Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Doctors, lawyers concerned about Trudeau's small-business tax changes

Doctors and lawyers who run their own practices are anxiously waiting for more details on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plan to change tax rules for small businesses. At the moment, few details on the forthcoming changes are available, leaving these professionals wondering just how they will be affected.
The issue of tax avoidance arose during the fall federal election when the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP endorsed the proposal in the 2015 federal budget (passed into law in June) to reduce the small-business tax rate to 9 per cent from 11 per cent. The three parties said it was important to support small businesses because they are a major driver of jobs and economic growth small business lawyer.
However, the Liberals were concerned about handing out tax cuts to small businesses that are set up mainly to avoid taxes. As Mr. Trudeau said in a CBC broadcast on Sept. 8: “We have to know that a large percentage of small businesses are actually just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes and we want to reward the people who are actually creating jobs.”
The Conservatives and NDP disagreed during the election with the suggestion that the percentage of tax dodgers was large. Nonetheless, the Liberals pushed ahead, saying in their election campaign document that they wanted to ensure “Canadian-Controlled Private Corporation (CCPC) status is not used to reduce personal income tax obligations for high-income earners.”
Financial adviser Ross McShane of McLarty & Co. has an idea of what could be in store. He thinks the Liberals could reduce or eliminate the small-business tax deduction for these businesses and could also eliminate the ability to split income through dividend-paying shares issued to spouses and adult offspring.
For CCPCs that currently use these tax breaks, the changes could be significant. Gavin Miranda, a partner at accounting, tax and business consulting firm MNP LLP, has crunched the numbers for Ontario businesses and finds that if the small-business tax deduction is not available, “every $50,000 of taxable income would give rise to an additional $5,750 of corporate tax in 2016.” Also, if shares can no longer be issued to family members, small-business owners (in the highest tax bracket) now paying $40,000 in taxable dividends to a family shareholder could face as much as $17,000 more in taxes.
Not all CCPCs have access to these tax breaks, so the impact of the amendments won’t be as significant in some cases. For example, depending on the province, members of many professional groups are only permitted to issue shares in CCPCs to persons in their profession. And in Quebec, the eligibility for the small-business deduction was amended to exclude corporations employing less than four full-time persons year-round; companies that don’t qualify are subject to the 15-per-cent federal corporate rate.
Dr. Barry Dworkin belongs to one of the groups that could be among the hardest hit: Ontario physicians. He believes that the gross income figures often reported in the media may have created a misconception about how much physicians really earn. Like most self-employed persons, Dr. Dworkin says physicians bear a lot of expenses that salaried individual don’t have to deal with. As Mr. McShane says: “People have to understand that many doctors are not ‘swimming in money.’ ”
A 2012 study by Ontario Medical Association economist Boris Kralj provided estimates of take-home pay for Ontario doctors using data from PricewaterhouseCoopers. In fiscal 2009-10, they received an average $318,278 in gross payments but after deducting average overhead costs of $141,517 and 20 per cent for pension and benefits, their average disposable income netted out to about $145,000.
“I don’t make oodles and oodles of money or spend frivolously – in fact, my car is a five-year-old Hyundai Elantra,” Dr. Dworkin says. “And with the Ontario government asking doctors to do more while cutting back on fees, it’s getting to be discouraging. I’m beginning to ask, why bother? Maybe it’s time to slow down and retire.”
Tech start-up Lexoo, listed among the top 100 start-ups of 2015, has closed a $1.3m funding round led by Forward Partners to “disrupt” the legal market; taking its total investment to $1.7m.
High-profile names including Just Giving chairman Jonathan McKay, Vouchercodes founder Duncan Jennings, Lean Investments’ Tim Jackson and Boris Johnson’s London Co-Investment Fund also backed the round.
Launched in July 2014, Lexoo is a free on-demand marketplace which matches UK small and medium businesses such as YPlan and Hello Fresh with lawyers and claims to enable small firms to cut an average of 46% off of their legal bills.
After posting a job, businesses receive between three to four quotes (usually fixed fee) from screened lawyers with expertise in the relevant legal area. Having processed over $1.5m in legal work over the past year with a 25% month-on-month growth rate, the start-up plans to use the news funds to boost its sales and marketing activities.
On the investment, Lexoo CEO and co-founder, Daniel van Binsbergen (pictured centre), commented: “This funding round gives us the opportunity to further accelerate our growth and help thousands more businesses find the lawyer that’s right for them.”
Forward Partners managing partner, Nic Brisbourne, continued:
“Binsbergen and the team at Lexoo have achieved an amazing amount with what was a relatively small amount of seed funding. I’m confident this new funding round gives them the runway to pull the legal services industry into the 21st century.”



Wednesday, June 22, 2016

New U.S. Attorney: Corporations “commit crimes through flesh-and-blood people” that I will send to jail

September 12, 2015

Newly appointed Attorney General Loretta Lynch says it is time for Wall Street fat cats to face jail time for their crimes. Gone, says the Department of Justice (DOJ), are the days when executives could destroy the economy through illegal means and escape unscathed while their corporations only paid fines.
A new memo from the Department of Justice outlines that the DOJ will pursue charges against individuals responsible for illegal activity.
“Corporations can only commit crimes through flesh-and-blood people,” said Sally Q. Yates, the deputy attorney general and author of the policy memo. Ms. Yates further told the New York Times. “It’s only fair that the people who are responsible for committing those crimes be held accountable. The public needs to have confidence that there is one system of justice and it applies equally regardless of whether that crime occurs on a street corner or in a boardroom.”
“Even imposing unprecedented financial penalties on the institutions whose conduct led to the financial crisis is not a substitute for holding individuals within those institutions personally accountable,” Yates said said in February to a group of attorneys general business contracts.
“We’re not going to be accepting a company’s cooperation when they just offer up the vice president in charge of going to jail,” Yates told the Times.
Will this mark a change in the DOJ’s practices? Time will tell. We have heard it before, and nothing ever changes.
I am a proud graduate of a historically black college and university – North Carolina Central University.
I graduated in 1994 with honors with a major in public administration and a minor in political science. Upon graduation, I attended Indiana University at Bloomington and graduated with a Juris Doctorate in 1998.
Today, I am a senior vice president and assistant general counsel at CBS Corporation and the founder and CEO of Corporate Counsel Women of Color, a nonprofit that has galvanized close to 10,000 diverse attorneys (in-house attorneys, law firm attorneys, government lawyers, and judges) in the legal profession. Our mission is to advocate for diversity in the legal profession.
I found my way to North Carolina Central by way of my parents, Frances Privott Robinson and the late James Robinson.
My mother and father were both raised in North Carolina. They attended NCCU when it was the North Carolina College for Negroes.
They met there, fell in love, and married. When my parents graduated from NCCU, my father went on to attend law school at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
Upon graduation, my mother and he moved to the Washington, D.C. area.
I was born and raised in Prince George’s County in Maryland – one of the most affluent African-American counties in the United States.
Our community was filled with professionals, many of whom had attended HBCUs such as NCCU, Tuskegee, North Carolina A&T, Morehouse, Spelman, Howard and Tennessee State.
These people were role models to me. They were successful in business, the public school system, military, and in the government.
They had a strong sense of community, self, and pride as African-Americans.
As a child growing up, my parents were active in the NCCU Alumni Association and often quoted the school’s motto to me: “An Eagle is no ordinary barnyard fowl.”
My parents instilled in me the lessons they learned at NCCU and conveyed to me throughout my life that I could be anything I wanted to be.
My mother grew up as a tenant farmer in Cofield, N.C.
She repeatedly shared with me what her father, my grandfather, told her: “Each generation must do better than the generation before.”
My grandfather sent all three of his daughters to HBCUs.
After I graduated from high school, and it was time to select a college, there was only one choice for me – North Carolina Central University.
My entire time at NCCU was nothing but rewarding. Many of the tools and skills that I learned at NCCU have carried me through my 18 years as a lawyer in corporate America and through my 12 years of leadership of Corporate Counsel Women of Color.
One of the experiences at NCCU that stands out to me -- that helped to shape and mold me into the person I am today -- is the stringent curriculum.
I was in the NCCU University Honors Program, which required students to conduct qualitative and quantitative research. Through the Honors Program students were required to take 21 hours per semester and maintain a 3.0 GPA.
This experience was phenomenal. It gave me the foundation to be multi-functional and efficiently management my time. It also gave me the fundamentals in the law for research, writing and analytical skills. It helped springboard me to write a cutting-edge article while I was in law school for the "Indiana Law Journal" entitled “Professional Athletes - Held to a Higher Standard and Above the Law: A Comment on High-Profile Criminal Defendants and the Need for States to Establish High-Profile Courts.
Furthermore, through the Honors Program, I earned a summer internship at the White House in First Lady Hillary Clinton’s office. It is exciting to see my former boss now running for the White House.
Another critical experience at NCCU was my ability to serve as Miss North Carolina Central University in 1994, where I was able to serve the community, serve as the University’s ambassador, and develop my leadership skills.
The best part of the experience was the ability to compete in pageants. Through this process, the campus administrators provided me with training in oratory, voice and diction, and presentation. The pageants pushed me out of my comfort zone. I learned the critical importance of following instructions, controlling oneself, graciously receiving feedback, criticism, and critique — all of these skills are important in the workplace and in life.
I remembered they would tell us that being on time is being late. To this day, I arrive 15 minutes early before an appointment so not to miss anything. I learned the most important lesson: My only competition is me. Don’t look to the left. Cut out the distractions. Don’t look to the right. Keep your eyes on Christ and look straight ahead.  This lesson carries me to this very day.
It should be noted also that at NCCU, the faculty took enormous interest in me. They nurtured me and shared their time and insights with me. I had an opportunity to be mentored by the late Chancellor Julius Chambers, the former executive director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
We stayed in contact even after I graduated. One of my proudest moments in my career was being invited to join the NAACP Legal Defense Fund’s Board of Directors in 2013. I am proud to carry on the work of Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley and Julius Chambers as we continue to keep our focus on equality in America.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

EXCLUSIVE– Attorney For Displaced Disney Workers: Rubio A ‘Liar’ Appeasing ‘His Corporate Donors’

American workers laid off by Orlando Disney are preparing a lawsuit against their former employer. They allege they were replaced by lower-wage foreign workers on H-1B visas— and that they were forced to suffer the indignity of training their foreign replacements.

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, the workers’ attorney, Sara Blackwell, provides details about the lawsuit, and slams the workers’ home state senator— Marco Rubio— for pushing to triple the H-1B visa to appease his “corporate donors.”
“I think Sen. Rubio is a liar,” Blackwell said:
When you tell America that there are not enough qualified American workers— whether you are Mark Zuckerberg, or [Disney CEO] Bob Iger, or Marco Rubio— when you say that there aren’t enough qualified Americans while hundreds of qualified Americans are being fired, and replaced by less qualified foreigners, that’s a straight lie. And I think Rubio lies. And the only motivation I can imagine he has to do so is the support he gets from his corporate donors.
Blackwell tells Breitbart that the Disney employees are filing complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is a prerequisite to bringing forth a discrimination lawsuit. Blackwell explained that by terminating the Americans and forcing them to train their foreign replacements, the employees will make discrimination claims under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act corporate attorney.
The claims include discrimination based on national origin (the displaced workers were American/non-Indian, while their replacements were reportedly Indian nationals); race (most of the employees terminated were non-Indian, while their replacements were reportedly Indian nationals); age (most of the displaced workers were over the age of forty while most of the foreign replacements were under forty); and gender (some of the employees who were terminated were women while nearly all of the foreign worker replacements were men).
Blackwell says that getting the American workers the legal protections to which they are entitled to has been difficult given the top-down pressure to silence the displaced workers. “Most of the American workers that were terminated are afraid to come forward,” Blackwell said. “They’re afraid to speak, afraid to file a complaint. The tech industry is very unstable and they don’t want to be blacklisted, which does happen. Most of them are worried and scared to come forward.”
Blackwell told Breitbart that she got involved in representing the tech workers after learning how American citizens are being discriminated against in their own country by virtue of their American nationality.
Indeed, groups promoting policies that would replace American workers frequently use the term “new America” as a euphemism. For instance, the Murdoch-Iger lobbying firm is called the “Partnership for A New American Economy;” the National Journal has launched “The Next America” project; and the White House’s immigration initiative is called the “New Americans Project.” Similarly, Sen. Marco Rubio’s campaign theme is, “A New American Century.”
Rubio’s newest H-1B expansion bill is titled the Immigration Innovation Act, or I-Squared. Some of Rubio’s top financial boosters are big users of H-1B program.
For instance, Oracle is ranked 20th among the biggest users of the H-1B program, according to USCIS data analyzed by Computer World’s Patrick Thibodeau. Oracle has endorsed Rubio’s legislation and now its billionaire co-founder, Larry Ellison, is helping to fund Rubio’s campaign.
In July, the WSJ reported that Ellison gave $3 million to the pro-Rubio Super PAC. In June, Ellison hosted a  $2,700 per-person fundraiser for Rubio. In addition, the bill has also received the endorsement Mark Zuckerberg’s immigration expansion group, FWD.us. Most strikingly, the bill has been endorsed by the lobbying firm co-chaired by none other than Disney’s CEO, Bob Iger, along with FOX’s Rupert Murdoch.
In recent weeks, the H-1B visa has become a central topic in the presidential election. Last month, in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump called on Disney to hire back all of its American workers who had been replaced by low-wage foreign nationals. Trump declared:
I am calling TODAY on Disney to hire back every one of the workers they replaced, and I am calling on Rubio to immediately rescind his sponsorship of the I-Squared bill and apologize to every Floridian for endorsing it. I am further calling on Rubio to return the money he has received from Silicon Valley CEOs and to donate the money to a charity helping unemployed Americans whose jobs Rubio has helped to destroy.
Trump slammed Rubio for “dishonesty.” Trump said, “Senator Rubio is incapable of telling the truth,” and concluded, “he should be disqualified for dishonesty alone.”
In the recent CNBC presidential debate, moderator John Harwood pressed Rubio on his support for “dramatically increasing immigration visas… which Jeff Sessions of Alabama, says in reality, the tech industry uses this program to undercut hiring and wages for highly qualified Americans.”
In his lengthy response, Rubio suggested that there is a “gap” between the lesser talents of Americans and the superior talents of foreign workers.
Rubio suggested that Americans would need further training before they would be qualified to fill certain jobs in their own country: “We need to get back to training people in this country to do the jobs of the 21st century… The best way to close this gap is to modernize higher education so Americans have the skills for those jobs,” Rubio said. The “ideal scenario is to train Americans to do the work, so we don’t have to rely on people from abroad,” Rubio declared.
This response prompted swift rebuke from labor expert and Howard University professor Ron Hira. “It’s ironic that Rubio would basically blame American workers for not being skilled and trained [even though] American workers in his own state, who have the skills and were doing their job, were replaced by H-1B workers, who had less skills.”
Census data shows that there are currently 11 million U.S. workers with STEM certification that are not working in STEM employment positions.
When Rubio attempted to claim that he had sought “reforms” to the program to prevent abuses, Hira—like Blackwell— declared Rubio’s claim to be “an outright fabrication.”
Rubio’s I-Squared bill would triple H-1B visas while also essentially lifting green card caps for the foreign STEM workforce and their relatives.
In testimony submitted for the record in reply to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, H-1B expert and attorney John Miano was asked directly: “what protections exist for American workers in” Marco Rubio I-Squared bill? His blunt answer: “There are none.”
Rubio efforts to champion the H-1B program have been well-documented. In addition to his I-Squared bill, which he introduced earlier this year, the 2013 immigration bill Rubio wrote with Senator Schumer would have substantially increased the issuances of H-1B visas.
These increases would all be layered on top of America’s current record-breaking intake of foreign nationals which have hurtled the country to a milestone 42.4 million foreign-born residentsOne-quarter of the country is now of foreign birth or has parents of foreign birth.
Rutgers Professor Hal Salzman explained in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year that corporations are filling roughly two-thirds of entry-level tech jobs with foreign workers. Salzman added that if the forerign worker expansions outlined in Rubio’s I-Squared bill or his Gang of Eight bill were enacted, “the increases… would supply guestworkers for more than 100 percent of the industry’s hiring needs.”
In 2013 when the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza asked why Rubio’s plan contained such large-scale guest worker provisions, a Rubio aide expressed more bluntly what Rubio implied during the CNBC debate.
The Rubio aide said:“One of the problems you have with this, ‘Oh there’s American workers who are unemployed.’ There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it. There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly because–.”
At which point another Rubio aide jumped in asserting, “But the same is true for the high-skilled worker.”
To which, the first Rubio aide replied, “Yes, and the same is true across every sector, in government, in everything.”
In 2013, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Union President Chris Crane accused the Rubio of having “directly misled law enforcement officers.” Crane said “Sen. Rubio left unchanged legislative provisions that he himself admitted to us in private were detrimental, flawed and must be changed.”
When Rubio tried to claim his bill did not grant amnesty— even though Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) made clear that it bill would grant amnesty to the illegal population “on day one”—  Mark Krikorian wrote, “Unless [Rubio’s] an idiot, which I do not think to be the case, he’s trying to fool voters, not persuade them… First, [Rubio repeats] a familiar talking point: the bill doesn’t provide amnesty. For crisssake, of course it’s amnesty! Stop lying!”
Similarly, National Review documented Rubio’s repeated misrepresentations about the bill, writing in one editorial:
[Rubio] has supposedly discovered that the enforcement provisions are inadequate, although he has done countless interviews touting that the bill contains the ‘toughest immigration-enforcement measures in the history of United States’ (which is what his website still says). At the same time, Rubio declares the bill 95–96 percent perfect.
Washington Examiner’s Byron York exposed how despite Rubio’s repeated assurances in 2013 that “stressed [the bill’s] enforcement provisions, saying that border security must come before immigrants are granted legal permanent resident status,” in a Spanish-language interview on Univision, Rubio admitted that the exact opposite was true.
“Let’s be clear,” Rubio said. “Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”
In an April 2015 interview, Sean Hannity asked Rubio a question that had been submitted by viewers via Facebook which read, “Are you prepared to…  stop illegal amnesty?”
Rubio replied, “I imagine what they’re asking about is the executive amnesty, in essence, absolutely that would be reversed. It needs to be reversed.” That same month, however, Rubio told Univision’s Jorge Ramos something that he failed to mention to Hannity, namely that Rubio hoped to keep DREAMer executive amnesty in place until some kind of “immigration reform” (i.e. legislative amnesty) has replaced it.
Rubio told Ramos in Spanish, “Well, DACA is going to have to end at some point. I wouldn’t undo it immediately. The reason is that there are already people who have that permission, who are working, who are studying, and I don’t think it would be fair to cancel it suddenly. But I do think it is going to have to end. And, God willing, it’s going to end because immigration reform is going to pass.”
Rubio’s position on executive amnesty for DREAMers bears a striking similarity to the position articulated by President Obama—namely that he will leave the temporary executive amnesty measure for DREAMers in place while he pushes Congress to legislatively ratify amnesty, even though Congress and voters have rejected DREAM Act amnesty on multiple occasions.
Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly has said that Rubio’s decision to pitch contradicting campaign agendas depending on what language he is speaking ought to be inherently disqualifying. “Rubio’s statement [on executive amnesty] was made in Spanish on the Spanish-language network Univision, which is reason enough to eliminate him from serious consideration,” Schlafly said. “When somebody is running for President of the United States, why should we have to get somebody to translate his remarks into English?”
Earlier this week, Rubio praised the refugee provisions in the Gang of Eight’s Obama-backed immigration plan. Rubio told The Guardian’s Sabrina Siddiqui that the Gang of Eight bill (S. 744) “did strengthen the refugee program,” however this claim has been debunked by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, who explained in its analysis at the time that, “Title III Subtitle D of S.744 undermines current asylum and refugee law by eliminating preexisting requirements aliens apply for asylum within a certain time frame of entering the U.S., allowing asylum officers to bypass immigration judges before granting asylum to unlawful aliens, and giving broad authority to the Administration to create new categories of refugees and stateless persons to be admitted into the country.”
Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz explained that Rubio’s “bill would have created endless avenues for this president to bring in an unlimited numbers of Islamic immigrants from the most volatile corners of the world.”

Earlier this month, Rubio told Hannity that he joined the Gang of Eight because he “was trying to produce the most conservative bill possible in a Senate controlled by Democrats and had hoped a more conservative House would make it even better.” Yet, unlike the McCain-Kennedy bill, which a number of Democrats opposed, Rubio’s bill was backed unanimously by Senate Democrats and championed by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Luis Gutierrez, La Raza, the Chamber of Commerce, and the immigration group co-chaired by Iger, Murdoch, Marriott and other CEOs.