Separate Spousal Tax Liability for Missouri Income Taxes

If a married couple files a joint federal income tax return, both spouses are jointly and severally liable for the full amount of federal income tax liability for that tax year. Joint and several liability means the Internal Revenue Service can collect the full amount of income tax from either or both spouses, regardless of whether the income tax liability is attributable to the separate income of only one spouse.  A divorce does not prevent the IRS from collecting the entire unpaid income tax liability from either of the spouses.  Under certain circumstances, a spouse may obtain relief from joint and several tax liability by timely filing Form 8857 and proving a claim for innocent spouse relief, separate liability or equitable relief.

By contrast, a married taxpayer who files a combined Missouri income tax return is liable only for the amount of Missouri income tax liability attributable to his or her own income. A taxpayer’s  separate income includes his or her earned income such as wages, income from his or her own separately owned property, and his or her portion of income from jointly owned property, such as interest from a jointly owned financial account.

Missouri law requires a married couple who files a joint federal income tax return to file a combined Missouri income return.  The income of each spouse is reported separately on the combined return. The Missouri tax due on each spouse’s income is separately determined and then added together and reported on the return.

However, in assessing unpaid income tax liability, the Missouri Department of Revenue does not track which spouse’s income gave rise to the liability. Instead, in practice the Missouri Department of Revenue assesses the entire income tax liability against each spouse, even if the tax liability is only attributable to the income of one spouse. Continue reading »

No Vacancy – When Bed & Breakfasts Run Afoul of Condominium Communities

The popularity of vacationing or traveling via bed and breakfast lodging, or, as more popularly known, “BnB,” is rapidly on the rise. The concept allows an owner with a vacant house, condominium, apartment, or even a single room, to create investment property by listing the space on a website for rent to vacation and business travelers, often for very short stays and possibly as short as a single night. Property owners can make a little extra money, and travelers can often find better accommodations at lower prices. Add in the ease of use by listing your space on the internet – airbnb.com and vrbo.com are among the most popular sites – and this is a quickly expanding industry.

Frequently, the phenomenon overlooks the legal ramifications of being a short-term landlord, or essentially acting as a hotel or lodge. Some local governments are addressing the issue and requiring that property owners apply for permitting, pay taxes, or maintain compliance with other local rules relating to lodging or short-term leasing. However, the Airbnb concept also runs afoul of various considerations applicable to community associations, specifically condominiums and townhomes. Continue reading »

New AML Rules for Investment Advisors?

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, is proposing new anti-money laundering rules for investment advisors. Continue reading »

Effect of 2015 SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Decision on Employment Practices

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Obergefell v. Hodges that there is a constitutional right to marry and that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses require states to allow same-sex marriages and to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other states.

The Obergefell decision is not an employment decision. However, the Equal Protection language in the opinion will require companies to make some changes to their employment practices, training, manuals, forms, beneficiary designations, and other personnel policies going forward.

Obergefell followed the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor which held that the federal government’s interpretation of “marriage” and “spouse” must apply to both opposite sex and same-sex unions. Windsor made employee benefits like the Family Medical and Leave Act (“FMLA”), COBRA, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) available to all same-sex spouses of federal employees.

What Does Obergefell Mean To Employers? Continue reading »

Exempt Employees, Overtime, and the Proposed DOL Rule for 2016

The labor landscape has changed and it will continue to change. The average worker has become increasingly responsible for the more traditional aspects of the employment relationship including health insurance, pension, and job security. There also has been a substantial increase in the numbers of part-time workers, workers/employees classified as exempt from overtime premium pay, and workers misclassified as independent contractors. Commentary and theory abounds as to the reason for the loss of full-time jobs, much less middle class jobs, including outsourcing, computers/software, Affordable Care Act, robots, automation, high taxes, globalization, etc.

Suffice it to say, a legal backlash is building against this new terrain. Proposed restrictive legislation, administrative rule-making, and recent court cases show evidence of a concerted attempt to re-create or retrieve the job security and wages and benefits of days gone by.

Most recently, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”), in a long-awaited announcement on June 30, 2015, proposed a new rule that will decrease the ability of companies to classify their employees as exempt from premium overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

Backdrop – Increase in Part-time Workers

This legal backlash is due, in part, to other recent and dramatic changes in the number of part-time workers:

• Since 2007, the number of “involuntary” part-time workers has doubled.
• Employers are increasingly using software tools such as the use of just-in-time scheduling software. Estimates are that 17 percent of the work force is now employed by companies that use just-in-time scheduling software. Employees accordingly work fluctuating work weeks with uncertain schedules.
• Another contributing factor is business practices, such as the use of “call in shifts” where the employer does not confirm need for services until two hours before start time.

In response, a host of bills are being introduced in many states and municipalities to legislate predictable scheduling.

Backdrop – Misclassification

Likewise, misclassification of workers has also increased. Companies are attempting to shift work from employees to independent contractors, especially in the construction, transportation, and cab industries using a variety of strategies. Continue reading »

OSHA Finalizes Rules Requiring Health Care Employers to Report Injuries

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) implemented rules on January 1, 2015 which place additional requirements on employers under OSHA jurisdiction (and with greater than 10 employees) to report occupational injuries and illnesses. This new data is going to be made public, which would allow individuals, companies, or labor unions to view injury reports submitted by health care providers.

Currently, employers in Missouri are required to report work injuries to the state if an employee sustains an injury at work requiring medical treatment beyond immediate first aid. The information is not made public, but is rather provided only to the state as a reporting requirement. In fact, workers’ compensation trials or hearing are not generally open to the public. Express consent is usually required of the parties or their attorneys for a member of the general public to watch these court proceedings.

Under the current OSHA regulations, fatalities must be reported within eight hours. The regulations add additional requirements and require all employers to report work-related in-patient hospitalizations, as well as amputations or incidents where someone loses an eye, within 24 hours. Continue reading »

No-Fly Zones: Using Drones for Commercial Purposes

Drones are all the rage. Actually, drones are causing quite a rage as well.

Last weekend’s Super Bowl in Arizona was a “no drone zone,” where flying drone aircraft for purposes of getting a better view of the action was prohibited. In fact, all NFL games are no-fly zones for drones, as are nearly all professional sporting events and other outdoor stadium events where more than 30,000 people are present.

Drones are threatening to interfere with air travel near airports, and one crashed on the White House lawn recently. The recent explosion of drone usage by the public has even caused one major drone manufacturer to begin a software update for its vehicles that will prohibit them from entering air space in Washington, D.C., or near airports.

Unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV” or drone) technology is one emerging area where the speed of technology has eclipsed the speed of the law. If you were lucky enough to receive a drone as a gift during the holidays and want to use it for personal use, the good news is that the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) is not stopping you from doing so, as long as you do so in a reasonable manner and do not infringe on others’ rights.

However, commercial use of drone technology is a different story. Continue reading »

Electronic Privacy Amendment May Have Broad Implications for Use of Digital Information

This summer, Missouri voters approved an amendment to the Missouri Constitution protecting electronic data from searches and seizure by law enforcement officers.

Article I, Section 15 of the Missouri Constitution closely resembles the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution: both provide that the people shall be “secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures,” and that law enforcement must demonstrate probable cause before obtaining a search warrant. The recent amendment modifies Section 15 so that it now explicitly protects “electronic communications and data” and requires police to “describe the data or communication to be accessed as nearly as may be” when applying for a warrant.

Surprisingly, the amendment might have ripple effects far removed from searches conducted by law enforcement. Continue reading »

Is Your Property Insured Against a Riot?

The current unrest facing the St. Louis metropolitan region carries with it the elevated risk of damage and/or destruction of both real and personal property. While everyone intends and hopes their insurance policies cover all eventualities that may arise, the truth of the matter is that not all eventualities are covered by insurance.

Unfortunately, it is generally only after something truly unexpected happens that policies are reviewed and tested for actual coverage. At that moment, it may be too late to both prepare for the event and/or adjust coverage.

As a result, it may be wise now to pull out your current auto, homeowners, renters, commercial or other similar policies to review each policy’s specific language.

One of the coverage limitations to consider are so-called “force majeure” clauses. “Force majeure” is a contractual term that relieves parties from performing their contractual obligations when certain circumstances beyond their control arise, often making their performance under the contract impractical or impossible. Examples of these circumstances can include earthquakes, war, strikes, epidemics, acts of God, and riots. Continue reading »

Another State Rules That Patients Can Sue For Negligence for Violating HIPAA Regulations

The Connecticut Supreme Court has now joined Missouri, West Virginia and North Carolina in rulings connecting HIPAA with negligence lawsuits by patients.

In a case of first impression in Connecticut, the state’s Supreme Court ruled that a patient can sue a medical office for HIPAA negligence if it violates the patient’s privacy when improperly releasing the medical records to a third party. There is no dispute that HIPAA does not create a private cause of action. Increasingly, however, HIPAA can provide the standard of care for a medical office in how it releases confidential medical records and can be found negligent if it releases such medical records contrary to the requirements of the HIPAA regulations. Continue reading »