As the 2020 election draws ever nearer, nonprofit organizations should consider reviewing the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) rules relating to permissible and impermissible political activities such as endorsing specific candidates, general advocacy, and lobbying to influence legislation. While employees of an organization may wish to “support the cause” by taking political action on behalf of the organization, and/or the organization itself may be inclined to spend funds to oppose or support certain ballot measures, organizations should take note that participation in some types political activities may jeopardize the organization’s tax-exempt status.
Click here for more.
Taxation issues around virtual currencies have abounded since the inception of these so called “digital dollars,” such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Monero. Though a single Bitcoin may no longer be valued at nearly $20,000 as it was in late 2017, the overall increase in value of many virtual currencies has created an incentive for holders of these virtual currencies to donate amounts of virtual currency to charitable organizations, for the same reasons appreciated property is often donated generally. However, until recently, there was little to no IRS guidance in place for charitable organizations receiving donations of virtual currency.
In Techno Lite, Inc. v. Emcod, LLC, the California Court of Appeal recently affirmed the finding that an employee can be liable for fraud when said employee violates his promise not to compete with his employer while still employed. Though public policy in California places strict limitations on non-compete agreements after an employee has left employment, this shield was never meant to become a sword by which an employee could undermine his employer with impunity even before his employment ends.
The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) went into effect on January 1, 2020. Is your business prepared and in compliance with the new law?
Other AALRR Blogs
- Privacy Law Update: New California Privacy Rights Act Further Expands California’s Privacy Law Amid the Evolving Privacy Landscape
- Employment Arbitration Agreements & PAGA — Choose Your Words Carefully
- Ninth Circuit’s Ruling In Frlekin v. Apple, Inc. Is A Cautionary Tale For Employers
- Further Developments Under COVID-19 and Its Continued Impact On Commercial Lease Payment Obligations
- A Postjudgment, Independent Action To Enforce Alter Ego Liability On A Contract Is Considered An Action On The Contract
- Part 5: Data Privacy in California: Responding to Consumer Requests and Enforcement by the Attorney General Begins
- The Appellate Court Takes a Bite Out of Meal and Rest Break Claims
- Los Angeles County Obtains Approval to Move Further into Stage 2; Restaurants May Resume In-Person Dining and Hair Salons and Barbershops May Reopen
- Better Luck Next Time—Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Defense Preclusion in Lucky Brand Trademark Row
- Leading Ride Share Servicers Sued by the State of California for Continued Misclassification of Drivers as Independent Contractors
- Christopher S. Andre
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Dan J. Bulfer
- Eduardo A. Carvajal
- Danielle C. Cepeda
- Michele L. Collender
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Evan J. Gautier
- Carol A. Gefis
- Amber S. Healy
- Edward C. Ho
- John E. James
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Joseph K. Lee
- Lana Milojevic, CIPP/US
- Michael J. Morphew
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Brian M. Wheeler
- Lisa C. Zaradich