Call for an Appointment 908-360-1394 Call for an Appointment 908-360-1394

X

Get In
Touch...

Warren Office
25 Independence Boulevard
Warren, New Jersey 07059-6747

Office
908-360-1394 Phone
908-647-7721 FAX

Large Quick Contact Form

 

Firm News

Robert S. Schwartz joins Herold Law, P.A.

We are very pleased to announce that ROBERT S. SCHWARTZ joined the firm as a Shareholder. Mr. Schwartz is a graduate of the University of Dayton, received his J.D. from Duquesne University School of Law, and his LL.M. in Taxation from Temple University. He was a longtime Partner of Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper. He began his career by serving five years in the Corporate Reorganization Branch of the Internal Revenue Service, Office of Chief Counsel, in Washington, D.C. He has served as the Chair of the New Jersey Bar Association Section on Taxation Law and as Chair of the Partnership Taxation Committee, and on the New Jersey Bar Association’s Supreme Court Committee on the Tax Court. Mr. Schwartz concentrates his practice in the areas of federal and state, income, excise, estate and gift and other tax matters in the international and domestic taxation planning and controversy contexts.


  • Time to Update Partnership and Operating Agreements
    The Internal Revenue Service Intends To Begin Partnership and Limited Liability Company Income Tax Audits Under 2019 Finalized Rules
    The IRS intends to start auditing partnerships’ and limited liability companies’ income tax returns following brand-new Internal Revenue Code procedures, effective January 1, 2018, but delayed because the IRS needed to issue procedural regulations. To avoid being repetitive, we use the term “partnerships” to refer to both kinds of entities. The focus of the new procedures begins with the partnership as a tax-paying entity for all additional taxes found due upon audit. This focus is quite a departure from long-in-place procedures when the focus was auditing partnerships’ income tax returns, but not assessing additional taxes against partnerships, proceeding to audit partners’ tax returns mainly by grafting the partnership audit adjustments into those returns for the same audit years, and assessing additional taxes from each partner. After all, partnerships do not pay income taxes, their partners do. This is not being changed, except for additional taxes.
    How? In a nutshell: assuming that an IRS revenue agent finds that a partnership’s Form 1065 understates gross income or overstates deductions and credits or both, the result is increased taxable income as an audit adjustment. For each of 2018 and 2019, the revenue agent applies a 37% rate to the increase to get the tax amount and adds on to this amount at least one non-compliance penalty, if any, and interest on both amounts. These three amounts will be reflected in a proposed notice of partnership adjustment.
    The procedures grant sole and binding authority vis-à-vis the IRS and the partnership to a “partnership representative”. The person’s binding authority with the IRS extends to such important matters as being sole decision maker about the partnership’s prompt payment of the amounts in the notice, or invoking new procedures for “modifying” the notice amounts, or choosing instead to have the partners take the audit adjustments into account by each putting his share of adjustments on his own income tax return and paying the resulting tax due, if any. Except in rare and unusual cases, however, the sum of the taxes due by the group is not going to equal the 37% tax imputed to the partnership by the notice. Partnership representatives also control proceeding to the IRS Office of Appeals or Federal courts in order to contest any partnership adjustments that arguably do not follow the applicable tax law.
    There are going to be plenty of legitimate controversies among a partnership’s treatment of a partnership tax item, the IRS revenue agent’s treatment and the consequences to partners as a group or individually. A given partnership representative might be in a conflicted position in making important decisions. Consequently, and for other reasons such as notice and opportunity to be heard, now is the time to update partnership agreements with tax and governance provisions taking into account both the new procedures and partnership representative’s preeminent position as far as the IRS is concerned. For example, a partnership agreement should address to what extent the partnership representative has unfettered powers over the decisions summarized here as compared to having to get prior approval from a consenting committee.
    The tax and business law attorneys at Herold Law, P.A., have studied the new procedures in such depth so as to gain the necessary understanding of their workings to listen, discuss and implement changes to agreements’ tax and governance provisions to better ensure, among other things, that no partners or partnership representatives are going to have mutual misunderstandings and quarrels about making the key decisions, negotiating with the revenue agent and settling or proceeding to administrative or court appeals. If we can be of service to you, please don’t hesitate to contact Robert S. Schwartz, Esq., at 908-647-1022 or contact him at [email protected].
  • Changing New Jersey Tax Residence: Gross Income Taxes to Rise Again?
    By: Robert S. Schwartz, Esq.
    As recently as April 17th, Governor Phil Murphy’s proposal to impose a 10.75% tax rate on the incomes of New Jersey families exceeding $1,000,000 continues on its way to becoming law. The proposal’s accompanying estimates reflect that approximately 18,000 New Jersey resident families and 19,000 New Jersey non-resident families, but who have substantial income from New Jersey sources, will be paying this higher tax rate. The tax increase, if any, will begin this year, or maybe next year, and is estimated by the Office of Legislative Services to be good for $477M per annum.
    Governor Murphy made the same proposal not long after he was elected governor during 2017. The Senate and Assembly leadership, however, continue to be cool to the idea, because recent studies from independent, third-party institutions have revealed the fact that the same 10.75% on the incomes exceeding $1,000,000 in effect in New Jersey for 2009, on top of earlier tax increases during the terms of former Governor Jim McGreevy, led to a relatively large number of New Jersey high income earners establishing income tax residency in states such as Florida and Pennsylvania, among others. Recent polling data reflects a strong majority of those polled like the idea of a 10.75% tax rate on the incomes exceeding $1,000,000.
    We at Herold Law appreciate that New Jersey has been among the highest, or the highest, taxing state over the course of at least the last ten (10) years as reported by the respected Tax Foundation. We further appreciate that so long as a family has New Jersey source income, present law gives New Jersey the right to tax that income by virtue of its being from a New Jersey source, except for retirement income from a limited number of qualifying pension plans connected with a New Jersey career. A non-resident’s income that is not from a New Jersey source, such as dividends and capital gains, is not New Jersey source income, however, and, hence, not taxable by New Jersey as to a former resident.
    We regularly provide legal advice and counsel to clients in connection with shifting their state of tax residency from New Jersey or New York to lower tax jurisdictions. We have found that not all circumstances are black or white, but can and do present many shades of gray where sound legal judgment becomes imperative. This is most often so for the year during which a New Jersey resident family changes its place of abode from New Jersey to a lower tax jurisdiction for the first time.
    If we can be of service to you, please don’t hesitate to contact Robert S. Schwartz, Esq. at 908-647-1022 or contact him at [email protected]
  • Risk Management of Trust and Estates.
    Executors of Estates and Trust Fiduciaries responsible for real estate, valuable personalty, art collections, and other investments or property under their control and management should regularly review insurance policies to ensure that no gaps or lapses in insurance exist to avoid risk and exposure in the event of a loss or a claim by a third party. Herold Law counsels clients in risk management, and conducts asset portfolio reviews collaboratively with insurance brokers and asset managers to ensure that appropriate insurance is in place to hedge against unforeseen or predictable risks of exposure. Frequent coverage disputes arise when the policy fails to identify the true owner of the property in circumstances where the original owner dies, an Executor has been named, or the ownership in the property has been transferred to a Trust or corporate vehicle such an LLC, and the insurance policy is not corrected to reflect the proper and actual insurable interest in the property. Have appraisals of the Estate or Trust been updated so that they are adequately insured for their true value? Has a claim to an insurance company or the broker been reported in a timely manner and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy? Insurance companies often look for loopholes, misrepresentations, or omissions in insurance applications to void coverage in the event of a claim. Is the Estate property vacant while it is listed for sale? A vacancy policy is required to avoid forfeiture of coverage if a loss occurs and the vacancy is not brought to the attention of the insurance company.
    It is incumbent on fiduciaries to review their risk management oversight over portfolio assets to hedge against risks that could materially cause financial harm to the Estate or Trust. Michael J. Faul, Jr., heads the Insurance Recovery and Risk Management Group at Herold Law, P.A., and he can be contacted at 908-647-1022, extension 122.
  • “Place to Worship Initiative” and Suits Against Municipalities on the Rise.
    Michael J. Faul, Jr., a Shareholder at Herold Law and Special Insurance Counsel to governmental entities, warns of the prospect of future civil rights suits and insurance coverage implications for defense and indemnification. See details
  • On October 13, 2018, Frank T. Araps was a Moderator and Speaker for the live Seminar “Construction Claims and Law: Preparation, Proof & Defense,” an ICLE-sponsored event, presented in cooperation with the NJSBA’s Construction Law Section.
  • On June 19, 2018, Robert F. Simon was elected to the Board of Directors of the Land Use Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association.
  • On January 17, 2018, Robert F. Simon was a presenter for the Lorman Education Live Webinar “Recent Trends in Billboard Law.” Mr. Simon was also a speaker on this topic at the November 21, 2017 ICLE-sponsored event – “The Legal Aspects of Electronic Billboards and Signs.” This webinar was presented in cooperation with the NJSBA’s Land Use Section and the NJSBA’s Local Government Law Section.
  • Jurisdiction Dismissal Victory for Commercial Client represented by Michael J. Faul, Jr.
    Herold Law secured a highly favorable result in a commercial dispute over a liquor distributorship involving sales in New York and New Jersey. Michael J. Faul, a Shareholder of Herold Law, successfully argued a motion to dismiss before a New Jersey Superior Court Judge on Friday, November 3, 2017. The complaint named 14 defendants, including two corporations, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference, fraud, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, negligence, conversion, and interference with commerce. On behalf of the defendants, Mr. Faul moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 4:6-2 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and on grounds of lack of or ineffective service of process as to all defendants. Mr. Faul successfully argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants based on the lack of minimum contacts in the State of New Jersey and failure to effect service of process of the complaint in accordance with the Rules of Court. Mr. Faul was assisted by George W. Crimmins, of counsel to the Firm.Herold Law is well versed on the subject matter of jurisdictional defenses. When Herold Law is contacted by or on behalf of out-of-state defendants, jurisdictional defenses are explored with the client from the outset. Herold Law is strategically placed geographically to represent out-of-state companies and individuals who are sued in New Jersey in State and Federal Courts, both as principal litigation counsel or local counsel.
  • On June 23, 2017, Craig Provorny was successful in having the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey reverse a decision of the trial court. In Davanne Realty v. The Dial Corporation, the Appellate Division disagreed with the trial court and found that a lease entered into in 1958 that did not mention environmental liabilities obligated Dial Corporation as the tenant to defend and indemnify Davanne Realty, the landlord, for alleged discharges of hazardous substances by the Dial Corporation onto the property and into the sewer system, finding their way into the Lower Passaic River miles away, in a case in which Davanne and The Dial Corporation were two of approximately three hundred parties sued.
  • Michael J. Faul, Jr. was recently appointed as Member of the Audit and Risk Management Committee of the Somerset County YMCA.
  • Craig Provorny secured a judgment for an oppressed minority shareholder in a closely held corporation.
  • Joseph Lemond summarizes the recent legislative changes to the New Jersey Estate Tax and other highlights of the recent legislation.
  • Michael J. Faul, Jr. Shareholder of Herold Law, was retained as special insurance counsel to the Township of Bernards in coverage dispute with QBE Specialty Insurance Company.
  • Joseph M. Lemond spoke at “Hot Tips in Taxation” This was an ICLE-sponsored event.