Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
New UBT Rules for Legal Work in NYC
New York City's 2006 Executive Budget, recently passed by the NY State Legislature (S5568/A8434), significantly changes the NYC Unincorporated Business Tax (UBT) rules. Assuming the law is signed by the governor, as expected, law firms working in NYC will need to adjust to changes in three areas:
- Apportionment: Retroactive to Jan. 1, 2005, the preferred method of apportionment changes from the separate-books-and-records method to the three-factor formula apportionment method.
- Sourcing: For law firms with gross receipts of $300,000 or more, receipts from services in taxable years beginning on or after July 1, 2007 will no longer be sourced to the assigned office of the timekeeper; instead the receipts will be sourced based on where the timekeeper actually works.
- Property: For UBT purposes, a law firm's taxable property in NYC will now include both rented real property and rented personal property. The value of such rented property is now codified at eight times the annual rent.
This legislation aims to modernize the UBT and to obtain greater conformity between the UBT and the NYC General Corporation Tax, both substantively and with respect to the Tax Commissioner's discretionary powers. Ironically, the changed UBT apportionment rule is now out of alignment with the corresponding tax rule for NY State. Whether the latter will be revised remains to be seen. It is also too early to tell how the Commissioner will apply his discretionary authority to determine what is fair for the City.
Following are some details of these UBT changes, some thoughts on how they may affect law firms, and our recommendations for how firms should respond.
Formula Apportionment
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.