Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Accounting and Financial Planning for Law FirmsKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

New UBT Rules for Legal Work in NYC

By Joseph A. Bailey, Jr., Peter Leonardis and Gregg Sincoff
August 31, 2005

New York City's 2006 Executive Budget, recently passed by the NY State Legislature (S5568/A8434), significantly changes the NYC Unincorporated Business Tax (UBT) rules. Assuming the law is signed by the governor, as expected, law firms working in NYC will need to adjust to changes in three areas:

  • Apportionment: Retroactive to Jan. 1, 2005, the preferred method of apportionment changes from the separate-books-and-records method to the three-factor formula apportionment method.
  • Sourcing: For law firms with gross receipts of $300,000 or more, receipts from services in taxable years beginning on or after July 1, 2007 will no longer be sourced to the assigned office of the timekeeper; instead the receipts will be sourced based on where the timekeeper actually works.
  • Property: For UBT purposes, a law firm's taxable property in NYC will now include both rented real property and rented personal property. The value of such rented property is now codified at eight times the annual rent.

This legislation aims to modernize the UBT and to obtain greater conformity between the UBT and the NYC General Corporation Tax, both substantively and with respect to the Tax Commissioner's discretionary powers. Ironically, the changed UBT apportionment rule is now out of alignment with the corresponding tax rule for NY State. Whether the latter will be revised remains to be seen. It is also too early to tell how the Commissioner will apply his discretionary authority to determine what is fair for the City.

Following are some details of these UBT changes, some thoughts on how they may affect law firms, and our recommendations for how firms should respond.

Formula Apportionment

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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 Image

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.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

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.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?