Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recent Guidance Regarding Deduction of Fines
Internal Revenue Code section 162(f), which relates to fines and penalties that would otherwise constitute ordinary and necessary expenses deductible under Code ' 162(a), provides: “No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any fine or similar penalty paid to a government for the violation of any law.” The provision was added to the Code in 1969 as a codification of prior case law, under which certain such expenses were held nondeductible because allowing a deduction would be inconsistent with public policy. See H. Rep. No. 91-782 (1969), at 331; Tank Truck Rentals v. Commissioner, 356 U.S. 30 (1958).
The controversies that continue to arise under ' 162(f) are illustrated by two memoranda released within the past few months that address whether an amount paid to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and representing a disgorgement of profits from activities undertaken in violation of law is a “fine or similar penalty,” or whether it is compensatory in nature and therefore not subject to disallowance under ' 162(f). These memoranda also address whether the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) ' a self-regulatory organization with federally mandated duties under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act) ' is a “corporation or other entity serving as an agency or instrumentality of” the federal government within the meaning of the regulations interpreting 162(f) (Reg. ' 1.162-21(a)(3)), such that an amount paid to FINRA should be treated as an amount paid to a government for purposes of this provision.
Punitive Versus Compensatory
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.
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.
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.