Publications — Page 25 of 47 — Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C. Firm News & Events

Home » Publications

Agents Acting Under a Power of Attorney

Published on: October 19, 2018 | by David G. Hardin

One of the useful documents in the estate planner’s tool kit is the power of attorney. Briefly, a power of attorney allows a person (the “principal”) to name another individual (the “agent” or the “attorney-in-fact”) to act on the principal’s behalf, typically in financial and health matters. A power of attorney may be “general” or “limited,” meaning it can authorize the attorney-in-fact to act broadly on the principal’s behalf, or it may restrict the attorney-in-fact’s authority to certain enumerated types of conduct (i.e., a limited power of attorney may apply solely to acts involved in the sale of a principal’s real estate). In addition to being “general” or “limited,” a power of attorney may also be “durable,” meaning the power of attorney remains effective in the event of a future disability or incapacity of the principal. For purposes of this article, the power of attorney is to be considered a durable general power of attorney, meaning the power of attorney is effective immediately upon execution, it authorizes the attorney-in-fact to act broadly on the principal’s behalf, and it remains effective in the event of any subsequent disability or incapacity of the principal.

New Jersey’s Revised Durable Power of Attorney Act, as codified in N.J.S. 46:2B-8.1 et seq. (the “Act”), grants broad authority to an attorney-in-fact to act on a principal’s behalf. The Act provides: “All acts done by an attorney-in-fact pursuant to a durable power of attorney during any period when the power of attorney is effective in accordance with its terms, including any period when the principal is under a disability, have the same effect and inure to the benefit of and bind the principal and the principal’s successors in interest as if the principal were competent and not disabled.” N.J.S. 46:2B-8.3. This section purports to state that the acts of the attorney-in-fact are binding upon the principal and the principal’s successors in interest, suggesting that the acts of the attorney-in-fact have the same effect as if the principal had acted himself or herself. While this is true, the law in New Jersey requires more.

New Jersey law imposes a higher duty upon an attorney-in-fact acting on behalf of a principal under a power of attorney. An attorney-in-fact in New Jersey has a fiduciary obligation to the principal and must act “within the powers delegated by the power of attorney and solely for the benefit of the principal.” N.J.S. 46:2B-8.13.a [emphasis added]. A common situation in which a power of attorney may expressly authorize an attorney-in-fact to act, but where the act will be prohibited, involves lifetime gifts. While an individual generally has broad power to make lifetime gifts of his or her own property, unfettered by any restrictions or constraints, an attorney-in-fact operating under a power of attorney does not have that same authority. An attorney-in-fact may not use the principal’s resources unilaterally to favor himself or herself in ways that are contrary to the principal’s wishes.

Tax Updates from Washington (October 2018)

Published on: October 19, 2018 | by Elizabeth Candido Petite

State and local tax deduction workarounds rejected. The workarounds to the new federal cap on deductions for state and local taxes (“SALT”) are not likely to be effective, according to proposed regulations issued by the IRS in late August. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law by President Trump in December 2017, capped the SALT deduction at $10,000 for taxpayers who itemize their deductions. As a workaround, several states (including New Jersey and New York) have permitted municipalities to establish charitable foundations to collect property taxes, thus allowing residents to claim a charitable deduction for the property taxes paid, and the states have enacted state tax credits for such charitable donations. However, the IRS has indicated that these strategies will not work to the full extent envisioned by state and local leaders. The proposed regulations provide that taxpayers who itemize deductions shall be eligible for a federal deduction that equals only a small fraction of the state tax credits for such charitable donations. Local leaders have vowed to challenge these new regulations.

Income tax deductions for trusts and estates confirmed. The Treasury stated in Notice 2018-61 (issued on July 13, 2018) that trusts and estates are entitled to income tax deductions for administration expenses paid solely as a result of being an estate or trust. This guidance was necessary to explain the impact on trusts and estates of Internal Revenue Code Section 67(g), which was added as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The new Code section suspends miscellaneous itemized deductions for individuals for tax years 2018 through 2025. Notice 2018-61 clarifies that trusts and estates may continue to deduct certain administration expenses, and states that Treasury intends to issue regulations confirming this position. Regulations will also be issued regarding the deductibility of such expenses for the individual beneficiaries of trusts and estates in the final year of administration, when deductions are typically passed through to the beneficiaries.

Protecting Employee Data From a Human Resources Perspective

Published on: October 12, 2018 | by Eric B. Levine

Originally published in the October 2018 issue of HR News.

Combatting cyber-threats and protecting data is not only the job of an IT department. Human resource professionals play a critical role in safeguarding personally identifiable information as well. Indeed, if there is one area in every company that has in its possession a literal treasure trove of sensitive information, it is Human Resource. Who else has access to employees’ names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, bank account information (for direct depositing of paychecks), health and medical information (originating form health insurance applications, flex plan reimbursement materials) and financial information, especially if your company has a self-directed 401K plan and contributions are automatically deducted from payroll. Needless to say, a data breach implicating your Human Resources department could be devastating. So what can you as a human resource professional do to assist in maintaining the integrity of your company’s data? Plenty.

Collaborate with IT and Legal departments:

Children’s Bill of Rights During NJ Divorce

Published on: September 24, 2018 | by James McGlew, II

In many divorce cases, the most contentious issues are those regarding the parties’ children. The issues of physical custody, time sharing or visitation, extra-curricular activities, religious education and the cost for college education are routinely in dispute.

Often, well-intentioned parents insist that their proposed resolution on these issues is best. It may be in that particular parent’s best interest, but not necessarily those of the child.

Most experienced family law attorneys will point out to their client that any agreement should be based on what is in the child’s best interest. Attorneys often utilize a “Children’s Bill of Rights” as a guideline to set forth what should be considered by the parents.

Changes to Tax Deductions of Alimony Payments Are Coming

Published on: September 10, 2018 | by James McGlew, II

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), enacted by Congress last December, has created jobs for many individuals. It has also created additional work related to the issue of alimony for family law attorneys.

As interpreted under our New Jersey divorce statute, one spouse may be obligated to support the other spouse by the payment of alimony. The payments made by one spouse to the other which met the Internal Revenue Code definition of alimony would be deductible by the payer on his or her federal income tax return and included as taxable income to the recipient. This remains the case for alimony agreements or settlements signed prior to the end of 2018.

However, beginning in 2019, Congress has changed the rules. Payments made pursuant to an agreement or Court Order reached or entered after December 31, 2018 will no longer be deductible by the payer nor will they need to be claimed as income by the recipient. This major change in the tax law will not change the tax treatment of any payments made pursuant to an agreement which was entered prior to the end of calendar 2018.

Tips For Handling Your New Jersey Divorce

Published on: August 15, 2018 | by James McGlew, II

If you find yourself in a situation where you are contemplating divorce, there are several recommended steps you should take. The first of these is to consult an attorney who specifically practices in this area and devotes the majority of their practice toward divorce and family law matters. Contact the attorney to arrange for a consultation. You should not be put off by an attorney who charges an initial consultation fee. As with most things, you usually get what you pay for. Often times the consultation fee is a small initial investment in a major life changing event.

Next, if you are a parent, it is important to never involve the children in the marital discord. No child should be placed in the middle of divorcing parents or the issues one of the parents may have with the other.

If you are not already, become knowledgeable about your family‘s finances. Try to secure copies of relevant financial documentation including, but not limited to, prior tax returns, W-2 and 1099 statements and paystubs, bank account, investment and credit card information pertaining to both you and your spouse. While you and your attorney will be entitled to obtain and review this documentation during any litigation, there is a cost savings involved when you can provide as much information as possible to your attorney.

Divorce Mediation in New Jersey – Why You Should Choose Someone With Experience

Published on: August 8, 2018 | by James McGlew, II

Divorce mediation is a cost-effective and time saving process to utilize in what is an emotional and often contentious proceeding between parties. The mediation process can be utilized whether or not the parties are in the process of divorcing, contemplating divorce, or examining issues which remain or have arisen after their divorce.

For individuals considering divorce / family law mediation, it is essential they understand that the State of New Jersey does not require licensing or any type of certification for someone to become a mediator in private practice. Because of this, there are many mediators offering their services who lack the requisite background and specific knowledge of the important legal issues you are facing. When in this situation, it is important to select an experienced family law attorney and one who has been “approved to act as a mediator” by the New Jersey Supreme Court. To meet the Court standard for such qualification, a mediator must have completed a minimum of 40 hours in a Court-approved mediation course, possess a minimum of a bachelor’s degree, and have five years of professional experience in the field of expertise in which they are to conduct mediations.

Whether the issue is custody, time-sharing, alimony, child support, the distribution of property, investments or retirement accounts, or any other issue encountered in a divorce, a mediator who has the specialized training and experience is best equipped to assist the parties in resolving their differences. Some individuals find mediation to also be beneficial before they get married when they need to discuss and negotiate pre-nuptial agreements.

NLRB Changes Course And Issues New Common Sense Guidance For Employer Handbook Rules

Published on: July 27, 2018 | by Kathleen M. Connelly

Most employers are aware that employee handbook rules that impede employees’ abilities to engage in protected concerted activity – e.g., organizing unions, discussing wages, discipline or other terms and conditions of employment – run afoul of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Under the prior administration the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) took a very narrow view, finding that facially-neutral policies that could conceivably be construed to chill Section 7 rights are unlawful. As a result, employers were in peril of having the most innocuous workplace rules aimed at advancing basic employer interests, such as workplace civility, subject to challenge. Thankfully, the newly-constituted Board overruled years of precedent in favor of a much more reasonable and employer-friendly approach to assess the legality of employee handbook rules.

In December 2017, the Board issued its ground-breaking decision in The Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154, announcing a new three category test that balances the employer’s interests in maintaining discipline and productivity and protecting its property, against employee rights to engage in concerted activities protected by the NLRA. On June 6, 2018, General Counsel of the NLRB issued a memorandum entitled “Guidance on Handbook Rules Post-Boeing” that serves as a useful roadmap for how the Board will apply its new three-category standard to a wide array of workplace rules commonly found in employee handbooks and other policies. The Guidance makes is clear that that the mere possibility that a workplace rule could be interpreted to preclude Section 7 activity is no longer a justification for finding the rule unlawful, and that “ambiguities in rules are no longer to be interpreted against the drafter, and generalized provisions should not be interpreted as banning all activity that could conceivably be included.”

The New Three-Category Test: When assessing the legality of workplace rules, the NLRB will now assign workplace rules to one of the following three categories:

Supreme Court Deals A Tough Blow To Organized Labor Movement

Published on: July 25, 2018 | by Kathleen M. Connelly

In its June 27, 2018 opinion in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31 authored by Justice Alito, a divided U.S. Supreme Court resolved a long-standing battle over the ability of public sector unions to charge non-members “fair share” or “agency fees” to cover the cost of collective bargaining and other representational activities. In a major defeat for unions, the Court struck down these mandatory union fees as impermissible violations of nonmembers’ First Amendment speech rights. While the decision is limited to union fee practices in the public sector, it portends to have significant consequences for the private sector labor movement as well.

Agency Fees Pre-Janus: Since the Court’s 1997 ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the status of agency fees assessed against employees who opt not to join their representative labor union has been the subject of ongoing debate. The Abood case was the first time the Court squarely addressed the tension between nonmembers’ First Amendment Rights and compulsory union dues in the public sector. Consistent with its prior rulings concerning private sector union fees, the Court concluded that any portion of compulsory fees attributable to contract negotiations and administrative expenses was permissible because employees who elected not to join the union nevertheless benefited from the union’s representation activities, and agency fees were justified as a way to eliminate these “free riders.” However, the Abood Court reasoned that forcing nonmembers to fund any portion of fees attributable to the union’s support of ideological or political causes that they may not agree with would be an impermissible impingement of First Amendment speech rights.

In recent years, the Court has been called upon to consider the continued constitutional viability of the agency fees assessment sanctioned by Abood. In Harris v. Quinn, the Court struck down on First Amendment grounds mandatory agency fees assessed to home health aides, but that ruling was limited to that particular class of employees at issue in that case. Two years later, the Court appeared to be poised to overrule Abood in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass’n, an action by teachers challenging agency fees, but the unexpected death of Justice Scalia derailed that effort. Instead, the court issued a per curiam opinion upholding mandatory agency fees.

Hiding in Plain Sight – Techniques to Defend Against Insider Attacks

Published on: July 11, 2018 | by Eric B. Levine

Eric Levine, Lindabury’s Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Group Co-Chair provided insight to SC Media for their recent white paper, Hiding in Plain Sight. Eric suggests that an organization consider and understand what types of data might be vulnerable to attack in order to understand the implications of responding to unauthorized accesses of that information.

You can download a copy of the white paper here.