What is a “unanimous” vote of a 3 member board of township trustees?

The issue discussed in this article is whether a 2-0 vote of a board of trustees of an Ohio township where the third member is absent due to illness constitutes the “unanimous vote of the board”? This question was addressed in by the Ohio Attorney General in Opinion 99-004 and 85-010. A board of township […]

More on page 67

No need to indentify the name of a person prior to executive session.

By Rayan F. Coutinho, Ph.D.
 

§121.22(C) mandates that “[a]ll meetings of any public body are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.” §121.22(G)(1) creates an exception to the open meetings requirement. It provides: “*** the members of a public body may hold an executive session only after a majority of a […]

More on page 66

H.B. 134 may change Ohio corporation law

 
H.B. 134 was passed by the Ohio Senate on 06-27-2007. It authorizes alternative standards for the election of directors of business corporations. It requires that conversions of domestic corporations into other business entities and conversions of other business entities into domestic corporations be permitted by the Revised Code chapter or by the laws under which […]

More on page 64

Trade This Stock - The Mathematics of Should I Sell this Stock and Buy Another in a Taxable Account?

By John W. Eilers, Esq.

Trading stocks for a profit is anything but an exact science. Mathematics, however, can be applied to help the investor/trader analyze the opportunity presented and the cost of the decision to sell one security and to buy another. That cost the sale of an appreciated investment is made up […]

More on page 63

Eminent Domain Update - The New Definitions

Both the United States and Ohio constitutions limit the government’s power of eminent domain to situations where the property is being taken for a public use and the owner is compensated (United States Const., Amend. 5; Ohio Const., Art. I, sec. 19). In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), 125 S.Ct. 2655, the […]

More on page 59

Ohio’s new law authorizes townships to remove junk motor vehicles from public and private property.

On December 4, 2007, Governor Ted Strickland signed H.B. 50. State Representative Clyde Evans sponsored HB 50, which allows townships to remove junk motor vehicles from public and private property, and to borrow money to pay for removal of junk motor vehicles and other debris from private property.
Old township law authorized townships to […]

More on page 58

Impact of H.B. 134 on Ohio Corporation Law

Uncategorized Comments (0)

H.B. 134 (1) Authorizes alternative standards for the election of directors of business corporations. (2) Requires that conversions of domestic corporations into other business entities and conversions of other business entities into domestic corporations be permitted by the Revised Code chapter or by the laws under which the converting entities will exist. (3) Allows a limited liability company to provide in its operating agreement or its articles of organization for the exercise of the rights of a member who dies or becomes incompetent for the purpose of settling the member’s estate or administering the member’s property. (4) Extends the shield of a partner of a registered limited liability partnership from personal liability for the obligations of the partnership. and (5) Validates meetings and votes of nonprofit corporations held by authorized telecommunications equipment on and after August 19, 2005.

Click here for complete details.

admin @ July 22, 2008

What is the procedure for recording a document other than an assignment with the United States Patent and Trademark Office?

Business & Corporate, Intellectual Property Comments (0)

By Rayan F. Coutinho

37 C.F.R. §3.11 and MPEP §3.11 provide the list of documents that may be recorded with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). §(a) provides as follows – “Assignments of applications, patents, and registrations, accompanied by completed cover sheets as specified in §§3.28 and 3.31, will be recorded with the office. Other documents, accompanied by completed cover sheets as specified in §§3.28 and 3.31, affecting title to applications, patents, or registrations, will be recorded as provided in this part or at the discretion of the Director.” [emphasis added]. The term “Document” is defined in 37 CFR 3.1 to mean “a document which a party requests to be recorded in the Office pursuant to §3.11 and which affects some interest in an application, patent, or registration.

More on page 75

admin @ June 19, 2008

Under what circumstances can the value of lodging be excluded from gross income under 26 USC 119?

Business & Corporate, General, Tax Comments (0)

By Rayan F. Coutinho

Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including compensation for services.  It includes income realized in any form, i.e., money, property, or services. If compensation for services is paid in the form of property, the fair market value of the property must be included in income.  Consequently, the value of those lodgings is includable in a taxpayer’s gross income unless specifically excludable under another provision of the Code.  Section 119 provides in relevant part as follows: “SEC. 119. MEALS OR LODGING FURNISHED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE EMPLOYER. There shall be excluded from gross income of an employee the value of any meals or lodging furnished to him by his employer for the convenience of the employer, but only if – *** (2) in the case of lodging, the employee is required to accept such lodging on the business premises of his employer as a condition of his employment. In determining whether meals or lodging are furnished for the convenience of the employer, the provisions of an employment contract or of a State statute fixing terms of employment shall not be determinative of whether the meals or lodging are intended as compensation.”

More on page 70

admin @ April 17, 2008

What are the compliance obligations, particularly those related to labeling, required by California Proposition 65 for a listed chemical?

Business & Corporate Comments (0)

Pollution

In 1986, California adopted an initiative known as Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, still known by its original name of Proposition 65. Put simply, Proposition 65 requires businesses to notify Californians about significant amount of chemicals in the products they purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment. In our client’s case, it is a product. The following are exempt from the provisions of Proposition 65: (1) businesses with less than 10 employees and (2) government agencies. A business is required to provide a “clear and reasonable” warning before knowingly and intentionally exposing anyone to a “listed” chemical.” This warning can be given by a variety of means, including by labeling.
More on page 68

admin @ March 27, 2008