Showing 14 posts in Federal Tax.
A federal tax lien arises when the Internal Revenue Service takes administrative action to note in its records that the taxpayer owes taxes – that is to say, when the tax debt is “assessed.” That lien attaches to all the taxpayer’s property and equitable rights to property as determined by relevant state law. 28 U.S.C. Section 6321. See https://www.blockchainandbanking.com/irs-liens-after-acquired-property-and-the-doctrine-of-choateness. Typically, assessment occurs when (i) the taxpayer files a return, (ii) the IRS adjusts a tax liability after an audit / appeal process, or (iii) the IRS files a “substitute return” for a taxpayer who failed to file a required return.
Deal lawyers often seek to insure an outcome using multiple approaches simultaneously; this is colloquially labeled a “belt and suspenders” approach. Ohio’s Sixth Appellate District recently reminded us of the danger of over lawyering in an effort to secure a legal position. Read More ›
Internal Revenue Service liens attach to all a taxpayer’s “property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.” 26 U.S.C. Section 6321. A taxpayer’s “property” is determined by relevant state law, but federal law determines lien priority. Read More ›
The Commodity Futures Trade Commission’s (CFTC’s) recent publication of “A CFTC Primer on Virtual Currencies” indicates that cryptocurrency will remain in the CFTC’s crosshairs for the foreseeable future. Though the CFTC primer begins with a caveat—content therein should not be construed as an “official policy or position”—the document is valuable insofar as it defines virtual currencies (VCs), outlines their utilities and their potential for malfeasance. At the same time, the CFTC primer provides insight into the commission’s current thinking on cryptocurrency and may therefore portend the kind of regulatory measures and other exigencies VC developers and their counsel need to prepare for. Read More ›
Most businesses must deal with federal, state, and local laws and regulations from time to time. Operators of Bitcoin ATMs are no different. For such operators, the primary regulations arise out of the federal Bank Secrecy Act (the “BSA”), as discussed below, and the state-level money transmitter laws are discussed in another article. Read More ›
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), a subset of the U.S. Treasury Department, recently announced that it will create a special purpose national bank charter specifically for financial technology (fintech) companies. This announcement comes on the heels of the rapid rise in fintech and in the number of companies that use such technology. An official charter aims to supervise the more than 4,000 fintech companies more closely and provide a framework for new companies to operate in the financial services industry. Read More ›
On May 5, 2016, the CFPB unveiled a proposed arbitration rule which would dramatically limit the contractual rights of financial institutions. Under the rule certain arbitration provisions would be unenforceable as bars to class actions against financial institutions. Read More ›
On July 10, 2015, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) came out with new rules interpreting the Telephone Consumer Protective Act (TCPA). Read More ›
Community Banks need to be aware of the risks posed by cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, because their prevalence will only increase, writes the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Wallace Young, the Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, in the recent article “What Community Bankers Should Know About Virtual Currencies” in Community Banking Connections, outlines four risks undertaken by community banks that interact with businesses in the virtual currency ecosystem: Compliance, Reputational, Credit, and Operational. Read More ›
In State ex rel. U.S. Bank National Association v. McGraw, Frost Brown Todd recently assisted in obtaining a dismissal, with prejudice, of a putative class action filed by Wyoming County, West Virginia claiming that the use of the private corporation, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., commonly known as “MERS”, as the designee for assignments of deeds of trust in West Virginia violates state law and unjustly enriched the trustees of various mortgage backed security trusts. Wyoming County asserted that the use of MERS (1) undermines the integrity of the counties’ real property records, to the detriment of an open and vibrant real estate market, (2) fails to provide transferees in the MERS registry with adequate perfection of the debts secured by the trust deeds, (3) deprives the counties of revenue, and (4) unjustly enriches the trustees through the nonpayment of recording fees. Read More ›
Ask the Blogger
Do you have a topic that you would like discussed in a future blog article? Please let us know. If you have a confidential question regarding a blog article, please feel free to contact the article's author directly, or let us know if you would like for someone to contact you directly.
William T. Repasky practices with the Litigation Department at Frost Brown Todd. He focuses on lending and commercial services; banking litigation and financial institutions.