Economy

Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/law-lets-irs-seize-accounts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required/ar-BBbbfW3?ocid=mailsignout

The New York Times SHAILA DEWAN October 26, 2014
Carole Hinders at her modest, cash-only Mexican restaurant in Arnolds Park, Iowa. Last year tax agents seized her funds. © Angela Jimenez for The New York Times Carole Hinders at her modest, cash-only Mexican restaurant in Arnolds Park, Iowa. Last year tax agents seized her funds. ARNOLDS PARK, Iowa — For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her funds, almost $33,000.The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.“How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”The federal government does.Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes.

The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up and settle the case for a portion of their money.

“They’re going after people who are really not criminals,” said David Smith, a former federal prosecutor who is now a forfeiture expert and lawyer in Virginia. “They’re middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.”

On Thursday, in response to questions from The New York Times, the I.R.S. announced that it would curtail the practice, focusing instead on cases where the money is believed to have been acquired illegally or seizure is deemed justified by “exceptional circumstances.”

Richard Weber, the chief of Criminal Investigation at the I.R.S., said in a written statement, “This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.’s mission and key priorities.”

He added that making deposits under $10,000 to evade reporting requirements, called structuring, is still a crime whether the money is from legal or illegal sources. The new policy will not affect seizures that have already occurred.

Jeff Hirsch, an owner of Bi-County Distributors on Long Island. The government seized $447,000 from the business, a candy and cigarette distributor run by one family for 27 years. © Bryan Thomas for The New York Times Jeff Hirsch, an owner of Bi-County Distributors on Long Island. The government seized $447,000 from the business, a candy and cigarette distributor run by one family…

The I.R.S. is one of several federal agencies that pursue such cases and then refer them to the Justice Department. The Justice Department does not track the total number of cases pursued, the amount of money seized or how many of the cases were related to other crimes, said Peter Carr, a spokesman.

But the Institute for Justice, a Washington-based public interest law firm that is seeking to reform civil forfeiture practices, analyzed structuring data from the I.R.S., which made 639 seizures in 2012, up from 114 in 2005. Only one in five were prosecuted as a criminal case.

The practice has swept up dairy farmers in Maryland, an Army sergeant in Virginia saving for his children’s college education and Ms. Hinders, 67, who has borrowed money, strained her credit cards and taken out a second mortgage to keep her restaurant going.

Her money was seized under an increasingly controversial area of law known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement agents to take property they suspect of being tied to crime even if no criminal charges are filed. Law enforcement agencies get to keep a share of whatever is forfeited.

Owners who are caught up in structuring cases often cannot afford to fight. The median amount seized by the I.R.S. was $34,000, according to the Institute for Justice analysis, while legal costs can easily mount to $20,000 or more.

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks and other financial institutions must report cash deposits greater than $10,000. But since many criminals are aware of that requirement, banks also are supposed to report any suspicious transactions, including deposit patterns below $10,000. Last year, banks filed more than 700,000 suspicious activity reports, which are reviewed by over 100 multiagency task forces.

There is nothing illegal about depositing less than $10,000 unless it is done specifically to evade the reporting requirement. But often a mere bank statement is enough for investigators to obtain a seizure warrant. In one Long Island case, the police submitted almost a year’s worth of daily deposits by a business, ranging from $5,550 to $9,910. The officer wrote in his warrant affidavit that based on his training and experience, the pattern “is consistent with structuring.” The government seized $447,000 from the business, a cash-intensive candy and cigarette distributor that has been run by one family for 27 years.

There are often legitimate business reasons for keeping deposits below $10,000, said Larry Salzman, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice who is representing Ms. Hinders and the Long Island family pro bono. For example, he said, some grocery store owners in Fraser, Mich., had an insurance policy that covered only up to $10,000 cash. When they neared the limit, they would make a deposit.

Ms. Hinders said that she did not know about the reporting requirement and that for decades, she thought she had been doing everyone a favor.

“My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork,” she said. “I didn’t actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.” Lawyers say it is not unusual for depositors to be advised by financial professionals, or even bank tellers, to keep their deposits below the reporting threshold.

In the Long Island case, the company, Bi-County Distributors, had three bank accounts closed because of the paperwork burden of its frequent cash deposits, said Jeff Hirsch, the eldest of three brothers who own the company. Their accountant then recommended staying below the limit, so the company began using the excess cash to pay vendors, and carried on for more than a decade.

More than two years ago, the government seized $447,000, and the brothers have been unable to retrieve it. Mr. Salzman, who has taken over legal representation of the brothers, has argued that prosecutors violated a strict timeline laid out in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, passed in 2000 to curb abuses.

The office of the federal attorney for the Eastern District of New York said the law’s timeline did not apply in this case. The federal attorney’s office said that parties often voluntarily negotiated to avoid going to court, and that Joseph Potashnik, the Hirsches’ first lawyer, had been engaged in talks until just a few months ago. But Mr. Potashnik said he had spent that time trying, to no avail, to show that the brothers were innocent. They even paid a forensic accounting firm $25,000 to check the books.

“I don’t think they’re really interested in anything,” Mr. Potashnik said of the prosecutors. “They just want the money.”

Bi-County has survived only because longtime vendors have extended credit — one is owed almost $300,000, Mr. Hirsch said. Twice, the government has made settlement offers that would require the brothers to give up an “excessive” portion of the money, according to a new court filing.

“We’re just hanging on as a family here,” Mr. Hirsch said. “We weren’t going to take a settlement, because I was not guilty.”

Army Sgt. Jeff Cortazzo of Arlington, Va., began saving for his daughters’ college costs during the financial crisis, when many banks were failing. He stored cash first in his basement and then in a safe deposit box. All of the money came from his paychecks, he said, but he worried that when he finally deposited it in a bank, he would be forced to pay taxes on the money a second time. So he asked the bank teller what to do.

“She said: ‘Oh, that’s easy. You just have to deposit less than $10,000.’”

The government seized $66,000; settling cost Sergeant Cortazzo $21,000. As a result, the eldest of his three daughters had to delay college by a year.

“Why didn’t the teller tell me that was illegal?” he said. “I would have just plopped the whole thing in the account and been done with it.”

Washington State Attorney General’s Office Prescription Drug Abuse

Prescription Drug Abuse

http://www.atg.wa.gov/prescriptiondrug.aspx#.VE57Q1dhBkg

Prescription drug abuse is an epidemic in Washington state. There are more deaths annually from prescription drug abuse than from meth, cocaine, and heroin combined.

What’s causing this epidemic? Drugs like OxyContin, Vicodin, and Methadone are now commonly prescribed for pain. Painkillers offer relief to millions of Americans but present a hidden danger.

These kinds of prescription drugs are called “opiates.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines “opiate” as a sedative narcotic, “[C]ontaining opium or one or more of its natural or synthetic derivatives.”  In a way, these drugs are the cousins of a better known—and more feared— drug: heroin. But unlike heroin, most people don’t know how potentially addicting and dangerous prescription opiates can be.

Some recreational users crush prescription painkillers and then ingest them in order to bypass the time-release function of the medications. This provides a somewhat immediate, and sometimes deadly, high.

When overdosed, prescription painkillers can cause a significant decrease in lung function and death. They can also be lethal when they’re combined with other prescribed or over-the-counter drugs. High-profile deaths include actor Heath Ledger, who died from a lethal combination of oxycodone, hydrocodone, diazepam, temazepam, alprazolam and doxylamine.

Teenagers are increasingly experimenting with drugs commonly found in their parents’ medicine cabinets. According to the Healthy Youth Survey, 12 percent of 12th graders used prescription pain medications to get high in the past 30 days. The same survey also shows that an alarming number of younger kids experiment with these drugs. That’s why it’s critical to learn how to properly safeguard and dispose of your medications.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that more than 47 percent of teens get prescription drugs from their friends for free. About 10 percent buy them from their friends, and another 10 percent take them from friends without asking.

What the AGO is doing about prescription drug abuse in Washington State

The Attorney General’s Office uses funds from consumer protection settlements with drug manufacturers—including the makers of OxyContin— to provide grants to promote drug abuse prevention and prescription drug safety.  To date those grants have totaled more than $2.7 million and include:

  • $1,000,000 dollars to fund the Washington Prevention Summits and Spring Youth Forums, where kids learn to use the latest technology to create prevention programs in their schools.
  • $683,000 to the State Department of Health to create a prescription drug monitoring program to prevent the “doctor shopping” that allows addicts to get access to dangerous drugs.
  • $400,000 for the University of Washington  to educate doctors on drug marketing. The funding is a portion of the $9 million awarded in grants nationwide from a settlement with Neurontin.
  • $30,000 to The Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Network to develop the Unwanted Medicine Return Program. This program promotes drug safety and a cleaner enviornment by promoting the safe disposal of unwanted medications.
  • $15,000 for Prescriptions for Life, a local nonprofit organization working to eliminate prescription drug abuse. The money will help pay for a new educational video that will be shown to students, teachers, school counselors, law enforcement, medical professionals and civic and business leaders.
  • $400,000 for the Washington Health Foundation launch a  program  to reduce prescription and over-the-counter drug abuse among college students, creating one of the first programs in the nation to target young adults between the ages of 18 to 24 (more below).

What the AGO is doing about prescription drug abuse in Tribal Communities

According to DOH, American Indians and Alaska Natives are hardest-hit by prescription drug abuse.
amind
The AGO has addressed this issue by targeting a series of grants for programs that address substance abuse prevention programs in tribal communities:

  • $101,700 for the Boys & Girls Club of America to establish two new clubhouses on Native American lands by 2011, targeting ages 7-18. The two anticipated newly established clubs on reservation lands should see an enrollment per club in excess of 700 youth.  Boys & Girls Club substance abuse programs include SMART (Skills, Mastery And Resistance Training) Moves.
  • $198,550 to the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board to provide four “mini-grants” of $30,000 each to tribal partners for community based projects to fight prescription drug abuse, and to fund a one-day regional training conference on prescription abuse among tribal members.
  • $25,250 to Evergreen Council on Problem Gambling to help pay for a 6-day youth camp called New Directions: Tribal Youth Music Academy for Addiction Awareness & Prevention.

Prescription drug abuse on campus

The Attorney General’s Office has partnered with the Washington Health Foundation, the Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and other national organizations to provide an online health community and a set of resources to help college kids confront the prescription drug epidemic.
The Washington Health Foundation asks college students to be part a part of the solution – to help address prescription and over-the-counter drug misuse and abuse. Learn more on The Washington Health Foundation’s Web site.  There, you can tell your story, share your ideas, explore innovative resources, and participate in social media discussions

University of Washington Infection Control Experts Prepare with Federal and Local Public Health Leaders

  • UW Medicine, local and state health officials discuss Ebola response planning with the news media at an Oct. 6 press conference in Seattle. Susan Gregg

As the news media has reported, West Africa is experiencing an ongoing outbreak of the Ebola Virus. The first U.S. patient recently diagnosed with Ebola infection in Texas serves as a reminder that all hospitals must prepare for the potential of international travelers who present to their local healthcare facility with symptoms and possible exposure to Ebola, novel respiratory viruses, or other infectious diseases.

UW Physicians in Infectious Disease at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle have coordinated with Seattle-King County Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control to develop plans for the identification and management of patients with potential Ebola infection, explained Dr. John Lynch, medical director of Infection Control and Employee Health at  Harborview. These plans are based on CDC guidelines and recommendations.

The CDC states that the risk of an Ebola outbreak in the U.S. is very low.  Transmission can be prevented with appropriate precautions using the same infection control practices and personal protective equipment we use every day and which our staff is already trained, said Lynch, who is a UW associate professor of medicine, Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Ebola is spread through direct contact (with open skin or mucous membranes) with blood or bodily fluids from infected individuals or animals.  You cannot get Ebola through the air, water, or food.

Symptoms of Ebola may appear between 2 to 21 days after exposure and include fever, headache, muscle pain, weakness, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and bleeding.  Treatment is primarily supportive with fluid resuscitation, which has been a challenge in the affected countries.

In addition to potential travelers from an affected country, many U.S. healthcare workers have been providing medical care in West Africa. A few U.S. healthcare workers who were infected with Ebola have been transferred back to the United States for further care and all have recovered.  In anticipation of more returning healthcare workers, the CDC and state and local public health departments are partnering with regional hospitals that may be willing to care for infected U.S. residents returning from West Africa.

Consistent with its mission and role of serving the public, especially residents of Seattle/King County, Washington state and the region encompassing Alaska, Montana and Idaho, and its role as the Disaster Control Hospital for Seattle and King County, Harborview will consider accepting U.S. residents with potential Ebola who may require medevac from West Africa. This would be done in close coordination with our public health colleagues.

Acceptance will be dependent on the current hospital capacity and ability to maintain our critical functions as the Level I adult and pediatric trauma and burn center for the region. UW Medicine physicians and UW employees at Harborview are leaders in infectious diseases, virology, and infection control.  As a public safety-net hospital, Harborview has a longstanding relationship with Seattle/King County Public Health. The Ebola planning efforts are an excellent example of coordination among the CDC, state and local public health, and the Harborview team.

Lynch and Dr. Timothy Dellit, associate medical director for Quality Improvement and Risk Management, will host brown-bag sessions for Harborview staff to apprise them of the planning and to answer questions.

More  on UW’s research and educational response to Ebola:

Washington State Legislature Chapter 42.30 RCW OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.30&full=true

RCW Sections

42.30.010 Legislative declaration.
42.30.020 Definitions.
42.30.030 Meetings declared open and public.
42.30.040 Conditions to attendance not to be required.
42.30.050 Interruptions — Procedure.
42.30.060 Ordinances, rules, resolutions, regulations, etc., adopted at public meetings — Notice — Secret voting prohibited.
42.30.070 Times and places for meetings — Emergencies — Exception.
42.30.075 Schedule of regular meetings — Publication in state register — Notice of change — “Regular” meetings defined.
42.30.077 Agendas of regular meetings — Online availability.
42.30.080 Special meetings.
42.30.090 Adjournments.
42.30.100 Continuances.
42.30.110 Executive sessions.
42.30.120 Violations — Personal liability — Civil penalty — Attorneys’ fees and costs.
42.30.130 Violations — Mandamus or injunction.
42.30.140 Chapter controlling — Application.
42.30.200 Governing body of recognized student association at college or university — Chapter applicability to.
42.30.205 Training.
42.30.210 Assistance by attorney general.
42.30.900 Short title.
42.30.910 Construction — 1971 ex.s. c 250.
42.30.920 Severability — 1971 ex.s. c 250.

Notes:

Drug reimbursement policy recommendations: RCW 74.09.653.

42.30.010
Legislative declaration.

The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]

Notes:

     Reviser’s note: Throughout this chapter, the phrases “this act” and “this 1971 amendatory act” have been changed to “this chapter.” “This act” [1971 ex.s. c 250] consists of this chapter, the amendment to RCW 34.04.025, and the repeal of RCW 42.32.010 and 42.32.020.


42.30.020
Definitions.

As used in this chapter unless the context indicates otherwise:

(1) “Public agency” means:

(a) Any state board, commission, committee, department, educational institution, or other state agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, other than courts and the legislature;

(b) Any county, city, school district, special purpose district, or other municipal corporation or political subdivision of the state of Washington;

(c) Any subagency of a public agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, ordinance, or other legislative act, including but not limited to planning commissions, library or park boards, commissions, and agencies;

(d) Any policy group whose membership includes representatives of publicly owned utilities formed by or pursuant to the laws of this state when meeting together as or on behalf of participants who have contracted for the output of generating plants being planned or built by an operating agency.

(2) “Governing body” means the multimember board, commission, committee, council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency, or any committee thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment.

(3) “Action” means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions. “Final action” means a collective positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a governing body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance.

(4) “Meeting” means meetings at which action is taken.

[1985 c 366 § 1; 1983 c 155 § 1; 1982 1st ex.s. c 43 § 10; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 2.]

Notes:

     Severability — Savings — 1982 1st ex.s. c 43: See notes following RCW 43.52.374.


42.30.030
Meetings declared open and public.

All meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of a public agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 3.]


42.30.040
Conditions to attendance not to be required.

A member of the public shall not be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a governing body, to register his or her name and other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance.

[2012 c 117 § 124; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 4.]


42.30.050
Interruptions — Procedure.

In the event that any meeting is interrupted by a group or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are interrupting the meeting, the members of the governing body conducting the meeting may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session or may adjourn the meeting and reconvene at another location selected by majority vote of the members. In such a session, final disposition may be taken only on matters appearing on the agenda. Representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to this section. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the governing body from establishing a procedure for readmitting an individual or individuals not responsible for disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting.

[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 5.]


42.30.060
Ordinances, rules, resolutions, regulations, etc., adopted at public meetings — Notice — Secret voting prohibited.

(1) No governing body of a public agency shall adopt any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, or directive, except in a meeting open to the public and then only at a meeting, the date of which is fixed by law or rule, or at a meeting of which notice has been given according to the provisions of this chapter. Any action taken at meetings failing to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be null and void.

(2) No governing body of a public agency at any meeting required to be open to the public shall vote by secret ballot. Any vote taken in violation of this subsection shall be null and void, and shall be considered an “action” under this chapter.

[1989 c 42 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 6.]


42.30.070
Times and places for meetings — Emergencies — Exception.

The governing body of a public agency shall provide the time for holding regular meetings by ordinance, resolution, bylaws, or by whatever other rule is required for the conduct of business by that body. Unless otherwise provided for in the act under which the public agency was formed, meetings of the governing body need not be held within the boundaries of the territory over which the public agency exercises jurisdiction. If at any time any regular meeting falls on a holiday, such regular meeting shall be held on the next business day. If, by reason of fire, flood, earthquake, or other emergency, there is a need for expedited action by a governing body to meet the emergency, the presiding officer of the governing body may provide for a meeting site other than the regular meeting site and the notice requirements of this chapter shall be suspended during such emergency. It shall not be a violation of the requirements of this chapter for a majority of the members of a governing body to travel together or gather for purposes other than a regular meeting or a special meeting as these terms are used in this chapter: PROVIDED, That they take no action as defined in this chapter.

[1983 c 155 § 2; 1973 c 66 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 7.]


42.30.075
Schedule of regular meetings — Publication in state register — Notice of change — “Regular” meetings defined.

State agencies which hold regular meetings shall file with the code reviser a schedule of the time and place of such meetings on or before January of each year for publication in the Washington state register. Notice of any change from such meeting schedule shall be published in the state register for distribution at least twenty days prior to the rescheduled meeting date.

For the purposes of this section “regular” meetings shall mean recurring meetings held in accordance with a periodic schedule declared by statute or rule.

[1977 ex.s. c 240 § 12.]

Notes:

     Effective date — Severability — 1977 ex.s. c 240: See RCW 34.08.905 and 34.08.910.Public meeting notices in state register: RCW 34.08.020.


42.30.077
Agendas of regular meetings — Online availability.

Public agencies with governing bodies must make the agenda of each regular meeting of the governing body available online no later than twenty-four hours in advance of the published start time of the meeting. An agency subject to provisions of this section is not required to post an agenda if it does not have a web site or if it employs fewer than ten full-time equivalent employees. Nothing in this section prohibits subsequent modifications to agendas nor invalidates any otherwise legal action taken at a meeting where the agenda was not posted in accordance with this section. Nothing in this section modifies notice requirements or shall be construed as establishing that a public body or agency’s online posting of an agenda as required by this section is sufficient notice to satisfy public notice requirements established under other laws. Failure to post an agenda in accordance with this section shall not provide a basis for awarding attorney fees under RCW 42.30.120 or commencing an action for mandamus or injunction under RCW 42.30.130.

[2014 c 61 § 2.]

Notes:

     Intent — Finding — 2014 c 61: “The legislature intends to promote transparency in government and strengthen the Washington’s open public meetings act. The legislature finds that it is in the best interest of citizens for public agencies with governing bodies to post meeting agendas on web sites before meetings. Full public review and inspection of meeting agendas will promote a greater exchange of information so the public can provide meaningful input related to government decisions.” [2014 c 61 § 1.]

42.30.080
Special meetings.

(1) A special meeting may be called at any time by the presiding officer of the governing body of a public agency or by a majority of the members of the governing body by delivering written notice personally, by mail, by fax, or by electronic mail to each member of the governing body. Written notice shall be deemed waived in the following circumstances:

(a) A member submits a written waiver of notice with the clerk or secretary of the governing body at or prior to the time the meeting convenes. A written waiver may be given by telegram, fax, or electronic mail; or

(b) A member is actually present at the time the meeting convenes.

(2) Notice of a special meeting called under subsection (1) of this section shall be:

(a) Delivered to each local newspaper of general circulation and local radio or television station that has on file with the governing body a written request to be notified of such special meeting or of all special meetings;

(b) Posted on the agency’s web site. An agency is not required to post a special meeting notice on its web site if it (i) does not have a web site; (ii) employs fewer than ten full-time equivalent employees; or (iii) does not employ personnel whose duty, as defined by a job description or existing contract, is to maintain or update the web site; and

(c) Prominently displayed at the main entrance of the agency’s principal location and the meeting site if it is not held at the agency’s principal location.

Such notice must be delivered or posted, as applicable, at least twenty-four hours before the time of such meeting as specified in the notice.

(3) The call and notices required under subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted. Final disposition shall not be taken on any other matter at such meetings by the governing body.

(4) The notices provided in this section may be dispensed with in the event a special meeting is called to deal with an emergency involving injury or damage to persons or property or the likelihood of such injury or damage, when time requirements of such notice would make notice impractical and increase the likelihood of such injury or damage.

[2012 c 188 § 1; 2005 c 273 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 8.]


42.30.090
Adjournments.

The governing body of a public agency may adjourn any regular, adjourned regular, special, or adjourned special meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment. Less than a quorum may so adjourn from time to time. If all members are absent from any regular or adjourned regular meeting the clerk or secretary of the governing body may declare the meeting adjourned to a stated time and place. He or she shall cause a written notice of the adjournment to be given in the same manner as provided in RCW 42.30.080 for special meetings, unless such notice is waived as provided for special meetings. Whenever any meeting is adjourned a copy of the order or notice of adjournment shall be conspicuously posted immediately after the time of the adjournment on or near the door of the place where the regular, adjourned regular, special, or adjourned special meeting was held. When a regular or adjourned regular meeting is adjourned as provided in this section, the resulting adjourned regular meeting is a regular meeting for all purposes. When an order of adjournment of any meeting fails to state the hour at which the adjourned meeting is to be held, it shall be held at the hour specified for regular meetings by ordinance, resolution, bylaw, or other rule.

[2012 c 117 § 125; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 9.]


42.30.100
Continuances.

Any hearing being held, noticed, or ordered to be held by a governing body at any meeting may by order or notice of continuance be continued or recontinued to any subsequent meeting of the governing body in the same manner and to the same extent set forth in RCW 42.30.090 for the adjournment of meetings.

[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 10.]


42.30.110
Executive sessions.

(1) Nothing contained in this chapter may be construed to prevent a governing body from holding an executive session during a regular or special meeting:

(a) To consider matters affecting national security;

(b) To consider the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased price;

(c) To consider the minimum price at which real estate will be offered for sale or lease when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of decreased price. However, final action selling or leasing public property shall be taken in a meeting open to the public;

(d) To review negotiations on the performance of publicly bid contracts when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased costs;

(e) To consider, in the case of an export trading company, financial and commercial information supplied by private persons to the export trading company;

(f) To receive and evaluate complaints or charges brought against a public officer or employee. However, upon the request of such officer or employee, a public hearing or a meeting open to the public shall be conducted upon such complaint or charge;

(g) To evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public employment or to review the performance of a public employee. However, subject to RCW 42.30.140(4), discussion by a governing body of salaries, wages, and other conditions of employment to be generally applied within the agency shall occur in a meeting open to the public, and when a governing body elects to take final action hiring, setting the salary of an individual employee or class of employees, or discharging or disciplining an employee, that action shall be taken in a meeting open to the public;

(h) To evaluate the qualifications of a candidate for appointment to elective office. However, any interview of such candidate and final action appointing a candidate to elective office shall be in a meeting open to the public;

(i) To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency.

This subsection (1)(i) does not permit a governing body to hold an executive session solely because an attorney representing the agency is present. For purposes of this subsection (1)(i), “potential litigation” means matters protected by RPC 1.6 or RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) concerning:

(i) Litigation that has been specifically threatened to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party;

(ii) Litigation that the agency reasonably believes may be commenced by or against the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity; or

(iii) Litigation or legal risks of a proposed action or current practice that the agency has identified when public discussion of the litigation or legal risks is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency;

(j) To consider, in the case of the state library commission or its advisory bodies, western library network prices, products, equipment, and services, when such discussion would be likely to adversely affect the network’s ability to conduct business in a competitive economic climate. However, final action on these matters shall be taken in a meeting open to the public;

(k) To consider, in the case of the state investment board, financial and commercial information when the information relates to the investment of public trust or retirement funds and when public knowledge regarding the discussion would result in loss to such funds or in private loss to the providers of this information;

(l) To consider proprietary or confidential nonpublished information related to the development, acquisition, or implementation of state purchased health care services as provided in RCW 41.05.026;

(m) To consider in the case of the life sciences discovery fund authority, the substance of grant applications and grant awards when public knowledge regarding the discussion would reasonably be expected to result in private loss to the providers of this information;

(n) To consider in the case of a health sciences and services authority, the substance of grant applications and grant awards when public knowledge regarding the discussion would reasonably be expected to result in private loss to the providers of this information.

(2) Before convening in executive session, the presiding officer of a governing body shall publicly announce the purpose for excluding the public from the meeting place, and the time when the executive session will be concluded. The executive session may be extended to a stated later time by announcement of the presiding officer.

[2014 c 174 § 4; 2011 1st sp.s. c 14 § 14; 2010 1st sp.s. c 33 § 5; 2005 c 424 § 13; 2003 c 277 § 1; 2001 c 216 § 1; 1989 c 238 § 2; 1987 c 389 § 3; 1986 c 276 § 8; 1985 c 366 § 2; 1983 c 155 § 3; 1979 c 42 § 1; 1973 c 66 § 2; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 11.]

Notes:

     Intent — 2014 c 174: See note following RCW 43.333.011.     Captions not law — Liberal construction — Severability — Effective dates — 2005 c 424: See RCW 43.350.900 through 43.350.903.Severability — Effective date — 1987 c 389: See notes following RCW 41.06.070.Severability — 1986 c 276: See RCW 53.31.901.

42.30.120
Violations — Personal liability — Civil penalty — Attorneys’ fees and costs.

(1) Each member of the governing body who attends a meeting of such governing body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter applicable to him or her, with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in violation thereof, shall be subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred dollars. The civil penalty shall be assessed by a judge of the superior court and an action to enforce this penalty may be brought by any person. A violation of this chapter does not constitute a crime and assessment of the civil penalty by a judge shall not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a criminal offense.

(2) Any person who prevails against a public agency in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter shall be awarded all costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred in connection with such legal action. Pursuant to RCW 4.84.185, any public agency who prevails in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter may be awarded reasonable expenses and attorney fees upon final judgment and written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause.

[2012 c 117 § 126; 1985 c 69 § 1; 1973 c 66 § 3; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 12.]


42.30.130
Violations — Mandamus or injunction.

Any person may commence an action either by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of stopping violations or preventing threatened violations of this chapter by members of a governing body.

[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 13.]


42.30.140
Chapter controlling — Application.

If any provision of this chapter conflicts with the provisions of any other statute, the provisions of this chapter shall control: PROVIDED, That this chapter shall not apply to:

(1) The proceedings concerned with the formal issuance of an order granting, suspending, revoking, or denying any license, permit, or certificate to engage in any business, occupation, or profession or to any disciplinary proceedings involving a member of such business, occupation, or profession, or to receive a license for a sports activity or to operate any mechanical device or motor vehicle where a license or registration is necessary; or

(2) That portion of a meeting of a quasi-judicial body which relates to a quasi-judicial matter between named parties as distinguished from a matter having general effect on the public or on a class or group; or

(3) Matters governed by chapter 34.05 RCW, the Administrative Procedure Act; or

(4)(a) Collective bargaining sessions with employee organizations, including contract negotiations, grievance meetings, and discussions relating to the interpretation or application of a labor agreement; or (b) that portion of a meeting during which the governing body is planning or adopting the strategy or position to be taken by the governing body during the course of any collective bargaining, professional negotiations, or grievance or mediation proceedings, or reviewing the proposals made in the negotiations or proceedings while in progress.

[1990 c 98 § 1; 1989 c 175 § 94; 1973 c 66 § 4; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 14.]

Notes:

     Effective date — 1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.Drug reimbursement policy recommendations: RCW 74.09.653.Mediation testimony competency: RCW 5.60.070 and 5.60.072.

42.30.200
Governing body of recognized student association at college or university — Chapter applicability to.

The multimember student board which is the governing body of the recognized student association at a given campus of a public institution of higher education is hereby declared to be subject to the provisions of the open public meetings act as contained in this chapter, as now or hereafter amended. For the purposes of this section, “recognized student association” shall mean any body at any of the state’s colleges and universities which selects officers through a process approved by the student body and which represents the interests of students. Any such body so selected shall be recognized by and registered with the respective boards of trustees and regents of the state’s colleges and universities: PROVIDED, That there be no more than one such association representing undergraduate students, no more than one such association representing graduate students, and no more than one such association representing each group of professional students so recognized and registered at any of the state’s colleges or universities.

[1980 c 49 § 1.]


42.30.205
Training.

(1) Every member of the governing body of a public agency must complete training on the requirements of this chapter no later than ninety days after the date the member either:

(a) Takes the oath of office, if the member is required to take an oath of office to assume his or her duties as a public official; or

(b) Otherwise assumes his or her duties as a public official.

(2) In addition to the training required under subsection (1) of this section, every member of the governing body of a public agency must complete training at intervals of no more than four years as long as the individual is a member of the governing body or public agency.

(3) Training may be completed remotely with technology including but not limited to internet-based training.

[2014 c 66 § 2.]

Notes:

     Findings — Short title — Effective date — 2014 c 66: See notes following RCW 42.56.150.


42.30.210
Assistance by attorney general.

The attorney general’s office may provide information, technical assistance, and training on the provisions of this chapter.

[2001 c 216 § 2.]


42.30.900
Short title.

This chapter may be cited as the “Open Public Meetings Act of 1971″.

[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 16.]


42.30.910
Construction — 1971 ex.s. c 250.

The purposes of this chapter are hereby declared remedial and shall be liberally construed.

[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 18.]


42.30.920
Severability — 1971 ex.s. c 250.

If any provision of this act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 19.]

WSLCB List of Acceptable Pesticides for Growing Marijuana under I-502

From the Washington Cannabis Institute Administrator November 18, 2013:

http://washingtoncannabisinstitute.com/list-of-acceptable-pesticides-for-growing-marijuana-under-i-502/

The rules governing the implementation of I-502 limit pesticides that may be used to produce recreational marijuana. The Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) and the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) recently produced the list of acceptable pesticide products.

Only authorized pesticide products may be used. Using an unauthorized pesticide is a public safety license violation and can result in the cancellation of a producer’s license (see WAC 314-55-520).

WAC 314-55-010(13) defines a pesticide as meaning, but is not limited to: (a) Any substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, control, repel, or mitigate any insect, rodent, snail, slug, fungus, weed, and any other form of plant or animal life or virus, except virus on or in a living person or other animal which is normally considered to be a pest; (b) any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant; and (c) any spray adjuvant. Pesticides include substances commonly referred to as herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides.

Licensed producers can use pesticides registered by WSDA under chapter 15.58 RCW that are allowed for use in the production, processing, and handling of marijuana.

If a particular pesticide is not consistent with the allowable pesticide criteria WSDA uses for marijuana production, the applicator could unknowingly be in violation of Washington pesticide laws (RCW 15.58.150(2)(c) and WAC 16-228-1500(1)(b)).
 
We recommend that pesticides from the OMRI list be cross-checked with the list of over 200 pesticides registered by WSDA that are allowable for use in marijuana production in PICOL. 
WSU’s Database
A preliminary list of over 200 pesticides registered by WSDA under chapter 15.58 RCW that are allowed for use in the production, processing, and handling of marijuana can be found at Washington State University’s (WSU) PICOL (Pesticide Information Center Online) database at:

Under the “crop” drop-down menu choose: “I-502/I-692 (WA Only).”

PICOL lists the regulatory status of pesticides, as determined by WSDA. Updates can be made on a daily basis as pesticides are registered (and cancelled) by WSDA.

Using the PICOL Database
WSU has prepared tutorials as a starting point for prospective marijuana producer applicants in using the PICOL database.

Contact
If you have any questions, please contact the WSLCB Marijuana Licensing Unit at mjlicensing@liq.wa.gov

WAC 16-228-1500

Agency filings affecting this section

When can a pesticide license be denied, revoked or suspended?

(1) The director may deny, suspend, or revoke any provision of a license, registration, permit or certification issued under chapters 17.21 and 15.58 RCW if it is found that the applicant or the holder of the license, permit, or certification has committed any of the following acts each of which is declared to be a violation:

 

State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Guidance–BSA Expectations Regarding Marijuana-Related Businesses

Canna Law Blog™ They Said it On Marijuana, Quotable Saturday, Part XXXIII

http://www.cannalawblog.com/

Posted in General

One of the things that has always fascinated us since we started our cannabis business law practice back in 2010, is how incredibly few lawyers have ever voiced any opposition — virtually zero. Lawyers are lawyers and that means we are legalistic and logical and lawyers usually give us the following four, eminently practical, logical and legalistic reasons for believing in legalization:

  • There’s no reason to treat alcohol and pot differently under the law.
  • Our pot laws are not fairly applied and they never will be. Wealthy White kids get off easy, poor African-American kids don’t. This sort of inequality of enforcement and punishment weakens our laws and weakens our legal system, and that is not a good thing. Without support by the people and legitimacy, law means little.
  • We spend money on pot prohibition that would be better spent elsewhere.
  • Much illegal pot money goes to funding gangs. We need to cut that off.
  • It’s not working.

Uber-scientist Albert Einstein apparently thinks like a lawyer in that during prohibition he talked about how the flouting of some laws leading to the flouting of others:

The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.”

The same is true of pot.

As lawyers wanting rule by law, we support legalization.

Washington State Uniform Controlled Substances Act Chapter 69.50 RCW

RCW Sections

http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50

ARTICLE I — DEFINITIONS
69.50.101 Definitions.
69.50.1011 Definition — Commission.
69.50.102 Drug paraphernalia — Definitions.
ARTICLE II — STANDARDS AND SCHEDULES
69.50.201 Enforcement of chapter — Authority to change schedules of controlled substances.
69.50.202 Nomenclature.
69.50.203 Schedule I tests.
69.50.204 Schedule I.
69.50.205 Schedule II tests.
69.50.206 Schedule II.
69.50.207 Schedule III tests.
69.50.208 Schedule III.
69.50.209 Schedule IV tests.
69.50.210 Schedule IV.
69.50.211 Schedule V tests.
69.50.212 Schedule V.
69.50.213 Republishing of schedules.
69.50.214 Controlled substance analog.
ARTICLE III — REGULATION OF MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION,AND DISPENSING OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
69.50.301 Rules — Fees.
69.50.302 Registration requirements.
69.50.303 Registration.
69.50.304 Revocation and suspension of registration — Seizure or placement under seal of controlled substances.
69.50.305 Procedure for denial, suspension, or revocation of registration.
69.50.306 Records of registrants.
69.50.308 Prescriptions.
69.50.309 Containers.
69.50.310 Sodium pentobarbital — Registration of humane societies and animal control agencies for use in animal control.
69.50.311 Triplicate prescription form program — Compliance by health care practitioners.
69.50.312 Electronic communication of prescription information — Commission may adopt rules.
69.50.315 Medical assistance — Drug-related overdose — Naloxone — Prosecution for possession.
69.50.320 Registration of department of fish and wildlife for use in chemical capture programs — Rules.
69.50.325 Marijuana producer’s license.
69.50.328 Marijuana producers, processors — No direct or indirect financial interest in licensed marijuana retailers.
69.50.331 Application for license.
69.50.334 Denial of application — Opportunity for hearing.
69.50.339 Transfer of license to produce, process, or sell marijuana — Reporting of proposed sales of outstanding or issued stock of a corporation.
69.50.342 State liquor control board may adopt rules.
69.50.345 State liquor control board — Rules — Procedures and criteria.
69.50.348 Representative samples of marijuana, useable marijuana, or marijuana-infused products.
69.50.351 Interest — Members and employees of state liquor control board.
69.50.354 Retail outlet licenses.
69.50.357 Retail outlets — Rules.
69.50.360 Marijuana retailers, employees of retail outlets — Certain acts not criminal or civil offenses.
69.50.363 Marijuana processors, employees — Certain acts not criminal or civil offenses.
69.50.366 Marijuana producers, employees — Certain acts not criminal or civil offenses.
69.50.369 Marijuana producers, processors, retailers — Advertisements — Penalty.
ARTICLE IV — OFFENSES AND PENALTIES
69.50.401 Prohibited acts: A — Penalties.
69.50.4011 Counterfeit substances — Penalties.
69.50.4012 Delivery of substance in lieu of controlled substance — Penalty.
69.50.4013 Possession of controlled substance — Penalty — Possession of useable marijuana or marijuana-infused products.
69.50.4014 Possession of forty grams or less of marihuana — Penalty.
69.50.4015 Involving a person under eighteen in unlawful controlled substance transaction — Penalty.
69.50.4016 Provisions not applicable to offenses under RCW 69.50.410.
69.50.402 Prohibited acts: B — Penalties.
69.50.403 Prohibited acts: C — Penalties.
69.50.404 Penalties under other laws.
69.50.405 Bar to prosecution.
69.50.406 Distribution to persons under age eighteen.
69.50.407 Conspiracy.
69.50.408 Second or subsequent offenses.
69.50.410 Prohibited acts: D — Penalties.
69.50.412 Prohibited acts: E — Penalties (as amended by 2012 c 117).
69.50.412 Prohibited acts: E — Penalties (as amended by 2013 c 3).
69.50.4121 Drug paraphernalia — Selling or giving — Penalty.
69.50.413 Health care practitioners — Suspension of license for violation of chapter.
69.50.414 Sale or transfer of controlled substance to minor — Cause of action by parent — Damages.
69.50.415 Controlled substances homicide — Penalty.
69.50.416 Counterfeit substances prohibited — Penalties.
69.50.420 Violations — Juvenile driving privileges.
69.50.425 Misdemeanor violations — Minimum penalties.
69.50.430 Additional fine for certain felony violations.
69.50.435 Violations committed in or on certain public places or facilities — Additional penalty — Defenses — Construction — Definitions.
69.50.440 Possession with intent to manufacture — Penalty.
69.50.445 Opening package of or consuming marijuana, useable marijuana, or marijuana-infused product in view of general public — Penalty.
ARTICLE V — ENFORCEMENT ANDADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
69.50.500 Powers of enforcement personnel.
69.50.501 Administrative inspections.
69.50.502 Warrants for administrative inspections.
69.50.503 Injunctions.
69.50.504 Cooperative arrangements.
69.50.505 Seizure and forfeiture.
69.50.506 Burden of proof; liabilities.
69.50.507 Judicial review.
69.50.508 Education and research.
69.50.509 Search and seizure of controlled substances.
69.50.510 Search and seizure at rental premises — Notification of landlord.
69.50.511 Cleanup of hazardous substances at illegal drug manufacturing facility — Rules.
69.50.515 Pharmacies–Marijuana–Notification and disposal.
69.50.525 Diversion prevention and control — Report.
69.50.530 Dedicated marijuana fund.
69.50.535 Marijuana excise taxes — State liquor control board to review tax levels.
69.50.540 Marijuana excise taxes — Disbursements.
69.50.545 Departments of social and health services, health — Adoption of rules for disbursement of marijuana excise taxes.
69.50.550 Cost-benefit evaluations.
ARTICLE VI — MISCELLANEOUS
69.50.601 Pending proceedings.
69.50.602 Continuation of rules.
69.50.603 Uniformity of interpretation.
69.50.604 Short title.
69.50.605 Severability — 1971 ex.s. c 308.
69.50.606 Repealers.
69.50.607 Effective date — 1971 ex.s. c 308.
69.50.608 State preemption.
69.50.609 Captions not law — 1993 c 187.

Notes:

Drug nuisances — Injunctions: Chapter 7.43RCW.Reference material:http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/i502.pdf

http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50

http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=6602#.VDlLG1dhBkg

https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/press_and_research/PreviousElections/2012/General-Election/Documents/I-502_complete_text.pdf

Washington State Tax Information

http://www.chiff.com/personal_finance/taxes/US/washington.htm

The state of Washington is one of only nine states that does not levy a personal income tax nor a corporate income tax.

There is no inheritance tax, but the state imposes an estate tax on estates in excess of $2 million at rates ranging from 10% to 19%.

Washington State Tax Questions & Answers – Business, audits, e-filing, general questions.

Where to mail FEDERAL IRS tax forms within Washington State:

IRS Form
If you ARE NOT enclosing a payment, use this address: If you ARE enclosing payment, use this address:
1040:
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA  93888-0002
Internal Revenue Service
P.O. Box 7704
San Francisco, CA 94120-7704
1040A:
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA  93888-0015
Internal Revenue Service
P.O. Box 7704
San Francisco, CA 94120-7704
1040EZ: Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA  93888-0014
Internal Revenue Service
P.O. Box 7704
San Francisco, CA 94120-7704

Other useful Web links to WA taxpayers associations, CPA groups,
business organizations or general U.S. state tax facts & information :

Moving to Washington State – Cost of Living, Taxes, Jobs, Schools

Washington State Board of Tax Appeals

Washington Society of CPAs

Washington IRS Office Locations

SOI Tax Stats – SOI Bulletin: Winter 2014 Internal Revenue Service

http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-SOI-Bulletin:-Winter-2014

Statistics of Income (SOI) Bulletin – Winter 2014 (entire publication in PDF)

Featured Articles

Individual Income Tax Returns, Preliminary Data, 2012
by Michael Parisi

For Tax Year 2012, taxpayers filed 144.9 million U.S. individual income tax returns, a decrease of 0.4 percent from the 145.6 million returns filed for Tax Year 2011. This decrease occurred because of the large decline in returns filed by taxpayers in the smaller adjusted gross income (AGI) classifications. The largest decrease (3.9 percent) was a 1.5 million change in the number of returns with an AGI of under $15,000.

Excel Tables: 1

Related Link: Individual Income Tax Returns

Sales of Capital Assets Panel Data Reported on Individual Tax Returns, 2004–2007
by Janette Wilson and Pearson Liddell

The IRS Statistics of Income (SOI) Division collects data on the sales of capital assets to identify trends in the capital gains and losses reported on individual tax returns. In 1999, SOI began a panel study of individual taxpayers to measure the trends in taxes and income, including capital gains and losses, at different points in time. SOI designed the panel sample to represent all Tax Year 1999 returns, including late returns.

Excel Tables: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Related Link: 

Split-Interest Trusts, Filing Year 2012
by Lisa Schreiber Rosenmerkel

The number of Forms 5227 filed with the IRS has consistently declined in recent years. Preparers filed 113,688 Forms 5227 with the IRS in Filing Year 2012, a 3.4-percent decline from Filing Year 2011.

Excel Tables:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Related Link: Split-Interest Trust Statistics

Nonprofit Charitable Organizations, 2010
by Paul Arnsberger

Nonprofit charitable organizations exempt from income tax under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(3) filed 269,474 Forms 990 and 990-EZ and reported $2.9 trillion in assets for Tax Year 2010, an increase of 9 percent from the previous year.

Excel Tables:  1, 2, 3, 4

Related Link: Charities and Other Tax-Exempt Organizations Statistics

Departments

  • SOI Sampling Methodology and Data Limitations
  • SOI Projects, Contacts, and Public Release Information
  • SOI Products and Services

In the Next Issue

The following articles are tentatively planned for inclusion in the spring 2014 issue of the Statistics of Income Bulletin, scheduled to be published in May 2014:

  • Individual income tax rates and tax shares, 2011;
  • High-income tax returns, 2011;
  • Individual foreign-earned income and foreign tax credit, 2011;
  • Exempt organizations unrelated business income taxes, 2010;
  • Municipal bonds, 2011; and
  • Large nonoperating foundations panel, Tax Year 1998–2010

Historical Tables and Appendix

Return to Tax Stats home page

Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 19-Jun-2014

United States 2014 Elections Schedule

http://www.politico.com/2014-election/schedule/#.VDjDPFdhBkg

Leon Panetta on Fighting ISIS: $1.1 Billion Dollars Already Spent, *30 Years of War* to Come

http://rt.com/news/193780-isis-billion-30-panetta/

As the Pentagon reports spending of over $1 billion on bombing ISIS in Iraq and Syria, ex-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says the fight against the Islamist movement may take as long as 30 years.

Since mid-June, when militants from the Islamic State (also known as ISIS, or ISIL) launched their lightning offensive in Iraq, the Pentagon has spent $1.1 billion on fighting the militia, US Central Command reported Monday.

The US Navy has spent $62 million on about 185 warheads, including 47 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

The US Air Force has spent far more on munitions, dropping some 1,000 smart bombs and rockets during its sorties, AP reported CentCom as saying.

Officials say the campaign has cost an average of $7 million to $10 million a day since June. The cost escalated after the US started bombing IS positions in Iraq in early August and then expanded to Syria in September.

The report confirmed an estimate by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), a Washington-based think tank with ties to the Pentagon, which said a week ago that the campaign against ISIS had probably already cost between $780 and $930 million.

READ: Nearly $1bn already spent on US military campaign against ISIS

The US military spending, supported by a coalition of some 40 nations, doesn’t appear to have stopped IS from scoring new victories. Its fighters have been advancing in the battle for the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani overnight, with two IS flags still visible over the eastern side of the town, Reuters reported.

Leon Panetta (AFP Photo / Thierry Charlier)

Leon Panetta (AFP Photo / Thierry Charlier)

The fight against IS may take quite a long time, according former Pentagon chief Leon Panetta, who said “we’re looking at kind of a 30-year war” in an interview with USA Today.

“It’s going to take a long time to go after these elements,” he said.

Panetta, whose memoir, “Worthy Fights,” is about to hit bookstores, criticizes President Barack Obama in the book for rushing the Iraq withdrawal in 2011. The decision was based on the assumption that Iraq’s own US-trained army and security forces would be able to provide security in the country. But in reality, Iraq slid into a violent quagmire that culminated with a surprise insurgent offensive that Baghdad’s troops did little to prevent.

***Note from Anna: How many hospitals, schools, elder care centers, or food programs could this money be funding? How many jobs could be created? Endless war budgets have gutted the taxpayers, made the world’s weapons companies CEOs (and the politicians who support them) billionaires while leaving America completely unsafe militarily, socially, and health-wise.

How many epidemics(aside from Ebola) will spread across America as funding from healthcare is diverted to endless wars overseas? Everyone loses.  VOTE THEM *ALL* OUT IN 2016.

Remove *all* of the rotten-to-the-core, unrepentant judges, cops, lobbyists, and politicians from the past two generations of Republicans, Democrats, Moderates,and extremists need to be shown the door. They are finished.

Jill Stein for President 2016

Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein: Downsize the Military

Presidential Candidate JILL STEIN on War on Drugs, Women’s Rights, and more.

Green Party’s Jill Stein On The Drug War | NewsBreaker | Ora TV

KENTUCKY DOR’S SECRETS REVEALED by Jerry Donnini, Esq.

Many states, like my home state of Florida, have broad freedom of information laws. Known in Florida as the Sunshine Laws, the state’s citizens can request a wide range of information from the government. Under the laws, so long as the information is not made confidential by a specific statute/law, then the government has an obligation to provide the citizen with whatever is requested. As a state and local tax (“SALT”) practitioner, I often use this knowledge to my advantage. I often request documents and statistics from the state that I find beneficial to myself, my client, or my practice.

Other states have similar laws. In Kentucky, the Open Records Act gives its citizens a mechanism to request a broad spectrum of information from its government. Like many state agencies believe, the Kentucky Department of Revenue thought it was above the law. In a decision sounded on no legal basis, the DOR in Kentucky did not make available to its citizens some 700 administrative court decisions because it feared it would disclose confidential taxpayer information. Further, the DOR argued that producing some 700 opinions was overly burdensome and would not be helpful to its citizens. Mark Sommer, an attorney in Louisville, had a fundamental problem with the secrecy of the government and challenged the DOR’s interpretation of the law by filing suit.

In a well-crafted argument, Sommer essentially argued that the taxpayers have a fundamental right to be aware of what its government is doing. The government should not be allowed to make rulings in secrecy when transparency would give others guidance as to how the government is interpreting and administering the law. The DOR disagreed and believed that such rulings would not be helpful to its taxpayers. In addition to be being “burdened” by producing some 700 rulings, the production would unduly infringe on the privacy rights of taxpayers.

On August 26, 2014, a Kentucky Court ruled that the DOR was obliged to release redacted copies of its final rulings under the Act. The judge concluded that the law was “abundantly clear” and the DOR could comply with this “burdensome” ruling without infringing on taxpayer privacy. Judge Shepard went on to state that he balanced the privacy interests of the taxpayers against the public’s right to be informed about its governments workings, and held that the public’s right to be informed outweighed the privacy concerns.

Following the ruling, Sommer stated that the Kentucky judge “set[] the standard for what transparency in SALT matters should really be about.” The attorney for Tax Analysts, Cornish Hitchcock, continued, “The decision is an important victory over ‘secret law’ that affects taxpayers without their knowledge. The Department’s ruling are definitive statements of the agency’s interpretation of Kentucky tax law, and they can be cited against taxpayers even when taxpayers don’t know that they exist.”

This case serves as one of countless examples of the need for government accountability. Without transparency the government is free to be overly oppressive and unfair to its citizens. Something just seems fishy about a government unwilling to share its interpretation of laws with its citizens. I commend the team involved in fighting this peculiar issue in Kentucky. If other states are equally unfair about similar issues then I hope others follow Kentucky’s lead and fight back.

About the author: Mr. Donnini is a multi-state sales and use tax attorney and an associate in the law firm Moffa, Gainor, & Sutton, PA, based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Donnini’s primary practice is multi-state sales and use tax as well as state corporate income tax controversy. Mr. Donnini also practices in the areas of federal tax controversy, federal estate planning, Florida probate, and all other state taxes including communication service tax, cigarette & tobacco tax, motor fuel tax, and Native American taxation. Mr. Donnini received his LL.M. in Taxation at NYU. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact him via email JerryDonnini@Floridasalestax.com or phone at 954-642-9390http://www.floridataxlawyer-blog.com/2014/10/kentucky-dors-secrets-revealed.html

Medical Marijuana Regulatory System Part II Department of Public Health and Environment Department of Revenue Performance Audit June 2013

State of Colorado

http://www.leg.state.co.us/OSA/coauditor1.nsf/All/C9112BFFDE1559CE87257BA5007AE40F/$FILE/2194B%20MedMarijPart2%20June%202013.pdf

LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE
2013 MEMBERS
Representative Angela Williams
Chair
Senator Steve King
Vice-Chair
Senator Lucia Guzman
Representative Su Ryden
Senator Owen Hill
Representative Jerry Sonnenberg
Representative Dan Nordberg Senator Lois Tochtrop
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
Dianne E. Ray
State Auditor
Monica Bowers
Deputy State Auditor
Eric Johnson
Legislative Audit Manager
Jenny Atchley
Nina Frant
Reed Larsen
Legislative Auditor
Dianne E. Ray, CPA
State Auditor
Office of the State Auditor
June 25, 2013
Members of the Legislative Audit Committee:
This report contains the results of a performance audit of Colorado’s medical marijuana
regulatory system. The audit was conducted pursuant to Section 2-3-103, C.R.S., which
authorizes the State Auditor to conduct audits of all departments, institutions, and agencies of
state government. This second of two reports presents our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations and the responses of the Department of Public Health and Environment and
the Department of Revenue. The first report was released in March 2013.

Attorney General Eric Holder to Step Down

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/eric-holder-resigning-as-attorney-general-breaking-news/article/405346

By Brett Wilkins     11 mins ago in Politics

Washington – United States Attorney General Eric Holder announced his resignation on Thursday, ending a tumultuous six-year tenure marked by progress as well as by heated partisan controversy and constant battles with conservatives over his policies and actions.

The nation’s first black attorney general said he will remain in office until a successor is nominated and confirmed, the New York Times reports.

The Justice Department said Holder, 63, finalized his plan to step down during an hour-long conversation with President Barack Obama. Holder is one of the longest-serving members of the Obama cabinet and the fourth-longest tenured attorney general in US history.

Holder’s legacy includes historic progress on civil rights and criminal justice reform issues. He refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a discriminatory federal law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He sued North Carolina and Texas over restrictive voter identification laws which disproportionately disenfranchised minority, student and elderly voters.

Holder also launched some 20 federal probes targeting police brutality and other misconduct, most recently in Ferguson, Missouri, where a long legacy of mistrust between the St. Louis suburb’s black residents and nearly all-white police force came to a boil following the recent police shooting of unarmed black teen Michael Brown. He also pressed for a reduction in prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders and an end to mandatory minimum sentences for some low-level drug offenders.

Under Holder’s tenure, the federal prison population decreased for the first time since President Ronald Reagan ramped up the ‘War on Drugs’ and ushered in the era of mass incarceration in the 1980s.

But Holder was also a tremendously controversial and polarizing figure. Some of his actions infuriated conservatives, including his initial decision to try the alleged September 11 plotters in a New York civilian court just blocks from Ground Zero, a decision that was later reversed under intense pressure. He sent the cases back to the Guantánamo Bay military commission system, which has been described as “rigged” by numerous military justice officers who have resigned their posts in protest.

As is the case with President Obama, there is a racial element to at least some of the animus against Holder. He inflamed many conservatives when he delivered a Black History Month address in which he called America a “nation of cowards” for its failure to honestly confront enduring race relation issues.

Holder’s actions often did not help him win conservative friends. His refusal to hand over documents related to the Fast and Furious gun trafficking scandal, for example, resulted in a contempt vote by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Even among some progressives, Holder was considered a disappointment on issues including the DOJ’s targeting of state-legal medical marijuana, his 9/11 trials reversal, the government’s refusal to prosecute or even adequately investigate Bush-era torturers, its aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers and his refusal to prosecute Wall Street banker for the systemic fraud which precipitated the 2008 global financial crisis.

Holder still has work to do before stepping down. NPR reports he is expected to release long-awaited racial profiling guidelines for federal agents. He is also expected to notify federal prosecutors that the DOJ will no longer require defendants who plead guilty to waive their right to appeal due to ineffective legal counsel.

Holder has served 26 years at the DOJ, working at nearly every level. He has served as a corruption prosecutor, and was appointed US Attorney for Washington DC by President Bill Clinton. In 1997, he was named deputy attorney general.

“I hope I’ve done a good job,” Holder said in a recent ABC interview. “I’ve certainly tried to do as good a job as I can. There are sacrifices that I’ve had to make, that my family has had to make.”

President Obama is expected to make a statement about Holder’s resignation at the White House Thursday afternoon.

FBI Forces Police Departments Across The US to Keep Quiet About Cellphone Spying Gear

annajaya67:

FBI Forces Police Departments Across The US to Keep Quiet About Cellphone Spying Gear

Originally posted on Nevada State Personnel Watch:

mobile.si

Not only are local police departments across the United States increasingly relying on so-called StingRay devices to conduct surveillance on cell phone users, but cops are being forced to keep quiet about the operations, new documents reveal.

Recent reports have indicated that law enforcement agencies from coast to coast have been turning to IMSI-catcher devices, like the StingRay sold by Florida’s Harris Corporation, to trick ordinary mobile phones into communicating device-specific International Mobile Subscriber Identity information to phony cell towers — a tactic that takes the approximate geolocation data of all the devices within range and records it for investigators. Recently, the Tallahassee Police Department in the state of Florida was found to have used their own “cell site simulator” at least 200 times to collect phone data without once asking for a warrant during a three-year span, and details about the use of StingRays by other law enforcement groups…

View original 736 more words

Medical Jane Needs Patient Stories

September 24, 2014  Medical Jane:

cannabis stock photo

http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=05335b4d73cdc4aef0e54bd73&id=154ac60ec2&e=4dd7f577ac

With the upcoming release of Medical Jane’s website redesign, we will be launching a new section featuring success stories from real MMJ patients. If you would like to share your experience with medical cannabis, here is your chance. In doing so, you will be doing your part to help motivate others to see the power of cannabis as a medicine.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/19G7wbW9zYWDRnqL_UzLrjXD466dpydm9TFsVBzQhmo8/viewform

 

 ***Note from Anna: When citizens don’t speak up for their friends and families, global medical marijuana legalization is critically delayed. Don’t watch people suffer and die needlessly, legalize all forms of marijuana. I can write patient stories anonymously for submission to Medical Jane for the sake of patient discretion. My email address is annajaya67@yahoo.com. Please allow 24 to 48 hours for me to get back in touch with you. Thank you~

History of the Cultivation of Hemp in the U.S. (article)

annajaya67:

History of the cultivation of hemp in the U.S. (article)

Originally posted on Alcohol and Drugs History Society:

“The Smothered History of Hemp.” American History 49, no. 3 (August 2014): 10–10. Discusses the history of the cultivation of hemp in the U.S. from about 1701, with attention to Texas agricultural commissioner candidate Kinky Friedman and botanist Lyster Dewey.

View original

Herbal Healing as a Fundamental Human Right & Religious Freedom

annajaya67:

Herbal Healing as a Fundamental Human Right & Religious Freedom

Originally posted on Garden Healing Church:

Thank you, Sayer Ji of GreenMedInfo, for this excellent article:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/why-cannnabis-future-medicinecannabis_the_future_of_medicine

The future of medicine rests on the the fundamental right we all have to use things that spring from the Earth naturally as healing agents. Why should cannabis, used for at least 10,000 years by humankind to alleviate suffering, be excluded from this inexorable mandate?

The politics of cannabis are exceedingly complex, and yet the truth is simple: this freely growing plant heals the human body – not to mention provides food, fuel, clothing and shelter, if only we will let it perform its birthright. In a previous article, we investigated the strange fact that the human body is in many ways pre-designed, or as it were, pre-loaded with a receptiveness to cannabis’ active compounds — cannabinoids — thanks to its well documented endocannabinoid system….

The notion that marijuana has no ‘medicinal benefits’ is preposterous, actually. Since time…

View original 679 more words

California Governor Vetoes Bill to Revise School Textbook Content Standards

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/blogs-news/hindu-press-international/california-governor-vetoes-bill-to-revise-school-textbook-content-standards/13910.html

http://gov.ca.gov/docs/SB_1057_Veto_Message.pdf

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, September 19, 2014 (HPI): California governor Jerry Brown vetoed Senate Bill 1057 which would have called for the revision of the “Content Standards” which guide the creation of the state’s history-social science books for grades K-12. The Hindu-American community was disappointed with the veto as the bill could have improved the presentation of Hinduism and Indian history in the state’s school system.

In vetoing the bill, the governor said, “This bill would require the State Board of Education to adopt history-social science content standards by July 30, 2018. I agree that providing up to date instructional guidance to educators for use in their classrooms is important. This is precisely why the State Board of Education is currently updating the history-social science framework which is on track to be adopted next spring. I am concerned that this bill may slow progress that is already underway, and does not include a role for the Instructional Quality Commission. For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.”

For the full text of the original bill, go to:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fac … l?bill_id=201320140SB1057

***Note from Anna: When a governor regularly and deliberately strives to keep his citizens uneducated it’s always for the purposes of making sure they are never smart enough to fight back when they have been abused. States with more educated people means more states with healthier, stronger, crime-free communities.vote out the politicians who seek to harm their constituents.