state and local regulation

New York City Taxation of Corporate REMIC Residual Interest Holders by Mireille Zuckerman

I. Introduction In 2007, the New York Division of Tax Appeals ruled in Delta Financial that the starting point for determining New York State corporate entire net income includes Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) excess inclusion.[1] The effect of Delta Financial is that even if a corporation has net losses for a taxable year, REMIC residual interest income remains subject to New York State tax.  This mimics the federal treatment of residual interest income.  Although New York City has not litigated this issue, the reasoning behind Delta Financial also applies to New York City general corporate tax. Although the State published REMIC guidelines in 1988, the 2007 case was the first on this issue.  This is probably because the REMIC excess inclusion provisions have an impact on State and City tax assessment only in years in which a corporation reports a net loss.  After big losses in 2007 and 2008, corporations have been reporting zero taxable income to both the State and the City, even if they have large amounts of REMIC interest income.  New York City should begin pursuing this untaxed income.  This post briefly describes REMICs and the reasoning behind Delta Financial and the City’s decision to [read more]

Anti-Immigrant Housing Ordinances and Comprehensive Reform by Daniel Eduardo Guzman

Introduction No fewer than 100 counties and municipalities across the nation have passed anti-immigrant housing ordinances (AIHOs) that are designed to expel or discourage undocumented immigrants from living in their communities.[1] The most infamous of these municipal ordinances, Hazleton, Pennsylvania’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance (IIRA), was passed in 2006.[2] In addition to Hazleton-style IIRAs, AIHOs without language explicitly targeting immigrants are also fairly common.  Seeking the same ends as municipalities that employ Hazleton-style AIHOs, municipalities use housing provisions addressing “overcrowding,” “maximum occupancy” and family make-up to drive undocumented immigrants out of their communities. The latter AIHOs, by excluding language that specifically implicates immigrants, are more legally robust.  And since courts have repeatedly concluded that federal law preempts Hazleton-style AIHOs, municipalities seeking to expel immigrants are more likely to use occupancy ordinances to meet those same, anti-immigrant ends.  This Blog post argues that an effective challenge to all AIHOs and Hazleton-style and occupancy ordinances, must reserve a role for both states and the federal government.  Part I of this Blog post examines Hazleton’s aforementioned AIHO and occupancy ordinances in Prince William County, Virginia.  Part II reviews legal theories used to challenge AIHOs.  Part III offers alternative legal and public policy [read more]