What Companies Need to Know About State Unclaimed Property Compliance and Audits
The deadline to enroll in an unclaimed property coverage program to convert Delaware's property audits to voluntary disclosure agreements (VDAs) took…
December 15, 2017 at 03:47 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The deadline to enroll in an unclaimed property coverage program to convert Delaware's property audits to voluntary disclosure agreements (VDAs) took place on December 11, 2017. Joseph Carr, BDO's national unclaimed property practice leader, sat down with Inside Counsel to discuss what companies need to know about state unclaimed property compliance and audits, what qualifies businesses to file a VDA in Delaware or Illinois, how they will be affected by regulatory changes, which industries could be most affected and what companies need to know about state unclaimed property compliance and audits.
As the landscape of unclaimed property continues to change, it is important to understand each state's compliance requirements. All companies have filing responsibility if they have amounts to report, and many states require companies to submit negative reports ($0 filings) even when they are not reporting any unclaimed property for that year. Unclaimed property compliance returns are either due in the fall or the spring, so penalties and interest may apply for late filings. In addition, according to Carr, most states require sending due diligence letters between 60 and 120 days from the filing date to attempt to reunite the property with the rightful owner.
As of late, more and more states are cracking down on unclaimed property compliance violations by turning to third-party commission-based auditors to conduct examinations on their behalf. Often paid on a contingency fee basis, these auditors are incentivized to find noncompliance, and at the same time, unclaimed property has become an important source of states' revenue.
“As a result, the volume of audit notices issued has skyrocketed in recent years,” he explained. “These audits can last three to seven years and are very intrusive. Companies should operate under the assumption they could be audited at any point. Thus, companies should assess their unclaimed property risk and ensure records and compliance measures are up to date. Failure to comply with state escheatment laws significantly increases the likelihood of an audit.”
According to Carr, a common pitfall is failing to account for liability from, or insufficient recordkeeping for, prior years. The average state look-back period is 10 to 15 transaction years. Most companies do not keep complete and researchable records back this far, creating extrapolation and estimation risk for periods where records don't exist or are insufficient. In fact, the estimation may be characterized by states as “assessment for estimated unclaimed amounts owed for years where no records existed” or a “penalty for failure to retain records.” Per Carr, some companies should consider taking advantage of available unclaimed property voluntary disclosure initiatives–known as VDA programs–offered by most states.
So, what exactly qualifies businesses to file a VDA in Delaware, in Illinois, etc.?
Generally, a business can file a VDA if it meets these general requirements: The business is not currently under unclaimed property audit by the state, has property to report to the state that has passed the state dormancy period and enters the program via standard boilerplate state prepared agreement in good faith. Some states will require that you have not filed unclaimed property returns with the state in the past to qualify, and some states may require completion of questionnaires.
Amanda G. Ciccatelli is a Freelance Journalist for Corporate Counsel and InsideCounsel, where she covers intellectual property, legal technology, patent litigation, cybersecurity, innovation, and more.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC With Deep GM Experience Takes Legal Reins of Power Management Giant
2 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readEx-Red Robin CLO Joins Norton Rose Fulbright After Helping Sell Latest Employer for $4.9 Billion
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250