President Obama and Republicans have reportedly reached an agreement on some of the burning tax issues.

Posted by Autumn Ronda

The proposal boils down to a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. President Obama made it clear in the statement he made after Monday night’s compromise, that he doesn't favor extending tax cuts for the upper tax brackets, but that he compromised in order to keep the tax breaks for the middle class. Although the agreement on these tax issues still needs to be introduced as legislation, voted on by Congress and signed by the President (meaning that the agreement could vary from its reported form), President Obama stated that legislators "have arrived at a framework for a bipartisan agreement," and it is expected that the proposed legislation will look something like the following…

- The estate tax will be reinstated with a 35 percent rate on estates worth more than $5 million for individuals and $10 million for couples;

- The current tax rates from 10% to 35% will remain intact for the next two years, rather than reverting back to 15% to 39.6%;

- The section 179 deduction will be expanded to allow businesses to completely write off their investments next year;

- The top rate of 15 percent on capital gains and dividends would remain in place for 2011 and 2012;

- There will be a reduction in the employee-portion of Social Security taxes to 4.2% from 6.2%.

- The child tax credit will continue to be $1000, rather than reverting back to $500;

- The earned income credit will continue to provide tax credits for a three dependents, rather than reverting back to a maximum of two dependents;

- The American opportunity credit for college expenses will be extended;

- Unemployment insurance benefits will be extended for 13 months.

Contact Autumn Ronda...

Arlen Gunner to Hold Workshop on Nonprofits - January 12

Nonprofit management and legal representation are becoming increasingly critical to the survival of nonprofits. With the governance and legal landscape regarding non-profits changing, nonprofit professionals and volunteer leaders need to broaden their skills set and learn about these critical areas so that you can provide accurate and up to date business advice for your clients. If you have ever been on a board or thinking about being on a board, you need to attend this session (Part 2 of 2).

Topics include:
· REGULATIONS, THE IMPACT OF THE 990S
· NON-PROFITS AND UNRELATED BUSINESS INCOME TAX
· EVALUATING NON-CORE REVENUE STREAMS
· USE OF DONOR-ADVISED FUNDS
· MERGERS, ACQUISTIONS AND COLLABORATION, RECAPILIZATION, SALE OF ASSETS
· SET UP FOR-PROFIT ENTITIES FOR A NONPROFIT

Speakers:
Arlen Gunner, Esq.
Managing Partner, Valensi Rose, PLC

Bob McKim
McKim Nonprofit Consulting

Time and Location:
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
12:00 p.m. - Registration and Lunch
12:30 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. - Program

Beverly Hills Bar Association
300 S. Beverly Drive, #210, Beverly Hills
Beverly Hills, California 90211
(Public parking at 216 S. Beverly Drive)

Price:
$50 for BHBA Business/Immigration Section Members who pay in advance*
$60 for BHBA Members who pay in advance*
$75 for all Non-BHBA Members who pay in advance*
$30 for BHBA Law Students who pay in advance*
($10.00 more at door for all)
FREE for members of The Order of Distinguished Attorneys

*Refund with 48 hours notice - Raincheck with 24 hours notice

Section Chair: Leigh Leshner, Esq.

MCLE CREDIT: This activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1.0 Hour and the Beverly Hills Bar Association certifies that this activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by the rules and regulations of the State Bar of California governing minimum continuing legal education.

To Register Click

Arlen Gunner - Interview on Big Media USA

Trivedi v. Curexo Technology: a warning about pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements

Posted by David Krol

Take a look at your pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements. Do they have standard prevailing party attorneys’ fees provisions and provisions which purport to allow the parties access to the courts for injunctive relief? If they do, and if the arbitration forum’s applicable rules have not been provided to the employees, these agreements may be unenforceable – rendering the employer liable for attorneys’ fees if the employer attempts to enforce such agreements. That was the result in Trivedi v. Curexo Technology Corporation (Sept. 28, 2010, RG09459748) ____ Cal.App.4th _____ (2010 WL 3760224).

In Trivedi, the Court of Appeal found that a pre-dispute employment arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable, because it was prepared by the employer and was a mandatory part of the arbitration agreement, but the employer failed to provide the employee with a copy of the arbitration rules under which the employee would be bound.

The Court of Appeal also found that the clause was substantively unconscionable, because it did not limit the employer’s right to recover attorneys fees to instances where the employee’s claims were found to be “frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or brought in bad faith,” which is the standard under California case law, and because it was far more likely that the employer, not the employee, would seek to enforce an injunctive relief provision in court.

After refusing to enforce the provision, the Court of Appeal awarded costs and attorneys’ fees to the employee on appeal.

Pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements which purport to expand employers’ rights to attorneys’ fees, and which contain injunctive relief provisions, and which are executed without ensuring that the employees have received the rules of the applicable arbitration forum, may be unenforceable in light of this new decision.

Contact David Krol

PRESS RELEASE: Gary Torrell Wins La Toya Jackson Royalty Dispute

Valensi Rose, PLC partner Gary F. Torrell prevailed on behalf of his client La Toya Jackson by successfully opposing a trustee's motion to obtain additional royalties due to the internationally renowned entertainer.

Mr. Torrell said, "This was a very challenging case, to convince a judge in New York that Ms. Jackson's creditors should not obtain additional royalties, even though they had not received any payment. Luckily, the judge agreed with my arguments and issued a well-reasoned opinion in favor of our valued client."

A written trust agreement allowed the trustee to collect Ms. Jackson's royalties for a specified time period, pay the priority claims of the trustee and his lawyers, and then distribute the balance to certain creditors. Because the priority claims exceeded $780,000, they were expected to consume nearly all of the royalties collected during the term of the creditor trust. As a result, the trustee filed a motion seeking to extend the term for an additional five years and thereby obtain additional royalties for the benefit of creditors.

On August 5, 2010, the Honorable James M. Peck issued a published opinion denying the motion. The court agreed with Mr. Torrell's argument that it would be unfair and inequitable to Ms. Jackson to grant the motion, despite no distributions to creditors, because Ms. Jackson had honored the trust agreement and was not responsible for the trustee's high fees, which had consumed the allocated royalties.

The judge also interpreted the trust agreement to not permit an extension of the term to allow creditors to obtain additional royalties otherwise due to Ms. Jackson.

Contact Gary Torrell...

Warning to California Employers

Posted By

Laurie Murphy

The federal courts have long held that "stray remarks which are defined as isolated discriminatory comments unrelated to the decision-making process were not admissible to prove employment discrimination. The California Supreme Court recently (in ruling against Google in an age discrimination case) held that stray remarks can be considered in the totality of the circumstances of the case. Bottom line, this will make it even harder for employers to defend employment discrimination cases prior to trial.

Attorneys Beware

By
Laurie Murphy

A recent California appellate decision holds that an attorney who entrusted a filing with a paralegal who did not get the papers filed timely did not adequately supervise his employee and was therefore not saved when the trial court found for the defendant because the opposition to the motion for summary judgment was not timely filed. The trial court did not buy plaintiff's counsel's argument that the late filing was the result of surprise, mistake or excusable neglect. The court of appeals agreed and found that it was inexcusable neglect for the attorney to entrust the preparing and filing of the opposition to a summary judgment motion to his paralegal who took the file on vacation with her and did not file it timely.