Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Tax_Counsel last won the day on October 16

Tax_Counsel had the most liked content!


About Tax_Counsel

  • Rank
    Platinum Contributor

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Tax_Counsel

    Failure to accommodate disability

    CCD is a college that receives federal funds and thus is subject to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a federal law that among other things prohibits colleges/universities that accept federal funds from discriminating against students with disabilites and that requires the colleges/universities to provide reasonable accommodations for disabilities to put them on an equal footing with other students. The key word here is reasonable. The college does not have to make accommodations for you that are too expensive or burdensome for the college. CCD would have a difficult time relocating an entire program just to accommodate you, and thus I don't see that happening. The school can offer other alternatives to deal with the problem. You can also offer some suggestions that might work other than relocating one of the two programs. Try to see if you can negotiate something that both sides can live with. If you can't come to an agreement then you can consult an attorney who litigates cases under the Rehabilitation Act to see if you might have a claim to pursue. But it may also end up that you need to change your education plans in some way. Sometimes you just have to accept that your allergy will get in the way of things that you want to do. You'll not always get to force others to keep their animals away from some place you want to do. Those pet owners have some rights too, after all, and there needs to be a balancing between your rights and theirs.
  2. No. That is not something that automatically creates a conflict of interest problem. The fact that the judge was once the boss of one of the attorneys in a matter before the court does not necessarily make the judge biased either for or against that attorney.
  3. Tax_Counsel


    And I meant what I wrote. 😀
  4. Tax_Counsel


    Yes, that's what I meant.
  5. Tax_Counsel


    You can get married in Armenia or the U.S. The U.S. will treat the marriage the same either way.
  6. Tax_Counsel


    You did not say in what state the property is located, how the title was held between his father and mother (tenants in common (TIC), joint tenants witha right of survivorship, (JTWROS, or tenants by the entirety (TBE)), whether your husband had a will and if so what that will says, and finally in what state your husband resided when he died. All of that may be important to determining who gets what out of this. The most common situation would be that your husband's father and mother owned that property together as either JTWROS or TBE depending the state. Either way, when his father died, his interest in the property would have passed to his wife. She would then be the sole owner of it. Your husband then died, followed by his mother. Because your husband was not living at the time his mother died he would not inherit any of the property in his mother's estate. If she had a will, it would go to those persons still living as specified in her will. If she did not have a will, it would go to the descendents of the mother as provided in the intestate succession law of the state where the property is located. In that case your husbands sole living grandchild would get a share of it. But the fact pattern in your husband's mother's situation might be different, and if the facts are different the outcome may be different.
  7. Tax_Counsel

    Unauthorized photo use

    This is not a copyright issue. You don't own the copyright in the work and thus cannot restrict how it is used based on copyright law. There is however a privacy related right known as the right of publicity. You have the right to control the use of your name and image in certain commercial contexts. The law varies a bit from state to state and it is ot clear which state's law would apply here, but the NJ courts have provided a commonly used standard for this: Bisbee v. John C. Conover Agency, Inc., 186 N.J. Super. 335, 342–43, 452 A.2d 689, 692–93 (App. Div. 1982). Here, though, the site is not using your likeness to exploit your fame or imply your indorsement of the company's product or services. It is simply publishing copies of yearbooks and those photos contained in them as a kind of archive or resource rather than making use of your picture specifically for commercial benefit. Put another way, no one is likely to be going to this site or using its services because of that one photo of you in there. Indeed, very few people are likely to see it all beyond those who have an interest in that yearbook — your former classmates, who may still have a hard copy of that yearbook. So while there is a right to control the use of your image in some circumstances I'm not seeing this as one of those situations. A lot of people are embarassed by their high school photos. The styles of the times and what things were considered cool 40 years ago look seriously outdated today. And teens tend to do things that they may regret later in life. That's nothing unusual, and few people will make much of a 40 year old yearbook picture as a result.
  8. Tax_Counsel

    Patient Dismissal

    That would depend on the applicable state law and state medical practice rules, and you did not mention the state. In every state I've practiced a doctor may terminate the relationship at any time, even in the middle of treatment, but does have to ensure that the patient has prescriptions necessary to last 30 days so as to give the patient time to transition to a new doctor.
  9. Tax_Counsel

    Who pays closing when refinancing a mortgage?

    That's something they negotiate as part of the deal. There is no law that requires any particular party to pay it. Just make sure whatever they decide is put into the contract for the deal.
  10. Tax_Counsel

    Confused Remainderman

    I assume that the property at issue here was located in Washington state and was thus community property for Mary and John Sr. When Mary and John Sr. transferred the property, they each transferred their respective community property interests (usually 50% each) to John Jr. When John Sr. died, that means that under Internal Reveune Code section (IRC) § 2036 the entire value of what John Sr transferred, i.e. the value of half the property, was includible in his estate for federal estate tax purposes. In turn John Jr. then got a step up in basis to fair market value in that half of the property under IRC § 1014, which provides that the basis of property received from a decedent is the fair market value of that property at the time of death to the extent it was incluible in the gross estate for federal estate tax purposes. Similarly, when Mary died, the value of half the property gets included in her estate for federal estate tax purposes and thus John Jr. gets a step up in basis to fair market value in half the property as of the date of Mary's death. See United States v. Heasty, 370 F.2d 525 (10th Cir. 1966) and IRS Revenue Ruling 69-577, 1969-2 C.B. 173 (1969). In short, assuming no other adjustments to basis, John Jr determines his basis as the sum of: (1) half the value of the property on the date John Sr. died plus (2) half the value of the property on the date Mary died.
  11. Tax_Counsel

    Mail correctly yet incorrectly addressed?

    No, they are not. The statute is one designed to ensure no one interferes with the delivery of mail to its stated address. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which is the federal appeals court covering Colorado, stated in a case involving prosecution under this statute: United States v. Fleming, 479 F.2d 56, 57 (10th Cir. 1973). (Bolding added). So once the package was delivered to the addressee the passage of mail was done and anything further done with the package was not retarding or obstructing its passage. Here the package was delivered as addressed; no one interfered with the "passage" of that package. So there is no offense under the section you cited. Moreover, the statute only applies to U.S. mail. Delivery of packages or letters by private delivery firms is not covered by that statute, and while the OP does use the word "mail" in the post, it is far from clear that it was actually delivered by the USPS and not a private delivery firm like UPS or FedEx.
  12. The law does not regulate who sleeps in what room of a house. Thankfully the government has not yet got to the point of regulating such details.
  13. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers with at least 15 employees from discriminating against against an employer because of the employees disability. It also requires an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation for the disability to help the employee overcome the disability and thus give the employee the opportunity to do the job at the required level of performance. A lot of people, including even doctors, misunderstand what this law does and does not do. What it does is prevent an employer from discriminating against an employee just because he or she has a disability. Thus, an employer could not fire a person with a disability for missing work if the employer would not fire other employees for the same thing. But if the employer would fire other employees for missing work then generally the employer may fire a disabled employee for the same thing, even if it was the disability that caused the employee to miss work. The idea here is to ensure that disabled persons are treated just like any other employee and are not singled out for worse treatment just because they are disabled. It does not provide them any special treatment over that given to other employees, with the exception of the requirement for the employer to provide reasonable accommodation. What the law does not do is guarantee disabled persons time off to deal with their disability. While in some instances some time off to deal with the disability or changes in work schedule may be a reasonable accommodation that the employer must provide, that's going to be limited. First, the employee must actually make the request to the employer for accomodation. If no request was made the employer does not have to volunteer to provide one. Second, the request has to be for a reasonable accommodation. An accommodation is not reasonable if it imposes an undue hardship on the employer. In general, having an employee out for an extended period of time is going to be an undue hardship for many employers. How big is the company? How long were you out? And did you request leave as a reasonable accomodation for a disability?
  14. If you qualified for leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) then you were entitled to up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to deal with these medical problems. The company could not fire you for taking leave that you are entitled to use under FMLA, assuming you followed the proper procedures for it. But if you took more than the 12 weeks that FMLA allows you or if you were not covered by FMLA then the employer was free to fire you for missing work. The U.S. Department of Labor has a FMLA publication that explains how that program works.
  15. Tax_Counsel

    i guess i am lost on licensing

    The truth is that the sites out there that claim you do not need a license to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads either delibrately misstate the law or the authors are simply so unskilled at legal research and analysis that they completely get it wrong. They tend to cite cases that are not relevant, take quotes from cases out of context, and at the same time they somehow seem to miss the statutes and case law that are directly on point and that clearly contradict the argument they make. It is very clear in the law that states may indeed require persons to have a driver's license and that doing so does not unconstitutionally infringe on your right to travel. Adjusterjack has provided you to a link to an earlier thread where I have explained what the law is and cite the relevant authority to support it. So if you want the truth, look at the responses given in that thread.