- RSS Channel Showcase 8192649
- RSS Channel Showcase 6024687
- RSS Channel Showcase 7524825
- RSS Channel Showcase 5073437
Articles on this Page
- 04/25/17--11:02: _IRS Ruling Limits E...
- 04/25/17--11:04: _A Step Toward Prote...
- 04/26/17--11:02: _Streaming of Appell...
- 04/26/17--11:03: _Mootness Protection...
- 04/26/17--11:04: _A Two-Step Climate ...
- 04/26/17--11:04: _Oral Settlements in...
- 04/25/17--11:02: IRS Ruling Limits Exclusion to COD Income
- 04/26/17--11:02: Streaming of Appellate Arguments at the First Department
- 04/26/17--11:04: A Two-Step Climate Plan for Trump to Address U.S. Obligations
- 04/26/17--11:04: Oral Settlements in Open Court Enforceable Without Follow-On Writing
In their Taxation column, Ezra Dyckman and Daniel Stahl write: While cancellation of indebtedness generally results in ordinary income for the debtor (COD income), the Internal Revenue Code provides for several exceptions under which COD income can be excluded. Of particular importance for owners of real estate is Section 108(c), under which a taxpayer can elect to exclude COD income that results from the discharge of "qualified real property business indebtedness" under certain circumstances. The IRS recently interpreted one of the requirements for debt to constitute QRPBI in a manner that will cause debt secured by condominium units held for sale to fail to qualify.
In their Second Circuit Review, Martin Flumenbaum and Brad S. Karp discuss a recent decision that indicates the court's willingness to expand Title VII to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, or at least to view gender stereotyping more broadly, an issue the Supreme Court is likely to take up soon.
David B. Saxe and Danielle C. Lesser write: The First Department's reluctance to provide the level of transparency other state appellate courts and federal courts in New York provide sets it apart and, given its commercial prominence in resolving high profile disputes, its refusal to provide live streaming is an unfortunate loss for the legal community.
In her Distress Mergers and Acquisitions column, Corinne Ball writes: The importance of finality of bankruptcy court orders has been confirmed once again. Statutory mootness protecting §363 sales may not prevent or preclude an appeal or subsequent lawsuit, but the good faith purchaser and the transfer nevertheless continue to be insulated from appellate relief or collateral attack. The extent of that protection to other parties is unclear.
International Environmental Law columnist Stephen L. Kass reviews the legal and "moral" obligations of the United States under the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement and summarizes the multiple reasons why the United States must not simply walk away from those obligations. It then proposes a two-part climate plan that the Trump administration could undertake to meet those commitments without relying on the Obama Clean Power Plan that Trump pledged to rescind and without asking for continuing Congressional appropriations to help developing countries adapt to climate change.
In his Settlement and Compromise column, Thomas E.L. Dewey writes: An agreement to settle a case is generally not binding until it is put into writing and either signed or entered as a court order. But as a recent case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York illustrates, there is an important exception: Agreements made between counsel in open court are enforceable, even if one party changes her mind before an anticipated written agreement is complete.