Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
New Standards for Appraisers
Since mid-2006, several extraordinary changes have taken place with regard to 'raising the bar' of valuation practitioners. Family law attorneys need to recognize these changes and be prepared to demand better expert appraisal services. Not only will you be more able to challenge the unprepared novice, but you should expect that your expert appraiser may well be challenged by competent opposing counsel.
Each of these changes is aimed at improving the quality of appraisal work. Some changes, federal in character, are aimed at transfer tax situations that will likely have an impact on other appraisal matters, such as valuations of tangible and intangible property required in matrimonial law. Substantively, two seismic shifts are occurring:
- New definitions of 'qualified appraisal' and 'qualified appraiser' for federal tax purposes; and
- New standards of practice anticipated to be adopted by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants that should undermine casual valuation opinions provided by CPAs.
Expectations for a 'Qualified Appraisal'
On Aug. 17, 2006, the President signed the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-280), which contained a number of provisions related to tax appraisals of property. On Nov. 13, the IRS issued guidelines (IRS Notice 2006-96) regarding appraisal requirements for non-cash charitable contributions. While the immediate view is that application is limited to tax matters of contributed property, most appraisers are anticipating expanded application to other tax matters and matrimonial valuations. After all, why would an appraiser deemed 'not qualified' for federal purposes be recognized as competent for valuing property subject to marital division?
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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
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?
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.