Home Blog Page 18

Legal Analysis of Mandalorian Chapters Six and Seven

0

Prison escapes! Accessory Liability! Martial Law! Infants Flying Spaceships! Abandoned Droids! Gabby Martin, Thomas Harper, and I, took deep drives into the many legal issues in The Mandalorian Chapters 6 and 7.

Taxation at Christmas Time – The Tax Consequences of Clark’s Jelly of the Month Club Subscription

0

“Ah taxation at Christmas time!” – Me

“Clark, that’s the gift that keeps on giving the whole year.” – Cousin Eddie

“That it is Edward, that it is.” – Clark Griswold

It’s the happiest time of year, and I don’t know about you, but in my house, “we’re going to have the hap-hap-happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap-danced with Danny f***ing Kaye!”[i]

Ah, Clark Griswold, that tragic bit of wonderful Americana.  All of us have a Clark in our lives (some of us are the Clark Griswolds in our lives).  But most of us have the ability to connect with Clark and his family’s holiday adventures.  National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation is a holiday staple in many houses.  The hilarity of Clark stuck in the attic, the awkwardness of the grandparents invading the kids’ space, the uptight neighbors getting their comeuppance.  All of it is pure holiday gold.

But, as with everything wonderful, there is a tax aspect that should be considered.  Clark was expecting a Christmas bonus in order to cover the down payment he made on a new swimming pool, when instead, Clark is enrolled in a “Jelly of the Month” subscription.  After a family kidnapping[ii] Clark’s boss reinstates the cash Christmas bonuses, plus 20% compared to what Clark received the year before.  At this point, everyone is focused on the actions of Frank Shirley to rectify his “jelly of the month club” wrong, but let us, for a moment, consider the tax implications to Clark of his company’s actions.

First, we have to acknowledge that there are potentially two taxable issues at hand here: 1) what is the taxation of the jelly of the month club Clark is originally enrolled in; and 2) what is the taxability of Mr. Shirley’s bonus after he changes his mind?

1.       Bonus as a Fringe Benefit

Generally speaking gifts, prizes, and awards of tangible personal property (other than cash or cash equivalents, such as gift certificates or gift cards) of less than a nominal amount, in total per year per employee, are excludable from the employee’s gross income as a de minimis “fringe benefit.”  The nominal amount dollar threshold is not defined by the IRS so taxpayers are forced to determine what is appropriate for them as there is no specific IRS threshold for what is considered de minimis.

When the Tax Code was overhauled in 1984, the goal of the revision was to ensure that all gains were included under Section (§) 61 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as gross income, including all types of fringe benefits.  This created a huge headache for the IRS and resulted in numerous calls to congress from upset constituents.  Because application of this standard to noncash benefits was one of the most difficult problems in developing generalized rules for the taxation of incidental fringe benefits, Treasury responded to congressional directives providing detailed regulations addressing many of the most frequently encountered valuation issues.

The general rule of inclusion under §61 is limited by §132, which provides the framework for permissible exclusion of certain fringe benefits from gross income.  Section 132 provides eight excluded types of benefits: (1) no-additional cost services;[iii] (2) qualified employee discounts;[iv] (3) working condition fringes;[v] (4) de minimis fringes;[vi] (5) qualified transportation fringes;[vii] (6) qualified moving expense reimbursements (suspended for 2018 through 2025 except for certain active military duty);[viii] (7) qualified retirement planning services;[ix] and (8) qualified military base realignment and closure payments.[x]  Clark’s issue is narrowly contained within the de minimis fringe benefit rule.

a.       De Minimis Fringe Benefits —

De minimis fringe benefits are an excludable incidental fringe benefit, meaning it is not included in the wages of the employee receiving it.

Any property or services provided to an employee qualifies as a de minimis fringe benefit and may be excluded from the employee’s income if the fair market value of the property or service is so small that accounting for the property or service would be unreasonable or administratively impracticable.[xi]  Thus, the scope of benefits covered in practical terms is determined by such benefits’ size and by administrative and accounting constraints.  Where the amount is small, and the administrative burden of accounting for such is difficult, the benefit may be excluded from the taxable wages of the employee.

The character of the de minimis exclusion, particularly the fact that the benefits are, by definition, too insignificant to account for, limits the extent to which other restrictions can be applied. Thus, the nondiscrimination rules, line of business requirements and recipient limitations do not apply.

Clark’s enrollment in the Jelly of the Month club can avoid taxation potentially as a gift as well.  The IRS has utilized its regulatory authority to confirm its long-standing position[xii] that traditional gifts on holidays, birthdays or similar occasions of property of low fair market value are de minimis fringe benefits.[xiii]  These include such items as a turkey given for a year-end holiday, although the frequency with which such gifts are provided must be taken into account.  I would think that it would be reasonable to put a “jelly of the month” club subscription into this same category.

Here, while, there is a specific cost of the Jelly of the Month club to the company, there is no such readily ascertainable value to Clark and “all of the other employees [Frank Shirley] rear ended this year.”[xiv]  Therefore, Clark should be able to avoid having to pick up income associated with his Jelly of the Month club membership.

There is a different rule for cash, gift cards, or gift certificates that are distributed to employees, as there is a readily ascertainable value to such, and the employee is required to pick up such income annually and pay tax on it.  Congress codified the IRS’s long-standing position[xv] that a cash fringe benefit or a cash equivalent fringe benefit (e.g., a gift certificate or gift card) is not excludible as a de minimis fringe benefit even if the benefit would have been excludible if provided in kind.  [§274(j)(3)(A)(ii), added by Pub. L. No. 115-97, §13310, applicable to amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 2017.]   In short, cash and cash equivalent fringe benefits (gift cards, charge cards, and credit cards) are never excluded from employee’s wages as de minimis benefits, regardless of the amount. These types of gifts must be included in the employee’s wages as taxable income on their W-2.

2.       Bonuses as Taxable Wages

Generally speaking, bonuses are considered taxable wages to the employee.  As noted above §61 provides that gross income includes all income from whatever source derived.  Therefore, gross income specifically includes any bonus payment.  In order for a bonus to be conserved wages, Clark must be an employee of NutratoX.

IRC §3121(d)(2) states the general rule that the term “employee” means any individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer- employee relationship, has the status of an employee.  Considering Clark indicates he has worked for the NutratoX for 17 years, we can be comfortable in the assumption that he is an employee for all federal tax purposes.

Sections 3121(a) and 3306(b) of the IRC provide that the term “wages” means all remuneration for employment, with certain exceptions.  Section 3401(a) of the IRC similarly defines “wages” as all remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer.

In order for remuneration to be “wages” for purposes of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), and state and federal income tax withholding, it must be remuneration for services in employment, performed by an employee for the person employing him.  Thus, in order for remuneration to be “wages” for income tax withholding purposes, it must be for services performed by an employee for his employer.

In Rev. Rul. 64-40,[xvi] the Service considered the issue of whether amounts distributed by a nonprofit membership organization to its employees out of a Christmas fund contributed to by the entity’s members constitute compensation in the hands of the recipients for Federal income tax purposes and wages for Federal employment tax purposes. In that case, the members each year collected a Christmas fund which it distributed among its employees. The revenue ruling concluded that the distributions constituted compensation for services performed by the club’s employees.

While there is not much to go on here with regard to Clark’s status as an employee, and any receipt of funds as “wages,” there is nothing to lead us to a contrary conclusion either.  Clark has worked for NutratoX for 17 years, received a “Christmas bonus” every year, and generally meets the requirements for employee, therefore any payments made by the company to Clark should qualify as wages.

When Mr. Shirley has a change of heart and decides to give Clark the same bonus he received the year before, plus 20%, such a monetary payment would be included as taxable wages to Clark.  Clark would have to pay FICA, FUTA, and all applicable state and federal withholdings on the amount of the bonus.

a.       Bonus as Supplemental Wages

Cash bonuses, or even gift cards with a monetary value are considered “compensation” just like wages, and are therefore subject to tax as ordinary income reported on Form W-2 to the individual at the end of the year.  This means, cash bonuses or gift cards in any amount will be subject to Social Security Tax, Medicare Tax, and income tax withholding (both state and federal).  However, generally speaking bonuses are considered “supplemental wages” and are subject to withholding at the flat rate of 25%.  The IRS specifies a flat “supplemental rate” of 25% for the federal withholding part of the bonus; this is the reason why the actual bonus amount ends up being much smaller than the original amount.

Well, there it is, a Christmas post about taxes.  “Hallelujah! Holy s**t! Where’s the Tylenol?” — Clark Griswold.  Have a very happy holiday everyone, and a prosperous new year!

[i] As so eloquently stated by Clark Griswold.

[ii] Ellen claims, “it’s our family’s first kidnapping,” but this is a bald-faced lie, as in the original vacation, the family kidnaps the security guard at Wally World, played by John Candy.

[iii] IRC §132(a)(1).

[iv] IRC §132(a)(2).

[v] IRC §132(a)(3).

[vi] IRC §132(a)(4).

[vii] IRC §132(a)(5).

[viii] IRC §132(a)(6).

[ix] IRC §132(a)(7).

[x] IRC §132(a)(8).

[xi] IRC §132(e)(1); Treas. Reg. §1.132-6(a). Compare TAM 200437030, where the IRS National Office advised that employer-provided $35 gift coupons redeemable at local stores were not excludible from employees’ wages as a de minimis fringe benefit because the gift coupons had a readily ascertainable value.

[xii] Rev. Rul. 59-58; Berkley Machine Works & Foundry Co. v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 1968-278, aff’d per curiam, 422 F.2d 362 (4th Cir. 1970).

[xiii] Treas. Reg. §1.132-6(e)(1).

[xiv] Clark Griswold, addressing Frank Shirley about not getting a Christmas bonus.

[xv] Rev. Rul. 71-53.

[xvi] 1964-1 C.B. 68

The Galaxy’s Greatest Son: Kylo Ren’s Inheritance

0

The Rise of Skywalker nearly is upon us and Star Wars fans worldwide are clamoring for answers to the questions that have plagued us since The Last Jedi. While things like the fate of the Resistance and Palpatine’s mysterious return are no doubt important to many, there is one question that stands above all others: What will Kylo Ren’s inheritance be?

With the love of estate planning being so prevalent amongst Star Wars fans, it’s time to give the people what they really want by taking a look at what the galaxy’s #1 son stands to inherit as the Skywalker Saga concludes.

What parent wouldn’t want to leave their things to such a doting and well-adjusted son like Kylo?

Kylo first found himself in a position to possibly receive inheritance at the start of the sequel trilogy. Kylo’s life was suddenly turned upside down towards the end of The Force Awakens when his father, Han Solo, suddenly died of a tragic lightsaber wound.

When someone dies (even on a far away planet that is also a superweapon), a legal process known as probate is used to settle the decedent’s (dead person’s) debts and to ensure their property is transferred to heirs and beneficiaries in an orderly fashion. A specialized type of court, known as a probate court, is typically involved in this process, with the goal of overseeing the administration of estates.

Even though Han wasn’t exactly in the best financial position at the time of his death, he still had assets to his name. From the reclaimed Millennium Falcon to his trusty DL-44 blaster, Han owned a decent amount of property at death, which would need to be distributed during the probate process.

The law generally requires that you outlive someone in order to inherit from his or her estate. Leia and Kylo, as Han’s surviving spouse and child, would therefore both be in position to be beneficiaries of Han’s estate.

“This is NOT how I thought this day was gonna end.”

The first step in the probate process is determining whether Han died with a will. A will is a key part of the probate process, since it’s the document in which a person expresses how his property should be distributed after he dies. As someone who lives out of his spaceship and illegally hauls rathtars around the galaxy, it’s safe to say that Han probably never took the time to sit down a and draft a will.

When someone dies without a will, a set of default laws kick in. Known as intestate succession laws, these laws apply equally to anyone who dies without a will. In the absence of a will to provide clear directions, intestate laws operate to ensure an orderly distribution of an estate that minimizes fighting amongst heirs. These laws establish both who is eligible to inherit from an estate, as well as setting their respective shares.

For example, in Pennsylvania, in the case of a person who is survived by both a spouse and a child of that marriage, the spouse inherits the first $30,000 of the decedent’s property, plus half of the remaining balance, and the child inherits the rest. Han’s family fits that profile, meaning Leia and Kylo would potentially stand to inherit a decent chunk of Han’s estate.

Kylo can’t wait to hang his dad’s lucky sabaac dice over the rearview mirror of his command shuttle.

But before Kylo can tear off in the Millennium Falcon to do space donuts, he’ll have to deal with a major legal speed bump to his inheritance claim. That legal hiccup arises because of how Han died. Kylo isn’t in a position to inherit from his dad because of some unfortunate accident or a sudden deadly illness—he murdered his father in cold blood. If it seems patently unfair that someone might stand to inherit from his own misdeeds, that’s because it absolutely is.

Fortunately, just about every state has legal mechanisms in place to prevent these types of ill-gotten gains. Commonly known as “slayer statutes,” these laws prevent someone who killed the decedent from inheriting from the victim’s estate. Slayer statutes accomplish this by treating the slayer as having died before or “predeceased” the victim, which effectively bars them from inheriting any property. One of the most famous examples of a slayer statute in action came with the Menendez Brothers in the 1990s. Lyle and Erik Menendez, heirs to a $14.5 million dollar estate, brutally murdered their parents in 1989. They were later convicted in a high profile trial and barred from inheriting the lucrative estate.

In Kylo’s case, he would almost certainly be classified as a “slayer” under the law in most states. In Pennsylvania, a slayer is defined as “any person who participates, either as a principal or as an accessory before the fact, in the willful and unlawful killing of another person.” Kylo was a principal in the death of Han, having willfully run him through with a lightsaber on Starkiller base.

Obliterating property of the estate just because you can’t inherit it is never the right answer.

Although Kylo might cry foul that he hasn’t been tried and convicted of Han’s death, that wouldn’t matter in most states. While a criminal conviction for murder is often treated as conclusive proof that someone is a slayer, a typical slayer statute does not require a criminal conviction. That’s because these statutes are civil laws, not criminal laws, which means the burden of proof is much lower. Kylo’s responsibility for Han’s killing would therefore only need to be shown by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if the court concluded that it was more likely than not that Kylo killed Han, he would be blocked from any inheritance. Given that there were two eyewitnesses to the crime (three if the court can find a wookiee interpreter for Chewbacca to testify), that burden of proof would be easy to meet.

Kylo might also argue that he isn’t a slayer because he wasn’t criminally responsible for Han’s murder, perhaps by reason of Dark Side induced insanity. But despite that argument, he might still be barred from any inheritance in certain states. For example, in Florida, the definition of a slayer is much broader, including those who unlawfully kills or merely participates in procuring the death of someone. That expansive definition includes crimes that go beyond premeditated murder, and arguably includes lesser unlawful killings such as involuntary manslaughter.

Unfortunately for Kylo, his eagerness to prove himself to Snoke likely doomed his chances at any inheritance. Kylo won’t even stand to inherit a single one of Han’s dusty old vests (which are no doubt covered in Chewbacca hair).

San Diego Comic Fest 2020 Call for Law Students for Mandalorian Adoption Hearing Mock Trial

0

Interested law students can apply to serve as counsel in our fifth mock trial at San Diego Comic Fest, to be held on March 7, 2020, at the Four Points by Sheraton in San Diego.

This year’s Comic Fest will celebrate the centennials of Ray Bradbury and Ray Harryhausen with guests including Bill Sienkiewicz, J. Michael Straczynski, Marv Wolfman, and many more.

This year’s mock trial will be the Adoption Petition for The Child by The Mandalorian. Interested law students can apply below. Attorney coaches will work with the law students and witnesses on their respective cases. The teams will represent the Petitioner Mandalorian for his Adoption Petition for The Child and the Respondent Background Check Agency who conducted the Home Study. The Bench Brief will be available after the conclusion of The Mandalorian Season 1.

Lessons with Contract and Partnerships on The Mandalorian

0

The Sorgan Krill Farmers contracted with The Mandalorian in a contract for services that was straight out of Magnum PI: The Mandalorian would provide security services against raiders in exchange for lodging. While the Mandalorian and the Child were not in the guesthouse at Robin’s Nest, they did get a nice barn for their lodging with food services. Was that a valid contract?

Taking inspiration from Hawaiian law, a “landlord and tenant may agree to any consideration, not otherwise prohibited by law, as rent.” HRS § 521-21. In this case, the consideration is performance of security services. As there was not a written rental agreement between the parties as to the tenancy of a lease, the tenancy is a month-to-month lease. HRS § 521-22. However, as there was no written contract, the lease could be unenforceable under the statute of frauds. HRS § 490:2A-201. However, since there was contract performance by the Mandalorian and Cara Dune, this arguably would eliminate the statute of frauds issue. See, Shannon v. Waterhouse, 58 Hawai’i 4, 5-6, 563 P.2d 391, 393 (1977).

The contract for security services in exchange for lodging was likely valid, but does have an issue with the lease agreement not being in writing.

Was there a Partnership Agreement between Mandalorian and Cara Dune? 

The Mandalorian immediately sought the assistance of Care Dune to assist in providing security services to the Sorgan Krill Farmers. Did this alliance form a partnership between the Mandalorian and Dune?

A partnership is “the association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners of a business for profit forms a partnership, whether or not the persons intend to form a partnership. . . .” Hirschfeld v. Hirschfeld, 50 Conn. App. 280, 287 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998), citing Conn. General Statutes § 34-314.

The Mandalorian and Care Dune provided security services together for the Sorgan Krill Farmers, in exchange for lodging. Moreover, Dune was paid “lunch money” as her initial consideration to join the partnership. While neither truly followed the formal requirements to form of partnership, their conduct did show two individuals working together for profit. This is the classic definition of a partnership, or at least a joint venture.

Did the Sorgan Farmers fail to disclose a material fact about the AT-ST? 

Not all surprises are good. The Sorgan Krill Farmers failing to tell the Mandalorian and Cara Dune about the Raiders’ Imperial Walker would fall into the “not good” surprise category. The issue for their security contract is whether the non-disclosure of that material fact could make the contract voidable. There are situations when a contracting party has a duty to speak about a material fact that can amount to concealment.

There can be a duty to speak about a material fact under four situations:

It may be directly imposed by statute or other prescriptive law;

It may be voluntarily assumed by contractual undertaking;

It may arise as an incident of a relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff; and

It may arise as a result of other conduct by the defendant that makes it wrongful for him to remain silent.

CACI No. 1901 citing SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Central Pacific Bank 207 Cal.App.4th 859, 860 (2012).

The tort elements for concealment are:

1) The defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact;

2) The defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff;

3) The defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff;

4) The plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and

5) As a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.

Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248 (2011)

The Sorgan Krill Farmers would have had a duty to disclose their knowledge of the AT-ST, because the fact there was an Imperial Walker would have been voluntarily assumed by the contractual undertaking; that it would have arose as an incident of a relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff; and it was just wrong for them to remain silent about the Walker. That was a material fact that went to the performance of the contract and should have been disclosed. However, it is unlikely the Farmers intended to defraud the Mandalorian and simply were clueless to the importance of disclosing the fact the fact there was an AT-ST. This did require an immediate contract modification to teach the Farmers how to defend themselves, opposed to voiding the contract.

Back to Tatooine with The Mandalorian

0

Does leaving Stormtrooper heads on pikes violate public health laws against desecration of a corpse? Can you leave a child in a spaceship without adult supervision? Joshua Gilliland, Gabby Martin, and Thomas Harper explore these issues and more in The Mandalorian episode The Gunslinger.

How the Mandalorian Saved the Blue Harvest

0

Legal review of The Mandalorian episode “Sanctuary” with Joshua Gilliland, Gabby Martin, and Thomas Harper.