feels like a prison, if you are being paidunfairly, if there’s a bully in the workplace, sometimes you have to speak up.You probably have the right to do so, as long as you aren’t a supervisor, andas long as you’re not alone.
Arizona Employers Want to Ask Employees About Sex Lives, Contraceptives
That's not quite what actually passed and got signed, but Arizona now has a law that allows employers to refuse to provide insurance coverage for birth control pills that aren't issued for medical reasons.
Rep. Debbie Lesko's version wanted to provide an exemption for any employer who claimed religious beliefs or moral objections to contraceptives. The final version narrowed this exemption to any entity whose articles of incorporation "clearly state that it is a religiously motivated organization and whose religious beliefs are central to the organization's operating principles."
The original version also let employers mandate the employee provide proof to them, but the signed version apparently only allows insurance companies to collect the proof of medical necessity.
I won't even research what Arizona is saying about insurance coverage of Viagra. If any of my faithful readers know, I'd be curious. I'm willing to bet that men don't have to jump through the same hoops as women. But maybe I'm being overly pessimistic.
I can think of quite a few problems employers who do ask about employee contraceptives might run into. Sex discrimination, sexual stereotyping, privacy issues, HIPAA violations, disability discrimination - the list goes on. It will be interesting to watch what happens with this very weird law.
IRS MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO GET AN ITIN
Most individuals use their Social Security number as their taxpayer identification number in the U.S. However, the Social Security Administration limits its
The ITIN application (Form W-7) requires copies of various identity papers. In a new development, the IRS is now requiring that ORIGINAL documentation accompany the application, such as birth certificates and passports. Notarized copies of documents will not be enough, although certified copies of the required identity documents issued by the issuing agency can also be used.
Some applicants aren't impacted by these interim changes, such as spouses and dependents of U.S. military personnel who need ITINs, and nonresident aliens applying for ITINs for the purpose of claiming tax treaty benefits.
IR 2012-62
IRS Releases Additional Guidance for U.S. Taxpayers Disclosing Unreported Foreign Accounts
[This post was prepared by Mitchell Goldberg of our office]
On June 26, 2012, the IRS released an updated Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) for the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (“OVDI”) announced by the IRS on January 9, 2012. 
• FAQ #9 specifically states that the eight (8) year period covered by the OVDI does not include current years for which there has not been noncompliance. Thus, if a taxpayer’s 2011 return is on extension through October 15, 2012 and such taxpayer makes a submission to the OVDI, the submission would cover 2003-2010.
• FAQ #54 addresses Canadian registered retirement savings plans (“RRSPs”) and registered retirement income funds (“RRIFs”) when a taxpayer did not make a timely election to defer income on such accounts. The answer depends on whether the taxpayer entered the 2009, 2011, or 2012 voluntary disclosure program. In general, FAQ #54 appears to indicate that a late election will be granted if requested by the taxpayer and all necessary information is provided.
Also, FAQ #17 is again included from previous versions of the FAQ to allow taxpayers who reported all income from foreign accounts but failed to file a Form TD F 90-22.1 (“FBAR”) to file delinquent FBARs outside the OVDI and avoid penalties.
Some minor procedural changes are made as well.
Lastly, in News Release 2012-65, the IRS announced that it will start a new procedure for U.S. citizens residing overseas who are “low compliance risk.” The 
DID TRANSFER TAX CLAWBACK JUST BECOME A NONISSUE?
No, I don’t think so.
Back in my March 11, 2012 posting, I discussed the general issue of clawback for large gifts made in 2011 and 2012, and the likelihood of the IRS asserting its application in later years when the donor died (if unified credit amounts are then lower). While I didn’t discuss it in the blog, I had been struggling with the assertion by Professor Pennell at the Heckerling Institute that clawback was a nonissue. 
Fast forward to a conference I attended last week. At the conference, Professor Pennell indicated that he thought the newly issued unified credit regulations (which pertain primarily to portability) support that clawback was a nonissue. I was happy to hear that, and sat down today to review the regulations and write a posting to that effect.
However, I am still scratching my head. Near as I can tell, the new regulations do not address the issue. Indeed, Treas. Regs. §20.2010-2T(c)(2) and –2T(c)(5), Ex. 2. reinforce in my mind the IRS’ focus in the gift tax computations on the unified credit amounts applicable in the year of the gift and not death. This provisions do not directly apply to Code §2001(b)(2) but in a way are similar since they relate to computations of how much of a prior gift was subject to gift tax in a prior year (for purposes of portability).
I am in no way near as smart, well-read or well-versed in these areas as Professor Pennell, so my disagreement with him makes me nervous (as it did back in March). Perhaps when I review the new Regulations in more detail, I’ll find something that changes my mind. In the meanwhile, if anyone has read the Regulations and can point me in the direction of a provision that validates that clawback will not be applied, please send me an email at crubin@floridatax.com. I would love to be wrong on this for the sake of certainty and resolution of the issue in favor of taxpayers, so help me out!
In the meanwhile, I had also thought to do a summary of the new portability rules. However, since portability is set to expire on December 31, 2012, let’s hold off on that until we know that it will be extended.
T.D. 9593; REG-141832-11
