Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014
On Dec. 19, 2014, the President signed into law the long-awaited year-end tax package, the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 (TIPA). This law extended to the end of 2014 many but not all of the individual, business, and energy provisions that expired at the end of 2013. In addition, the law provides for a new tax-advantaged savings program to aide in meeting the financial needs of disabled individuals, called the ” Achieving a Better Life Experience” (ABLE) program, as well as several other miscellaneous provisions.
Business Provisions Advantages of 2014
2014 remains a good year for law firms and their business clients to have made large fixed asset purchases or capital improvements. The additional first-year depreciation deduction (also known as bonus depreciation) is 50% of the adjusted basis of qualified property acquired and placed in service after Dec. 31, 2011 and before Jan. 1, 2015 (Jan. 1, 2016 for certain longer-lived and transportation property). The boosted expensing amounts under IRC Section 179 also remain through the 2014 tax year, which allow the firm/client to expense up to $500,000 for tangible personal property placed in service. This begins to become phased out once $2 million of qualifying property is placed in service, and becomes completely phased out when the cost of expensing eligible property exceeds $2,500,000. In addition, qualified leasehold improvement property can still be depreciated over 15 years for qualified leasehold improvements that were placed in service before Jan. 1, 2015.
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.