IRS Announces April 17 Filing Date for Income and Gift Tax Returns

The IRS has announced that the filing date for income and gift tax returns is Tuesday, April 17. Estate tax returns are due based on the actual date of death. Because April 15 falls on Sunday and April 16 is Emancipation Day in the District of Columbia, the tax filing date is extended to the next day, Tuesday, April 17. The Internal Revenue Code [Section 7503] establishes that the date for tax filing is extended when April 15 falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday. For that purpose, a "legal holiday" means any legal holiday in the District of Columbia. Emancipation Day is a legal holiday in the District of Columbia, established in 2005. It is celebrated each year on April 16 to recognize the date when President Abraham Lincoln signed the Compensated Emancipation Act which released certain persons held to service or labor in the District of Columbia. If April 16 falls on a Saturday, Emancipation Day is celebrated on the preceding Friday.

Congress Passes Repeal of 3% Withholding and Provides Tax Credits for Hiring Unemployed Veterans

By an overwhelming bi-partisan vote, the U.S. Congress passed legislation (H.R. 674) yesterday which repeals a 2005 law that imposes a 3% income tax withholding on government contractor payments in excess of $10,000. The very unpopular withholding provisions were scheduled to become effective at the end of next year. Also, included in the new legislation are tax credits for employers who hire previously unemployed veterans. The tax credits range from $2,400 if the newly-hired veteran was unemployed for at least four weeks, but less than six months, to $5,600 for veterans unemployed for more than six months. Another credit of $9,600 is available for hiring unemployed veterans with service-connected disabilities who were unemployed for at least six months. President Obama is expected to sign the legislation this week or early next week.

 

IRS Announces Voluntary Employment Classification Settlement Program

The IRS announced a new program today that will permit employers voluntarily to reclassify workers as employees rather than nonemployees or independent contractors, without significant retroactive tax impact. To qualify, employers must have filed all required Forms 1099 for the workers for the past three years and not be under audit currently by IRS, the Labor Department or a state agency for worker classification issues. Employers that have significant numbers of workers whose employment classification is questionable should consider the application of this new program.

Virginia Supreme Court Takes On Non-Competition Agreements

Virginia businesses and employees are eagerly awaiting rulings from the Virginia Supreme Court on two cases that it has heard or is preparing to hear concerning the enforceability of non-competition agreements between employers and employees.  The results of these cases should provide businesses and employees in Virginia with greater clarity on the scope of enforceable non-competition agreements.  The Virginia Supreme Court heard the first case, Home Paramount Pest Control Cos. Inc. v. Justin Shaffer, et. al., earlier this week.  That case addresses restrictions in an employment agreement which prohibit a former employee from engaging in certain specific competitive activities, including soliciting customers of the former employer, within a defined geographic area.  The second case, BB&T Insurance Services, Inc. v. Thomas Rutherfoord, Inc., et. al., for which a hearing date has not yet been scheduled, also involves the solicitation of the former employer’s customers.  Unlike Home Paramount, this case addresses the fact that the post-employment non-competition covenants were provided as a condition precedent to the employer’s purchasing the employee’s business.  We will keep you posted on the decisions in these cases and their impact on non-competition agreements in Virginia.

Value of Employer Provided Cell Phone Not Income to Employee

IRS has today issued guidance (IRS Notice 2011-72) regarding an employer's provision of a cell phone to an employee. Earlier law changes ended any obligation to provide substantiation for the use of a cell phone for business purposes. But, a question remained whether an employee nonetheless had income from the provision of a cell phone. The guidance states that a cell phone provided for noncompensatory reasons is not taxable to an employee. The IRS gives these examples of noncompensatory reasons: the employee needs a cell phone at all times for work-related emergencies; the employer requires that an employee be available to speak with a client at all times when away from the office; and the employee's need to speak to clients in other time zones from locations out of the office. The IRS points out that the provision of a cell phone to enhance employee morale and goodwill is not a noncompensatory reason. The charges for use of a qualified cell phone, as well as the value for limited personal usage, will be excluded from an employee's income.

Back to Basics: Contract Repudiation as a Defense to Breach

A recent opinion by the Virginia Supreme Court reminds us of the basic – but important – principle of contract law that repudiation can be a defense to breach of contract.

Continue Reading

Accepting a Contingent Offer of Employment From An Employer's Competitor Could Constitute a Breach of Fiduciary Duty in D.C.

A recent court decision has shed some light on the fiduciary duty that D.C. employees owe to their employer. In National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Veolia Transportation Services, Inc. (D.D.C. May 9, 2011), the federal district court for the District of Columbia evaluated the nature of the fiduciary duty that Amtrak employees owed to their employer while Amtrak prepared its bid for a government contract. The court examined various factual scenarios in which an employee engages in direct and indirect competition with its employer, and emphasized that a breach of the employee’s fiduciary duty is extremely fact-specific and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For more information on this case, click here.

Word Placement Makes $1 Million Difference in Contract Dispute

A recent decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals underscores the importance of paying careful attention to detail when drafting a contract.  In Weichert Co. of Maryland, Inc. v. Dorothy Crago Faust (Md. Apr. 27, 2011), a real estate agency, Weichert, sued its former vice president, Faust, alleging that she had violated the terms of her employment agreement by (1) breaching her duty of loyalty, and (2) breaching a non-solicitation clause included in the contract.  Specifically, Weichert claimed that Faust, after leaving the company, recruited several Weichert employees to work at her new company.  A jury found that Faust had indeed breached her duty of loyalty to Weichert, but found that there was no breach of the non-solicitation clause.  Even though the real estate agency prevailed on one of the two claims, the court ordered Weichert to pay Faust’s attorney fees, which totaled nearly one million dollars.  What happened?

Continue Reading

Employers: Stay Away from Employee Tip Pools If You Want to Take Advantage of the FLSA Tip Credit

Jason Zink, owner of taverns in Baltimore, would often bartend alongside his employees.  He would receive tips, add those tips to a collective tip pool, and then share in that tip pool when it was divided among his employee bartenders.  In a question of first impression within the Fourth Circuit, Judge Richard Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled this month that Zink, as an employer, could not receive a “tip credit” while participating in the tip pool without violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law.

Continue Reading