On April 4, 2019, SYK attorney Darlene Pasieczny joined co-panelist Kate McGrail and moderator Robert J. Girard II in Washington D.C. Together, they presented on FINRA expungement proceedings to an audience of securities attorneys, law professors, and state securities regulators attending PIABA’s Mid-Year Meeting.
Today, over 46 million Americans are 65 years of age or older. This accounts for nearly 15% of the population. According to the Population Reference Bureau, that number is projected to more than double by the year 2060. It will reach an estimated 98 million and 24% of the U.S. population. Approximately 1 out of every 10 Americans, age 60 and older have experienced some form of elder abuse. Estimates of financial elder abuse and fraud costs range from $2.9 billion to $36.5 billion annually
On Thursday, February 21st, SYK attorneys Victoria Blachly and Darlene Pasieczny will speak to the Oregon State Bar Securities Regulation Section about financial elder abuse in the securities industry. Their program “Recent Tools to Combat Financial Elder Abuse: Mandatory and Permissive Conduct Under FINRA Rules and Oregon Law for Securities Professionals,” will take a closer look at Oregon statues and FINRA rules regarding mandatory and permissive conduct for brokers and investment advisers when there is reasonable suspicion of financial abuse.
The January 2019, Volume 22 issue of the Oregon State Bar Elder Law Newsletter featured articles by two of SYK’s outstanding attorneys. Laura Nelson, whose practice includes estate planning, trust administration, and guardianship and conservatorship cases was featured on the first page of the newsletter. Darlene Pasieczny’s article, New Tools Help Financial Professionals Prevent Elder Abuse, examines mandatory and permissive conduct for Oregon securities professionals when there is reasonable suspicion of financial abuse. Pasieczny is a fiduciary and securities litigator. She represents clients in both Oregon and Washington in trust and estate disputes, elder financial abuse, securities litigation, and investors nationwide in FINRA arbitration.
We’ve had a lot of questions from clients about the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs act on normal, working Americans. IRS did a clumsy job with implementation, although in their defense the TCJA probably raised more questions than it answered. Also, one of the most surprising effects will be felt by taxpayers who live in high tax jurisdictions and who itemize their deductions.
Friend of the firm, Arlene Cogen, has the #1 new release in Finance on Amazon – Give to Live: Make a Charitable Gift You Never Imagined.
“This is a love story about your finances, taking care of family and making a difference. Whether you are new to charitable giving or simply keen to improve your understanding of giving and philanthropy, this is your book. It will free you from the haze of the complicated jargon, break things down in understandable terms and share ways to effectively and meaningfully include philanthropy in your life.”
All summer we have been talking about the fallout from the Supreme Court’s decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair. We analyzed the opinion when it came out; we looked at the initial state responses in August; and we looked at one of the early Federal proposals in September. It’s been an exciting ride!
One of the things we’ve come to realize is that the Wayfair decision signals a convergence of the disparate state nexus thresholds for different types of tax. Correctly or not, the Commerce Clause and Due Process nexus thresholds for sales tax and income tax regimes are converging around the idea that a taxpayer needs to have “minimum contacts” with a taxing jurisdiction and must “purposefully avail” themselves of the jurisdiction’s economic market. Thanks to Public law 86-272 (codified at 15 USC §§ 381-384), nuance still exists in the areas of sales of solicitation of sales of tangible personal property. Also, the requirements of internal and external consistency help limit the deleterious impact of having thousands of taxing jurisdictions each doing their own thing.
Because there are all of these limitations and restrictions on a state’s ability to tax activity within its borders (however that may be defined), states in the last few years have been relying more and more heavily on “fees.” The challenge, of course, is that there isn’t a good definition of how to distinguish a “fee” from a “tax.”
Darlene Pasieczny will moderate “Hybrid Advisers” panel, Tuesday October 9th. They will be exploring issues in regulation and customer dispute resolution when a culpable financial adviser “wears two hats” as both a FINRA‐licensed broker and SEC‐licensed registered investment adviser. When is the brokerage firm responsible for conduct by its dual‐registered associated person? How do FINRA and the SEC parse enforcement issues for these hybrid advisers? The panel will discuss trends in customer arbitration cases, recent case law decisions, compliance and enforcement.
Find registration information in the full article!
We’re not ashamed to admit we’re a bit nerdy when it comes to tax matters. We always love talking/reading/studying (… eating/sleeping/living) tax and tax-related things. But even we think it’s been more exciting than usual in the world of state tax this summer!
The Supreme Court handed down its opinion in South Dakota v. Wayfair on June 21, 2018. Immediately after that, there was a flurry of activity as each state tried to address implementation of the “new” regime that would allow them to tax out of state vendors of tangible personal property into their states. Our initial look at Washington’s and California’s responses is here. Since then, lawmakers in dozens of states have proposed or introduced versions of the South Dakota law that attempt to tax remote sellers.
We wrote our initial analysis of South Dakota v. Wayfair on June 21, 2018. Since the Supreme Court issued its Wayfair, we have heard from clients with sales into sales tax-imposing jurisdictions who are concerned about what this means for their businesses.
Many states already had tax systems that would require a seller with no physical presence in their state to collect sales tax, which was the core issue in Wayfair. Other states (for example, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Vermont) adopted systems that would only go into effect if Wayfair was decided in a way that eliminated the physical presence requirement that the earlier Quill Corp. case had endorsed. Not all states had taken proactive measures to implement sales tax economic nexus. Some states are adopting additional, parallel nexus tests in the wake of Wayfair.
The Oregon Supreme Court, sitting en banc, issued its opinion today in AAA Oregon/Idaho Auto Source, LLC v. State of Oregon. This is the first opinion from that Court to address the new tax that the 2017 legislature implemented to pay for the Zero-Emission Incentive Program and the Connect Oregon Fund. At issue in this case was whether the funds collected under Oregon’s new vehicle tax is a tax subject to Article IX, Section 3a of the Oregon Constitution. It held that it was not subject to this provision. Therefore, the money collected under both the sales and use tax components of the new law does not have to be used for the State Highway Fund (or other uses that the Constitutional provision specifically lists).
Congress passed the “Stephen Beck Jr., Achieving a Better Life Experience” Act in 2014 to expand the types of assistance available to help disabled individuals maintain health, independence and quality of life without interfering with access to means-tested government benefits. The most beneficial change to result from these legislative efforts was the establishment of 529
The US Supreme Court’s decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair. Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in South Dakota v. Wayfair, et al. In 2016, South Dakota passed a law that requires out of state vendors to collect its sales tax if those vendors had: (1) $100,000 of sales into the
Large and small heavy equipment rental providers throughout the state of Oregon recently scored a huge victory when Governor Brown signed HB 4139 into law earlier last month. The new law replaces Oregon’s existing personal property tax system for heavy equipment with a 2 percent tax on every heavy equipment rental transaction starting in 2019. While many states have either eliminated personal property tax or have exempted certain manufacturing and construction businesses from ad valorem property tax, Oregon was one of the few remaining that offered no relief or reform of any kind for heavy equipment rental providers. Critics often cited the compliance costs associated with the business personal property tax as complex and burdensome in a way that discouraged many companies from accurately reporting. The old system was a location-based tax, meaning that a company would be taxed on heavy machinery it owned based on where it was sitting on January 1 of that year. Heavy equipment rental businesses often rent their equipment out all over the state and beyond, so tracking location of constantly moving equipment for tax purposes proved difficult and also created the potential of requiring companies to pay additional tax in multiple counties or states on the same equipment where assessment dates varied.
In late April I attended a Portland Women in Leadership symposium, “Women Blazing Trails, presented by The Pacific Northwest Diversity Council”. The five speakers and moderator were both educational and inspiring, and when listening to how intelligence, emotions and adaptability are an important combination for strong and successful leadership, it dawned on me that one should be looking for that same recipe when choosing a lawyer. Learning more about this alphabet soup of intelligence and ability puts a new focus on the characteristics you may want for your legal team.
A recent article broke down the often daunting and ignored tasks that make for good planning decisions when you or a loved one ages – – well in advance of when one’s ability to make such decisions may be taken away by changing physical or mental health – or the involvement of a court, in some cases. The article breaks it down into three categories.
As with many important decisions in our lives, knowledge is power, so arm yourselves accordingly. Naturally, the legal documents to effectuate your ultimate decisions are also a necessary part of the planning process, so make sure your estate planning attorney knows your plan, to make sure everything is in place to meet your legal needs.
The 2018 edition of Administering Trusts in Oregon is set to be released this month, and many of the authors are familiar. Of the prestigious group of contributors for this new edition, Samuels Yoelin Kantor was well represented. Attorneys Eric Wieland, Walker Clark, Caitlin Wong, and Valerie Sasaki were all contributing authors, and both Stephen Kantor and Jeffrey Cheyne, prior to his passing, were editors for this edition.
The new version of Administering Trusts in Oregon is a guide for lawyers in the areas of estate planning, elder law, family law, and general practice. This is the first update since the last edition was released in 2012.
Delinquent tax debt can now potentially ground U.S. taxpayers from international travel
Starting this year, The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and U.S. State Department have teamed up in a manner that may affect the future travel plans of certain taxpayers that owe a large amount of money to the Treasury. In late 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) to address long-term funding for surface transportation infrastructure planning and investment. Embedded deep in the law is Section 32101, which requires the IRS under § 7345 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), to notify the State Department of taxpayers certified to have “seriously delinquent tax debt”. Upon certification from the IRS, the State Department is then required to deny a passport application for such individuals and also potentially revoke or limit passports already issued to said taxpayers.
Oregon is on the move to become a more transgender and non-binary friendly state.
In 2016, an Oregon judge allowed Jamie Shupe, a person who identified as non-binary to change their identity to a neutral third gender. The judge’s decision to allow a non-binary gender is widely believed to be the first of its kind in the United States.
After this decision, Oregon gained momentum in creating a more streamlined process for those who wished to change their name and gender. Changing one’s name and gender used to be a complicated process which was different county to county and which could not always be accomplished alone.
However, starting in 2017, the State of Oregon Judicial Department began providing statewide forms for both adults and minors who want to change their name and/or gender. The petition allows the applicant to decide whether they want to identify as male, female, or non-binary. The forms provide instructions for filling out a petition, where to file the petition, and how much filing the petition costs.
SYK attorney, and commissioner on senior services, Victoria Blachly is an outspoken advocate for the Oregon Alzheimer’s Association, and the people whose lives have been touched by Alzheimer’s.
Today Victoria’s letter to the editor was published, with a call to action for Congress to protect those effected by Alzheimer’s.
“Today, there are more than 5 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s and more than 15 million serving as unpaid caregivers. Too often Alzheimer’s is treated as an aging issue, ignoring the public health consequences of a disease that someone in the United States develops every 66 seconds… Alzheimer’s is the most expensive disease in America at an estimated cost of $259 billion annually. And with Medicare and Medicaid covering two-thirds of its annual costs, Alzheimer’s demands more attention from our government.”
On January 4th, the same day I posted about a recent FINRA Investor Alert regarding cryptocurrency, there was a new press release from the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) with further guidance on the same topic. NASAA’s analysis and warning amounts to this: Initial Coin Offerings (“ICOs”), and all other investment products related to cryptocurrency or the blockchain, pose a threat to investors.
“A NASAA survey of state and provincial securities regulators shows 94 percent believe there is a ‘high risk of fraud’ involving cryptocurrencies. Regulators also were unanimous in their view that more regulation is needed for cryptocurrency to provide greater investor protection.”
The same day, the SEC made a public statement from Chairman Jay Clayton and Commissioners Kara M. Stein and Michael S. Piwowar, in wholehearted agreement with NASAA: “The NASAA release also reminds investors that when they are offered and sold securities they are entitled to the benefits of state and federal securities laws, and that sellers and other market participants must follow these laws. Unfortunately, it is clear that many promoters of ICOs and others participating in the cryptocurrency – related investment markets are not following these laws. The SEC and state securities regulators are pursuing violations, but we again caution you that, if you lose money, there is a substantial risk that our efforts will not result in a recovery of your investment.”