NY's Latest Legislation: What Passed, What Didn't, What's Next
Sharon L. Klein and Rebecca H. Lomazow write: The 2017-18 legislative session officially opened on Jan. 4, 2017 and recessed on June 21, 2017. It is instructive to review what passed before the June recess, what failed to pass and what lies ahead when the session resumes in January 2018.
September 12, 2017 at 12:00 AM
24 minute read
The 2017-18 legislative session officially opened on Jan. 4, 2017 and recessed on June 21, 2017. It is instructive to review what passed before the June recess, what failed to pass and what lies ahead when the session resumes in January 2018. Among the most noteworthy measures are the following:
1. Nonresident Income Tax Loopholes Closed (Enacted April 10, 2017), New York A.3009-C/S.2009-C (2017):
Co-operative Shares Included in Definition of Real Property When Determining New York Source Income. New York Tax Law §631 imposes a personal income tax on a nonresident's New York source income. New York source income is defined to include gains from the sale of real property or co-operative apartment interests located in New York. N.Y. Tax Law §631(b). Real property located in the state was further defined to include interests in certain legal entities1 if the value of the real property located in New York was at least 50 percent of the entity's value. N.Y. Tax Law §631(b)(1)(A)(1). Notably, this rule omitted co-operative apartment shares from the definition of real property. This enabled a nonresident to exclude from source income the gain from the sale of a New York co-operative apartment that was held in an entity. However, the 2017-18 Executive Budget, signed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on April 10, 2017, revises the definition of “real property located in this state” to include ownership interests in entities that own co-operative shares. Accordingly, if more than 50 percent of an entity's value consists of co-operative apartment shares, gains from the sale of an ownership interest in that entity will be taxable to a nonresident as source income. The changes apply to tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2017.
This content has been archived.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 AllFalling Back in Love With Certain Estate Planning Strategies in a Falling Interest Rate Environment
9 minute readNavigating the Corporate Transparency and New York LLC Transparency Acts: A Guide for Trust and Estates Attorneys
7 minute readRupert Murdoch Trust Trial Underscores Lucrative Nature of High-End Private Client Practices
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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