|
Outrail posted:Honestly can't tell if you're having a go at me but yeah, I guess those are kind of questions I might have. Maybe that's one of the perks of living in a country without a functioning unemployment benefits system? I have no idea what that would constitute in the US, but in many other countries that would be pretty clear benefits fraud which lands you anywhere between 6 months to a couple of years in the big house.
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 08:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
Devor posted:My bosses laid me off and told me not to work on a patent I was doing at work. But I went home and finished the patent. How much of that patent do I own now? Employment contract will control much of this, as well as the timing of when exactly the invention was “ready for parenting” (which is not the same as having a patent application ready nor is it necessarily the point engineers think it is.) But basically, assuming a typical employment contract (your employer owns you), they’re gonna own the rights to your invention if you came up with it while you were still employed. If there was no employment contract it gets more complicated and depends on what exactly you did when. (Also, if your boss told you to work on something, you probably aren’t the inventor anyway so it doesn’t matter because you get no rights.)
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 08:33
|
|
|
As far as I'm aware, the primary distinction between a tax preparer and tax attorney is that the latter is able to represent people in tax court
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 16:01
|
|
|
My layperson advice is to start with a tax accountant who is an IRS Enrolled Agent. They can represent you to the IRS. If you wind up in tax court, they can refer you to a tax attorney.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 16:41
|
|
|
I don't have any hard statistics, but many (if not most) tax attorneys actually do not do controversy work (e.g. tax court). Lots of tax attorneys have specialties like corporate tax, mergers or entity changes, tax-exempt orgs, estate planning, etc. They'll be useful for planning and compliance before and while engaging in those areas, and many of them work for larger firms to assist in these transactions. Controversy and tax court work is definitely something tax attorneys do, but it's somewhat niche on a larger scale. The advice of hiring a competent non-attorney tax professional and letting them tell you when you need an attorney is probably the correct way to go. But yeah, if you get to the point where you're filing pleadings in US Tax Court, you should probably at least consult an attorney to see if it's worth hiring them (it may not be for the amounts involved). And if you find yourself being charged with tax-related crimes by the US Attorney, maybe also consider it...
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:As far as I'm aware, the primary distinction between a tax preparer and tax attorney is that the latter is able to represent people in tax court Speaking as a tax preparer who lurks this thread, a very important distinction is I do not have any attorney-client privilege to hold up with regard to discussions with me. I'm not expected to go running to the IRS telling them you asked me about doing X bad thing (though I'm obviously ethically required to tell you X thing is illegal and the consequences for doing it, and if I help you do X I'm on the hook as well) and I am legally required not to hand out your tax info to most people on pain of criminal consequences, but if I get a subpoena I have to answer questions. Enrolled Agents and CPAs can both represent you before IRS audits as well as tax attorneys, but in general most tax preparers in my experience are more about preparing returns and answering general questions than audit work. I do some since I work offseason usually, but as a non-EA my powers are limited and even the EAs in my office don't tend to have lots of audits beyond mail ones. I will say you have to basically be doing fraudulent activity to get criminal issues with the IRS, they can do a lot of nasty civil actions if you owe money, but they can't generally throw you in a jail cell for anything that's a reasonable mistake. Just don't ever lie to them, it doesn't end well no matter what the original problem was. I would say my usual defining line for telling someone to go to a tax attorney is when you have criminal fraud issues or if your tax problem is less questions of fact and more actual legal arguments, but it's kind of hard to tell outside a potential criminal accusation (where I immediately say "see an attorney, do not pass Go, it's probably going to be a lot more than $200"). Also be aware if it's a state tax agency or IRS issue, the rules obviously can vary there.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
If someone in the US is out on bail and dies, what happens to the bail money?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2020 13:39
|
|
|
Man with Hat posted:If someone in the US is out on bail and dies, what happens to the bail money? Im pretty sure it belongs to the estate, like any other unclaimed property. Goes to whatever heirs.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
So a dam broke and a lake has become a river just flowing through the area in Michigan. All the people who had homes on the lake shore, now have homes a significantly longer distance from the new river. My question is who owns the new land (or newly usable land)? Assuming the lake is gone for good, that is. Here's a video that shows what I'm talking about : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa7tacsTLK0 Does it all just belong to the state? Or do people claim it somehow?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 04:06
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:So a dam broke and a lake has become a river just flowing through the area in Michigan. All the people who had homes on the lake shore, now have homes a significantly longer distance from the new river. Probably irrelevant as they’re likely going to rebuild the water control structures to restore (more or less) the old waterline, but it would depend on if the flooded land was taken when the dam was constructed and probably on complex state law issues.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 04:27
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:So a dam broke and a lake has become a river just flowing through the area in Michigan. All the people who had homes on the lake shore, now have homes a significantly longer distance from the new river. It could be federal property if its connected to the waterways of the united states. If not, state property.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
if it develops into a vernal pool or other seasonal/temporary water body that's a whole other layer of complications on top of it too. a lot of towns have a whole board & commission dedicated just to wetlands management, including vernal pools.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It could be federal property if its connected to the waterways of the united states. If not, state property. Waters of the US are regulated, but I don't think they typically convey a property interest to the US I would imagine that when the dam was built, they exercised eminent domain to purchase the property being flooded. Fake Edit: Today it's owned by the Sanford Lake Preservation Association, Inc, according to GIS property records. Its purposes, according to its bylaws, are: quote:1.1 To encourage communication, cooperation, and understanding between all law abiding users of the lake.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 05:15
|
|
|
Well they certainly nailed 1.3 there, explored the hell out of it.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 05:17
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Well they certainly nailed 1.3 there, explored the hell out of it. When I was looking this up, I found some news articles where adjacent property owners were objecting to a special assessment district where lakefront properties would be assessed $750/yr to keep the lake from being destroyed. Property owners opposed this levy, woops. Edit: Hahaha, levy/levee
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 05:18
|
|
|
Devor posted:Property owners opposed this e: Aww, you got there already
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 05:20
|
|
|
Devor posted:Waters of the US are regulated, but I don't think they typically convey a property interest to the US I should have said waterway. The feds own all inland waterways and the land that’s under it. This lake/dam/river is not considered part of the inland waterways.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 12:14
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I should have said waterway. The feds own all inland waterways and the land that’s under it. It might be navigable now that the dams have been destroyed, with a sufficiently motivated tugboat
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
I dont see how DUI checkpoints are legal. Dont they need probable cause to stop you and ask you questions?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
ChocNitty posted:I dont see how DUI checkpoints are legal. Dont they need probable cause to stop you and ask you questions? They can stop you and ask questions, but to search you they need probable cause or consent. Also they'e somehow made the argument that seeing the checkpoint signs and turning off the road is probable cause for further investigation. See also: "Drug checkpoint ahead 3 miles" and then searching anyone who stops at the exit/rest area before.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:They can stop you and ask questions, but to search you they need probable cause or consent. It's convenient that they have walking probable cause machines for anyone who declines though.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:It's convenient that they have walking probable cause machines for anyone who declines though. Isn't it?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
ChocNitty posted:I dont see how DUI checkpoints are legal. Dont they need probable cause to stop you and ask you questions? essentially, checkpoints are a governmental function rationally related to the governmental interest of preventing drunk driving. The short stopping of all drivers is a minor inconvenience, and a few questions before sending people on their way is not intrusive. Also, reasonable suspicion is what cops need to detail someone not probable cause.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:essentially, checkpoints are a governmental function rationally related to the governmental interest of preventing drunk driving. The short stopping of all drivers is a minor inconvenience, and a few questions before sending people on their way is not intrusive. are you a lawyer? this doesn't sound right. also the lines at those things can be huge, the questions are prying and invasive, and they are literally just looking for/making up excuses to search anyone interesting. how about the "border patrol" checkpoints on the interstate like 150 miles from the nearest border?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:are you a lawyer? this doesn't sound right. also the lines at those things can be huge, the questions are prying and invasive, and they are literally just looking for/making up excuses to search anyone interesting. how about the "border patrol" checkpoints on the interstate like 150 miles from the nearest border? border patrol checkpoints are a different legal basis
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:are you a lawyer? this doesn't sound right. also the lines at those things can be huge, the questions are prying and invasive, and they are literally just looking for/making up excuses to search anyone interesting. how about the "border patrol" checkpoints on the interstate like 150 miles from the nearest border? I am a lawyer. The case you wanna read is Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). The SCOTUS breaks down each and why these checkpoints are constitutionally authorized. Border patrol checkpoints are completely different.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I am a lawyer. The case you wanna read is Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). The SCOTUS breaks down each and why these checkpoints are constitutionally authorized. ok i googled and read it, and it basically seemed to break down to "it's useful to them so they can do it". imo quote:[I]t seems evident that the Court today misapplies the balancing test announced in [Brown v. Texas]. The Court overvalues the law enforcement interest in using sobriety checkpoints, undervalues the citizen’s interest in freedom from random, announced investigatory seizures, and mistakenly assumes that there is ‘virtually no difference’ between a routine stop at a permanent, fixed checkpoint and a surprise stop at a sobriety checkpoint. [The dissenting justices] believe this case is controlled by our several precedents condemning suspicionless random stops of motorists for investigatory purposes.” what's the excuse for border control checkpoints that aren't on borders?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:ok i googled and read it, and it basically seemed to break down to "it's useful to them so they can do it". imo BP has "authority" 100 miles from any border, including beaches.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
I googled this question and this is the first hitowlhawk911 posted:what's the excuse for border control checkpoints that aren't on borders? https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/your-rights-border-zone Excerpt: quote:Are immigration officials allowed to stop people in places wholly inside the U.S.?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:
Communist infiltration. No, seriously.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
Devor posted:I googled this question and this is the first hit Does this mean boarder control can systematically kick in every door in Florida and search every square inch of the state? That seems problematic.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:BP has "authority" 100 miles from any border, including beaches.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 20:02
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:i know they do, i was wondering what the justification for it is. is there a case to read like the last guy linked re: dui checkpoints? i technically live in one of those areas along with 2/3rds of the us population, but they don't operate checkpoints like that up here and i was pretty upset by getting stopped on the interstate in arizona and thrown in a little cell in a trailer for 4 hours and having my campervan completely stripped with the interior in a big pile next to it when i came back out and having some dickwad with an ar standing there watching me put it back together. i didn't consent to the search on principle so they just pointed at my van and locked me up/had at it anyways when their trained dog barked. cuffs and all. it seems like *exactly* the situation the 4th amendment is supposed to protect us against. isn't it a relatively new development? post-9/11? They needed probable cause (or permission which you denied) to search your vehicle. The dog alerting probably gave them their probable cause, for better or worse. quote:CBP at Immigration Checkpoints
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Does this mean boarder control can systematically kick in every door in Florida and search every square inch of the state? That seems problematic. No, they can't. 8 USC 1357 posted:Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant-
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
I used to drive through the San Clemente checkpoint fairly regularly and it always made me laugh that they basically waved anyone through without stopping who was (1) white and (2) not driving a van
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I used to drive through the San Clemente checkpoint fairly regularly and it always made me laugh that they basically waved anyone through without stopping who was (1) white and (2) not driving a van From the pertinent SCOTUS case: quote:Thus, even if it be assumed that such referrals are made largely on the basis of apparent Mexican ancestry, we perceive no constitutional violation. As the intrusion here is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it, we think it follows that the Border Patrol officers must have wide discretion in selecting the motorists to be diverted for the brief questioning involved.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:are you a lawyer? this doesn't sound right. Lol Jesus Christ. You got a good answer. Your reply here is very funny to me. I’ve heard it before.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I used to drive through the San Clemente checkpoint fairly regularly and it always made me laugh that they basically waved anyone through without stopping who was (1) white and (2) not driving a van yeah it's probably a lot funnier if you're not brownish and in a van euphronius posted:Lol Jesus Christ. You got a good answer. Your reply here is very funny to me. I’ve heard it before. hey i just asked, sometimes randos (like me) try and answer here too and "because it's useful" seemed like a pretty incredible reason. it *was* a good answer (about a bad situation), no need to get defensive. the followup with a case i could read was even better. i'm not at all surprised that you've heard this before, i'm glad to hear other people share my concerns
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
I’m not mad at you or anything. It’s just a funny think to hear. 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
ChocNitty posted:I dont see how DUI checkpoints are legal. Dont they need probable cause to stop you and ask you questions?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 21:49
|
|
