<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Detroit Business Law &#187; Legislation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/category/legislation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com</link>
	<description>Resources for Metro-Detroit Businesses</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:06:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>New “Catering Permit” for Liquor License Holders</title>
		<link>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2011/04/29/new-catering-permit-for-liquor-license-holders/</link>
		<comments>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2011/04/29/new-catering-permit-for-liquor-license-holders/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2011 12:05:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Melissa L. Demorest</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Melissa L. Demorest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gov. Snyder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan Legislature]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/?p=1316</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week, Governor Snyder signed a new law permitting certain liquor licensees to apply for and obtain a new “catering permit” (MCL 436.1547).  The catering permit allows existing licensees to provide and serve liquor at private off-site events.  Previously, even if a licensee was providing food service at an off-site event, the licensee could not [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/1337577_wine_swirl.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-1320" title="1337577_wine_swirl" src="http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/1337577_wine_swirl-150x150.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="150" /></a>Last week, Governor Snyder signed a new law permitting certain liquor licensees to apply for and obtain a new “catering permit” (<a href="http://1.usa.gov/iOBRDc">MCL 436.1547</a>).  The catering permit allows existing licensees to provide and serve liquor at private off-site events.  Previously, even if a licensee was providing food service at an off-site event, the licensee could not also provide and serve the alcoholic beverages, so the event organizer had to obtain those separately.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">To be eligible for a catering permit, the licensee must be a “specially designated distributor, specially designated merchant, or holder of a public on-premises license,” AND must also be a licensed “food service establishment or retail food establishment.”  For example, the following types of businesses might be eligible for a catering permit: a restaurant, hotel, or banquet facility that caters offsite events; or a grocery store that sells liquor and provides catering.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">A catering permit holder may use the permit at multiple events and locations simultaneously, and there is no limit on the number of catering permits issued in a particular city or county.  A permit holder must complete an MLCC server training program before beginning to use the permit.  The catering permit application fee is $70 and the annual permit fee is $100.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This new law was originally part of the Sunday liquor sales law that went into effect late in 2010, but Governor Granholm vetoed the catering permit section from that law.  It was recently reintroduced and quickly became law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">For additional analysis of the new law, see the <a href="http://1.usa.gov/kzhu5X">Michigan House and Senate analysis</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2011/04/29/new-catering-permit-for-liquor-license-holders/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michigan Law Now Allows Easier Conversion of Corporations Into Limited Liability Companies, and Vice Versa</title>
		<link>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/12/28/michigan-law-now-allows-easier-conversion-of-corporations-into-limited-liability-companies-and-vice-versa/</link>
		<comments>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/12/28/michigan-law-now-allows-easier-conversion-of-corporations-into-limited-liability-companies-and-vice-versa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Dec 2010 13:37:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Demorest</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Formation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mark Demorest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/?p=1211</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Michigan Limited Liability Company Act has recently been amended (Public Act 290 of 2010). The changes will be discussed in a series of articles on our firm blog. One of the most important changes to the Act is to allow a corporation to be converted into a limited liability company, or the conversion of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Roundabout.jpeg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1212" title="Roundabout" src="http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Roundabout.jpeg" alt="" width="300" height="200" /></a>The Michigan Limited Liability Company Act has recently been amended (<a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/publicact/pdf/2010-PA-0290.pdf">Public Act 290 of 2010</a>). The changes will be discussed in a series of articles on our firm blog.</p>
<p>One of the most important changes to the Act is to allow a corporation to be converted into a limited liability company, or the conversion of a limited liability corporation into a corporation. Until now, it was necessary to go through a formal merger of a corporation and an LLC to accomplish this result. Now all that will need to be done to convert the form of the entity is to file a form with the State of Michigan.</p>
<p>Tax, corporate governance or other considerations may make it desirable to change the form of an existing entity from a corporation into an LLC, or  from an LLC into a corporation. The new conversion process will make this much simpler and less expensive.</p>
<p>The amendments to the Limited Liability Company Act became law on December 16, 2010. The conversion forms have not yet been developed by the State’s Corporation Division.</p>
<blockquote><p>This article was written by <a title="Mark S. Demorest -  Biography" href="http://demolaw.com/attorneys/Mark-Demorest/" target="_blank">Mark S. Demorest</a>, Managing Member of <a title="Demorest Law Firm  Website" href="http://www.demolaw.com/" target="_blank">Demorest Law Firm.</a></p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/12/28/michigan-law-now-allows-easier-conversion-of-corporations-into-limited-liability-companies-and-vice-versa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Highlights of the New Tax Bill (Part 2)</title>
		<link>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/12/22/highlights-of-the-new-tax-bill-part-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/12/22/highlights-of-the-new-tax-bill-part-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:21:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary Field, CPA</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Gary Field]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Numerico]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/?p=1207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The following is the 2nd part of the summary (see below) of the Tax Relief Act of 2010 and is provided compliments of UHY Advisors, Inc. UHY is a tax and business advisory services firm with whom we have had a strategic partnership with for over 25 years: Changes to the Federal Estate Tax Law [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: left;">The following is the 2nd part of the summary (see below) of the Tax Relief Act of 2010 and is provided compliments of UHY Advisors, Inc. UHY is a tax and business advisory services firm with whom we have had a strategic partnership with for over 25 years:</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong>Changes to the Federal Estate Tax Law</strong> – Although the Federal Estate Tax was eliminated for individuals dying in 2010, under the Tax Relief Act of 2010, the Federal Estate Tax will be reinstated in 2011 and 2012, but subject to a new set of rules during such period, including:</p>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Estates will now be able to claim a $5 million “applicable exclusion amount” ($10 million for couples), indexed for inflation after 2011, thereby exempting estates valued at less than $5 million from any Federal Estate Tax;</li>
<li>The top marginal tax rate will be 35% for Federal Estate, Gift, and Generation Skipping Transfer Taxes;</li>
<li>Effective for gifts made after December 31, 2010, the tax rates and applicable exclusion amounts for Federal Gift Taxes will be determined with respect to the rates and exclusion amounts of the Federal Estate Tax (in other words, the $5 million applicable exclusion amount can be used to shield gifts from the Federal Gift Tax, and, to the extent not used to exempt lifetime gifts from the Federal Gift Tax, can also be used to shield transfers at death from the Federal Estate Tax);</li>
<li>As an additional benefit to the estates of those individuals who have died in 2010, they may now elect to either be governed by the Federal Estate Tax rules under EGTRRA (under which the Federal Estate Tax was eliminated for 2010 subject to a modified carryover basis rule) or the new rules set forth in the Tax Relief Act of 2010; and</li>
<li>The personal representative of the estate of the first spouse to die will be able to transfer any unused “applicable exclusion amount” ($5 million) of the decedent to the decedent’s surviving spouse.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong>FAVORABLE TAX PROVISIONS AFFECTING BUSINESSES</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong>Exemption of employers for having to pay their 6.2% Share of the Social Security Tax for certain hires of previously unemployed workers</strong> – Your business will be exempt from paying the employer’s 6.2% share of the Social Security payroll tax on the formerly unemployed new-hire for not only the remainder of 2010, but also for all of 2011. Plus, if you keep that formerly unemployed new-hire on the payroll for a continuous 52 weeks, your business will be eligible for a nonrefundable tax credit of up-to-$1,000 after the 52-week threshold is reached.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong>Bonus Depreciation Rules and Section 179 Limits</strong> – Under the Tax Relief Act of 2010, a 100% write-off will be allowed on new qualifying property acquired and placed in service after September 8, 2010 through December 31, 2011. For new qualifying property acquired and placed in service during 2012, the bonus depreciation rate has been set at 50%. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2011, the maximum expensing amount under IRC Section 179 has been set at $125,000 and the investment-based phase-out amount at $500,000 (under current law, the expensing figures were set to drop from $500,000/$2 million for 2010 and 2011 to $25,000/$200,000 after 2011). Also, off-the-shelf computer software will qualify for the Section 179 expensing election if placed in service in a tax year beginning before 2013.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">As described above, both businesses and individuals are affected by the Tax Relief Act of 2010. For questions or more information on this topic, please contact your tax professional at UHY Advisors in Houston at (713) 960-1706 or in Dallas at (214) 243-2900, or visit us on the Web at uhy-us.com.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">The statements contained herein are provided for information purposes only, are not intended to constitute tax advice which may be relied upon to avoid penalties under any federal, state, local or other tax statutes or regulations, and do not resolve any tax issues in your favor. Furthermore, such statements are not presented or intended as, and should not be taken or assumed to constitute, legal advice of any nature, for which advice it is recommended that you consult your own legal counselors and professionals.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">UHY Advisors, Inc. provides tax and business consulting services through wholly owned subsidiary entities that operate under the name of “UHY Advisors.”  UHY Advisors, Inc. and its subsidiary entities offer services from offices across the United States. UHY Advisors, Inc. and its subsidiary entities are not licensed CPA firms.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">UHY LLP is a licensed independent CPA firm that performs attest services.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">UHY Advisors, Inc. and UHY LLP are independent U.S. members of Urbach Hacker Young International Limited.</p>
<blockquote><p><em>This article was written by Gary Field, CPA at Numerico, PC. <a href="http://numerico.com/">Click here to view Numerico’s website.</a></em></p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/12/22/highlights-of-the-new-tax-bill-part-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Highlights of the New Tax Bill (Part 1)</title>
		<link>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/12/20/highlights-of-the-new-tax-bill-part-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/12/20/highlights-of-the-new-tax-bill-part-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:24:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary Field, CPA</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Gary Field]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Numerico]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/?p=1204</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For anyone following our blog for the past several months you know it has been our opinion that the Bush tax cuts would be extended. Well that is exactly what happened. More specifically, on December 16, 2010 Congress passed the Tax Relief Act of 2010. What surprised us about the 2010 Tax Bill, however, was [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For anyone following our blog for the past several months you know it has been our opinion that the Bush tax cuts would be extended. Well that is exactly what happened. More specifically, on December 16, 2010 Congress passed the Tax Relief Act of 2010. What surprised us about the 2010 Tax Bill, however, was the reinstatement of the Federal Estate Tax and the gift it provides to those who amass a modest estate over the course of a lifetime.</p>
<p>The following summary (see below) of the Tax Relief Act of 2010 is provided compliments of UHY Advisors, Inc. UHY is a tax and business advisory services firm with whom we have had a strategic partnership with for over 25 years:</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="420">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Congress and President Obama   Agree on New 2010 Tax Bill</strong><strong> </strong></p>
<p><em>On December 16, 2010,   Congress passed the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and   Job Creation Act (&#8220;the Tax Relief Act of 2010&#8243;), which not only   extended many favorable tax provisions, but also extended (or, in some cases,   reinstated) many other tax benefits until January 1, 2013 (subject to certain   modifications noted below). President Obama is expected to sign the bill   within the next few days. This Alert highlights some of the more   noteworthy provisions of the Tax Relief Act of 2010.</em></p>
<p><strong>FAVORABLE TAX PROVISONS   AFFECTING INDIVIDUALS</strong></p>
<p><strong>EGTRRA&#8217;s 2010 Tax Rates and Certain Other   Tax Breaks Extended Through 2012</strong> -</p>
<ol>
<li>The        tax rates for individuals in effect in 2010 will remain in effect        through 2012. Accordingly, for 2011 and 2012, the lowest marginal tax        rate will remain at 10%. And, for those same years, the top marginal tax        rate will remain at 35%.</li>
<li>The        phase-out of Itemized Deductions and Personal Exemptions of        higher-income taxpayers, which was set to occur in 2011, will not be        effective for 2011 and 2012.</li>
<li>The        special maximum tax rate of 15% on long-term capital gains and        &#8220;qualified dividends&#8221; will be retained for 2011 and        2012.</li>
<li>For        2011 and 2012, qualifying taxpayers will still be able to claim a Child        Tax Credit of up to $1,000 for each qualifying child under age        17. The Credit for Household and Dependent Care of up to $2,100 for        the care of two or more children under the age of 13 will also continue        to be available.</li>
<li>The        American Opportunity Tax Credit (&#8220;AOTC&#8221;) will be retained for        2011 and 2012. Therefore, the maximum AOTC of $2,500 per eligible        student per year is retained subject to being phased out for taxpayers        with modified AGI between $80,000 and $90,000 ($160,000 and $180,000 for        joint filers).</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>Social Security Payroll Tax Credit</strong> &#8211;   Also, for 2011 <span style="text-decoration: underline;">only</span>:</p>
<ol>
<li>The        <strong>employee&#8217;s share</strong> of Social Security Taxes is reduced from 6.2% to        4.2% of their pay, up to the Social Security Wage Base ($106,800 for        2011). So, for an individual who has wages of at least $106,800 in 2011,        the tax savings for 2011 attributable to the reduced rate of withholding        is 2% of $106,800, or $2,136.</li>
<li>The        Social Security tax component of a <strong>self-employed individual&#8217;s </strong>self-employment        tax is reduced from 12.4% to 10.4%.</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>Alternative Minimum Tax (&#8220;AMT&#8221;)   Patch</strong> &#8211; A <strong>two year patch for 2010 and 2011</strong> will increase the AMT   exemption amount to $47,450 for single taxpayers and to $72,450 for married   taxpayers filing jointly for 2011 and to $48,450 for single taxpayers and to   $74,450 for married taxpayers filing jointly for 2012. Without the patch, the   House Ways and Means Committee estimated that approximately 21 million   additional taxpayers would owe AMT for 2010.</p>
<p><strong>Long List of Tax Breaks For Individuals   Retroactively Reinstated and Extended Through 2011</strong> &#8211; Many   tax breaks for individuals that expired at the end of 2009 will be   retroactively reinstated for 2010 and extended through 2011, including the   following:</p>
<ol>
<li>The        $250 above-the-line deduction for certain class room expenses of        elementary and secondary school teachers;</li>
<li>The        election to take an itemized deduction for State and local general        sales taxes in lieu of the itemized deduction for State and local income        taxes;</li>
<li>The        above-the-line deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses (in        lieu of the AOTC); and</li>
<li>The        provision that permits up to $100,000 per year of tax-free distributions        to a charity from the IRA of an individual age 70 1/2 or older.</li>
</ol>
<p>UHY Advisors, Inc.   provides tax and business consulting services through wholly owned subsidiary   entities that operate under the name of &#8220;UHY Advisors.&#8221;  UHY   Advisors, Inc. and its subsidiary entities offer services from offices across   the United States. UHY Advisors, Inc. and its subsidiary entities are not   licensed CPA firms.</p>
<p>UHY LLP is a licensed independent CPA firm that performs attest services.</p>
<p>UHY Advisors, Inc. and UHY LLP are independent U.S. members of Urbach Hacker   Young International Limited.</p>
<blockquote><p><em>This article was written by Gary Field, CPA at Numerico, PC. <a href="http://numerico.com/">Click here to view Numerico’s website.</a></em></p></blockquote>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/12/20/highlights-of-the-new-tax-bill-part-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Change To Michigan Youth Employment Laws for Non-Profits</title>
		<link>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/12/16/change-to-youth-employment-laws/</link>
		<comments>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/12/16/change-to-youth-employment-laws/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:03:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Demorest</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mark Demorest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/?p=1199</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The State of Michigan has recently created an exception to the requirement that a minor must have a work permit from the minor’s school in order to be employed. Effective immediately, a work permit is not required for a minor who is working as an unpaid volunteer for a charitable organization that is recognized as [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1200" title="Small Business2" src="http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Small-Business2.jpeg" alt="" width="248" height="300" /></p>
<p>The State of Michigan has recently created an exception to the requirement that a minor must have a work permit from the minor’s school in order to be employed. Effective immediately, a work permit is not required for a minor who is working as an unpaid volunteer for a charitable organization that is recognized as tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The law also seems to cover organizations that do not have a 501(c)(3) tax exemption from the IRS, as long as the organization’s “purposes, structure, or activities are exclusively those that are described in Section 501(c)(3).” A copy of the amended law is attached.</p>
<p>The exception does not apply to a non-profit organization that is outside the scope of Section 501(c)(3), such as a Chamber of Commerce, trade association or real estate board. These other organizations would need to get work permits for volunteers who are minors.</p>
<blockquote><p>This article was written by <a title="Mark S. Demorest -  Biography" href="http://demolaw.com/attorneys/Mark-Demorest/" target="_blank">Mark S. Demorest</a>, Managing Member of <a title="Demorest Law Firm  Website" href="http://www.demolaw.com/" target="_blank">Demorest Law Firm.</a></p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/12/16/change-to-youth-employment-laws/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Political Games of Chicken &amp; Tax Cuts</title>
		<link>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/12/10/political-games-of-chicken-tax-cuts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/12/10/political-games-of-chicken-tax-cuts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:38:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jay Kossen, CPA</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Jay Kossen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Money Management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Numerico]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/?p=1197</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Congress is at it again. Despite the much publicized agreement in principle last week between the President and Republican leaders to extend various tax cuts, the House Democrat leadership has decided to reject the agreement in its current form. Here is the press release from Nancy Pelosi yesterday: “We will continue discussions with the President [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Congress is at it again. Despite the much publicized agreement in principle last week between the President and Republican leaders to extend various tax cuts, the House Democrat leadership has decided to reject the agreement in its current form.</p>
<p>Here is the press release from Nancy Pelosi yesterday:</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>“We will continue discussions with the President and our Caucus in the days ahead. Democratic priorities remain clear: to provide a tax cut for working families, to promote policies that produce jobs and economic growth, and to assist millions of our fellow Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.&#8221;</p>
<p>While the tax cuts will most likely pass in a slightly tweaked form, the politicians are missing the point, since most of them have probably never run a small business. Here are a few points to consider.</p>
<ol>
<li>The IRS does have a deadline for printing withholding tables and      forms that employers will be using in 2011.  With Congress’ continued delaying tactics to score      political points, if the publishing deadline is missed to revise the forms,      the IRS will be forced to print outdated tables. The losers will be      workers who will have higher taxes taken out of their paycheck in 2011 and      the government who will have to pay to print the forms twice.</li>
<li>Business owners do not make spending decisions to hire or invest in      their companies when no one knows what the tax laws will be. Investing in      companies via equipment and other items means more money in the private      sector which has been proven time and time again to be a better economic      stimulus than monies spent by government.</li>
<li>The American voters fired the current leadership last month for not      fixing the economy. Obviously the leadership didn’t get the message since      they have decided to continue the choice of uncertainty that affects      decisions that could improve the economy. See item 2 above.</li>
</ol>
<blockquote><p>This article was written by Jay Kossen, CPA at Numerico, PC. <a href="http://numerico.com/" target="_blank">Click here to view Numerico’s website.</a></p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/12/10/political-games-of-chicken-tax-cuts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Law on Broker’s Commercial Real Estate Liens</title>
		<link>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/11/08/new-law-on-brokers-commercial-real-estate-liens/</link>
		<comments>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/11/08/new-law-on-brokers-commercial-real-estate-liens/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2010 22:01:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>detroitlaw</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matt Ehrlich]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/?p=1175</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In early October 2010, Governor Granholm signed into law the Commercial Real Estate Broker’s Lien Act (the “Act”).   The intent of the Act is to remedy the concerns of commercial real estate brokers regarding their inability to collect payment for their brokerage work.  The Act permits commercial real estate brokers to record a lien on [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In early October 2010, Governor Granholm signed into law the <a href="http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Blog-Commercial-Real-Estate-Act.pdf">Commercial Real Estate Broker’s Lien Act (the “Act”)</a>.   The intent of the Act is to remedy the concerns of commercial real estate brokers regarding their inability to collect payment for their brokerage work.  The Act permits commercial real estate brokers to record a lien on property in which they are entitled to a commission before the parties actually close on the sale of the property.   Persons entering into commercial real estate transactions need to be aware of the implications of the Act.</p>
<p>Below are a few of the key provisions the Act:</p>
<ul>
<li>To assert a lien, there must be a written commission agreement entered into after October 5, 2010.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The broker must actually be entitled to a commission pursuant to the written agreement.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The individual asserting the lien must be a licensed real estate broker in Michigan.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The lien must be recorded with the register of deeds before the real estate transaction closes and before the real estate is conveyed.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The lien must be mailed to the land owner within ten (10) days of recording.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>If there is a commission dispute, escrow accounts are to be established with funds to satisfy the lien until the dispute is resolved.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The broker has one year to foreclose upon the lien after it is recorded.</li>
</ul>
<p>Commercial real estate transactions often involve complex legal issues. The recent enactment of the Act further adds to the complications of entering into a commercial real estate transaction.  Parties entering into real estate transactions may wish to consult with an attorney in order to obtain a lien waiver from the real estate agents involved in the transaction before closing.</p>
<blockquote><p>This article was written by Matt Ehrlich, Associate Attorney at <a title="Demorest Law Firm  Website" href="http://www.demolaw.com/" target="_blank">Demorest Law Firm.</a></p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2010/11/08/new-law-on-brokers-commercial-real-estate-liens/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michigan Smoking Ban &#8211; Summary of House Bill No. 4377</title>
		<link>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2009/12/16/michigan-smoking-ban-summary-of-house-bill-no-4377/</link>
		<comments>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2009/12/16/michigan-smoking-ban-summary-of-house-bill-no-4377/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:36:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Demorest</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mark Demorest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan Legislature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State of Michigan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/?p=713</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Michigan Legislature has passed a bill which bans smoking in almost all indoor public venues. This ban has been in the works for a long time; many other States have already enacted similar laws. Governor Granholm is expected to sign the bill into law, and it will go into effect on May 1, 2010. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-716" title="no smoking" src="http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/no-smoking1.jpg" alt="no smoking" width="168" height="112" />The Michigan Legislature has passed a bill which bans smoking in almost all indoor public venues. This ban has been in the works for a long time; many other States have already enacted similar laws. Governor Granholm is expected to sign the bill into law, and it will go into effect on May 1, 2010.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">“Smoking” is defined as “the burning of a lighted cigar, cigarette, piper or any matter or substance that contains a tobacco product.” There is a ban on smoking in “public places.” A “public place” includes areas owned and operated by the government; areas not owned or operated by the government, but used by the general public for certain specified purposes; and (unless otherwise exempt) a place of employment. The third one covers almost all of the businesses in the State. A “place of employment” is an enclosed indoor area that contains a work area for one or more people.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Business owners are expected to take steps to reasonably prevent customers, employees, or other people from smoking on their premises. Business owners are expected to do ALL of the following:</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li>Clearly and conspicuously post no smoking signs (or the international no smoking symbol) at the entryway and in all buildings where smoking is prohibited.</li>
<li>Remove all ashtrays or other smoking paraphernalia from any place smoking is prohibited under the Act.</li>
<li>Inform individuals smoking in violation of the Act that they are in violation of state law and are subject to penalties.</li>
<li>Refuse to serve an individual smoking in violation of the Act.</li>
<li>Ask an individual smoking in violation of the Act to refrain from smoking, and ask them to leave if they refuse to stop.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">If owners do all of the preceding things, they have an affirmative defense against any prosecution against them for a violation of the Act. This means that the business owner can be exempt from penalties under the Act, but only if all of the preceding conditions are met.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Act includes a few exceptions. Casinos in existence before the Act can allow smoking in gaming areas only. Casinos built later cannot allow smoking. (The term casino in the bill does not include a casino operated under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Thus, the smoking ban does not apply to these casinos.) An existing separate specialty tobacco shop may allow smoking. Cigar bars may also allow smoking (but only the smoking of cigars, not other tobacco products).  The ban also does not apply to motor vehicles.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Overall, business owners should be proactive in preventing smoking in their place of business by following the five requirements described above.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Download a copy of the Bill in PDF format by <a title="Bill" href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billenrolled/House/pdf/2009-HNB-4377.pdf" target="_blank">clicking here.</a></p>
<blockquote>
<h6 style="text-align: justify;">This article was written by <a title="Mark S. Demorest - Biography" href="http://demolaw.com/attorneys/Mark-Demorest/" target="_blank">Mark S. Demorest</a>, Managing Member of <a title="Demorest Law Firm Website" href="http://www.demolaw.com" target="_blank">Demorest Law Firm.</a></h6>
</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2009/12/16/michigan-smoking-ban-summary-of-house-bill-no-4377/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Impact of Reicher v SET on The Michigan Sales Representatives Commission Act</title>
		<link>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2009/08/31/the-impact-of-reicher-v-set-on-the-michigan-sales-representatives-commission-act/</link>
		<comments>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2009/08/31/the-impact-of-reicher-v-set-on-the-michigan-sales-representatives-commission-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:02:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/?p=453</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Michigan Sales Representatives Commission Act (&#8220;SRCA&#8221;), MCLA 600.2961, (Click here to view) provides protection for sales representatives from the company he is selling for (“principal”).  The statute provides that representatives are to be paid what they are owed in a timely manner, and that intentional non-payment of commission by the principal will result in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-455" title="1152597_paid_invoice" src="http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/1152597_paid_invoice.jpg" alt="1152597_paid_invoice" width="126" height="84" />The Michigan Sales Representatives Commission Act (&#8220;SRCA&#8221;), MCLA 600.2961, (<a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28exul0145foz3he55ueym4z55%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&amp;objectName=mcl-600-2961" target="_blank">Click here to view</a>) provides protection for sales representatives from the company he is selling for (“principal”).  The statute provides that representatives are to be paid what they are owed in a timely manner, and that intentional non-payment of commission by the principal will result in “an amount equal to 2 times the amount of commissions due” up to $100,000.00.  According to the statute, a sales representative cannot waive his or her rights under the SCRA by signing a contract.</p>
<p>A recent Michigan Court of Appeals ruling in the case Reicher v SET Enters, Inc (<a title="Case" href="http://www.icle.org/modules/MLO/Cases/display.aspx?filepath=/mlo/michapp/slip/O-278907.xml&amp;style=michlaw" target="_blank">click here to view</a>) decided that a settlement agreement between the representative and principal after the representative was terminated and had filed a lawsuit against the principal can negate the non-waiver rule.  In other words, when Reicher decided to settle his claims against the principal he signed away his rights to protection under the SCRA.  When the principal breached the settlement agreement, the statutory penalties under the SCRA did not apply.  Reicher was limited to the damages for breach of contract.</p>
<p>The non-waiver provision will still apply to a contract or agreement establishing or modifying the business relationship between the principal and the sales representative, but does not apply to post-termination agreements.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2009/08/31/the-impact-of-reicher-v-set-on-the-michigan-sales-representatives-commission-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michigan Laws on Gift Cards and Gift Certificates are Changing</title>
		<link>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2009/07/15/michigan-laws-on-gift-cards-and-gift-certificates-are-changing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2009/07/15/michigan-laws-on-gift-cards-and-gift-certificates-are-changing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Demorest, Legal Assistant</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retail]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/?p=347</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent Michigan law and impending Federal legislation are reshaping the way businesses can handle the sale and use of gift cards and gift certificates. In November 2008, the State of Michigan passed new laws which mandate that gift cards and gift certificates issued by retailers may not have an expiration date less than 5 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-348" title="giftcard" src="http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/giftcard.jpg" alt="giftcard" width="156" height="101" />A recent Michigan law and impending Federal legislation are reshaping the way businesses can handle the sale and use of gift cards and gift certificates. In November 2008, the State of Michigan passed new laws which mandate that gift cards and gift certificates issued by retailers may not have an expiration date less than 5 years from the date of purchase. Also, no non-use fees or service fees may be deducted from the value of the gift card.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">These laws do not apply to a prepaid card issue by a financial institution that may be used at many different types of retailers (such as a prepaid Visa card).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Furthermore, companies cannot refuse partial payment of a good or service with a gift card. In other words, even if the total sale is more than the balance on the card, a business must accept the gift card as partial payment for the good or service. Companies also cannot refuse gift cards during sales or closeouts.<br />
Lastly, the terms and conditions of a gift card cannot be altered after the gift card has been purchased. Terms must be disclosed on the gift card or certificate, on the envelope it comes in, or an 800 number must be provided to obtain the terms and conditions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">To add to all the State changes, President Obama recently signed into law the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act. Title IV of the Act—relating to gift certificates, gift cards, and prepaid cards—becomes effective August 22, 2010. These regulations will not have as great an impact in Michigan as they may in other places around the country because Michigan has already enacted rules governing the use of gift cards and gift certificates. The new Federal law provides:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">•    Gift cards may not expire less than 5 years after the date of purchase (already in effect in Michigan).<br />
•    Dormancy fees, inactivity fees, and service fees are prohibited unless (1) there has been no activity with respect to a certificate or card for the preceding 12 months, (2) disclosure requirements are met, (3) not more than one fee per month is charged, and (4) any additional requirements imposed by Federal Reserve Board regulations are met. (Companies in Michigan may still have to follow Michigan laws if stricter).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">These State and Federal laws must be strictly followed to avoid becoming liable for damages and penalties.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2009/07/15/michigan-laws-on-gift-cards-and-gift-certificates-are-changing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

