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
© 2025 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 AllExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute readAfter Botched Landing of United Airlines Boeing 767, Unlikely Plaintiff Sues Carrier
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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