Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Internal-Use Software
The tax credit for research and development (R&D) of internal-use software under Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code has been the subject of many concerns regarding the current tax code. The R&D tax credit has been renewed 16 times since its implementation in 1981. The most recent renewal occurred on Dec. 19, 2014, when President Obama signed into law the Tax Increase Prevention Act, which called for a one-year extension of the tax credit and applied it retroactively from Jan. 1, 2014, until Dec. 31, 2014. Currently, the R&D tax credit has not been extended beyond calendar year 2015.
Many business leaders and commentators have called for this tax credit to become permanent. They argue that the temporary status of the credit has had two main effects. First, companies have faced a tremendous amount of uncertainty in calculating the after-tax cost of their R&D investments, and often have to commit to these investments long before they know whether the credit will be extended. Second, the credit has gotten lumped in with a wide variety of other tax provisions, including an important provision on Medicare reimbursement that expires on a regular basis.
Despite the lack of any guaranty of the R&D credit in the future, the Treasury issued proposed regulations in January regarding the qualification of internal use software for the federal research credit under Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code. Nearly 11 years in the making, and after the repeal of two sets of internal-use software regulations that were published in 2001, taxpayers finally have a clearer picture on whether the expenditures made to research and develop their software will qualify for the credit.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?