Alabama has a new law that covers financial transactions in the online age.

This month the Alabama Monetary Transmission Act became law. The Alabama Legislature passed it back in May.

Replacing the 1961 “Sale of Checks Act,” the new law covers everything from bitcoin to regulation of money transfers. It also gives law enforcement new tools to track international financial crimes.

Alabama Securities Commission Director Joseph Borg called its passage important.

“This significant legislation will help streamline our regulatory and enforcement activities to meet the challenges presented by modern technology,” Borg said, “such as the use of cybercurrency, online money transmissions and further assists law enforcement in preventing money laundering and activities involving the illegal international transfer of funds.”

Officials said the old law did not have administrative and enforcement authority and predated the digital age.

For example, the Alabama Monetary Transmission Act includes “virtual” currency such as bitcoin, and lays out a record-keeping process, allowing the Alabama Securities Commission to audit those records. It regulates money transmitters and covers non-banking entities that engage in checks and money transfers, as well as debt management services.

However, it exempts several establishments, such as banks, bank holding companies, securities-clearing firms, payment and settlement processors, broker-dealers and government entities.

Go to Source

Alabama has a new law that covers financial transactions in the online age.

This month the Alabama Monetary Transmission Act became law. The Alabama Legislature passed it back in May.

Replacing the 1961 “Sale of Checks Act,” the new law covers everything from bitcoin to regulation of money transfers. It also gives law enforcement new tools to track international financial crimes.

Alabama Securities Commission Director Joseph Borg called its passage important.

“This significant legislation will help streamline our regulatory and enforcement activities to meet the challenges presented by modern technology,” Borg said, “such as the use of cybercurrency, online money transmissions and further assists law enforcement in preventing money laundering and activities involving the illegal international transfer of funds.”

Officials said the old law did not have administrative and enforcement authority and predated the digital age.

For example, the Alabama Monetary Transmission Act includes “virtual” currency such as bitcoin, and lays out a record-keeping process, allowing the Alabama Securities Commission to audit those records. It regulates money transmitters and covers non-banking entities that engage in checks and money transfers, as well as debt management services.

However, it exempts several establishments, such as banks, bank holding companies, securities-clearing firms, payment and settlement processors, broker-dealers and government entities.

Go to Source

Enterprises with foreign-owned capital (even one per cent) need to register distribution rights before trading goods purchased from other Vietnamese organisations or imported into the country.

Distribution is deemed one of the toughest rights to register among those related to goods purchase and sales activities, and FDI enterprises incur losses if they are not allowed to trade goods in Viet Nam.

PLF Law Firm shares some insights on how FDI enterprises can deal with this obstacle.

Benefits of distribution right

Undertaking registration for distribution right permits FDI enterprises to conduct activities related to wholesale, retail, purchase and sale agency, as well as commercial franchises.

Enterprises with 100 per cent Vietnamese capital have this right by default. Enterprises with foreign-owned capital (even one per cent) must register the distribution right as stipulated in Article 5 of Circular No. 08/2013/TT-BCT, dated April 22, 2013 (Circular 08).

Are FDI enterprises with registered import rights allowed to sell imported goods in Viet Nam?

Clause 4, Article 4 of Circular 08, regulates that:

“Enterprises with foreign-owned capital that are already licensed to import but not yet licensed for the right to distribute are entitled to directly sell imported goods to Vietnamese traders who have the right to export or distribute such goods; but not entitled to organise or participate in the network of goods distribution in Viet Nam, unless otherwise provided by the law of Viet Nam or international treaties to which the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam is a contracting party.”

In other words, FDI enterprises without distribution rights can only introduce goods to the local market through agencies, incurring increased costs.

Why do FDI enterprises meet obstacles in registering distribution rights?

Viet Nam has adopted policies designed to prevent the rampant import of foreign goods and to protect the domestic market. On the other hand, the policy also encourages FDI enterprises to invest their capital and technology in domestic production for the growth of the economy.

If FDI enterprises invest in manufacturing goods in Viet Nam, they are entitled to sell such goods in Viet Nam without having to register for the distribution right.

What steps should FDI enterprises take to register?

1) FDI enterprises should specify which goods will actually be introduced into the Viet Nam market and avoid registering “supernumerary” or “reserved” goods that are not going to be distributed in the near future.

The law requires such enterprises to provide documents proving “financial capacity” and “experience.” However, the law does not clarify which documents. In practice, the licensing authority usually assesses the “experience” element by forming its own opinion, which causes many difficulties for FDI enterprises and even for professional consultancy units.

Based on our experience, we recognize some documents which are approved by the competent authority as follows:

For “financial capacity” they include bank statements, audited financial reports, loans, commitment to contribute capital from investors, etc.

Regarding “experience”, this can be documented through PO (official Purchase Order), sales contract, service contract between investors and clients, business licence with business sectors of the intended goods, evidence verifying working times (in case of individuals).

2) Because Viet Nam is a member or signatory of international organisations and treaties, such as WTO, AFTA and EVFTA, the explanation must be compliant with domestic and international regulations.

This is a fairly complicated task. If FDI enterprises have not had any experience in this task, they should seek professional support.

3) As regulated, it takes 30 business days to register distribution rights.

Although the application for distribution right is submitted to the local authority (Department of Industry and Trade, management board of industrial parks, provincial department of planning and investment), it is approved by the Ministry of Industry and Trade and other ministries. The application will be transferred to several authorities, therefore the actual duration can last two to three months or even longer if there is any mistake. FDI enterprises, therefore, should be patient and plan early registration.

4) All documents granted by foreign authorities should be authenticated in the country of which the investor is a citizen. Many dossiers are rejected because of not being authenticated in full.

Some main documents to be authenticated include company charters, incorporation certificates of foreign parent company, audited financial reports of foreign investors or bank statements, and documents related to the representative of the owner.

What sanctions apply to FDI enterprises violating the registration requirement?

Some FDI enterprises are not aware of their violations because they do not know this regulation.

A fine of between VND30,000,000 and VND40,000,000 can be imposed with additional penalties that “deprive the right to use enterprise’s business licence or its licence for setting a retail establishment from one month to six months, or suspend its operations from one month to six months” as prescribed in Article 89 of Decree No. 185/2013/ND-CP on November 15, 2013. 

PLF LAW FIRM

Go to Source

Several businesses in North Wales have been publicly “named and shamed” by the UK Government for not paying the minimum wage.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy today published a list of 233 UK businesses that underpaid workers, including five firms from North Wales.

One cafe owner hit back over the action, saying that he had been made to “feel like a criminal” for an “innocent error”.

Barry Brennand, who owns the popular Whistlestop Cafe at Rhuddlan, said he had always paid the minimum wage but claimed he had been hit with a £433 bill after a staff member had made an error.

He says she mistakenly signed environmental check forms for days she had not worked.

He said: “I really feel this has been unfair. I considered contesting this but sometimes that can prove so costly and time-consuming that it is easier to just pay up.

“I have always paid the correct pay. All my staff are fully registered. I wish they would target those employers that are paying cash in hand.

“I am not impressed. This whole thing has made me feel like a criminal, when the truth is we work hard, pay the right wages and do a lot for local charities.”

Secretary of State for Wales Alun Cairns said: “While most employers get it right, it is simply not acceptable that some employers in Wales are failing to pay at least the minimum wage their workers are entitled to.

“The UK Government is determined to make sure everybody in work receives a fair wage and to building an economy that works for all.

“April’s increase in the national minimum and living wage rates is putting more money into the pockets of Wales’ lowest paid workers than ever before.

“Excuses for not paying employees what they are legally owed will not be tolerated.”

Business Minister Margot James said: “It is against the law to pay workers less than legal minimum wage rates, short-changing ordinary working people and undercutting honest employers.”

The North Wales firms named are:

■ Mr Talal Al-Arab and Mr Hani Hussain trading as Bella Pizza, Gwynedd LL55, failed to pay £377.25 to 1 worker.

■ Adeiladwyr Eryri Builders CYF, Gwynedd LL52, failed to pay £864 to 1 worker.

■ Mr Dylan Rhys Roberts trading as D R Roberts Plumbing & Heating, Denbighshire LL15, failed to pay £735.58 to 1 worker.

■ Whistlestop Café (North Wales) Ltd trading as Whistlestop Café, Denbighshire LL18, failed to pay £433.68 to 1 worker.

■ Ruthin Castle Hotel Ltd, Denbighshire LL15, failed to pay £2,182.49 to 1 worker.

Go to Source

A shadowy multinational lobby group appears to have achieved a big win lobbying the Government behind closed doors over a proposed tax clampdown.

The United States-based Digital Economy Group said a proposal put forward in March to tighten the rules that determine whether multinationals are deemed to have a taxable presence in New Zealand were the “most extreme in the world”.     

But the lobby group has gone silent on the claim after winning a key concession when the final rules were outlined by the Government this month.

It has not responded to calls for comment on whether its concern remain.

READ MORE
* Clampdown on tax rorts will bring in $200m a year
* Fight against tax rorts may be undermined by IRD shake-up – Labour
* IRD urged to lift veil of secrecy over big company tax

The Digital Economy Group (DEG) described itself in its April submission to Inland Revenue as an “informal coalition” of software, social networking and e-commerce companies.

It did not identify its members in its submission, which was filed through law firm Bell Gully, and has not responded this week or in 2015 to requests from Stuff for clarification on which businesses it represents.

Britain’s Guardian newspaper has speculated Apple, Google and Amazon may be members.

At issue in its April submission was the tax treatment of foreign companies that pay subsidiaries or other agents a fee to market their products in New Zealand but which book their sales overseas.

Examples have included Apple Computer, Microsoft and Dell Computer.

Inland Revenue said in March that the fee paid to the New Zealand subsidiaries by their parents “generally only exceeds its costs by a small margin”.

That usually shifted most of the profit from New Zealand sales overseas, it said.

Inland Revenue said it knew of cases where multinationals claimed their local subsidiaries or agents only carried out “support activities such as marketing” but in reality were heavily involved in negotiating sales.

“However these cases are very resource-intensive to prosecute in practice, especially obtaining the requisite evidence to demonstrate the true extent of the related party’s activities,” it warned.

Inland Revenue’s original solution was that multinationals with a global turnover of more than €750 million (NZ$1.2b) should be deemed to have a taxable presence in New Zealand if “a related entity” carried out sales-related activities for them here.

But the Digital Economy Group said that so-called “permanent establishment (PE) anti-avoidance rule” would be out of step with plans being drawn up by the OECD under its Beps tax clampdown and would represent “the most extreme unilateral PE measure in the world”.

There were commercial reasons for multinationals structuring their operations the way they did, which were not to do with tax, it argued its submission.

The Government partially backed-down in August, with Finance Minister Steven Joyce and Revenue Minister Judith Collins agreeing in a Cabinet paper that the changes to permanent establishment rules should be “more narrowly targeted at avoidance arrangements”, and committing to further consultations.

That may mean the foreign parents of New Zealand subsidiaries would only have a separate taxable presence in New Zealand if Inland Revenue could show they had structured their local activities intentionally to avoid tax.

Deloitte tax partner Bruce Wallace said Inland Revenue’s original proposals had caused “a significant amount of uncertainty” and other submitters shared the DEG’s concerns.

The new approach probably better reflected Inland Revenue’s original intent, be believed. Even if foreign firms were deemed to have a taxable presence here, it was only activities that were carried out in New Zealand that should be taxed by Inland Revenue, he said.

That meant the same amount of tax paid should be paid in New Zealand regardless of whether foreign firms were deemed to have a local tax presence – assuming transfer pricing rules on their local subsidiaries were applied appropriately, Wallace said.

Inland Revenue refused to release the submissions on the tax proposals until after ministers had made their decisions, prompting an investigation from Chief Ombudsman Leo Donnelly. Donnelly said Inland Revenue had agreed to provide an explanation by August 30.   

 – Stuff

Go to Source

By

Reuters

Published:
20:32 EDT, 16 August 2017

|
Updated:
20:42 EDT, 16 August 2017

Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.

Go to Source

Go to Source

A LISMORE law firm covering the Northern Rivers area is in the running to take out one of Australia’s most coveted law awards.

Randall Legal has been shortlisted as one of six finalists in the Regional/Suburban Law Firm of the Year category at the nationally-recognised 2017 Australian Law Awards hosted by Lawyers Weekly, Australia’s top publication for lawyers.

Now in its 17th consecutive year, the Australian Law Awards recognises the industry’s leading legal professionals and law firms – in a process that is fair, transparent, measurable, accurate and unbiased.

Founded in 2008, Randall Legal offers advice and representation in a growing number of areas and provides specialist representation in criminal law and family law.

The all female firm prides itself on going above and beyond the ordinary for their clients and for taking on the hard battles.

Principal at Randall Legal, Tracey Randall said she is excited by the nomination which shows that people in regional centres can have access to high quality legal representation outside of big city firms.

“That Randall Legal has been recognised for its excellent contribution to the law industry is testament to our drive to provide high quality legal services within our region,” Ms Randall saif.

“To have that recognised by the profession is quite an honour.”

Lawyers Weekly features editor, Emma Ryan, said that the calibre of this year’s submissions reflects the high-level of expertise within the legal profession.

“The competition throughout the legal profession is at an all-time high,” Ms Ryan said.

“The finalists for the 2017 Australian Law Awards highlights those who are going above and beyond for their firm and their clients, from the profession’s most senior ranks to its rising stars.

“The business of law continues to go from strength to strength and we are grateful to be a part of it. On behalf of the Lawyers Weekly team, I would like to congratulate all of this year’s finalists,” she said.　

The winner will be announced at The Star, Sydney on Friday, September 1.

Go to Source

Corporate counsel has recognized Chambliss, Bahner & Stophel, P.C. for leading collaboration, according to BTI’s Law Firms with the Best Collaboration national report. The Chattanooga-based law firm is one of 42 firms recognized nationwide by top legal decision makers. 

“Our primary focus is to help our clients succeed and grow,” said Mike St. Charles, managing shareholder of Chambliss. “Today’s client has a variety of business and legal needs. Our practice groups emphasize working with our clients through effective communication to provide tailored solutions addressing their needs. We are delighted to be recognized by corporate counsel for the impact collaboration has within our firm and among our clients.” 

Corporate counsel were unprompted when selecting the top firms showcasing collaborative skills. The BTI Consulting Group’s report said, “Clients hesitate to give more than one or two matters to a firm whose attorneys don’t collaborate on an ongoing basis… Clients say collaborative law firms show deep understanding of client needs across the team, are up to speed on all the issues whenever an attorney joins the team, and are all focused on the same overriding objective.” 

The report also includes the Seven Rules of Collaboration, a set of guidelines the BTI Consulting Group says will virtually double the practices a law firm delivers to clients.

Go to Source

After accommodating insured patients to meet their needs, the Commonwealth Healthcare Corp. is now pushing health insurance companies to do their part and pay the hospital for services rendered.

“We want to maintain our services and be available but we also want to get paid. We weren’t able to do that in the past because we were behind in our billings and in our payment postings,” said CHCC CEO Esther Muña.

CHCC has now updated its billing records and that means their records are now current; this time, they want insurance companies to be current with their payments as well.

“Now that we are updated, we are basically saying that our records are valid and legitimate. These are not just numbers but actual claims. We are saying that these were provided for your members and health insurance companies must pay,” said Muña.

To date, three health insurance providers owe CHCC at least $2 million each, Muña said. These are TakeCare Health Plans, StayWell Saipan, Inc., and Calvo’s Insurance.

“What we have been doing recently is we’ve been closely monitoring the insurance companies and how they are performing. The system is showing a $2-million claim from each insurance company and we need it. Our vendors go after us so we need to go after insurance companies, too, to do their part,” Muña said.

CHCC has hired Tiffany Sablan as Revenue Cycle director and her hiring and other improvements in CHCC’s revenue cycle has resulted in updated financial processes in the hospital’s billing and collection system.

“The majority of the insurance claims are from the last two years. Some of them even goes back to 2012 but the reality is that majority of those claims are from the last two years. These should be collectible,” Muña said.

She said that CHCC needs to identify funding sources to be able to implement its plans to increase salaries, improve services, and hire more doctors for Saipan, Tinian, and Rota.

“As for the salary increase, we implemented some and the idea is, by October 1st, we are going to implement the salary scale that we submitted in our budget plan. We plan to improve our services, especially in the improvement of care and renovations of facilities. That is why we are more aggressive in collecting our claims,” Muña added.

Non-payment could push CHCC to get out of the insurances’ network.

“We don’t have contracts with them but we plan to have provider agreements with them. That has not been completed because some questions need answers and at the end of the day, there needs to be mutual agreement between CHCC and the health insurance providers,” she said.

According to the CHCC CEO, the Legislature plans to introduce a bill that is similar to Guam’s prompt payment law and this is welcome.

“Guam has a prompt payment law where the claims are billed by the Guam Memorial Hospital, that insurance companies have a certain time to ‘scrub it’ and basically say these are the bills that are clean so we have to pay the hospital or in our case, the CHCC.”

Pushing for payment from these health insurance companies is a way of providing service to patients who were attended to by CHCC and who are paying insurance premiums to get service.

“At CHCC, our utmost obligation is to serve our patients who are members of these health insurance providers and, that being so, it is their obligation to pay us,” Muña said.

MD: CHCC pushes for health insurance companies to pay

Go to Source