We Almost Saw Her Jump

Yesterday, Wife and I were exploring apartment buildings in the Financial District, searching for our new home. When we returned home, we saw the breaking news: a supermodel jumped to her death from her 9th floor apartment. Just about an hour before in the incident, Wife and I walked on the sidewalk underneath her apartment.

According to the associated press:

A European Vogue cover model fell to her death from her Manhattan apartment building Saturday in an apparent suicide, published reports said.

Ruslana Korshunova, 20, died around 2:30 p.m. in a fall from a building on Water Street, in Manhattan's Financial District, The New York Post, the Daily News and Newsday reported. The newspapers cited unnamed officials and police.

Police said the fall was under investigation. Korushnova's New York agency and a spokeswoman for medical examiners did not immediately return telephone messages.

Originally from the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, the almond-eyed, flowing-haired Korshunova appeared in advertisements and on runways for such designers as Marc Jacobs, Nina Ricci and DKNY. British Vogue hailed her as "a face to be excited about" in 2005.

"She looked like something out of a fairytale!" Jones told the magazine. "We had to find her and we searched high and low until we did!"

HERE is the story.

Sibling Rivalry

This is absolutely hilarious. This video has two short clips, it is the second that is worth watching.

Judges Hate Sudoku

Possibly the law has irreparably warped my already quirky sense of humor, but I thought this was hilarious:

An Australian judge has aborted a drug trial after discovering that some of the jurors were playing the puzzle game Sudoku while evidence was being given. ...

The judge was alerted after it was observed the jurors were writing vertically, rather than horizontally. It had been assumed they were taking notes.

The jury foreperson admitted to the judge that four to five jurors were playing puzzle games for up to half the time the trial had been going.

You can read the full story HERE.

Shakespeare in Central Park

This past Friday night, Wife and I journeyed out to Central Park to enjoy this one of this summer’s performances of Shakespeare in the Park. This month, the Public Theater is presenting the timeless classic “Hamlet.” Last summer, Wife and I enjoyed “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” (as long-time readers of our blog may remember). We hoped to attend this summer’s performances as well, but when we learned that Sam Waterston would play one of the leads, our attendance became mandatory (we both love the classic Law & Orders).

For those not familiar with the concept, every summer the Public Theater presents Shakespeare in the Park. Performances run six days a week for about a month, and each of these shows is free to anyone who is lucky enough to get a ticket (last year Wife waited in line for several hours to get tickets, but this year, we simply signed up for an online drawing).

The show was great. Not only is the show a classic, but the actors were all tremendous, particularly Michael Stuhlbarg in the title role. The set was surprisingly good. In my shallowness, my favorite aspect of the show was sitting twenty feet from Sam Waterston appearing as Polonius opposite Lauren Ambrose as Ophelia with Andre Braugher as Claudius and Margaret Colin as Gertrude.

Here is a video from last year to help you experience a little bit of the Shakespeare in the Park culture.

Scams in New York City

Wife and I continue our apartment hunt (ok, she continues the apartment hunt while I make inappropriate comments and suggestions). Every time we find a good deal here in Manhattan, we receive this response, which I posted below. See you if can spot the scam; I'll explain after the email (background: $1,750 is a very good deal for this apartment - but we have gotten this same type of response for deals that are just slightly better than average).

Hello WIFE,

First of all I would like to thank you for your reply to my apartment listing.

Now I would like to clear up some details. LOCATION: Midtown-West, Manhattan, 57th, 8th Ave.

Located in Columbus Circle, this apartment features newly renovated one bedroom, livingroom, kitchen, bath, in the heart of village directions, close to everyday amenities like video rental, pharmacy, and takeout, ideal for professional singles or couple.

The apartment is available for rent starting now for $ 1,750.00/month (parking spot and laundry facilities included).

The lease can be for a minimum 3 months. I’m the full right owner, I’m no broker or something else… The other utilities aren’t included in this price (rent/month), utilities are about $60.00-$80.00/month. Everything in this apartment is functional because is new. If you need to do some repairs in the apt(the worst case that could happen), i will refund the reparations cost, or i will deduct those from monthly payment. I moved with my job in England/ Liverpool, and I need money to pay the rent here; that is the reason I want to rent the apartment for this price, and also to find a trustworthy person for my apartment. I can rent you the apt for max. 3 years because I signed a working contract here for this period. Unfortunately I am the only person who own the keys, no one else have access in the apartment because it's a private property, but i am sure that we will find a compromise.

My conditions are: you must have two months rent in advance at the beginning of your staying and you will begin paying the rent normally from the 3rd month.
Your background credit must be clean.

Thank you for your interest and wait news from you.

Best Regards!
Karen LAST NAME,

BTW: This is a cat and dog-friendly building (no weight limit).

The scam is simply this: the "landlord" has always recently moved abroad for work (for some reason almost always to England) and wants to immediately rent their apartment. Because of their rush, they offer a great price. However, since they are abroad, they cannot show the apartment. But don't worry. You can look outside the building and see that it is a great building. If you want to see pictures, they can even email you some pictures of the inside. Since they are abroad, they cannot give you the keys either. Thus, all you need to do is wire them thousands of dollars (i.e., first two months rent, usually a security deposit as well), and then they will immediately overnight you the keys to move in. Let's take a vote: do you really think that an anonymous person in cyberspace is really going to mail you keys to an apartment you've never seen after you wire them several thousand dollars?

We have received more of these emails than we can count. I wonder how many people really fall for this scam.

Yeah, I'm Studying for the Bar

Much to my annoyance, Law School has invited the masses to study in our library for the July Bar Exam. Like most law schools, my school expects patrons to act responsibly in the library, maintaining common courtesies such as keeping quiet, refraining from talking on cell phones, and not bringing food into the library. Unfortunately, these intruders have no respect for either our library or those of us trying to study for the Bar.

Recently, an obnoxious jerk had a long cell phone conversation as he munched on his bag of Doritos while sitting at the table next to me. The essence of the conversation was that he was trying to pick up a woman with the bait that he is a great catch because he studies for the Bar Exam at Law School library, despite the fact that he actually graduated from the worst law school in the state. As I ground my teeth waiting for this fellow to get off his phone, I did what any reasonable person studying for the Bar Exam would do: I began to think up a hypothetical Bar Exam question.

For your contemplation, here’s the sample question:

Dwight, a Newark, New Jersey, domiciliary, sat in the at the law school in Manhattan studying when Johnny, who was sitting next to him, decided to spend his afternoon watching YouTube videos on his computer with the volume turned up at full blast while talking on his cell phone. Enraged, Dwight grabbed Johnny’s cell phone and threw it at Johnny’s head as he yelled, “Take this you meanie-head, I hope this causes you lots of pain, but certainly no permanent bodily injury.” In his furry, Dwight completely missed Johnny, and the cell phone flew across the room, striking Nick on the back of the head. Surprised, Nick flew out of his seat with the exclamation, “Golly, what was that? Is the sky falling?” However, at that moment, Lucy was walking back to her seat after making a coffee run at SunDollars. Food and drink are not allowed in the library, but when Lucy entered the library, the librarian noticed the cup in her hand but decided to ignore the infraction. When Nick jumped out of his seat, he accidentally bumped Lucy, who then stumbled backwards and spilled her coffee on a desk where Paula was typing on her laptop computer. The only reason that Lucy made the coffee run was because Paula offered to buy Lucy an ice latte if Lucy would bring her a quadruple iced espresso with nine sugars. To pay for the drinks, Paula gave Lucy a forged check for $45 that she stole from her mother's checkbook, which her mother kept hidden in her sock drawer. Though Paula forged her mother's signature well, she wrote in the subject line of the check, "You dopes. I stole this check and it is a forgery. Suckers." Lucy endorsed the check with a crayon and gave it to her friend Jim as a gift. Jim used the check to buy a stolen television from Kirk. Kirk cashed the check at "Quick and Easy Cash Checking Company." Lucy forgot Paula's order and brought her hot black coffee instead. The hot black coffee spilled on Paula’s arm, causing minor, but painful burns and also staining her lucky sweater that she had worn to every test since the second grade. Instead moving her coffee or cleaning up the coffee, Paula lept up and began to yell at Lucy, “You putz! Why don’t you watch where you are going? My arm hurts and my sweater is ruined. I can never pass the bar exam without my lucky sweater.” The coffee spread across the table, onto the computer cord, and black smoke began to immediately billow from the machine. Without hesitation, Nick grabbed the computer’s power with the intention of unplugging it, but the moment he touched the cord, he felt a strong electronic shock run through his body, causing him to fall to the floor in an epileptic seizure. As his convulsions subsided, Nick cried out, “I know this is the end for me. Tell my girlfriend, Jill, I love her. I want her to have all my earthly possessions when I die. I don’t care about June, my wife, anymore or that stupid will that we both signed yesterday our attorney’s office which left all of my stuff to her. And I can’t go to my grave with my deep dark secret: I saw Dwight steal a treatise on Constitutional law from the bookstore last week. After he got away with it, I stole a securities regulation treatise, but I felt guilty so I brought it back the next day.” At that very moment, Officer Joe was walking through the library in time to see the smoke and hear the confession. Officer Joe was only a university security guard and was not authorized to carry weapons of any kind. Officer Joe, believing this was his big chance to show what he was made of, announced, “Dwight, Nick, you’re under arrest. Do you have anything to say for yourselves?” Dwight said, “Yeah, I did it. Arrest me.” Nick, while still floundering on the ground, retorted, “You’ll never take me alive.” Officer Joe pulled out an illegal taser gun and shocked Nick the legs. Nick suddenly died. The official autopsy report concludes that Nick had a rare allergy to electricity. The electric shock he was received would definitely have killed him within twenty minutes, but the shock by Officer Joe accelerated his death. Immediately, the Dean of the school arrived and said, “This is terrible, but we are responsible for nothing. Look, there is a sign by the door saying that our school bears no responsibility for anything that occurs in the library whether by negligence, malice, or even intentional actions.” Despite her best efforts, Paula can no longer concentrate without her lucky sweater, so she failed the Bar exam. She had an offer of employment from Law Firm, which Partner orally promised would not be revoked, even if she failed the Bar; however Paula received the lowest grade in the state on the exam, so Law Firm did revoke her offer telling her, “You must be the stupidest person this side of the Mississippi.” Since Paula had no job, she stayed home all day and blasted Techno music all day in her apartment, which is located in Long Island City. Without warning or notice, her landlord evicted her because of the noise. Her landlord points to the following clause in the lease: “Landlord is all wise and may do whatever he wants without any complaints from any tenant, nor any legal liability whatsoever. He may simply never, ever, ever be sued.” Paula admits she signed the lease, but claims she never read it. Paula’s father is so enraged to learn that his daughter never read the lease that he tells her, “I oughta slap you silly.”

Part 1: What criminal charges could the city prosecutor bring against Dwight, Johnny, Paula, Nick, Jill, Jim, Kirk, Lucy, Officer Joe, Paula's father, or the law school? What defenses could each assert?

Part 2: What civil suits can Nick’s estate, heirs, or devisees bring? Could anyone get rich because Nick felt lots of pain and suffering before he died? What federal and state taxes are owed for a recover for pain and suffering?

Part 3: Discuss any causes of action that Paula could bring in tort based upon these facts. What defenses may be raised. What remedies, in law or equity, might a court order?

Part 4: What civil or criminal liability does law school librarian potentially face? What if the librarian was drinking coffee himself when Lucy brought the drinks into the library?

Part 5: If Paula sued her former landlord for wrongful eviction, what result? What is the normal notice requirement required before eviction? What if the apartment building only had two units? What if it had twenty units? What if the landlord is certifiably insane?

Part 6: May Paula sue to force Law Firm to let her start work despite failing the Bar? What if the Law Firm only has seven other lawyers and all of them are men who passed the bar on the first time? What if all the lawyers at the firm were arrogant and annoying and Paula really didn't want to work there anyway?

Part 7: Assuming that Dwight is charged with a crime, are the incriminating statements made by either Dwight or Nick admissible in a criminal trial against him? Would the statements be admissible in a civil trial against them? Explain the rule of hearsay and all 38 exceptions.

Part 8: Assuming June attempts to enter Nick’s will into probate. Jill contacts you and wants your professional opinion on her claim that she should inherit from Nick. What do you tell her? What if Nick and June had three children together?

Part 9: Is the law school dean correct in his assertion that law school bears no liability for anything that occurs in the library because of the sign? If the sign did not exist, what would the law school be liable for?

Part 10: Assume SunDollars served coffee that was three degrees hotter than industry standards. What is their potential liability on these facts? What if Lucy explicitly asked for the coffee to be three degrees hotter than industry standards?

Part 11: What state courts have personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and venue over the potential causes of action? Same question regarding federal courts. Make sure you include correct citations, pinpointing all statutory sources down to the correct sub-paragraph.

Part 12: May Child Protective Services removed Paula’s eleven year old brother from her father’s home because of his actions? What if Paula's father was paraplegic and was unable to his his hands or feet?

Part 13: If Paula's mother's bank pays the check, but Paula's mother catches the forgery and reports it to the bank three months later, what result? Who will be ultimately liable for the $45? Was this a negotiable instrument? If so, who was a holder in Due Course? What warranties are applicable? What if Paula added smiley faces to the front of the check in pink crayon?

Part 14: Discuss an other legal issue or remedy that was raised by the facts that you have not yet thoughtfully discussed.

Losing His Cool at Work

Office Worker Goes Absolutely Insane

Absolutely Hilarious

Proof that judges have a sense of humor.

It is official! Husband graduated from Law School. After an intense and difficult year, Husband has graduated from the number one program in the world for his field. This past year has gone by incredibly fast, and thanks to Husband’s hard work, we get to call NYC home indefinitely.

The graduation actually occurred a couple weeks ago. Now, I have been to a few graduations in my lifetime, but this was definitely the most impressive and monumental. Of all of Husband's graduations this was definitely the most elegant, organized, and prestigious. The graduation took place at a very famous venue in NYC. As I sat there listening to the entertaining keynote speaker (yes, I said entertaining), I realized that I was sitting in an auditorium filled with some of the most brilliant legal minds in the world. I sat next to a wife of one of Husband’s classmates. She and I were both in awe to as we sat back and talked about how remarkable this past year has been. Husband has worked incredibly hard this past year studying all there is to know about tax, taking the hardest classes and the hardest professors that Law School has to offer.

I believe that husband accepting this offer to attend Law School for this year was the wisest and most exciting decisions he ever made (or course, second only to his decision to marry me!). It was such a proud moment to watch Husband walk across the stage and shake the dean’s hand. Husband is constantly amazing me with his determination, dedication, and intelligence. He truly embodies the phrase; “You can do anything if you put your mind to it.”

With school and graduation now behind us, the only thing left is that measly little quiz, the Bar Exam. I am positive that while the next two months will be difficult and stressful, he will continue to succeed and survive the exam.

In short, congratulations, Husband, I love you.

That Nathan Lane Fellow Can Really Act

After a pause our social lives, Wife and I went out to see a Broadway show last night. Just as I finished my last exam, Wife saw that we could get tickets for the show November on our discount website. Because of the phenomenal cast, Wife has wanted to see that show for a while now, so she jumped on the opportunity to get tickets. In my semi-conscious state, I was in no position to do anything other than nod and say, “Whatever you want dear” (she's training me quite well).

November is a political comedy about an unpopular U.S. President running for re-election after his first term. Given our interest in politics, Wife figured that this show would be right up our alley.

Infinitely talented Nathan Lane stars in the play, along with Laurie Metcalf (probably best known for playing the sister on Rosanne) and Dylan Baker (to say nothing of his television and Broadway performances, he has had roles in Across the Universe; The Hunting Party; Fido; Spider-Man 2 and 3; Hide & Seek; Head of State; Road to Perdition; Changing Lanes; Along Came a Spider; Thirteen Days; Happiness; Disclosure; Delirious; Planes, Trains & Automobiles and The Long Walk Home. Along with starring roles in television movies Drive; The Book of Daniel; The Laramie Project; The Pitts; Feds; and Murder One.

Without a doubt, the play has a phenomenal cast. While the entire cast was great, Nathan Lane did a particularly outstanding job with his role. Several times, I just sat back astonished at his talent and comedic timing.

The breathtaking set is also worthy of note. The entire play takes place in the Oval Office, and the set is probably the most elegant I have ever seen. While the play takes shots at various political views (including mine), I still found the show to be extremely humorous, sharp, and witty.

Done

Today marked the conclusion of my Law School academic career. Everything is done. All that is left is the graduation. The journey has been wonderful, but more intense than I anticipated. Tax lawyers are a very intense bunch. Shockingly, while we are a minority at Law School, we take up a majority of the study space in the library.

The final push during the last six weeks has been incredible; typically each day has consisted of 17 to 21 hours of intense interpretation of code, deciphering regulations, and trying to memorize every last detail. My brain is now full.

So now, I’m going to spend some time away from the books, without any studying or memorizing. Oh, of course, that all ends once Bar preparation begins. That starts…oh…tomorrow.

Within fifteen minutes of finishing at Law School, I was headed to pick up my sixty pounds of Bar prep books.

Payless Pays More

Yesterday, a federal jury in Oregon awarded Adidas about $305 million, supposedly the largest trademark verdict ever.

This is a case that is near and dear to our hearts. Mine, simply because it is some interesting legal issues. Wife's because...well...let's just say she still recalls lot numbers of popular shoes that the chain sold a few years back. Wife has commented to me on numerous occasions that she doesn't understand how the company get away with selling fifteen dollar versions of very expensive shoes.

Predictably, Payless, owned by Kansas-based Collective Brands, called the verdict “excessive and unjustified” and said it plans to ask the court to set the verdict aside. If that request is not granted, the company “intends to take all necessary steps to overturn it. On the other hand, Adidas' lawyer predicts that while a reduction of the verdict is possible on appeal, he thinks Payless could wind up paying Adidas quite a bit more than $305 million. Upon a finding of willful infringement, the judge can not only award the plaintiffs attorneys fees (here, seven years worth) but can triple the damages portion of the verdict, which is $137 million.

Here is a copy of Addidas' brief. While I only skimmed it, the pictures are quite entertaining.

Getting Wild and Crazy in New York City

It's finals time. I'm living in the library for my very final round of this sheer torture. Spending up to 20 hours a day with my nose in outlines, statutes, and regs proves to be just as dreary as it sounds.

One woman discovered a way to make her studying slightly more palatable. Everyday she walks into the library with a tiny aquarium. The first few times I saw it, I couldn't figure out what it was - then I realized there was a fish swimming around in the water. She sets her contraption on the desk of her study space and then continues to work all day, occasionally glancing up at her little wet friend. Maybe I need to get a pet too.

Movie Shoot

Right outside of Law School there is some sort of movie shoot taking place today. It's definitely the largest one I have ever seen. There are probably 30 trucks and trailers, a hundred workers, countless cameras, and at least two food stations. I would love to explore and find out what is going on...but I'm busy.

The IRS Complicates Everything

The IRS has the uncanny ability to complicate just about anything beyond comprehension. Recently, Congress instituted a new section of the code, Section 409A. This new provision is going to be my bread and butter. In a nutshell, the code says that deferred compensation can only be paid on certain events without very, very bad tax penalties (see, I can make it simple). One of those events when compensation can be paid is death. Last year, the IRS released Regulations for the purpose of explaining and offering guidance on these regs. The following is the IRS explanation of what constitutes "death."

Part III – Administrative, Procedural, and Miscellaneous

2008 Application Death Under § 409A to Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plans

Notice 2007-90

I. PURPOSE

This notice provides additional guidance on the application of a service

recipient’s death under § 409A of the Internal Revenue Code to nonqualified deferred

compensation plans. This guidance includes:

• A more precise definition of death (also known as “separation from life”).

• Presumptions the Service will apply in determining if a service recipient has

experienced a separation from life under § 409A.

• Examples detailing situations that the help illustrate the Treasury’s position on

separation from life.

II. BACKGROUND

Section 409A provides certain requirements applicable to nonqualified deferred

compensation plans. If a plan does not meet those requirements, participants in the

plan are required to immediately include amounts deferred under the plan in income

and pay additional taxes on such income.

The Treasury Department and the IRS issued final regulations under § 409A in

April 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 19234 (April 17, 2007)). The final regulations apply to taxable

years beginning on or after January 1, 2008. In general, the final regulations provide

that payment may be made under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan upon a

service provider’s death. Commentators stated that taxpayers anticipate difficulties in

formally determining if a service provider is dead. In addition, a number of

commentators have raised questions regarding the application of the final regulations to

certain types of deaths. This notice is issued in response to these comments and

questions.

III. DEATH

A. In General

For purposes of determining if a service provider (or a service provider’s

beneficiary or estate) is entitled to a payment under a nonqualified deferred

compensation plan on account of the service provider’s death, the Treasury will

consider a service provider to be dead if the service provider’s death meets the criteria

necessary for a separation from life.

B. Separation from Life

1. In General

A service provider separates from life with the service recipient if the service

provider has a termination of all mental and bodily functions. However, the service

provider’s life is treated as continuing intact while the individual is temporarily

unconscious, having an out of body experience, cryogenically frozen or experiencing

another bona fide leave of absence from the individual’s conscious state, if the period of

such leave does not exceed ten minutes, or if longer, so long as the individual retains a

right to regain life and/or reanimation under an applicable contract (with the devil or

otherwise) or other arrangement.

If the period of leave exceeds ten minutes and the individual does not retain a

right to regain life and/or reanimation under an applicable contract or other

arrangement, the death is deemed to occur on the first minute immediately following

such ten-minute period. Notwithstanding the foregoing, where a leave is due to any

medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in

death, where such impairment causes the service provider to be unable to perform the

essential functions of life without mechanical support, a 525,600 minute period of

absence may be substituted for such ten minute period.

2. Termination of Life

A service provider will be deemed to have experienced a separation from life if

he or she experiences a termination of life. Whether a termination of life has occurred is

determined based on whether the facts and circumstances indicate that the service

provider reasonably anticipated (or would have reasonably anticipated) that no further

mental and bodily functions would be performed after a certain date or that the level of

bona fide mental and bodily functions the service provider would perform after such

date (whether with or without mechanical assistance) would permanently decrease to

no more than 20 percent of the average level of bona fide mental and bodily functions

performed (whether with or without mechanical assistance) over the immediately

preceding 36-month period (or the full period of life if the service provider has been

living less than 36 months). Facts and circumstances to be considered in making this

determination include, but are not limited to, whether the service provider continues to

be treated as living for other purposes (such as whether or not he or she continues to

receive a paycheck from the service recipient), whether similarly situated service

providers have been treated consistently by the service recipient, and whether the

service provider is permitted, and realistically available, to perform services for other

service recipients. A service provider is presumed to have separated from life where the

level of bona fide mental and bodily functions performed decreases to a level equal to

20 percent or less of the average level of mental and bodily functions performed by the

service provider during the immediately preceding 36-month period. A service provider

will be presumed not to have separated from service where the level of bona fide mental

and bodily functions performed continues at a level that is 50 percent or more of the

average level of mental and bodily functions performed by the service provider during

the immediately preceding 36-month period. No presumption applies to a decrease in

the level of bona fide mental and bodily functions performed to a level that is more than

20 percent and less than 50 percent of the average level of bona fide mental and bodily

functions performed during the immediately preceding 36-month period. The

presumption is rebuttable by demonstrating that the service provider reasonably

anticipated that as of a certain date the level of bona fide mental and bodily functions

would be reduced permanently to a level less than or equal to 20 percent of the average

level of bona fide mental and bodily functions provided during the immediately

preceding 36-month period or full period of life if the service provider has been alive for

a period of less than 36 months (or that the level of bona fide mental and bodily

functions would not be so reduced). For example, an service provider may demonstrate

that the service provider reasonably anticipated that the service provider would cease

mental and bodily functions, but that, after the original cessation of mental and bodily

functions, a deal made with God (such as in the movie “Heaven Can Wait”) caused the

service provider to return to life. Although the service provider’s return to life may cause

the service provider to be presumed to have continued to live because the service

provider is performing mental and bodily functions at a rate equal to the rate at which

the service provider was performing mental and bodily functions before the termination

of life, the facts and circumstances in this case would demonstrate that at the time the

service provider originally ceased to perform mental and bodily functions, the service

provider reasonably anticipated that the service provider would not perform mental and

bodily functions in the future.

Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, a plan may treat another level of

reasonably anticipated permanent reduction in the level of bona fide mental and bodily

functions as a separation from life, provided that the level of reduction required must be

designated in writing as a specific percentage, and the reasonably anticipated reduced

level of bona fide mental and bodily functions must be greater than 20 percent but less

than 50 percent of the average level of bona fide mental and bodily functions provided

in the immediately preceding 36 months. The plan must specify the definition of

separation from life on or before the date on which a separation from life is designated

as a time of payment of the applicable amount deferred, and once designated, any

change to the definition of separation from life with respect to such amount deferred will

be subject to the rules regarding subsequent deferrals and the acceleration of

payments. For purposes of this paragraph, for periods during which a service provider is

experiencing a bona fide absence (as described in section III(B)(2)) and has not

otherwise terminated life pursuant to this paragraph, the service provider is treated as

performing bona fide mental and bodily functions at a level equal to the level of mental

and bodily functions that the service provider would have been required to perform to

receive the compensation. In this regard, the Service recognizes that not all jobs

require the same level of mental and/or bodily functions.

3. Examples

Example 1 – Joanna uses 10% of her brain and 90% of her body on a daily

basis. Joanna gets hit by a truck such that she can only use 2% of her brain and 18%

of her body. If Joanna’s nonqualified deferred compensation plan provides for

payments on separation from life, Joanna is entitled to payment under her nonqualified

deferred compensation plan because she is only providing mental and bodily functions

equal to 20% of the bona fide mental and bodily functions she was performing before

she was hit by a truck.

Example 2 – Pete uses 5% of his brain and 50% of his body on a daily basis.

Pete has struck a deal with the devil such that, in exchange for his soul, Pete retains the

right to regain life after the first two times that he would otherwise separate from life.

Pete gets mauled by a cougar and is not performing any mental and bodily functions for

more than 10 minutes. However, because Pete retains the right to regain life, he has

not experienced a separation from life.

Example 3 – The same facts as Example 2 except that the devil realizes he got a

raw deal because Pete does not have a soul. Because the contract providing Pete the

right to regain life is not valid, even under the laws of hell, Pete no longer has the right

to regain life pursuant to a contract or other arrangement, and therefore experiences a

separation from life at the expiration of the 10-minute period.

VII. DRAFTING INFORMATION

The principal author of this notice is B. L. Zebub of the Office of Division

Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However,

other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in its

development. For further information regarding this notice, contact B.L. Zebub at

(666) 911-4355 (not a toll-free call).

If you made it all the way through that, congratulations. And, yes, it is a joke.

Celebrity Sighting

The other day I had another celebrity sighting (I guess that is one of the pluses of working in the heart of NY). This time, I actually recognized the celebrity right away. I saw the very short, Seth Green. He claims to be 5'3", but I know I felt taller than him (I am definitely not on the tall side).

Appointed Forever

One of the funniest songs ever written: "Appointed Forever," by the Bar and Grill Singers

Bad Day in Court

I'm plugging away in my cave, but I just came upon this recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals case where the Court found it necessary to take one of the lawyers to task. Trust me, this is worth reading. I was afraid I was going to get kicked out of the library I laughed so loudly. For you non-U.S. legal scholars, the 5th Circuit is a federal court that is just below the United States Supreme Court (so, it's a big deal to argue a case there).

This little exchange occurred during oral arguments. The court was so appalled that they transcribed the conversation into a footnote so that it would be forever recorded in American legal history (footnote 4 on page 14).

Phipps: . . . so that’s about all I have to say, Your Honor. I don’t have anything other than that. You know, my client lives in Chicago. We communicate occasionally on the phone, she sent me the documents. And um, she’s a doctor. She continues to earn a living, and she’s generally unavailable if you call her because she, she’s sort of a traveling doctor.

Judge: That’s not much of thing you come in here and tell us, I guess.

Phipps: Well, my attitude is, the [district court] judge got it right . . . . And as far as whether even Ricks should apply, I don’t think it should.

Judge: What do you do about Morgan?

Phipps: I don’t, I don’t, I don’t know Morgan, Your Honor.

Judge: You don’t know Morgan?

Phipps: Nope.

Judge: You haven’t read it?

Phipps: I try not to read that many cases, your Honor. Ricks is the only one I read. Oh, Ledbetter, I read Ledbetter, and I read that one that they brought up last night. I don’t know if that’s not Ledbetter, I can’t remember the name of it. Ricks is the one that I go by; it’s my North star. Either it applies or it doesn’t apply. I don’t think it applies.

Judge: I must say, Morgan is a case that is directly relevant to this case. And for you representing the Plaintiff to get up here—it’s a Supreme Court case—and say you haven’t read it. Where did they teach you that?

Phipps: They didn’t teach me much, Your Honor.

Judge: At Tulane, is it?

Phipps: Loyola.

Judge: Okay. Well, I must say, that may be an all time first.

Phipps: That’s why I wore a suit today, Your Honor.

Judge: Alright. We’ve got your attitude, anyway.

Here is the link to the decision: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

Random Midweek Thoughts

• There is nothing more beautiful than New York City in the spring. The beauty of the city makes me long to escape from the cave where I pour over statutes, revenue rulings, regulations, cases, and treatises.
• I think every presidential candidate has the mentality of an elitist. What’s more elitist than thinking you can run the country better than any of the other 350 million people in America?
• In the year 2010, NBA analysts will all agree that the Dallas Mavericks made the worst trade of the decade. It was far worse than the swap Memphis Grizzles made when they sent Pau Gasol to the Lakers. Yes, even worse than both of the Shaquille O’Neal trades or even the Kevin Garnet gift to the Celtics. The Mavs mortgaged their future for the present, but the trade made them far worse in the present than they were before.
• Why has nobody from New Mexico ever visited our blog? Don’t people in Albuquerque like reading about a young couple in New York City?
• Work: can’t live with it, can’t shop without it.

Taxing Internet Income

Taxation in a virtual world, according to FoxTrot

(The link is to the comic strip FoxTrot- it's pretty funny...at least to a tax geek.)

Defending a Lawsuit (UPDATE)

UPDATE: Just to put these attorney fees in perspective: recently, similar Blackberry litigation resulted in legal fees of over $200 million for a victorious plaintiff's law firm back in 2006. The story for that case is HERE.

Imagine, a major British company needs to defend its patent, so they go to a large law firm in London. The case is to defend a patent for the technology behind the Blackberry. The company wants the finest defense money can buy for its patent, so they instruct the law firm to “leave no stone unturned.” The case is handled by two associates who work for fifteen months. Together, these two associates work 4,540 billable hours. Trainees and paralegals also spend considerable time on the project. A partner takes the case to trial. The culmination of all of this work was a victory. The client was happy. The lawyers were happy. But then the lawyers reveal their bill: a mere $10,320,000.00 (that’s $10.32 million). What complicates matters is that England follows a “loser pays” paradigm; thus, the law firm presented this bill to the court in order to force the losing company to pay. In this case, To make a long story short, a High Court in London rejected the bill. The judge complained, "For these sums of money, one would be entitled to expect each of them to be able to recite all the documents in the case by heart."

While the major law firms seem to (predictably) agree the fee is reasonable, some corporate consumers complain the cost is outrageous to defend a single patent.

I see a couple of issues here. First, the British "loser pays" system seems like a good way to curb frivolous lawsuits. Second, what happens when the defense seeks to pull out all stops to ensure they win their case? Who should pay the bill when the party whom is sued hires the best attorneys and instructs them to leave no stone unturned? In this case, the court decided that the loser only responsible for reasonable fees. Is the "loser pays" system something America should consider adopting?

You can read the story HERE.

Now That's a Big Donation

Have you ever wondered how much it would cost to get something significant named after you? More specifically, how much would it cost to get the NYU Medical Center renamed?

Answer: $200,000,000. Yes, that says two hundred million dollars.

NYU Medical Center announced this past week that it will be renamed the NYU Elaine A. and Kenneth G. Langone Medical Center, in honor of the chairman of its board of trustees and his wife, whose unrestricted $200 million gift is the largest in the Medical Center’s history.

How's This for an Offer?

Posted HERE on Craigslist:

I am searching for a student lawyer who is familar with the divorce laws of Illinois. Someone who is studying family law and would help assist me in my situation. Thus far I have written out my petition and obtain documents to be filed. But, I need someone to review my petition and statement before it is presented to the court. As a token of appreciation I will issue a check of $45.00 and two tattoo needles for two free tattoos (black and grey).

What Do Church and American Idol Have in Common? Not Much, I Hope.

I'm trying to decide if receiving this email from the lead pastor of a local church is reason enough to drop it from our list of potential church homes.

--

What do OUR CHURCH and American Idol have in common? More than you might expect!

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to audition for American Idol?

Perhaps you've always wanted to, but never had the time. Or maybe you've dreamed of using your talents in a way that inspires people, but were too afraid to step out and audition.

Or maybe you think that you just don't have the talent it takes to be a part of something like that?

Sure OUR CHURCH doesn't have celebrity judges or a show on primetime television, but let me tell you what we do have in common...

• a desire to help you use your gifts in a way that encourages and inspires you and those around you
• a process (auditions) to make that desire a reality

OUR CHURCH's Worship Arts Team will be holding auditions next Sunday, April 27 from 2:30pm-5:30pm at the AUDITION LOCATION.

You are invited to step up and take part in these auditions in the following areas:

• Worship Band
• Dance
• Drama
• Design / Visual Arts
• Production (audio engineer, video, lighting, backstage coordinator, etc.)
• Vocal
• Creative Writing (poetry, scripts, journalism, etc.)

--

While this church is certainly entertaining and it seeks to make church fun, I'm afraid it is not quite our cup of tea. "Fun" and "entertainment" are not our top priorities in a church home.

Celebrity Sighting

On a regular basis, dressing room trailers are setup outside my office building. For some reason (that I have yet to discover), my particular street is a popular place for filming. No, I am not just talking about my company’s studio. Since moving to NY, I have become quite accustomed to walking by celebrities. I must admit that most of the time the only reason I know they are famous is because of the paparazzi and fans surrounding them. Most of the time I have no idea whom I am looking at when I see the crowds on the street, but in a few rare cases I have actually recognized the famous face. For instance, just a few short weeks ago I walked by highly talented John Lithgow from Third Rock from the Sun—I actually remembered him from Harry and the Hendersons.

Well, today was a big sighting for me - I must admit that I am a little embarrassed over my excitement. I saw and said hello to JESS MARIANO (real name is Milo Ventimiglia) from the Gilmore Girls. Okay, so there is a slight chance that it may not have been him, but I am almost certain it was (I’m rather familiar with the show). I was walking up the stairs from the subway and I saw him. I knew I recognized him, but I couldn’t place from where. I frantically tried to figure out how I knew him, but finally just assumed it was someone I knew from work. As I walked by, I said, “Hey,” and his response “How’s it going?” It wasn’t until I reached the top of the stairs that I realized from where I knew him! For Christmas I received the first 6 seasons of the Gilmore Girls from my mother and sister-in-law, so I have become quite acquainted with this television show (which I love, by the way). I am sure you can just imagine my squeal when I realized that I had just exchanged words with none other than Milo Ventimiglia!

Bring on the Nugricks or the Maggets

It has been quite a year for the Lakers. The dreadful off-season began with the Lakers' star player demanding a trade, retracting, his demand, then demanding it again (and he continued to demand it through the first part of the season). On camera, the that same star player mercilessly ripped into younger teammates, demanding they be traded. When the season began, many pendents predicted the Lakers would miss the playoffs. Even fans figured their team would be fortunate just to make the playoffs. Most of us were preparing several more years of mediocrity.

To everyone's surprise, the Lakers won the Western Conference last night - the most competitive conference that the NBA has ever seen. It's a good time to be a Laker fan.

Oh, as a Laker fan, I extend my sincerest thanks to the Memphis Grizzlies for trading us your star player in exchange for the equivalent of a two hot dogs and can of soda. The Laker Nation thanks you, and we will continue to thank you for years to come.

Quotes for Tax Day

“Taxation with representation ain’t so hot either.” — Gerald Barzan "A tax loophole is something that benefits the other guy. If it benefits you, it is tax reform.'' — Russell B. Long, U.S. Senator “The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.” — Albert Einstein “Income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf.” — Will Rogers “I am proud to be paying taxes in the United States. The only thing is – I could be just as proud for half the money.” - Arthur Godfrey “Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato

Lawyers Give Back

You have, undoubtedly, heard the media reports about how officials entered the YFZ Ranch run by the "Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints" in Eldorado, Texas, where they removed 416 children. I just want to share once piece of information that might have slipped by you:

"Texas bar officials said more than 350 lawyers from across the state have volunteered to represent the children free of charge."

As reported by MSNBC here.

Our Trip to Chocolate by the Bald Man

This past weekend, Wife persuaded me to come out of my cave in the library for dinner with some friends at a notable NYC establishment: Max Brenner's Chocolate by the Bald Man. This place has been on our "must try" list since we moved here, but we never found an excuse to go until some friends invited us to join them.

"Chocolate by the Bald Man" is just what it sounds like - absolute utopia for chocolate lovers. When I entered, I felt like I was standing in the middle of a grown-up's version of Willie Wonka's Chocolate Factory. If you can imagine a chocolate dish, whether it be milk, dark, or white chocolate, "Max Brenner" probably serves it up (actually, Max Brenner, the face of Chocolate by the Bald Man" is a purely fictional character, albeit based upon the real owners).

Wife and I attempted to stop in here back in December to try a dessert, but we popped in and it was so terribly crowded, that we shook our heads and walked away (homeboy don't do 90-minute waits). On this visit, the wait was a much more manageable 15 minutes. To make the time fly, we were able to enjoy good conversation with our friends, although the ambiance is so loud and hectic, talking was rather difficult.

When we finally got seated, our hostess handed us each two menus: a thin menu with the food selection and a thick one with the dessert listings. Wife told me I couldn't jump straight to dessert, so I chose a crepe as my pre-dessert obligation while Wife chose pasta.

After the preliminaries were out of the way, we got down to business. After much discussion, Wife and I decided to get the "Chocolate Pizza for Two." It was very good, though I doubt I would order it again.

Since I am clearly a fine dining authority, I will offer my evaluation of the restaurant:

* Service: 5/10. UPDATE: Wife would like to "correct" this score to 2/10.

If you look up reviews online, you will see frequent criticisms of the service: those criticism's are justified. Here are a few of the oddities that we experienced: first, the waitress spilled water all over Wife while trying to refill her glass. The server's response: an annoyed, "Sorry 'bout that," before rushing off as if it were nothing. 2) Server began to set a dessert plate in front of us, when she noticed it was dirty and quickly snatched it up. The server than stood next to us, dipped a napkin into a pitcher of water, cleaned off the dirt, and handed the plate back to us. 3) I really don't think a manager should need to get involved in order to pay with two different credit cards, particularly, when we tell the waitress before ordering that is how we pay (and we are told, "Oh, no problem"). Since the service has such an atrocious reputation, I can't help but wonder if they keep it up intentionally.


* Food (non-dessert): 8/10.

Mex Brenner's is not known for their food; they are known for their desserts. With that said, I thought our food was very good (not spectacular, but very good).


* Dessert: 9/10.

What? I'm not giving them a 10??? Yeah, I know - I'll hear about this. I think that most of the desserts on the menu do deserve a 10. But, honestly, I was rather disappointed with our chocolate pizza. The crust was a bit thick, drowning out the taste of the chocolate; and I also thought they skimped a bit on the toppings.

This is definitely a restaurant that I want to try again someday. Next time, I think our plan will be to go just for dessert and then to order something other than chocolate pizza. Someday, I would like to go there and try to "Chocolate fondue for two," which has milk chocolate, white chocolate, dark chocolate, and caramel. Maybe next time.

Law & Order SVU

Since LindaJ was kind enough to nominate Alex Cabot of Law & Order SVU in response to yesterday's post, I thought I would share a quick story.

Last week, Wife and I went to go meet a broker to look at an apartment here in Manhattan. Wife left work early and I packed up from the library, then we set out to meet this broker. The broker caused us extensive irritation. While we stood outside the building waiting for him, he called Wife's cell phone to inform us that he was unable to show the apartment that day - and he would like to reschedule for the next. Yes, we were thrilled.

In our attempt to make lemonade out of those lemons, we decided to spend that hour enjoying the city. We picked up some dinner, then decided to stroll down some streets we had never explored on our way home.

As we casually walked and talked, we noticed several movie trailers surrounding us. That's a rather common occurrence around here, but it did make us perk up. As we looked around, we saw a crew unloading cameras and props. We also saw a good number of private security guards. We began to look a bit more closely and we noticed that many of them were wearing shirts, jackets, and/or hats that said, "Law & Order SVU."

Apparently, we stumbled into the middle of a Law & Order shoot.