At its core, the Chevron doctrine (which was established by the Court during the Reagan era) provided federal agencies with significant deference in interpreting ambiguous statutes. The Court’s decision to overturn this long-standing principle now places the onus of interpretation squarely on the judiciary. This shift presents certain benefits and concerns for businesses operating in regulated industries:

Benefits

1. Regulatory Flexibility.   Federal agencies, knowing that their rules could be easily challenged in court and wanting to avoid that, will have to be proactive.  They will be more likely to consider competing views and alternatives at the outset, rather than waiting for them to bubble up through the public comment period.
2. More Business Input.  The comments submitted by the regulated community during the public comment period will be assessed more closely.  Agencies will have to either incorporate them or provide compelling arguments why they should not be incorporated.
3. Fewer Rules.  Federal agencies may be less inclined to go through the rulemaking process for marginal issues.

Concerns

Regulatory Uncertainty

The elimination of agency deference introduces a new era of regulatory uncertainty. Judges with little or no expertise will have to weigh in on matters ranging from drug efficacy to automobile safety and assess the competing views of agency and regulated community experts.   We think this could result in  federal rules being upheld or rejected based on the judicial temperament of a judge or judges and, possibly, inconsistent rulings.  This fragmentation of regulatory interpretation poses a significant challenge for businesses seeking to maintain uniform compliance standards across state lines.

Increased Litigation Risk

With courts now bearing the responsibility for statutory interpretation, we foresee a surge in litigation as various stakeholders challenge agency rulemaking.   This will draw out the rulemaking process and leave businesses guessing  what the outcome could be.  .

Operational Disruptions

Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) possess specialized technical expertise crucial for interpreting complex regulations. The transition to judicial interpretation may result in less informed decisions and unworkable outcomes in the real world;  potentially leading to operational disruptions and increased compliance burdens.

Strategic Planning Challenges

As rules become law, businesses will be forced to either rely on the validity of the rule in making business decisions or wait and see the outcome of litigation. The ruling necessitates a reevaluation of strategic planning and compliance strategies. Businesses must now prepare for a more dynamic and potentially volatile regulatory environment. This uncertainty may impact long-term investments and operational decisions. Have you considered how this change might affect your company’s five-year plan or capital allocation strategies?

Financial Implications

The ripple effects of this decision extend to the financial realm. Companies may need to allocate additional resources to monitor and respond to regulatory changes and legal interpretations. This reallocation could impact overall financial planning and potentially affect shareholder value. How will your organization balance these new compliance costs against other business priorities?

In light of these challenges, proactive measures are essential. Consider the following strategies:

• Enhance your legal and compliance teams to monitor and analyze judicial decisions across various jurisdictions.
• Develop flexible compliance frameworks that can adapt to evolving interpretations of regulatory statutes.
• Engage in industry trade groups to advocate for clear legislative language, reducing ambiguity in future regulations.
• Implement robust risk management strategies to mitigate potential liabilities arising from regulatory uncertainties.
• Conduct regular audits of your compliance programs to ensure they align with the latest judicial interpretations.

While the Court’s decision represents a victory for proponents of reduced federal agency power, it undeniably introduces new complexities. The path forward requires vigilance, adaptability, and a commitment to staying abreast of the evolving legal landscape.

As we navigate these uncharted waters, Dawda stands ready to guide you through the complexities of this new regulatory environment. Our team of experienced legal professionals is committed to helping you mitigate risks, ensure compliance, and capitalize on opportunities in this transformed legal landscape.

Are you prepared to meet the challenges and seize the opportunities presented by this landmark decision? Let us work together to safeguard your interests and position your business for success in this new era of regulatory interpretation.

The post Navigating the New Legal Landscape: Implications of the Supreme Court’s Chevron Doctrine Decision appeared first on Dawda PLC.

The scope of this rule is notably expansive, encompassing a broader definition of PFAS and applying to any entity that has manufactured or imported these substances for commercial purposes since January 1, 2011. Unlike previous regulations, this rule provides no de minimis exemptions and includes importers of articles containing PFAS.

The reporting requirements are equally extensive. Companies must provide detailed information on chemical identity, production volumes, byproducts, uses, exposures, disposal methods, and known health and environmental effects. This level of scrutiny necessitates a thorough examination of current and historical operations. This will challenge record-keeping systems requiring data spanning over a decade.

Perhaps most significantly, the rule eliminates exemptions for small manufacturers and low-volume thresholds. This universal application dramatically increases the number of entities required to comply.

The financial implications of compliance are substantial. The EPA estimates an industry-wide burden of 11.6 million hours and $876 million in compliance costs. These figures underscore the need for strategic resource allocation and potentially significant investments in data management and reporting systems.

Compliance deadlines are approaching rapidly. Most entities must submit their final reports by May 8, 2025, while small manufacturers/article importers whose PFAS reporting obligation is solely due to importing articles containing PFAS have until November 10, 2025. This timeline necessitates immediate action to ensure comprehensive data collection and accurate reporting. Is your organization prepared to meet these deadlines?

To navigate this complex regulatory landscape effectively, consider the following strategies:

1. Conduct a thorough inventory of all products and processes that may involve PFAS.
2. Implement robust data management systems capable of capturing and organizing historical information.
3. Establish cross-functional teams to coordinate compliance efforts across all relevant departments.
4. Develop a comprehensive compliance timeline, allowing for unforeseen challenges and potential data gaps.
5. Engage with industry associations and legal counsel to stay abreast of interpretations and best practices.

The PFAS reporting rule represents a significant shift in chemical regulation, demanding unprecedented levels of transparency and accountability. While the challenges are substantial, proactive compliance can position your organization as an industry leader in environmental stewardship and regulatory adherence.

At Dawda, we understand the complexities of this new regulatory landscape. Our team of experienced environmental attorneys is prepared to guide you through every step of the compliance process, from initial assessment to final reporting. We can help you develop strategies to mitigate risks, optimize resource allocation, and ensure comprehensive compliance.

As we enter this new era of chemical regulation, the question remains: How will your organization not just comply, but thrive under these new requirements?

The post PFAS Reporting Rule: Navigating the New Landscape of Chemical Compliance appeared first on Dawda PLC.

1. Use of the Premises

Leases dictate how your entire property functions. Strong “Use Provisions” clearly define what activities are allowed within each space. These provisions should work together with the use provisions of other tenants to create a positive environment and to create a strong mix of tenants. Well-drafted Use Provisions can build synergies and help you avoid conflicts between (and also with) tenants.

2. Risk Management: Insurance & Indemnification

Commercial leases allocate risk between you and your tenant. Clear provisions define each party’s responsibilities and help reduce risk, such as requiring both to maintain insurance. These provisions may also include “indemnification,” where one party agrees to cover the other’s losses in certain situations. This applies to both individual premises and overall common areas of your property. Getting this right is crucial for minimizing risk.

3. Optimizing Tenant Contributions

Leases come in many structures. A Ground Lease allows a tenant to build and maintain their own building on your property. In contrast, a common NNN lease means you, the landlord, take on significant responsibility for maintaining the property outside the tenant’s space but then bill most of those costs back to the tenants. Every lease structure has its own considerations to protect your interests. A well-crafted lease makes the property easier to manage, with tenants contributing fairly to the upkeep. Mistakes in this area can leave you responsible for costs you shouldn’t have to bear.

4. Tenant Creditworthiness

Reliable, creditworthy tenants are essential. Thorough tenant screening, including reviewing financials and guarantor qualifications, is key. Leases with poorly drafted “assignment provisions” can create loopholes that allow tenants to escape their financial obligations and possibly leave you with an occupant who is unable to meet its financial (and other) obligations.

5. Clarity on Maintenance: Defining Responsibilities

A well-maintained property attracts and retains quality tenants. Well drafted lease terms outlining who is responsible for what repairs and upkeep minimize confusion and prevent future disputes.

6. Lease Duration and Renewal Options

The length of the lease and the terms for renewal can significantly impact both landlords and tenants. Rent escalation clauses are discussed below.  Tenants also frequently desire lease renewal options and early termination conditions.  Understanding these terms (which are not often beneficial to landlords) is essential in determining whether to include them in a lease and also helps in planning long-term investments and maintaining stable occupancy rates.

7. Rent Escalation Clauses

Addressing how rent will increase over the term of the lease is crucial. This can be based on fixed increases, percentage increases, or tied to an index like the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Clear rent escalation clauses help avoid disputes and ensure the investment keeps pace with inflation and market conditions.

8. Subleasing and Assignment

Tenants might want the flexibility to sublease or assign the lease to another party. Provisions governing subleasing and assignment can protect landlords by ensuring new tenants meet financial and operational criteria. This also helps in maintaining the integrity and quality of tenants in the property.

9. Default and Remedies

It is essential to define what constitutes a default under the lease and the remedies available to the landlord. Remedies can include late payment penalties, rights to terminate the lease, or re-enter the premises. Clear default and remedy provisions provide a legal framework to address breaches of the lease agreement.

10. Environmental and Compliance Issues

Including provisions that address hazardous substances, environmental responsibilities, and compliance with local laws and regulations can help prevent future liabilities. This can be particularly important for properties used in connection with certain industries that use materials or generate waste that might impact the environment.

11. Tenant Improvements and Alterations

Clarifying who is responsible for tenant improvements and any initial as well as subsequent alterations to the leased premises is vitally important. This includes specifying the approval process, standards for construction, and responsibilities for restoration at the end of the lease term.

Crafting effective commercial leases requires a comprehensive approach. Consulting with experienced legal counsel ensures your leases are strong, enforceable, and contribute to the long-term success of your property.

The post Secure Your Investment: Crafting Effective Commercial Leases appeared first on Dawda PLC.

Understanding the Connelly Est. v. IRS Case

In Connelly Est. v. IRS, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Eighth Circuit’s decision, affirming that Crown’s (the business) contractual obligation to redeem shares of a deceased shareholder did not diminish the value of those shares for estate tax purposes. The Court made it clear that while redemption obligations can affect a corporation’s value, they do not universally reduce it. This distinction is critical for structuring buy-sell agreements.  In other words, life insurance proceeds paid to corporation increased the value of the corporation and thus its shares in the hands of the decedent. Moreover, the corporation’s obligation to redeem the shares was not considered a corporate “liability” that would reduce the value of the shares in this instance.

Key Takeaways from the Decision

1. Life Insurance Proceeds as Corporate Assets: The Court confirmed that life insurance proceeds payable to a corporation are considered corporate assets, increasing the corporation’s fair market value. This ruling highlights the necessity for businesses to carefully consider how life insurance policies are owned and utilized within buy-sell agreements.
2. Redemption Obligations: The Supreme Court clarified that not all redemption obligations reduce a corporation’s net value. However, specific redemption obligations might decrease a corporation’s value if they require liquidation of operating assets. This nuanced view necessitates precise drafting and clear understanding of the implications of such obligations.

Best Practices for Structuring Buy-Sell Agreements

To align with the insights from Connelly Est. v. IRS, here are key guidelines for structuring effective buy-sell agreements:

1. Clear Definition of Terms: Ensure that all terms, including redemption obligations and the valuation process, are clearly defined. Ambiguities can lead to disputes and unintended tax consequences.
2. Consideration of Life Insurance Proceeds: Evaluate the impact of life insurance proceeds on corporate valuation. If the policy is intended to fund a buy-sell agreement, decide whether these insurance policies should be treated as corporate assets or instead owned by the shareholders.
3. Use of Cross-Purchase Agreements: A cross-purchase agreement, where shareholders agree to buy each other’s shares, can mitigate the risk of increasing share value due to corporate-held life insurance. However, this approach requires shareholders to maintain their policies and can introduce its own set of challenges, such as funding premium payments and making sure that the premium payments are made.
4. Incorporating Valuation Discounts: Apply appropriate valuation discounts for lack of control and marketability in the agreement. These discounts can significantly affect the valuation of shares and the resulting tax obligations.
5. Regular Appraisals: Conduct regular appraisals to ensure the valuation methods outlined in the buy-sell agreement are followed accurately. This practice helps maintain up-to-date valuations and supports compliance with tax regulations.
6. Legal and Tax Compliance: Work closely with legal and tax advisors to ensure the agreement complies with current laws and reflects the latest judicial interpretations. Regular reviews and updates to the agreement are essential to adapt to evolving legal landscapes.

The Connelly Est. v. IRS decision underscores the importance of meticulously structured buy-sell agreements in business transition matters.  By incorporating clear definitions, considering the impact of life insurance proceeds, utilizing cross-purchase agreements where appropriate, applying valuation discounts, conducting regular appraisals, and ensuring legal and tax compliance, businesses can navigate the complexities highlighted by this landmark ruling.

In the evolving field of corporate governance and tax compliance, are your buy-sell agreements crafted to withstand legal scrutiny and optimize valuation outcomes?  The business attorneys at Dawda have years of experience working with business owners and companies to help structure the right agreement and approach for different types of businesses.  Please be assured that there is no “one size fits all”.  We can work with you and your other professional advisors to draft or update your “buy-sell” agreements.

The post Structuring Effective Buy-Sell Agreements following the Connelly Est. v. IRS Decision appeared first on Dawda PLC.

The judge’s decision stems from concerns over the infringement of state sovereignty, privacy, and due process rights, alongside questioning the federal government’s authority to impose federal disclosure requirements on entity formation which is traditionally under state jurisdiction. This ruling has not only challenged the legislative reach of the federal government but has also sparked a significant debate over the balance between national security interests and constitutional rights.

As stakeholders in corporate governance, legal compliance, and regulatory requirements, it is imperative to understand the ramifications of this ruling. For businesses, particularly small and privately-owned entities, the immediate question arises: What does this mean for those who are nearing filing deadlines or have already submitted their information? This uncertainty may prompt companies to reevaluate their compliance strategies, potentially leading to a temporary halt in information disclosure until further clarification or appeals are resolved. Fin CEN for its part has indicated that it will not enforce BOI reporting against the Plaintiffs in the National Small Business United case, but Fin CEN indicates that all other reporting companies must comply with the law. You can learn more about the requirements online at: https://www.fincen.gov/boi

Moreover, the controversy highlights a critical point of contention between enhancing transparency to combat financial crimes and preserving individual and state rights.

Supporters of the CTA argue that its repeal could significantly undermine efforts to fight corruption, money laundering, and the financing of terrorism, giving leeway to bad actors to exploit the U.S. financial system through anonymous shell companies.

Critics, on the other hand, see the ruling as a necessary check on federal overreach. They advocate for a more balanced approach that safeguards constitutional rights without compromising the integrity of financial systems.

As we navigate these issues, the question remains: How can Congress and regulators devise a framework that effectively balances these competing interests?

The dialogue between maintaining national security and protecting constitutional liberties is far from over. Businesses, legal practitioners, and policymakers must stay abreast of developments and engage in the ongoing discourse to ensure that the solutions adopted serve both to protect the integrity of the financial system and uphold the foundational principles of privacy and due process rights.

The partial repeal of the Corporate Transparency Act presents a complex legal landscape for businesses and legal professionals alike. It calls for a nuanced understanding of regulatory compliance and constitutional rights, urging stakeholders to closely monitor legal developments and adapt their practices accordingly. The journey towards finding a balanced solution continues, underscoring the importance of informed dialogue and collaboration among all parties involved.

At this stage, we are advising our clients that they have an obligation to comply with the BOI reporting requirements and we remain prepared to assist.  We also are monitoring the case and the appeal process to see if the ruling will be reversed or if the enforcement will be suspended for all parties.

This summary publication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. Please contact your Dawda attorney with specific legal questions.

The post Balancing Act: Navigating the Legal Challenges After the “Partial” Repeal of the Corporate Transparency Act appeared first on Dawda PLC.

The CTA will require many entities and their owners to disclose certain information with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to accomplish these goals.

Will my business be affected?

Maybe. The reporting requirements imposed by the CTA apply to businesses that fit the criteria of a “Reporting Company” as defined by the Act. The statute defines a Reporting Company as a corporation, limited liability company, or other entity that is (1) created by filing a document with the secretary of state or similar office under the laws of that state or Indian Tribe, or (2) formed under the laws of a foreign country and authorized to do business in the United States by filing a document with a secretary of state under the laws of any given state or Indian Tribe. While this definition seemingly includes every conceivable business, there are a number of exceptions. The exceptions are fact specific.

Of note, the reporting requirements will apply to most business entities that are privately owned, maintain fewer than 20 full time employees and report $5,000,000 or less in gross revenue, and are not otherwise an exempt entity.

Specifically, there are 23 types of entities that are exempt from filing with FinCEN:

1. Issuers of reporting securities;
2. Governmental authorities;
3. Banks;
4. Credit Unions;
5. Depository Institution Holding Co.;
6. Money services business;
7. Securities broker or dealer;
8. Securities exchange or clearing agency;
9. Other Exchange Act registered entity;
10. Investment company or investment advisor;
11. Venture capital fund advisor;
12. Insurance company;
13. State-licensed insurance provider;
14. Commodity Exchange Act registered entity;
15. Accounting firm registered under §102 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX);
16. Public utility;
17. Financial market utility;
18. Pooled investment vehicle;
19. Tax-exempt entity;
20. Entity assisting a tax-exempt entity;
21. Large operating entity;
22. Subsidiary of an exempt entity; and
23. Inactive entity.

What information will I be required to file?

“Reporting Companies” must file a statement with FinCEN containing the entity’s full legal and any trade or assumed names, address, jurisdiction of formation, and the federal taxpayer identification number.

Additionally, “Beneficial Owners” of reporting companies will be required to file a similar statement. The CTA defines a Beneficial Owner as any individual who, directly or indirectly, either exercises substantial control over such Reporting Company or who owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of such Reporting Company. The regulations make clear that substantial control is a low threshold. Additionally, while entities cannot qualify as Beneficial Owners, an individual might have substantial control over an entity where that individual has substantial control over another entity, which maintains substantial control over the Reporting Company (i.e., when an entity holds an ownership interest in another entity). Similarly, in some cases an individual may indirectly have substantial control over an entity by way of a trust. These rules are still developing.

Who will have access to this information?

The information collected by reporting companies will be collected and stored with FinCen. The reports will not be accessible to the public and are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. However, select government agencies will have access to the information, including: (1) federal agencies engaged in natural security, intelligence, and civil and criminal law enforcement; (2) the Department of Treasury; and (3) state and local law enforcement agencies in connection with criminal or civil investigations.

When do I need to report, and what happens if I don’t?

Reporting companies created or registered prior to January 1, 2024, will have until January 1, 2025 to comply with the CTA filing requirements. Reporting companies created or registered January 1, 2024, and beyond will have 90 days following receipt of their creation or registration documents to file their initial reports. The failure of an entity or individual to comply with the CTA, as well as false or fraudulent reports, could result in civil fines of $500 a day for every day of noncompliance, as well as criminal penalties up to a $10,000 fine or two years in jail.

How can Dawda help?

Complying with the CTA may seem like a daunting task, but the corporate attorneys here at Dawda are well versed in the CTA and its reporting requirements. Contact us to see whether your business must comply with the CTA reporting requirements.

This summary publication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. Please contact your Dawda attorney with specific legal questions.

The post New reporting requirements for small businesses under the Corporate Transparency Act appeared first on Dawda PLC.

On November 2, 2023, the Michigan House of Representatives passed House Bill 5120 and House Bill 5121. The package of bills passed the Senate on November 8, 2023, and are currently awaiting final approval from Governor Gretchen Whitmer, expected in the coming weeks.

Under the new laws, Michigan’s Clean and Renewable Energy and Energy Waste Reduction Act will be amended to allow either utilities or independent power producers to apply for a certificate from the MPSC.  Although the process of obtaining a certificate will allow local units of government to contribute to and potentially challenge the approval of renewable energy projects within their jurisdictions, the decision of the MPSC to issue the certificate could control regardless of objections. While some lawmakers believe the legislation will encourage and facilitate Michigan’s lofty renewable energy goals, others argue that local municipalities should not lose their historical ability to control land uses.

The legislation takes effect in 1 year. Presumably, this delay will allow the MPSC to pass rules on the details of how it will issue certificates.   Also, it is possible that judicial challenges will be made to the laws since many municipalities and public interest groups oppose such legislation on constitutional grounds.

Dawda is counseling its clients, engaged in renewable energy projects and related land use entitlements, to anticipate the impact of these new laws. Reach out to attorneys Tyler Tennent and Alex Masson at Dawda to find out how your renewable energy projects will be affected.

Article submitted by Tyler Tennent and Alex Masson

The post Major Change In Land Use Laws For Solar And Wind Developments appeared first on Dawda PLC.

The recognized attorneys from Dawda are:

• Alfredo Casab, Business/Corp
• Randal R. Cole, Employment & Labor
• Brian J. Considine, Environmental
• Edward C. Dawda, Business/Corp
• Daniel M. Halprin, Real Estate
• Jeffrey D. Moss, Tax
• John Mucha, III, Civil Litigation: Defense
• Glenn G. Ross, Estate & Probate
• Susan J. Sadler, Environmental
• Marc K. Salach, Business/Corp
• Wayne S. Segal, Real Estate
• Richard M. Selik, Real Estate
• Tyler D. Tennent, Land Use/Zoning
• Frances Belzer Wilson, Business Litigation
• Kylie E. Bergmann, Real Estate
• Samuel Kokoszka, Real Estate
• Michael Piggins, Civil Litigation: Defense
• Erin Bowen Welch, Real Estate

Dawda is a full-service business law firm headquartered in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. With a commitment to delivering exceptional legal services and a client-centric approach, the firm has built a solid reputation as a trusted advisor to businesses and individuals across a range of industries. Offering legal solutions in real estate, corporate law, litigation, employment law, estate planning, and more, Dawda’s team of experienced attorneys are dedicated to ensuring clients’ legal needs are met with expertise, efficiency, and professionalism.

The post Dawda Announces its 2023 Super Lawyers appeared first on Dawda PLC.

Lugo vs. The New Perspective

Under Lugo, if a risk was “open and obvious,” a landowner generally owed no duty of care to protect invitees from such a risk, unless the risk possessed “special aspects”. These special aspects included being “effectively unavoidable” or posing a significant risk of severe injury or death. This approach allowed many cases to be dismissed or summarily judged based on the obviousness of the danger.

Kandil-Elsayed, however, shifted the focus. It proclaimed that landowners, in general, have a duty to shield invitees from unreasonable dangers, irrespective of the risk’s “open and obvious” nature. The onus now falls on the jury or factfinder to evaluate the openness and obviousness of the danger when determining if the defendant has breached their duty and when assessing the plaintiff’s comparative negligence.

Implications for Premises Liability Cases

The practical implications of the shift are profound. Fewer negligence lawsuits rooted in premises liability will be dismissed out of hand due to the “open and obvious” defense. This means a greater number of cases will go to trial, placing the spotlight on the comparative negligence of all involved parties. In situations where a risk is so glaringly obvious that anyone could and should avoid it, the plaintiff’s negligence could be deemed higher than the defendant’s, possibly leading to no liability. Conversely, if a danger, even if “open and obvious”, is effectively inescapable, the landowner could be found more at fault than the plaintiff.

The specifics of the Kandil-Elsayed case underscore this new approach. The plaintiff’s slip and fall on snow and ice previously could have been easily dismissed under the Lugo framework because of the overt nature of the risk and the existence of alternative options (e.g., the plaintiff choosing a different gas station). However, under the new paradigm, the focus shifts to whether the defendant exercised reasonable care in maintaining their property, whether they should have anticipated harm despite the risk’s openness, and the exact circumstances around the accident.

The Kandil-Elsayed verdict transforms the premises liability landscape, emphasizing the importance of due diligence by landowners. The “open and obvious” defense, while still relevant, no longer acts as an impenetrable shield in negligence cases. Instead, it becomes one of several factors a jury will consider.

Landowners must be more proactive in mitigating potential risks, as the responsibility to protect invitees has been underscored. Plaintiffs must also be wary, as their actions and choices will be scrutinized for comparative negligence.

The scales of justice have shifted, and all parties must adjust accordingly.

AUTHORED BY CHRIS MARTELLA AND AARON HAYSE, SUMMER ASSOCIATE

The post The Evolving Landscape of Premises Liability: Open and Obvious Clause Post Kandil-Elsayed appeared first on Dawda PLC.

In a recent landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), confirming the IRS has the ability to request financial records from banks and other financial institutions without notifying the actual taxpayers involved. This decision came as a result of the case Polselli v. IRS, which involved a taxpayer owing $2 million in unpaid taxes and residing in Michigan.

The post The U.S. Supreme Court Affirms IRS Authority to Request Financial Records without Notification appeared first on Dawda PLC.