Construction in New York City often leads to the long-term installation of façade scaffolding and sidewalk sheds that interfere with access to street-level commercial properties. Needless to say, as a recent case illustrates, scaffolding and a sidewalk shed are combustible ingredients for litigation, especially where the pandemic delays the completion of construction. Steven and Shulie Kirschner are shareholders in a co-op located at 233 West 99th Street in Manhattan. They have a proprietary lease for the commercial space located on the ground floor of the co-op. The Kirschners claimed that the Board erected a sidewalk shed on August 31, 2019,… Read more
Articles
Alec Baldwin Vents on Ellen and Stern Shows After Parking Spot Imbroglio: Did His Assertions in the Interviews Constitute Actionable Defamation?
Alec Baldwin is famous for his stage and screen accomplishments and Trump cameos on SNL- but he is also (like Paris Hilton) “famous for being famous”– because his name is always in the news. And, as a recent case illustrates, Baldwin once again became “newsworthy” because of a defamation suit for statements he made in television interviews about a mid-town Manhattan parking space fracas for which he pled guilty to a low-level offense (a decision in the slander suit coming shortly after his celebrity/actor/yoga instructor/podcaster wife, Hilaria, gave birth to their sixth child in seven+ years). Wojciech Cieszkowski claimed he… Read more
Native American Tribe Asserts Sovereignty Over Dispute Between Members: Does Tribal Council or Court Determine Rights at the Poospatuck Reservation?
Our Courts regularly and routinely resolve mundane and general differences between Federal and State Law (e.g. the FAA v. the CPLR). But, as a recent case illustrates, the Court is sometimes confronted with more unusual and specific conflicts of law. The Unkechaug Indian Nation is an Indian tribe recognized by the State of New York, which occupies the Poospatuck Reservation in Suffolk County. In this action, the Nation sought a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction enforcing the Tribal Council’s April 12, 2018 decision and order confirming the right of Curtis C. Treadwell, a blood-right member of the Nation, to… Read more
外国人在美国的主要税收陷阱
SGR 税法博客文章 作者: Joseph Mandarino 许多移居美国工作、学习或投资的外国人通常都知道,他们需要小心遵守适用于本人的移民法,例如获得签证等。然而他们虽然大体知道他们需要在美国申报所得税,但在有关税务规划上所花的时间要却很少。 这篇博文概述了一个通常被忽视的如何定位其纳税身份的问题,这可能对外国投资者、雇员和学生有很大用处。 按居住地在美国纳税 根据美国税法,个人分为三大类,每个类别都有不同的纳税申报义务。 美国公民. 美国公民每年都要提交美国纳税申报表,即使他们在另一个国家生活和工作。一般来说,无论收入来源如何,他们都必须将所有收入都纳入其美国纳税申报表。 非居民外国人. 不在美国居住的的非美国公民称为”非居民外国人”(NRA)。NRA通常没有申报美国所得税的义务,除非他们在美国有某些类别的收入来源。此外,NRA 可能会间接承担交税的义务如果他们在美国有某些类别的被动收入(如股息和利息等),通常这些收入交预扣税。然而,在这种情况下,他们通常没有政府申报税表的义务。 例如,假设Joan是在中国居住和工作的中国公民。她在中国拥有各种商业,还拥有美国房地产项目的合伙权益,并持有一家美国小公司的股份。拥有合伙企业权益将让她缴纳美国税,但仅限于美国合伙企业分发给她的收入。假设 Joan 从美国股票获得股息,这些股票需缴纳美国预扣税。同样,Joan将承担美国税,但仅限于支付给她的美国股息。仅仅拥有合伙企业权益或股票一般不会导致Joan的中国收入在美国征税。 常驻美国外国人. 非美国公民的居民被称为”美国居民”。美国居民通常必须提交美国纳税申报表。对于“美国居民”,在税法上通常有测试标准:1)”绿卡”测试标准, 2)”在美国时间居住天数”测试标准。 根据绿卡测试,如果外国人在 2020 年的任何时间是美国的合法永久居民,出于税务目的,将被视为美国居民。一般来说,移民局已向此人发放外国人登记卡,也称为绿卡。 根据“在美国时间居住天数”测试标准,一般如果该外国人出于任何原因在一年中居住在美国达183天或更久,在税法上将被视为美国居民。 居住地对纳税申报的影响 如前所述,常驻外国人及其美国雇主通常会花费大量时间确保获得正确的签证,并采取必要步骤履行该签证的所有合法义务。然而他们在评估常驻外国人的纳税申报策略方面却花费的时间很少。提交美国每年纳税申报表(IRS 表格 1040)的美国居民必须包括其全部收入,甚至外国来源的收入。相比之下,其它一些常驻外国人(非居民)可能有资格申请国税局1040-NR表格,这仅需要包括美国来源的收入。 假设上一个例子所举的中国公民Joan,在中国拥有一家制造企业。她决定通过在美国开设一家分销子公司来扩大业务。她获得了商务工作签证,并计划在美国居住三年,以便在美国设立子公司。假设她在美国的工资是10万美元,并假设她的中国公司年收入100万美元,此外她还有30万美元的收入通过新加坡和毛里求斯的各种信托和账户赚取。 如果 Joan提交 IRS 表格 1040,她可能需要向美国税务局付各种收入的所得税,包括她的美国工资、中国公司的收入以及她的个人的投资所得。这相当于月140万美元。假设她的税率约为35%,她将支付大约50万美元的美国联邦所得税。此外,由于她是个人,所以无权获得外国税收抵免,即用她的中国公司所支付的税款做抵免。 但是,如果 Joan有资格提交 IRS 表格 1040-NR,她只需报告并缴纳美国来源收入的税款。一般来说,这仅限于她的美国工资,但她的一些个人投资收入也可能来自美国。假设她的薪水是美国收入的唯一部分,那么她的应纳税收入将降至10万美元,她的联邦税单将降至35,000美元。 提交 IRS 表格 1040-NR 的资格 一般来说,1040-NR只能由非居民外国人提交,因此许多常驻外国人认为他们不能提交此表格。然而,有两种一般的方式为常驻外国人的资格。 首先,如果个人来自与美国有税收条约的国家,则适用特殊测试。美国的税收条约通常包含处理双重居民问题的冗长规则,即根据两国国内法被视为居民的个人。这些规则用于确定哪个条约国家被视为该人的住所。由于这些规则在美国税收条约中规定,因此它们被认为凌驾于《国内税收法》中的法定居住测试即(绿卡和实质性存在测试)中。例如,假设上面的 Joan持有合适的签证,并花费 2021 年的所有时间在美国生活和工作。根据绿卡或实质性存在测试,她可能会被视为美国居民,并被要求提交 IRS 表格 1040。然而,美中税收条约包含了一套不同的规则,这些规则凌驾于法定检验标准。 一般来说,如果Joan认为她的美国居留权是临时的,在中国有家,打算回到中国,并在那里有她的主要业务联系,根据条约她可能会被视为中国居民。因此,她将有资格提交1040-NR与上述有益结果。 如果个人来自一个没有与美国税收条约的国家但根据实质情况也有可能被视为美国居民如果个人符合居住天数规则测试并能够证明其纳税住所位于外国,则仍可能有资格提交 IRS 表格 1040-NR。 重要警告: 这些规则只适用于联邦税。美国各州征收的所得税不受税收条约的管辖。因此,在这种情况下,往往需要专门的税收规划来尽量减少国家所得税。 行动项目: 如果您要迁往美国,您应该仔细考虑由此产生的州和联邦所得税的法律后果,同时由法律文件以便确定适用哪种申报身份的操作可能。
Would UWS Hi-Rise Developer be Forced to Demolish Top Floors?: First Department Tackles Complicated/Ambiguous Zoning Rules
Questions presented: Was it proper for Supreme Court to annul the determination by the Board of Standards and Appeals to approve a new 55-story condominium building at 200 Amsterdam Avenue on the Upper West Side of Manhattan? For Supreme Court to direct the demolition of an unspecified number of floors from the building? And were legal proceeding moot because the building was substantially completed and the Committee of Environmentally Sound Development and the Municipal Art Society of New York failed to exercise continued due diligence to halt the project by not seeking injunctive relief at every stage of the protracted… Read more
OSHA发布了最新的COVID-19指南
美国劳工部职业安全与健康管理局(“OSHA”)发布了第一项关于COVID-19和工作场所的可执行标准。”紧急标准计划”于3月15日公布并生效。在”紧急标准计划”发布之前,OSHA已经发布了最新指南,有望被纳入新标准。 根据拜登总统2021年1月21日发表的行政命令,劳工部发布了的关于减少和防止COVID-19在工作场所传播的最新指南。更新后的指南适用于非医疗保健和非应急工作场所的环境,建议雇主实施COVID-19预防方案。其中包括危害评估,限制COVID-19在工作场所传播的综合措施,确保采取措施将已感染或潜在被感染的员工隔离并从工作场所送回家中,以及保护提出COVID-19相关问题的员工免受伤害。 指导意见中设计的一些新措施包括: 为员工提供口罩,除非他们的工作需要呼吸器; 免费为符合条件的员工提供Covid-19疫苗; 执行安全措施不应区分已接种疫苗和未接种疫苗的员工; 为必须隔离的员工提供带薪病假; 指派一名工作场所协调员负责实施工作场所COVID-19预防计划。 该指南不是新的标准或条列,也不产生新的法律义务。然而, OSHA预计将发布关于COVID-19的紧急临时标准,该标准可能包含新发布指南中的很多要素。当OSHA确定员工已面临严重威胁而需要紧急临时标准保护时,OSHA将发布紧急临时标准。届时紧急临时标准会发布在”Federal Register”。 Translated by Mina Zhan and Jenny Wang. 由詹忻,王劼妮律师翻译。Original Article 原文文档: https://www.sgrlaw.com/client-alerts/osha-releases-updated-covid-19-guidance/
Not Always Sublime “Up On the Roof”: Especially After an 8-Ton Chiller is Installed
Roof access and use are among the most sought after, valuable, and fiercely protected amenities of residential coop living. As a recent case illustrates, litigation can go “nuclear” when roof rights are impacted by an imposing change. Soho Plaza is a 34-unit “pre-war” coop that installed an eight-ton central (“chiller”) air conditioning unit on the roof directly above the penthouse owned by Richard and Cecilia Burbridge– who contended that the chiller made leaks into the penthouse significantly worse. After years of litigation, a long bench trial with numerous exhibits, multiple witnesses, including experts, and a 120-page post-trial brief, the Court… Read more
New York Court of Appeals Update (February 2021) #2
Was Grandparent Member of Grandchild’s Immediate Family? Answer Dispositive of Bystander “Zone of Danger” Claim The question presented: may a grandparent, who was in close proximity to her grandchild at the time of the death-producing accident, pursue a claim for bystander recovery under a “zone of danger” theory? The “zone of danger” rule to “allow[s] one who is . . . threatened with bodily harm in consequence of the defendant’s negligence to recover for emotional distress” flowing only from the “viewing [of] the death or serious physical injury of a member of [that person’s] immediate family”. Unsettled were “the outer limits”… Read more
New York Court of Appeals Update (February 2021)
Was “Mike” Bloomberg Personally Liable For Alleged Transgressions of Supervisor at His Eponymous Firm? Court of Appeals Addresses Question of Owner/Leaders Vicarious Liability Under NYC Human Rights Law GARCIA, J. : An employee of Bloomberg L.P., using the pseudonym “Margaret Doe,” sued Bloomberg L.P., her supervisor Nicholas Ferris, and Michael Bloomberg, asserting several causes of action arising from alleged discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse. The question before the Court of Appeals was whether Bloomberg, in addition to Bloomberg L.P., could be held vicariously liable as an employer under the New York City Human Rights Law based on his status… Read more
It All Came Out in the Wash: Consignment Dispute Over Persian Rug
Mundane business transactions involving relatively small amounts may nevertheless raise a variety of factual and legal issues. And, as a recent case illustrates, what started as a garden variety case arising out of the consignment of a Persian rug to a dealer became a far more complicated dispute with the passage of time. Jahanshah Josh Nazimayal and Rugs and Kilim Corp. are carpet dealers. Peter Lentz owns a Persian Mahal rug. Pursuant to a consignment agreement dated June 21, 2011, Nazimayal and Kilim acknowledged receiving Lentz’s rug and agreed to try to sell it for a 20% commission. The agreement,… Read more