Blog Archives - Page 40 of 52

Employment Development Department Appeals

April 23, 2026August 1, 2014 by Brotman Law

It is important to note that according to Unemployment Insurance Code (“UIC”) Section 1735, an officer, owner or any person in charge of affairs of any corporation, LLC or LLP, is personally liable for the amount of the contributions, withholdings, penalties, and interest unpaid by business entity, if business entity willfully fails to pay the amount. Assessments become delinquent if not paid before they become final, and subject to a penalty of 10%. UIC Section 1135. Sections 1222 and 1224 provide that assessments become final (and delinquent) after 30 days from an assessment date, or if taxpayer petitions or appeals assessment, within 30 days of an Administrative Law Judge or Appeals Board decision date. Therefore, filing an appeal generally extends time to pay tax.

Key Takeaways

Employment tax assessment imposed by EDD under UIC is appealed before Administrative Law Judge. Employer-taxpayer needs to file a petition for review or reassessment within 30 days of service of a notice of assessment or denial of claim for refund.
In appeal petition employer who appeals must put name of the petitioner (person or business entity), employer EDD account number, the mailing address of the employer.
Prior to hearing before administrative law judge taxpayer can and probably should request a copy of all documents in the audit file. EDD will charge small amount for copying file. Then taxpayer can review EDD’s answer to his or her petition.

Conclusions about CRA and Dodd-Frank

April 23, 2026January 15, 2014 by Brotman Law

The success or failure of the Dodd-Frank Act will be ultimately judged by history and the impact that it has with combatting some of the problems that have existed with credit rating agencies both before and after the financial crisis of 2008. Already critics have been quick to condemn the act for the perceived over burden that it places on the credit rating agencies or for what others feel is too little regulation that does too little to prevent the evils of the past four decades. Through the research and analysis involved with paper, however, we have come to several conclusions about how the law can be made more effective or where potential shortcomings exist despite its overall intent to promote fairer dealing and more transparency among the agencies.

Key Takeaways

Topic: Conclusions about CRA and Dodd-Frank
The success or failure of the Dodd-Frank Act will be ultimately judged by history and the impact that it has with combatting some of the problems that have existed with credit r….
Already critics have been quick to condemn the act for the perceived over burden that it places on the credit rating agencies or for what others feel is too little regulation th….

Consequences for Non-Compliance of Dodd-Frank

April 23, 2026January 15, 2014 by Brotman Law

Consequences for Non-Compliance of the Law

Rules for Credit Rating Agencies

April 23, 2026January 15, 2014 by Brotman Law

Additional Rules for Credit Rating Agencies Under the Dodd-Frank Act

Key Takeaways

Topic: Rules for Credit Rating Agencies
Additional Rules for Credit Rating Agencies Under the Dodd-Frank Act The Dodd-Frank Act also has some new rules for the credit rating agencies themselves with the goal of having….
First, the Act places more stringent requirements on the company’s board of directors and institutes are requirement for an independent board.

Conflicts of Interest and Credit Rating Agencies

April 23, 2026January 15, 2014 by Brotman Law

Effects of the Dodd-Frank Act on Conflicts of Interest

Key Takeaways

If any employee of an issuer, underwriter, or sponsor of a security…had previously been employed by the NRSRO and participated in determining the credit rating of that entity during the one year pe…
By implementing this look-back requirement, the bill seeks to eliminate conflicts of interests by closing the ‘revolving door’ that exists between NRSROs and the agencies which they provide ratings…
{{cta(‘169c92b5-8355-4ceb-80f4-acb2fe9313da’)}}

In addition to administering rating and disclosure rules, The Dodd-Frank Act also imposes several requirements on NRSROs to establish internal control systems that prevents conflicts of interest. The bill’s drafters made it a priority to put certain guidelines in place in order to mitigate the temptation toward favoritism within the rating agencies. Without the conflicts, or with the proper steps to mitigate them, the rationale is that more certainty would exist about the objectivity of the ratings.

Dodd-Frank and Credit Rating Agencies

April 23, 2026January 15, 2014 by Brotman Law

Addressing Credit Rating Agencies Through Enactment of Dodd-Frank

Key Takeaways

{{cta(‘169c92b5-8355-4ceb-80f4-acb2fe9313da’)}}
[1] “BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT”.
[2] “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Credit Rating Agency Provisions.” http://www.orrick.com/fileupload/2822.htm .

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) was passed and signed into on July 21, 2010. A small part of this act addressed credit rating agencies and their past practices. The act intends to (1) remove references in statutes and regulations to Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (“NRSROs”), (2) create a new office of credit ratings, (3) to expand conditions that deal with conflicts of interest that may exist both inside the credit rating agencies and with the issuers and underwriters that they deal with, (4) promote rules for better internal governance and control, (5) define new requirements for the board of directors, and (6) institute harsher consequences for non-compliance with the law.^{^[1]}

Issues Affecting Credit Rating Agencies

April 23, 2026January 15, 2014 by Brotman Law

Competency, Trustworthiness of Ratings, and Conflicts of Interest

Key Takeaways

Competency, Trustworthiness of Ratings, and Conflicts of Interest Credit rating agencies have not been held accountable for their ratings.
Providing these favorable ratings often required the agencies to jeopardize the integrity of these ratings by altering the methodology in which they are calculated.

Credit rating agencies have not been held accountable for their ratings. Meaning, an inaccurate rating brings no repercussion to these agencies. If one is not held accountable for their actions, logically there is less incentive to perform well or even at a high standard.

These agencies knew their services were needed under government recommendation yet they were not held to a standard which required the utmost diligence and scrutiny to measure the accuracy of their ratings (15 Chap. L. Rev. 138). This type of attitude towards the agencies allowed the agencies to become comfortable with their existing practices and did not encourage any improvements in the methods these agencies used to rate the instruments.

Credit Rating Agencies – Part One

April 23, 2026January 15, 2014 by Brotman Law

What is a Credit Rating Agency and What Task Does it Perform?

Key Takeaways

The courts viewed the ratings merely as opinions offered by these agencies based on the information available and the assumptions the agencies put in place while rating these instruments.
{{cta(‘169c92b5-8355-4ceb-80f4-acb2fe9313da’)}}

Since 1931, the United States government has encouraged or even required certain types of investors to use financial instruments or securities that have been rated high by rating agencies (15 Chap. L. Rev. 139). These agencies use available financial data, economic conditions, and various other factors to determine the strength of a particular firm, security, or instrument offered on the market. Logically, no rational investor would choose to use a financial instrument that possessed primarily bad qualities. The market should realize these bad qualities and the price of this instrument should decrease accordingly.

The credit rating agencies provide ratings which investors are advised or even required to rely on when investing in certain financial instruments. These ratings are intended to provide the investor with an accurate picture toward the quality of the financial instrument without having to do the tedious homework required to determine if credit rating given by an agency is in fact an accurate rating. Under this logic, in comparison to the average individual investor, shouldn’t a credit rating agency be more qualified and have more information to provide the most accurate credit ratings available?

Innocent Spouse Relief & Actual Knowledge

April 23, 2026January 15, 2014 by Brotman Law

Innocent Spouse Relief

This is the most commonly known form of relief, which can absolves a taxpayer from liability if their spouse or former spouse either did not report income, made an error in the calculation of income, or misapplied any deductions or credits that they were not entitled to.[1] Innocent Spouse Relief relieves a person of any tax, interest, and penalties associated with the account based on the preceding errors. However, the taxpayers are still held jointly and severally liable for any amounts that are not granted innocent spouse relief. The following requirements must be met in order for innocent spouse relief to be granted.

Key Takeaways

2. There is an understated tax on your return, i.e. the IRS determines that your total tax should be more than the amount that was actually shown on your return.
4. You can show that when you signed the joint return you did not know, and had no reason to know, that the understated tax existed (or the extent to which the understated tax existed (Absence of “Actual Knowledge” or “Reason to Know”).
5. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it would be unfair to hold you liable for the understated tax. (“Unfairness”).

Theory of IRS Innocent Spouse Relief

April 23, 2026January 15, 2014 by Brotman Law

Because of certain benefits that filing jointly allows, many married taxpayers elect to file joint returns. However, filing a joint return carries the added burden of both parties being liable for the tax due. In addition, under the Internal Revenue Code, married taxpayers who file jointly are each liable for any additions to the tax, penalties, or interest associated with the account.[1] This is a concept in the law known as joint and several liability, meaning that the spouses are responsible for any tax liabilities together (jointly) but can be held responsible for them as individuals (severally).

Key Takeaways

Because of certain benefits that filing jointly allows, many married taxpayers elect to file joint returns. However, filing a joint return carries the added burden of both parties being liable for the tax due.
From a practical standpoint, the IRS does not have the resources to make the determination on its own of who is an innocent spouse.
Courts have supported the IRS policy of targeting either spouse for a balance that is due. Spouses, even if both agree, may not insist that the IRS first try to collect from one spouse before going after the assets of the other.