Repayments of Loans Made by Lessors Are Now Taxable Under Ohio Sales/Use Tax
In a recent administrative decision by the Ohio Department of Taxation, the commissioner held that the repayment of a loan of money should be added to the lease price of tangible personal property subject to the Ohio Sales/Use Tax. The case before the commissioner involved a loan that was made to a lessee to pay off its contract obligations to another lessor, so that the lessee could enter into a lease of new equipment with the new lessor. Both the loan and the lease were separately delineated in the Lease Agreement between the partners. The commissioner concluded that the repayment of the loan was an "expense associated with the leased equipment." As a result, the commissioner held that under Ohio R.C. 5739.01(H)(1), the separately stated refinance charge to pay the interest and principle on the loan could be included as part of the leased price paid for leased equipment making both amounts taxable under the Ohio Sales/Use Tax.
Leaseback Deals Under Attack
As if the leasing industry needed another obstacle, a major one is now looming on the horizon, courtesy of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).
Update: Industry Awaits Regulations Under USA Patriot Act
This is an update to the article titled, <i>Industry Awaits Regulations Under USA Patriot Act,</i> published in the May 2003 edition of the <i>LJN Equipment Leasing Newsletter</i> (Volume 22, Number 4). As of this writing, the Treasury Department has yet to issue regulations relevant to the "loan and finance company" category of "financial institution."
A Guide to the Proposed Amendments to Article 2A
The American Law Institute (ALI) and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), the two organizations jointly responsible for drafting and updating the Uniform Commercial Code, recently approved proposed amendments to Article 2 — Sales, and Article 2A — Leases. The ALI approved the proposed amendments in May 2003 and NCCUSL in August 2002. These amendments are the culmination of a project that began more than 10 years ago.
In The Marketplace
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
Proposed 4% Lease Tax Would Raise Cost of Leasing in Chicago
Cook County Illinois Board President John Stroger has proposed a new 4% lease tax. This tax is modeled on the Chicago Transaction Tax, which shifts the imposition from the lessee to a flat 4% tax on lessors (including nonpossessory lessors) receipts. The State Government Relations Committee Chair of the Equipment Leasing Association, Valerie Pfeiffer of CIT, reports that under this proposed tax, the only exempt lessors are governmental bodies, and lessors that are organized and operated exclusively for charitable, educational or religious purposes. The ordinance provides no exemption for government or other typically exempt charitable, educational or religious lessees.
The Progressive Lawyer
We can all stand to improve the way we practice the non-adversarial, settlement-oriented part of our profession by paying attention to the way we employ the principles of advocacy and inquiry.
The Fundamentals of Political Risk Insurance
Political Risk Insurance protects an insured from financial losses as a result of unpredictable actions by host governments, especially in emerging countries or in unstable environments. It has become a vital part of risk management for global enterprises involved in international business, finance and investments.
Litigation
Recent decisions of importance to you and your practice.
The Costs of Code Upgrades
When a property is physically damaged by some insurable event — such as a flood or fire — laws or ordinances that were not in place when the original property was first constructed must be considered in the repairing or rebuilding of that property. After Hurricane Andrew in 1992, for example, Dade County Florida required that ruined houses be rebuilt in compliance with stricter severe-weather standards than the damaged houses had previously exhibited. These upgrade requirements must be reconciled with replacement-cost insurance for property owners, which puts the insured in the <i>same</i> position, with the same quality of property, as existed before the insured event — not in a <i>better</i> position, with a higher quality of property (<i>eg,</i> a stronger roof, better ventilation, wider egresses, and the like). Consequently, courts, insurers and insureds need to resolve the question of which party pays the costs of compliance with changed construction codes.
