Add files using upload-large-folder tool

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022104.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022104"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022104.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2543
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+TERSON
+s, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghis-
+what they wanted, including
+as in New York and Florida,
+sically every day and it was
+> have sex with Epstein many
+rything a man wanted me to
+ing — they wanted me to be
+f the men they were going to
+loved that I was very compli-
+mouth shut about what they
+ilso told me that they wanted
+them in addition to perform-
+d me to pay attention to the
+nted, so I could report back to
+opes of bettering my life, from
+l of Epstein. Epstein told me he
+other that I was working for
+go, go far away." Epstein had
+/ if I left I would be in big trou-
+f illegal and bad behavior by
+ft Epstein, he knew all kinds of
+Ive had me killed or abducted,
+f that if I did not obey him. He
+ny people in high places. Speak-
+an get away" with things. Even
+hat this meant and it scared me,
+136
+FILTHY RICH
+15. I visited and traveled with Jeffrey Epstein from 1999
+through the summer of 2002, and during that time I stayed
+with him for sexual activities at each of his houses (or man-
+sions) in locations including New York City, New York; the
+area of Santa Fe, New Mexico; Palm Beach, Florida; an
+island in the U.S. Virgin Islands; and Paris, France. I had sex
+with him often in these places and also with the various peo-
+ple he demanded that I have sex with. Epstein paid me for
+many of these sexual encounters. Looking back, I realize that
+my only purposes for Epstein, Maxwell, and their friends
+was to be used for sex.
+16. To illustrate my connection to these places, I include
+four photographs taken of me in New Mexico Isee insert page 3
+for one of the photographs mentioned). The first one is a
+museum in Santa Fe, New Mexico. We had gone sightseeing for
+the day. Epstein took this picture of me. I was approximately 17
+at the time, judging from the looks of it. At the end of the day
+we returned to Epstein's Zorro Ranch. The second picture is me
+on one of Epstein's horses on the ranch in New Mexico. The
+following two are from wintertime in New Mexico.
+17. When I was with him, Epstein had sex with underage
+girls on a daily basis. His interest in this kind of sex was
+obvious to the people around him. The activities were so
+obvious and bold that anyone spending any significant time
+at one of Epstein's residences would have clearly been aware
+of what was going on.
+18. Epstein's code word for sexual encounters was that it
+was a "massage." At times the interaction between Epstein
+and the girls would start in the massage room setting, but it
+was always a sexual encounter and never just a massage.
+137
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022104
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022311.md

@@ -0,0 +1,223 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022311"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022311.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 7602
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+
+Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168/ Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations
+provision, it did not include two
+additional provisions that the Board
+declared were necessary to prevent
+"unlawful encouragement of union
+membership." The Court disagreed,
+stating
+Perhaps the conditions which the Board
+attaches to hiring-hall arrangements will in
+time appeal to the Congress. Yet, where
+Congress has adopted a selective system for
+dealing with evils, the Board is confined to
+that system. National Labor Relations Board
+v. Drivers, etc. Local Union, 362 U.S. 274,
+284-290, 80 S.Ct. 706, 712-715, 4 L.Ed.2d
+710. Where, as here, Congress has aimed its
+sanctions only at specific discriminatory
+practices, the Board cannot go farther and
+establish a broader, more pervasive
+regulatory scheme. 182
+Congress in Section 8(a)(1) aimed its
+sanctions only at employer actions that
+interfere with the exercise of Section 7
+rights. By this rulemaking, my
+colleagues go farther and establish a
+broader, more pervasive regulatory
+scheme that targets employer inaction,
+or silence, as unlawful interference. As
+Local 357 instructs, they lack the
+authority to do this. 183
+American Hospital Association v.
+NLRB, 499 U.S. 606 (1991) (AHA), upon
+which the majority heavily relies,
+illustrates a valid exercise of authority
+under Section 6. In AHA, the Supreme
+Court unanimously upheld the Board's
+health care unit rule, finding that
+Section 6's general grant of rulemaking
+"was unquestionably
+sufficient to authorize the rule at issue
+in this case unless limited by some
+other provision in the Act." Id. at 609-
+10 (emphasis added). The Court further
+found that the rule was clearly
+consistent with authority under Section
+9(b) to make appropriate bargaining unit
+determinations. It specifically rejected
+the argument that language in 9(b)
+directing the Board to decide the
+appropriate bargaining unit "in each
+case" limited its authority to define
+appropriate units by rulemaking.
+Congress expressly authorized the
+Board in Section 9(b) to determine
+appropriate bargaining units and the
+Board exercised its rulemaking
+authority to promulgate a rule
+"necessary to carry out" Section 9(b). In
+contrast, as previously stated, there is
+no reasonable basis for finding that a
+rule making it unlawful for employers to
+fail to post and maintain a notice of
+employee rights and selected illustrative
+183 My colleagues attempt to distinguish Local
+357 as limited to an interpretation of Sec. 8(a)(3)
+and 8(b)(2)'s prohibition of discriminatory
+practices. That may have been the issue before the
+Court, but I do not view the quoted rationale as so
+unfair labor practices is necessary to
+carry out any substantive section of the
+NLRA. Nevertheless, the majority
+construes AHA as an endorsement of
+deference to the exercise of Section 6
+rulemaking authority whenever
+Congress did not expressly limit this
+authority. This is patently incorrect. "To
+suggest, as the [majority] effectively
+does, that Chevron deference is required
+any time a statute does not expressly
+negate the existence of a claimed
+administrative power * * *, is both
+flatly unfaithful to the principles of
+precedent." Railway Labor Executives'
+Ass'n v. National Mediation Bd., 29
+F.3d 655, 671 (D.C.Cir.1994) (citation
+omitted). Were courts "to presume a
+delegation of power absent an express
+withholding of such power, agencies
+would enjoy virtually limitless
+hegemony, a result plainly out of
+keeping with Chevron and quite likely
+with the Constitution as well." Id.
+In sum, the majority's notice rule does
+not address a gap that Congress
+delegated authority to the Board to fill,
+whether by rulemaking or adjudication.
+The Supreme Court has made clear that
+"[where Congress has in the statute
+given the Board a question to answer,
+the courts will give respect to that
+answer; but they must be sure the
+question has been asked." NLRB v.
+Insurance Agents' Int'l Union, 361 U.S.
+419, 432-433 (1960). The Supreme
+Court also has made clear: "[Congress]
+* hide elephants in
+mouseholes." Whitman v. American
+Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457,
+My colleagues' action here is
+markedly like the Federal Trade
+Commission (FTC) regulation rejected as
+ultra vires by the court of appeals in
+Am. Bar Ass'n v. FTC, supra. The FTC
+issued a ruling that attorneys engaged in
+certain practices were financial
+institutions subject to the privacy
+provision of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
+Act (GBLA). Upon review of the
+detailed statutory scheme at issue, the
+court found it "difficult to believe that
+Congress, by any remaining ambiguity,
+intended to undertake the regulation lof
+a subiect] * * * and never mentioned
+[it] in the statute." 430 F.3d at 469. The
+court further opined that to find the
+FTC's interpretation to be "deference-
+worthy, we would have to conclude that
+Congress not only had hidden a rather
+large elephant in a rather obscure
+mousehole, but had buried the
+ambiguity in which the pachyderm
+lurks beneath an incredibly deep mound
+of specificity, none of which bears the
+footprints of the beast or any indication
+that Congress even suspected its
+presence." Id. No such conclusion was
+possible in that case. No such
+conclusion is possible here. Quite
+simply, the Board lacks statutory
+authority to promulgate a rule that
+imposes a new obligation on employers
+and creates a new unfair labor practice
+to enforce it.
+The Rule Is Arbitrary and Capricious
+Even if the Board arguably has
+rulemaking authority in this area,
+deference is unwarranted under
+Chevron and the Administrative
+Procedure Act if the rule promulgated is
+"arbitrary or capricious in substance, or
+manifestly contrary to the statute."
+United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S
+218, 227 (2001). Also see AHA, 499 U.S.
+at 618-20 (applying arbitrary and
+capricious standard in its consideration
+of the Board's rule on acute care
+hospital bargaining units). "Normally,
+an agency rule would be arbitrary and
+capricious if the agency has relied on
+factors which Congress has not intended
+it to consider, entirely failed to consider
+an important aspect of the problem,
+offered an explanation for its decision
+that runs counter to the evidence before
+the agency, or is so implausible that it
+could not be ascribed to a difference in
+view or the product of agency
+expertise." Motor Vehicle Mfg. Ass'n of
+the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
+Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). "[The
+agency must examine the relevant data
+and articulate a satisfactory explanation
+for its action including a 'rational
+connection between the facts found and
+the choice made.'" Id. (quoting
+Burlington Truck Lines v. United States,
+371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). See also
+Business Roundtable et al. v. S.E.C.,-
+F.3d—, 2011 WL 2936808 (D.C. Cir.,
+July 22, 2011) (finding SEC acted
+arbitrarily and capriciously by relying
+on insufficient empirical data
+supporting its rule and by completely
+discounting contrary studies).
+In AHA. the Board's health care
+bargaining units rule was supported by
+"the extensive record developed during
+the rulemaking proceedings, as well as
+its experience in the adjudication of
+health care cases during the 13-year
+period between the enactment of the
+nealth care amendments and its notice
+of proposed rulemaking." AHA, 499
+U.S. at 618. The Supreme Court upheld
+the validity of the rule finding it "based
+on substantial evidence and supported
+by a "reasoned analvsis." Id. at 619
+(citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass., 463
+By contrast, the majority's articulation
+of the need to mandate that employers
+violate Section 8(a)(1) unless they post
+a notice of employee rights is not based
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022311
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022312.md

@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022312"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022312.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 7809
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+Federal Register/ Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations
+on substantial evidence, nor does it
+provide a satisfactory explanation for
+the choice they have made. They
+contend that a mandatory notice posting
+rule enforceable through Section 8(a)(1)
+is needed because they believe that most
+employees are unaware of their NRA
+rights and therefore cannot effectively
+exercise those rights. This belief is
+based on: (1) Some studies indicating
+that employees and high school
+students about to enter the work force
+are generally uninformed about labor
+law; (2) an influx of immigrants in the
+labor force who are presumably also
+uninformed about labor law; (3) the
+current low and declining percentage of
+union-represented employees in the
+private sector, which presumably means
+that unions are less likely to be a source
+of information about employee rights;
+and (4) the absence of any general legal
+requirement that employers or anyone
+else inform employees about their
+NLRA rights. 75 FR 80411.
+Neither the Notice of Proposed
+Rulemaking nor today's notice
+summarizing comments in response to
+that notice come anywhere close to
+providing a substantial factual basis
+supporting the belief that most
+employees are unaware of their NRA
+rights. As for the lack of high school
+education on this subject, we have only
+a few localized studies cited in a 1995
+journal article by a union attorney. 184
+With respect to the assumption that
+immigrants entering the work force, we
+have even less, only anecdotal accounts.
+For that matter, beyond the cited journal
+article, almost all supposed factual
+support for the premise that employees
+are generally unaware of their rights
+comes in comments received from
+individuals, union organizers, attorneys
+representing unions, and immigrant
+rights and worker assistance
+organizations agreeing, based on
+professed personal experience, that
+most employees (obviously not
+including most of the employee
+commenters) are unfamiliar with their
+NRA rights. There are, as well,
+anecdotal accounts and comments from
+employers, employer associations and
+184 Peter D. DeChiara, " The Right to Know: An
+Argument for Informing Employees of Their Rights
+under the National Labor Relations Act," 32 Harv.
+J. on Legis. 431, at 436 and fn. 28 (1995).
+In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the
+majority also relied on two articles by Professor
+Charles J. Morris, a co-petitioner for notice-posting
+rulemaking: "Renaissance at the NLRB-
+Opportunity and Prospect for Non-Legislative
+Procedural Reform at the Labor Board," 23 Stetson
+L. Rev. 101, 107 (1993); and "NLRB Protection in
+the Nonunion Workplace: A Glimpse at a General
+Theory of Section 7 Conduct," 137 U. Pa. L. Rev.
+1673, 1675-1676 (1989). Professor Morris did not
+refer to any specific evidence supporting a belief
+that employees lack knowledge of their rights.
+management attorneys to the opposite
+effect that the employees know about
+their rights under the Act, but my
+colleagues find these less persuasive.
+In any event, the partisan opinions
+and perceptions, although worthy of
+consideration, ultimately fail as
+substantial evidence supporting the
+Board majority's initial premise for
+proposing the rule. There remains the
+Board's conclusion that the decline in
+union density provides the missing
+factual support. The majority explains
+that there was less need for a posting of
+information about NLRA rights when
+the union density was higher because
+"friends and family who belonged to
+unions" would be a source of
+information. This is nothing more than
+supposition. There is no empirical
+evidence of a correlation between union
+density and access to information about
+employee rights, just as there are no
+broad-based studies supporting the
+suppositions about a lack of information
+stemming from high school curricula or
+the influx of immigrants in the work
+At bottom, the inadequacy of the
+record to support my colleagues' factual
+premise is of no matter to them. In
+response to comments contending that
+the articles and studies they cite are old
+and inadequately supported, they glibly
+respond that the commenters "cite no
+more recent or better supported studies
+to the contrary,
+" as if opponents of the
+proposed rule bear that burden. Of
+course, it is the agency's responsibility
+to make factual findings that support its
+decision and those findings must be
+supported by substantial evidence that
+must examine the relevant data and
+articulate a satisfactory explanation for
+its action. Burlington Truck Lines, 371
+Even more telling is the majority's
+footnote observation that there is no real
+need to conduct a study of the extent of
+employees' knowledge of NLRA rights
+because the notice posting rule would
+be justified even if only 10 percent of
+the workforce lacked such knowledge.
+This statement betrays the entire factual
+premise upon which the rulemaking
+initiative was purportedly founded and
+reveals a predisposition to issue the rule
+regardless of the facts. This is patently
+"arbitrary and capricious."
+Even assuming, if we must, that there
+is some factual basis for a concern that
+employees lack sufficient information
+about their NLRA rights, the majority
+also fails to provide a rational
+explanation for why that concern
+dictates their choice made to address
+that concern. Why, for instance, was a
+noncompulsory information system,
+primarily reliant on personal union
+communications, sufficient when the
+Wagner Act was passed, but not now?
+The union density levels for 1935 and
+today are roughly the same. 185 Why at
+a time when the Board champions its
+new Web site and the Acting General
+Counsel continues to encourage the
+regional outreach programs initiated by
+his predecessor, do my colleagues so
+readily dismiss the Board's role in
+providing information about rights
+under the statute we administer? For
+that matter, why are the numerous
+employee, labor organizer, and worker
+advocacy groups whose comments
+profess awareness of these rights unable
+to communicate this information to
+those who they know lack such
+awareness? Is the problem one of access
+or message? Would a reversal of the
+union density trend or an increase in
+petition and charge filings be the only
+reliable indicators of increased
+I would think that a reasoned
+explanation for the choice of a sweeping
+rule making it unlawful for employers to
+fail to post and maintain notice of
+employee rights would at least include
+some discussion of these questions and
+attempt to marshal more than a
+fragmented and inconclusive factual
+record to support their choice. The
+majority fails to do so. Their rule is
+patently arbitrary and capricious.
+The majority mentions in passing
+Executive Order 13496 186 and the DOL
+implementing regulation 187 mandating
+that Federal contractors post a notice to
+employees of NRA rights that is in
+most respects identical to the notice at
+issue here. Their consideration of this
+administrative action should have led
+them to the understanding that they lack
+the authority to do what the President
+and DOL clearly could do to advance
+essentially the same policy choice.
+The authority to require that
+contractors agree to post an NLRA
+employee rights notice as part of doing
+business with the Federal government
+comes both from the President's
+authority as chief executive and the
+specific grant of Congressional authority
+in the Federal Property and
+Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C.
+101 et seq. There was no need or
+attempt to justify the promulgation of
+the notice-posting rule by relying on
+evidence that employees lacked
+knowledge of their rights. Moreover, in
+185 Mayer, Gerald, "Union Membership Trends in
+the United States' (2004). Federal Publications.
+digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/.
+186 74 FR 6107 (Feb. 4, 2009).
+187 75 FR 28368 (May 20, 2011).
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022312
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022313.md

@@ -0,0 +1,232 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022313"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022313.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 8567
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+
+Federal Register/ Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations
+the notice of a final rule, DOL rejected
+commenters' contentions that the
+Executive Order and implementing
+regulation were preempted by the
+Board's jurisdiction under the Garmon
+doctrine. 188 Necessarily, this meant that
+DOL believed that the rule requiring
+federal contractors to post the employee
+rights notice did not involve any rights
+protected by Section 7 of the Act, such
+as a right to receive such intormation
+from their employer, or conduct
+prohibited by the Act, such as the
+employer's failure to provide such
+information.
+Not only does my colleagues'
+rulemaking action today contradict
+DOL's preemption analysis, but its flaws
+are manifest in comparison to the DOL's
+rule and the authority enabling it.
+Surely, no one can seriously believe
+that today's rule is primarily intended to
+inform employees of their Section 7
+right to refrain from or to oppose
+organizational activities, collective
+bargaining, and union representation.
+My colleagues seek through
+promulgation of this rule to reverse the
+steady downward trend in union
+density among private sector employees
+in the non-agricultural American
+workforce. Theirs is a policy choice
+which they purport to effectuate with
+the force of law on several fronts in
+rulemaking and in case-by-case
+adjudication. In this instance, their
+action in declaring that employers
+violate the law by failing to inform
+employees of their Section 7 rights is
+both unauthorized and arbitrary and
+capricious. Regardless of the arguable
+merits of their policy choice or the
+broad scope of Chevron deference and
+the Board's rulemaking authority, I am
+confident that a reviewing court will
+soon rescue the Board from itself and
+restore the law to where it was before
+the sorcerer's apprentice sent it askew.
+V. Regulatory Procedures
+A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
+The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
+(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires
+agencies promulgating final rules to
+prepare a final regulatory flexibility
+analysis and to develop alternatives
+188 San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon,
+189 Because I find the rule is invalid, I find it
+unnecessary to comment on the content of the
+notice or the consequences, other than finding an
+unfair labor practice, if an employer fails to post the
+required notice. For the reasons stated in my
+dissenting opinion in J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB
+No. 9 (2010), I also disagree with the rule's
+requirement that certain employers must also
+electronically distribute the notice.
+wherever possible, when drafting
+regulations that will have a significant
+impact on a substantial number of small
+entities. The focus of the RFA is to
+ensure that agencies "review draft rules
+to assess and take appropriate account
+of the potential impact on small
+businesses, small governmental
+jurisdictions, and small organizations,
+as provided by the [RFA]." E.O. 13272,
+Sec. 1, 67 FR 53461 ("Proper
+Consideration of Small Entities in
+Agency Rulemaking"'). However, an
+agency is not required to prepare a final
+regulatory flexibility analysis for a final
+rule if the agency head certifies that the
+rule will not, if promulgated, have a
+significant economic impact on a
+substantial number of small entities. 5
+U.S.C. 605(b). Based on the analysis
+below, in which the Board has
+estimated the financial burdens to
+employers subject to the NRA
+associated with complying with the
+requirements contained in this final
+rule, the Board has certified to the Chief
+Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
+Business Administration (SBA) that this
+rule will not have a significant
+economic impact on a substantial
+number of small entities.
+The primary goal of this rule is
+notifying employees of their rights
+under the NLRA. This goal is achieved
+through the posting of notices by
+employers subject to the NLRA of the
+rights of employees under the NRA.
+The Board will make the notices
+available at no cost to employers; there
+are no information collection, record
+ceeping, or reporting requirements
+The Board estimates that in order to
+comply with this rule, each employer
+subject to the NLRA will spend a total
+of 2 hours during the first year in which
+the rule is in effect. This includes 30
+minutes for the employer to learn where
+and how to post the required notices, 30
+minutes to acquire the notices from the
+Board or its Web site, and 60 minutes
+to post them physically and
+electronically, depending on where and
+how the employer customarily posts
+notices to employees. The Board
+assumes that these activities will be
+performed by a professional or business
+worker, who, according to Bureau of
+Labor Statistics data, earned a total
+hourly wage of about $32.20 in March
+2011, including fringe benefits. 190 The
+190 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
+Labor Statistics, "Economic News Release," Table
+B-8, June 3, 2011 (available at http://www.bls.gov).
+(The Board is administratively informed that BLS
+estimates that fringe benefits are approximately
+equal to 40 percent of hourly wages. Thus, to
+calculate total average hourly earnings, BLS
+multiplies average hourly wages by 1.4. In March,
+2011, average hourly wages for professional and
+Board then multiplied this figure by
+2 hours to estimate the average costs for
+employers to comply with this rule
+during the first year in which the rule
+is in effect. Accordingly, this rule is
+estimated to impose average costs of
+$64.40 per employer subject to the
+NLRA (2 hours x $32.20) during the first
+year.191 These costs will decrease
+dramatically in subsequent years
+because the only employers affected
+will be those that did not previously
+satisfy their posting requirements or that
+have since expanded their facilities or
+established new ones. Because the final
+rule will not require employers to post
+the notice by email, instant messaging,
+text messaging, and the like, the cost of
+compliance should be, if anything,
+somewhat less than the Board
+previously estimated.
+According to the United States Census
+Bureau, there were approximately 6
+million businesses with employees in
+2007. Of those, the SBA estimates that
+all but about 18,300 were small
+businesses with fewer than 500
+employees. 192 This rule does not apply
+to emplovers that do not meet the
+Board's jurisdictional requirements, but
+business workers were $23.00. Table B-8.
+Accordingly, the Board multiplied that number by
+1.4 to arrive at its estimate of $32.20 average hourly
+earnings, including fringe benefits.) In the NPRM,
+the Board estimated hourly earnings of $31.02,
+based on BLS data from January 2009. 75 FR 80415.
+The estimate has been updated to reflect increases
+in hourly earnings since that time. Those increases
+have been relatively minor, and do not affect the
+Board's conclusion that the economic impact of the
+rule will not be significant; see discussion below.
+191 The National Roofing Contractors Association
+asserts (without support) that "federal agencies
+have a notoriously poor track record in estimating
+the costs of new regulations on businesses"; it
+therefore predicts that "the actual cost for many
+employers could be considerably higher." The
+Board recognizes that some employers, generally
+firms with extensive and/or multiple facilities, may
+incur initial compliance costs in excess of the
+Board's estimate. For example, a company with
+multiple locations may require more than 30
+minutes to physically post the notices on all of its
+various bulletin boards. The Board's estimate,
+however, is an average for all employers; many
+small employers, especially those with only one
+facility and/or limited electronic communication
+with employees, may incur lower compliance costs.
+In this regard, however, contrary to numerous
+comments, such as that of St Mar Enterprises, Inc.,
+the Board does not expect that the rule will be
+"very burdensome" for businesses with more than
+one facility. Normally, such firms should have to
+learn about the rule's requirements and acquire the
+notices only once, no matter how many facilities are
+involved. The same should be true for electronic
+posting: downloading the notice and posting it on
+an employer's Web site normally should have to be
+done once for all facilities. Thus, the only
+additional costs involved for multi-facility firms
+should be those of physically posting the notices at
+192 Source: SBA Office of Advocacy estimates
+based on data from the U.S. Department of
+Commerce, Bureau of the Census, and trends from
+the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
+Statistics, Business Employment Dynamics.
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022313
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022314.md

@@ -0,0 +1,231 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022314"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022314.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 8171
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+Federal Register/ Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations
+
+the Board does not have the means to
+calculate the number of small
+businesses within the Board's
+jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Board
+assumes for purposes of this analysis
+that the great majority of the nearly 6
+million small businesses will be
+affected, and further that this number is
+a substantial number within the
+meaning of 5 U.S.C. 601. However, as
+discussed below, because the economic
+impact on those employers is minimal,
+the Board concludes that, under 5
+U.S.C. 605, the final rule will not have
+a significant economic impact on any
+The RFA does not define "significant
+economic impact." 5 U.S.C. 601. In the
+absence of specific definitions,
+'significant' *
+* * will vary depending
+on the problem that needs to be
+addressed, the rule's requirements, and
+the preliminary assessment of the rule's
+impact." See A Guide for Government
+Agencies: How to Comply with the
+Regulatory Flexibility Act, Oftice of
+Advocacy, U.S. Small Business
+Administration at 17 (available at
+http://www.sba.gov) (SBA Guide). As to
+economic impact and whether it is
+significant, one important indicator is
+the cost of compliance in relation to
+revenue of the entity or the percentage
+of profits affected. Id. at 17. More
+specifically, the criteria to be considered
+• Whether the rule will lead to long-
+term insolvency, i.e., regulatory costs
+that significantly reduce
+• Whether the rule will lead to short-
+term insolvency, i.e., increasing
+operating expenses or new debt more
+than cash reserves and cash flow can
+support, causing nonmarginal firms to
+• Whether the rule will have
+disproportionate effects, placing small
+entities at a significant competitive
+disadvantage; and
+• Whether the rule will result in
+inefficiency, i.e., in social costs to small
+entities that outweigh the social benefits
+resulting from the rule. Id. at 26.
+Applying these standards, the Board
+concludes that the economic impact of
+its notice-posting rule on small
+employers is not significant. The Board
+has determined that the average cost of
+complying with the rule in the first year
+for all employers subject to the NLRA
+will be $64.40. It is unlikely in the
+extreme that this minimal cost would
+lead to either the short- or long-term
+insolvency of any business entity, or
+place small employers at a competitive
+disadvantage. Since this rule applies
+only to organizations within the NLRB's
+jurisdictional standards, the smallest
+employer subject to the rule must have
+an annual inflow or outflow across state
+lines of at least $50,000. Siemons
+Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81 (1959).
+Given that the Board estimates that this
+rule will cost, on average, $64.40, the
+total cost for the smallest affected
+companies would be an amount equal to
+less than two-tenths of one percent of
+that required annual inflow or outflow
+(.13%). The Board concludes that such
+a small percentage is highly unlikely to
+adversely affect a small business. 193
+And, in the Board's judgment, the social
+benefits of employees' (and employers')
+becoming familiar with employees®
+NRA rights far outweigh the minimal
+costs to employers of posting notices
+informing employees of those rights.194
+For all the foregoing reasons, the
+Board has concluded that the final rule
+will not have a significant economic
+impact on a substantial number of small
+entities. 5 U.S.C. 605.
+As discussed in the NPRM, because it
+assumes that a substantial number of
+small businesses will be required to
+comply with the rule, the Board
+preliminarily considered alternatives
+that would minimize the impact of the
+rule, including a tiered approach for
+small entities with only a few
+employees. However, as it also
+explained, the Board rejected those
+alternatives, concluding that a tiered
+approach or an exemption for some
+small entities would substantiallv
+undermine the purpose of the rule
+because so many employers would be
+exempt under the SBA definitions.
+Given the very small estimated cost of
+compliance, it is possible that the
+burden on a small business of
+determining whether it fell into a
+particular tier might exceed the burden
+of compliance. The Board further
+pointed out that Congress gave the
+Board very broad jurisdiction, with no
+suggestion that it wanted to limit
+coverage of any part of the NLRA to
+only larger employers. The Board also
+believes that emplovees of small
+employers have no less need of a Board
+notice than have employees of larger
+employers. Finally, the Board's
+jurisdictional standards mean that very
+small employers will not be covered by
+the rule in any case. 75 FR 80416. (A
+summary of the Board's discretionary
+jurisdictional standards appears in
+§ 104.204, below.) Thus, although
+193 In reaching this conclusion, the Board believes
+it is likely that emplovers that might otherwise be
+significantly affected even by the low cost of
+compliance under this rule will not meet the
+Board's jurisdictional requirements, and
+consequently those employers will not be subject to
+this rule.
+194 See further discussion in section II, subsection
+C, Factual Support for the Rule, above.
+several comments urge that small
+employers be exempted from the rule,
+the Board remains persuaded, for the
+reasons set forth in the NPRM, that such
+an exemption is unwarranted, 195
+Some comments contend that, in
+concluding that the proposed rule will
+not have a significant impact on small
+employers, the Board understates the
+rule's actual prospective costs. One
+comment, from Baker & Daniels LLP,
+argues that the Board improperly
+focuses solely on the cost of complying
+with the rule—i.e., of printing and
+posting the notice-and ignored the
+actual economic impact of the rule's
+effect and purpose." According to this
+comment, it is predictable that, as more
+employees become aware of their NLRA
+rights, they will file more unfair labor
+practice charges and elect unions to
+serve as their collective-bargaining
+representatives. The comment further
+asserts that the Board has ignored the
+"economic realities of unionization,"
+specifically that union wages are
+inflationary; that unions make business
+less flexible, less competitive, and less
+profitable; and that unions cause job
+loss and stifle economic recovery from
+recessions. Accordingly, this comment
+contends that "the Board's RFA
+certification is invalid, and [that] the
+Board must prepare an initial regulatory
+flexibility analysis." Numerous other
+comments echo similar concerns, but
+without reference to the RFA
+The Board disagrees with the
+comment submitted by Baker & Daniels
+LLP.196 Section 605(b) of the RFA states
+that an agency need not prepare an
+initial regulatory flexibility analysis if
+the agency head certifies that the rule
+195 Cass County Electric Cooperative says that,
+after estimating the average cost of compliance, "the
+NLRB quickly digresses into an attempt to estimate
+the cost of the proposed rule on only small
+businesses." The Board responds that in estimating
+the cost of the rule on small businesses, it was
+doing what the RFA explicitly requires (and that
+focusing on small businesses, which comprise more
+than 99 percent of potentially affected firms, is
+hardly a "digression"). The comment also asserts
+that the Board concluded "that the cost of
+estimating the implementation cost will likely
+exceed the cost of implementation, and thus is not
+warranted. At best, this is a poor excuse to justify
+the rule." This misstates the Board's observation
+that "Given the very small estimated cost of
+compliance, it is possible that the burden on a small
+business of determining whether it fell into a
+particular tier might exceed the burden of
+compliance." This observation was one of the
+reasons why the Board rejected a tiered approach
+to coverage for small entities, not an "excuse to
+justify the rule." 75 FR 80416.
+196 In any event, the comment from Baker &
+Daniels LLP and related comments are difficult to
+square with the assertions made in numerous other
+comments that the notice posting is unnecessary
+because emplovees are already well aware of their
+NRA rights and have made informed decisions not
+to join unions or seek union representation.
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022314
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022315.md

@@ -0,0 +1,231 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022315"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022315.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 8307
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+
+Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168/ Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations
+will not have a significant economic
+impact on a substantial number of small
+entities. 5 U.S.G. 605(b) (emphasis
+added). The Board understands the
+"economic impact of * *
+refer to the costs to affected entities of
+complying with the rule, not to the
+economic impact of a series of
+subsequent decisions made by
+individual actors in the economy that
+are neither compelled by, nor the
+inevitable result of, the rule. 197 Even if
+more employees opt for union
+representation after learning about their
+rights, employers can avoid the adverse
+effects on business costs, flexibility, and
+profitability predicted by Baker &
+Daniels LLP and other commenters by
+not agreeing to unions' demands that
+might produce those effects. 198
+The Board finds support for this view
+in the language of Section 603 of the
+RFA, which lists the items to be
+included in an initial regulatory
+flexibility analysis if one is required. 5
+U.S.C. 603. Section 603(a) states only
+that such analysis "shall describe the
+impact of the proposed rule on small
+entities." 5 U.S.C. 603(a). However,
+Section 603(b) provides, as relevant
+here, that "[elach initial regulatory
+flexibility analysis *
+"(4) a description of the projected
+reporting, recordkeeping and other
+compliance requirements of the
+proposed rule, including an estimate of
+the classes of small entities which will
+be subject to the requirement and the
+type of professional skills necessary for
+preparation of the report or record[.]" 5
+U.S.C. 603(b)(4) (emphasis added). The
+Small Business Administration cites, as
+examples of "other compliance
+requirements,"
+(a) Capital costs for equipment needed to
+meet the regulatory requirements; (b) costs of
+modifying existing processes and procedures
+to comply with the proposed rule; (c) lost
+sales and profits resulting from the proposed
+rule; (d) changes in market competition as a
+result of the proposed rule and its impact on
+small entities or specific submarkets of small
+entities; (e) extra costs associated with the
+payment of taxes or fees associated with the
+proposed rule; and (f) hiring employees
+dedicated to compliance with regulatory
+Thus, the "impact" on small entities
+referred to in Section 603(a) refers only
+197 For RFA purposes, the relevant economic
+impact on small entities is the impact of
+compliance with the rule. Mid-Tex Electric
+Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342 (D.C.
+Cir. 1985), cited in SBA Guide, above, at 77.
+198 NLRA Section 8(d) expressly states that the
+obligation to bargain in good faith "does not compel
+either party to agree to a proposal or require the
+making of a concession[.]" 29 U.S.C. 158(d).
+199 SBA Guide, above, at 34.
+to the rule's projected compliance costs
+to small entities (none of which would
+result from posting a workplace notice):
+not the kinds of speculative and indirect
+economic impact that baker & Daniels
+Associated Builders and Contractors,
+Inc. (ABC) and Retail Industry Leaders
+Association (RILA) contend that the
+Board's RFA analysis fails to account for
+the costs of electronic notice posting,
+especially for employers that
+communicate with employees via
+multiple electronic means. Both
+comments deplore what they consider
+to be the rule's vague requirements in
+this respect. ABC argues that clear
+guidance is needed, and that the Board
+should withdraw the electronic notice
+posting requirements until more
+information can be gathered. RILA
+asserts that "Idleciphering and
+complying with the Board's
+requirements would impose significant
+legal and administrative costs and
+inevitably result lin] litigation as parties
+disagree about when a communication
+is 'customarily used,' and whether and
+when employees need to be informed
+through multiple communications."
+Numerous comments assert that
+employers, especially small employers
+that lack professional human resources
+staff, will incur significant legal
+expenses as they attempt to comply
+with the rule. For example, Fisher and
+Phillips, a management law firm, urges
+that the cost of legal fees should be
+included in assessing the economic
+impact of the proposed rule: "IIlt might
+be considered naive to assume that a
+significant percentage of small
+employers would not seek the advice of
+counsel, and it would be equally naïve
+to assume that a significant percentage
+of those newly-engaged lawyers could
+be retained for as little as $31.02/hour."
+Those comments are not persuasive.
+The choice to retain counsel is not a
+requirement for complying with the
+rule. This is not a complicated or
+nuanced rule. The employer is only
+required to post a notice provided by
+the Board in the same manner in which
+that employer customarily posts notices
+to its emplovees. The Board has
+explained above what the rule's
+electronic posting provisions require of
+employers in general, and it has
+simplified those provisions by
+eliminating the requirement that notices
+be provided by email and many other
+forms of electronic communication.201 It
+200 Baker & Daniels LLP cites no authority to
+support its contention that the RFA is concerned
+with costs other than the costs of compliance with
+the rule, and the Board is aware of none.
+201 Contrary to ABC's and RILA's assertions, the
+Board did estimate the cost of compling with the
+should not be necessary for employers,
+small or large, to add human resources
+staff, retain counsel, or resort to
+litigation if they have questions
+concerning whether the proposed rule
+applies to them or about the
+requirements for technical compliance
+with the rule, including how the
+electronic posting provisions
+specifically affect their enterprises.202
+Such questions can be directed to the
+Board's regional offices, either by
+telephone, personal visit, email, or
+regular mail, and will be answered free
+of charge by representatives of the
+Cass County Electric Cooperative
+argues that the Board failed to take into
+account legal expenses that employers
+will incur if they fail to "follow the
+letter of the proposed rule." The
+comment urges that the Board should
+estimate the cost to businesses "should
+they have to defend themselves against
+an unfair labor practice for failure to
+comply with the rule, no matter what
+the circumstances for that failure might
+be," presumably including failures to
+post the notice by employers that are
+unaware of the rule and inadvertent
+failures to comply with technical
+posting requirements. International
+Foodservice Distributors Association
+contends that the Board also should
+have considered the costs of tolling the
+statute of limitations when employers
+fail to post the notice. However, the
+costs referred to in these comments are
+costs of not complying with the rule, not
+compliance costs. As stated above, for
+RFA purposes, the relevant economic
+analysis focuses on the costs of
+complying with the rule.204
+rule's electronic notice posting requirements; its
+estimated average cost of $62.04 specifically
+included such costs. 75 FR 80415. Although ABC
+faults the Board for failing to issue a preliminary
+request for information (RFI) concerning the ways
+employers communicate with employees
+electronically, the Board did ask for comments
+concerning its RFA certification in the NPRM, id.
+at 80416. In this regard, ABC states only that "many
+ABC member companies communicate with
+emplovees through email or other electronic
+means," which the Board expressly contemplated
+in the NPRM, id. at 80413, and which is also the
+Board's practice with respect to communicating
+with its own employees. If ABC has more specific
+information it has failed to provide it. In any event,
+the final rule will not require email or many other
+types of electronic notice.
+202 Association of Corporate Counsel contends
+that employers will have to modify their policies
+and procedures manuals as a result of the rule. The
+Board questions that contention, but even if some
+employers do take those steps, they would not be
+a cost of complying with the rule.
+203 Fisher and Phillips also suggest that the Board
+failed to take into account the effect that the
+proposed rule would have on the Board's own case
+intake and budget. The RFA, however, does not
+require an estimate of the economic effects of
+proposed rules on Federal agencies.
+204 See fin. 197, above.
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022315
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022316.md

@@ -0,0 +1,229 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022316"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022316.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 8284
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+Federal Register/ Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations
+
+Some comments assert that the
+content of the notice will prompt
+employee questions, which managers
+and supervisors will have to answer,
+and be trained to answer, and that the
+Board failed to account for the cost of
+such training and discussions in terms
+of lost work time.205 Other comments
+contend that employers will incur costs
+of opposing an increased number of
+union organizing campaigns. 206
+Relatedly, several comments state that
+employers should be allowed to, and/or
+will respond to the notice by informing
+employees of aspects of unionization
+and collective bargaining that are not
+covered by the notice; some suggest that
+employers may post their own notices
+presenting their point of view.207 (A few
+comments, by contrast, protest that
+employers will be prohibited from
+presenting their side of the issues raised
+by the posting of notices.) The Board
+responds that any costs that employers
+may incur in responding to employee
+questions, in setting forth the
+emplovers' views on unions and
+collective bargaining, or in opposing
+union organizing efforts will be incurred
+entirely at the employers' own volition;
+they are not a cost of complying with
+As discussed above, many comments
+express concerns that union supporters
+will tear down the notices in order to
+expose employers to 8(a)(1) liability for
+failing to post the notices. Some of these
+comments also contend that, as a result,
+employers will have to spend
+considerable time monitoring the
+notices to make sure that they are not
+torn down, or incur additional costs of
+installing tamper-proof bulletin boards.
+One commenter predicts that his
+emplover will have to spend $20,000 for
+such bulletin boards at a single facility.
+or a total of $100,000 at all of its
+facilities, and even then will have to
+spend two hours each month
+monitoring the postings. For the reasons
+discussed above, the Board is not
+convinced at this time that the problem
+of posters being torn down is anything
+more than speculative, and accordingly
+is inclined to discount these predictions
+substantially. In any event, the rule
+requires only that employers "take
+reasonable steps" —not every
+conceivable step—to ensure that the
+205 See, e.g., comments of Cass County Electric
+Cooperative and Baker & McKenzie. The latter
+estimates that each private sector employee will
+spend at least an hour attending meetings
+concerning the content of the notice, and that the
+cost to the economy in terms of lost employee work
+time will be $3.5 billion.
+206 See, e.g., comment of Dr. Pepper Snapple
+Group.
+207 See, e.g., comments of Metro Toyota and
+Capital Associated Industries, Inc.
+notice is not defaced or torn down. The
+rule does not require, or even suggest,
+that employers must spend thousands of
+dollars to install tamper-proof bulletin
+boards or that employers must
+constantly monitor the notice.208
+One comment contends that most
+small employers do not have 11 × 17-
+inch color printers, and therefore will
+have to have the posters printed
+commercially at a cost that, alone,
+assertedly will exceed the Board's
+estimate of the cost of the rule. The
+Board understands the concerns of this
+small emplover. The Board points out
+that it will furnish a reasonable number
+of copies of the notice free of charge to
+any requesting employer. Moreover, as
+explained above, employers may
+reproduce the notice in black-and-white
+and may print the notice on two
+standard-sized, 8.5 x 11-inch pages and
+tape or bind them together, rather than
+having them printed commercially.
+A number of comments argue that the
+rule will lead to workplace conflict. For
+example, the comment of Wiseda
+Corporation contains the following:
+Unnecessary Confusion and Conflict in the
+Workplace. The labor law terms and
+industrial union language of the proposed
+notice (such as hiring hall and concerted
+activity) present an unclear and adversarial
+picture to employees. Most non-union
+employers like us, who wish to remain non-
+union, encourage cooperative problem
+solving. In a modern non-union workplace,
+to require such a poster encouraging strikes
+and restroom leaflets is disrespectful of the
+hard work and good intentions of employers,
+management, and employees. The proposed
+poster would exist alongside other company
+notices on problem-solving, respect for
+others, resolving harassment issues, etc., and
+would clearly be out of character and
+inappropriate. (Emphasis in original.)
+Another comment puts it more bluntly:
+"The notice as proposed is more of an
+invitation to cause employee/employer
+disputes rather than an explanation of
+employee rights." The Board's response
+is that the ill effects predicted in these
+comments, like the predicted adverse
+effects of unionization discussed above,
+are not costs of compliance with the
+rule, but of employees' learning about
+their workplace rights. In addition,
+Congress, not the Board, created the
+subject rights and did so after finding
+that vesting employees with these rights
+would reduce industrial strife.
+B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 209
+The final rule imposes certain
+minimal burdens associated with the
+208 Contrary to one comment's suggestion, no
+employer will be "bankrupted" by fines imposed if
+the notice is torn down. As explained above, the
+Board does not have the authority to impose fines.
+209 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
+posting of the employee notice required
+oy § 104.202. As noted in § 104.202(e),
+the Board will make the notice
+available, and employers will be
+permitted to post copies of the notice
+that are exact duplicates in content,
+size, format, and type size and style.
+Under the regulations implementing the
+PRA, "Ithe public disclosure of
+information originally supplied by the
+Federal government to [a] recipient for
+the purpose of disclosure to the public"
+is not considered a "collection of
+information" under the Act. See 5 CFR
+1320.3(c)(2). Therefore, contrary to
+several comments, the posting
+requirement is not subiect to the
+The Board received no comments
+suggesting that the PKA covers the costs
+to the Federal government of
+administering the regulations
+established by the proposed rule.
+Therefore, the NPRM's discussion of
+this issue stands.
+Accordingly, this rule does not
+contain information collection
+requirements that require approval by
+the Office of Management and Budget
+under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).
+C. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 211
+This rule is a "major rule" as defined
+by Section 804(2) of the Small Business
+Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
+1996 (Congressional Review Act),
+because it will have an effect on the
+economy of more than $100 million, at
+least during the year it takes effect. 5
+U.S.C. 804(2)(A).212 Accordingly, the
+210 The California Chamber of Commerce and the
+National Council of Agricultural Employers dispute
+this conclusion. They assert that the PRA
+distinguishes between the "agencies" to which it
+applies and the "Federal government," and
+therefore that the exemption provided in 5 CFR
+1320.3(c)(2) applies only to information supplied bv
+"the actual Federal government," not to information
+supplied by a Federal agency such as the Board.
+The flaw in this argument is that there is no such
+legal entity as "the [actual] Federal government."
+What is commonly referred to as 'the Federal
+government" is a collection of the three branches
+of the United States government, including the
+departments of the executive branch, and the
+various independent agencies, including the Board.
+If "the Federal government" can be said to act at
+all, it can do so only through one or more of those
+entities—in this instance, the Board-and that is
+undoubtedly the meaning that the drafters of 5 CFR
+212 A rule is a "major rule" for CRA purposes if
+it will (A) Have an annual effect on the economy
+of $100 million or more: (B) cause a major increase
+in costs or prices for consumers, individual
+industries, government agencies, or geographic
+regions; or (C) result in significant adverse effects
+on competition, employment, investment,
+productivity, innovation, or the ability of United
+States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-
+based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
+5 U.S.C. 804. The notice-posting rule is a "major
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022316
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022317.md

@@ -0,0 +1,228 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022317"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022317.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 7470
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+
+Federal Register/ Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations
+effective date of the rule is 75 days after
+publication in the Federal Register. 213
+List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 104
+Administrative practice and
+procedure, Employee rights, Labor
+unions.
+Text of Final Rule
+Accordingly, a new part 104 is added
+to 29 CFR chapter 1 to read as follows:
+PART 104—NOTIFICATION OF
+EMPLOYEE RIGHTS; OBLIGATIONS
+OF EMPLOYERS
+Subpart A-Definitions, Requirements for
+Employee Notice, and Exceptions and
+Exemptions
+Sec.
+104.201 What definitions apply to this part?
+104.202 What employee notice must
+employers subject to the NLRA post in
+the workplace?
+Are Federal contractors covered
+under this part?
+What entities are not subject to this
+part?
+Appendix to Subpart A-Text of Employee
+Notice
+Subpart B-General Enforcement and
+Complaint Procedures
+104.210 How will the Board determine
+whether an employer is in compliance
+with this part?
+104.211
+What are the procedures for filing
+a charge?
+104.212
+What are the procedures to be
+followed when a charge is filed alleging
+that an emplover has failed to post the
+required employee notice?
+104.213
+What remedies are available to cure
+a failure to post the employee notice?
+104.214 How might other Board
+proceedings be affected by failure to post
+the employee notice?
+Subpart C-Ancillary Matters
+104.220 What other provisions apply to this
+part?
+rule" because, as explained in the discussion of the
+Regulatory Flexibility Act above, the Board has
+estimated that the average cost of compliance with
+the rule will be approximately $64.40 per affected
+employer; thus, because there are some 6 million
+employers that could potentially be affected by the
+rule, the total cost to the economy of compliance
+with the rule will be approximately $386.4 million.
+As further explained, nearly all of that cost will be
+incurred during the year in which the rule takes
+effect; in subsequent years, the only costs of
+compliance will be those incurred by employers
+that either open new facilities or expand existing
+ones, and those that for one reason or another fail
+to comply with the rule during the first year. The
+Board therefore expects that the costs of compliance
+will be far less than $100 million in the second and
+subsequent years. The Board is confident that the
+rule will have none of the effects enumerated in 5
+U.S.C. 804(2)(B) and (C) above.
+213 The Board finds unpersuasive the suggestions
+in several comments that the effective date of the
+rule be postponed to as late as April 15, 2012. The
+Board finds nothing in the requirements of the rule
+or in the comments received that would warrant
+postponing the effective date.
+Authority: National Labor Relations Act
+(NLRA), Section 6, 29 U.S.C. 156;
+Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.
+Subpart A-Definitions, Requirements
+for Employee Notice, and Exceptions
+and Exemptions
+§ 104.201 What definitions apply to this
+Employee includes any employee, and
+is not limited to the employees of a
+particular employer, unless the NRA
+explicitly states otherwise. The term
+includes anyone whose work has ceased
+because of, or in connection with, any
+current labor dispute or because of any
+unfair labor practice, and who has not
+obtained any other regular and
+substantially equivalent employment.
+However, it does not include
+agricultural laborers, supervisors, or
+independent contractors, or anyone
+employed in the domestic service of any
+family or person at his home, or by his
+parent or spouse, or by an employer
+subject to the Railway Labor Act (45
+U.S.C. 151 et seq.), or by any other
+person who is not an employer as
+defined in the NRA. 29 U.S.C. 152(3).
+Employee notice means the notice set
+partnerships, associations, corporations,
+legal representatives, trustees, trustees
+in cases under title 11 of the United
+States Code, or receivers. 29 U.S.C.
+152(1).
+Rules, regulations, and orders, as used
+in § 104.202, means rules, regulations,
+and relevant orders issued by the Board
+pursuant to this part.
+Supervisor means any individual
+having authority, in the interest of the
+employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay
+off, recall, promote, discharge, assign,
+reward, or discipline other employees,
+or responsibly to direct them, or to
+adjust their grievances, or effectively to
+recommend such action, if in
+connection with the foregoing the
+exercise of such authority is not of a
+merely routine or clerical nature, but
+requires the use of independent
+judgment. 29 U.S.C. 152(11).
+Unfair labor practice means any
+unfair labor practice listed in section 8
+of the National Labor Relations Act, 29
+U.S.G. 158. 29 U.S.G. 152(8).
+Union means a labor organization as
+defined above.
+§ 104.202 What employee notice must
+employers subject to the NRA post in the
+forth in the Appendix to Subpart A of
+this part that employers subject to the
+(a) Posting of employee notice. All
+NRA must post pursuant to this part.
+employers subject to the NLRA must
+Employer includes any person acting
+post notices to employees, in
+as an agent of an employer, directly or
+conspicuous places, informing them of
+indirectly. The term does not include
+their NLRA rights, together with Board
+the United States or any wholly owned
+contact information and information
+Government corporation, or any Federal
+concerning basic enforcement
+Reserve Bank, or any State or political
+procedures, in the language set forth in
+subdivision thereof, or any person
+the Appendix to Subpart A of this part.
+subject to the Railway Labor Act, or any
+(b) Size and form reuirements. The
+labor organization (other than when
+notice to employees shall be at least 11
+acting as an employer), or anyone acting
+inches by 17 inches in size, and in such
+in the capacity of officer or agent of
+format, type size, and style as the Board
+such labor organization. 29 U.S.C.
+shall prescribe. If an employer chooses
+152(2). Further, the term "employer"
+to print the notice after downloading it
+does not include entities over which the
+from the Board's Web site, the printed
+Board has been found not to have
+notice shall be at least 11 inches by 17
+jurisdiction, or over which the Board
+inches in size.
+has chosen through regulation or
+(c) Adaptation of language. The
+adjudication not to assert jurisdiction.
+National Labor Relations Board may
+Labor organization means any
+find that an Act of Congress,
+organization of any kind, or any agency
+clarification of existing law by the
+or employee representation committee
+courts or the Board, or other
+or plan, in which emplovees participate
+circumstances make modification of the
+and which exists for the purpose, in
+employee notice necessary to achieve
+whole or in part, of dealing with
+the purposes of this part. In such
+employers concerning grievances, labor
+circumstances, the Board will promptly
+disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
+issue rules, regulations, or orders as are
+employment, or conditions of work. 29
+needed to ensure that all future
+U.S.C. 152(5).
+employee notices contain appropriate
+National Labor Relations Board
+language to achieve the purposes of this
+(Board) means the National Labor
+Relations Board provided for in section
+(d) Physical posting of employee
+3 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29
+notice. The employee notice must be
+U.S.C. 153. 29 U.S.C. 152(10).
+posted in conspicuous places where
+Person includes one or more
+they are readily seen by emplovees.
+individuals, labor organizations,
+including all places where notices to
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022317
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022318.md

@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022318"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022318.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 6624
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+Federal Register/ Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations
+
+employees concerning personnel rules
+or policies are customarily posted.
+Where 20 percent or more of an
+employer's worktorce is not proficient
+in English and speaks a language other
+than English, the employer must post
+the notice in the language employees
+speak. If an employer's workforce
+includes two or more groups
+constituting at least 20 percent of the
+workforce who speak different
+languages, the employer must either
+physically post the notice in each of
+those languages or, at the employer's
+option, post the notice in the language
+spoken by the largest group of
+employees and provide each employee
+in each of the other language groups a
+copy of the notice in the appropriate
+language. If an employer requests from
+the Board a notice in a language in
+which it is not available, the requesting
+emplover will not be liable for non-
+compliance with the rule until the
+notice becomes available in that
+language. An employer must take
+reasonable steps to ensure that the
+notice is not altered, defaced, covered
+by any other material, or otherwise
+rendered unreadable.
+(e) Obtaining a poster with the
+employee notice. A poster with the
+required employee notice, including a
+poster with the employee notice
+translated into languages other than
+English, will be printed by the Board,
+and may be obtained from the Board's
+office, 1099 14th Street, NW.,
+Washington, DC 20570, or from any of
+the Board's regional, subregional, or
+resident offices. Addresses and
+telephone numbers of those offices may
+be found on the Board's Web site at
+http://www.nlrb.gov. A copy of the
+poster in English and in languages other
+than English may also be downloaded
+from the Board's Web site at http://
+www.nlrb.gov. Employers also may
+reproduce and use copies of the Board's
+official poster, provided that the copies
+duplicate the official poster in size,
+content, format, and size and style of
+type. In addition, employers may use
+commercial services to provide the
+employee notice poster consolidated
+onto one poster with other Federally
+mandated labor and employment
+notices, so long as the consolidation
+does not alter the size, content, format,
+or size and style of type of the poster
+provided by the Board.
+(f) Electronic posting of employee
+notice. (1) In addition to posting the
+required notice physically, an employer
+must also post the required notice on an
+intranet or internet site it the employer
+customarily communicates with its
+employees about personnel rules or
+policies by such means. An employer
+that customarily posts notices to
+employees about personnel rules or
+policies on an intranet or internet site
+will satisty the electronic posting
+requirement by displaying
+prominently—i.e., no less prominently
+than other notices to employees-on
+such a site either an exact copy of the
+poster, downloaded from the Board's
+Web site, or a link to the Board's Web
+site that contains the poster. The link to
+the Board's Web site must read,
+"Employee Rights under the National
+Labor Relations Act."
+(2) Where 20 percent or more of an
+employer's workforce is not proficient
+in English and speaks a language other
+than English, the employer must
+provide notice as required in paragraph
+(f)(1) of this section in the language the
+employees speak. If an employer's
+workforce includes two or more groups
+constituting at least 20 percent of the
+workforce who speak different
+languages, the employer must provide
+the notice in each such language. The
+Board will provide translations of the
+link to the Board's Web site for any
+employer that must or wishes to display
+the link on its Web site. If an employer
+requests from the Board a notice in a
+language in which it is not available, the
+requesting employer will not be liable
+for non-compliance with the rule until
+the notice becomes available in that
+§ 104.203 Are Federal contractors covered
+Yes, Federal contractors are covered.
+However, contractors may comply with
+the provisions of this part by posting the
+notices to emplovees required under the
+Department of Labor's notice-posting
+rule, 29 CFR part 471.
+§ 104.204 What entities are not subject to
+(a) The following entities are
+excluded from the definition of
+"employer" under the National Labor
+Relations Act and are not subject to the
+requirements of this part:
+TABLE TO § 104.204
+(1) The United States or any wholly
+owned Government corporation;
+(2) Any Federal Reserve Bank;
+(3) Any State or political subdivision
+thereof;
+(4) Any person subject to the Railway
+Labor Act;
+(5) Any labor organization (other than
+when acting as an employer); or
+(6) Anyone acting in the capacity of
+officer or agent of such labor
+organization.
+(b) In addition, employers employing
+exclusively workers who are excluded
+from the definition of "employee"
+under § 104.201 are not covered by the
+requirements of this part.
+(c) This part does not apply to entities
+over which the Board has been found
+not to have jurisdiction, or over which
+the Board has chosen through regulation
+or adjudication not to assert
+jurisdiction.
+(d)(1) This part does not apply to
+entities whose impact on interstate
+commerce, although more than de
+minimis, is so slight that they do not
+meet the Board's discretionary
+jurisdiction standards. The most
+commonly applicable standards are:
+(6) The retail standard, which applies
+to employers in retail businesses,
+including home construction. The Board
+will take jurisdiction over any such
+employer that has a gross annual
+volume of business of $500,000 or more.
+(ii) The nonretail standard, which
+applies to most other employers. It is
+based either on the amount of goods
+sold or services provided by the
+employer out of state (called "outflow")
+or goods or services purchased by the
+employer from out of state (called
+"inflow"). The Board will take
+jurisdiction over any employer with an
+annual inflow or outflow of at least
+$50,000. Outflow can be either direct—
+to out-of-state purchasers-or indirect-
+to purchasers that meet other
+jurisdictional standards. Inflow can also
+be direct-purchased directly from out
+of state—or indirect-purchased from
+sellers within the state that purchased
+them from out-of-state sellers.
+(2) There are other standards for
+miscellaneous categories of employers.
+These standards are based on the
+employer's gross annual volume of
+business unless stated otherwise. These
+standards are listed in the Table to this
+section.
+Employer category
+Jurisdictional standard
+Amusement industry ...
+Apartment houses, condominiums, cooperatives
+Architects
+$500,000.
+$500,000.
+Nonretail standard.
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022318
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022319.md

@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022319"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022319.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 5606
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+
+Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations
+TABLE TO § 104.204-Continued
+Employer category
+Art museums, cultural centers, libraries
+Bandleaders
+Cemeteries
+Colleges, universities, other private schools
+Communications (radio, TV, cable, telephone, telegraph)
+Day care centers
+Nursing homes, visiting nurses associations
+Hospitals, blood banks, other health care facilities (including doctors' and dentists' offices)
+Hotels and motels
+Instrumentalities of interstate commerce
+Labor organizations (as employers)
+Law firms; legal service organizations
+Newspapers (with interstate contacts)
+Nonprofit charitable institutions
+Office buildings; shopping centers
+Private clubs
+Public utilities
+Restaurants
+Social services organizations
+Symphony orchestras
+Taxicabs
+Transit systems
+(3) If an employer can be classified
+under more than one category, the
+Board will assert jurisdiction if the
+employer meets the jurisdictional
+standard of any of those categories.
+(4) There are a few employer
+categories without specific
+jurisdictional standards:
+(i) Enterprises whose operations have
+a substantial effect on national defense
+or that receive large amounts of Federal
+funds
+(ii) Enterprises in the District of
+Columbia
+(iii) Financial information
+organizations and accounting firms
+(iv) Professional sports
+(v) Stock brokerage firms
+(vi) U. S. Postal Service
+(5) A more complete discussion of the
+Board's jurisdictional standards may be
+found in An Outline of Law and
+Procedure in Representation Cases,
+Chapter 1, found on the Board's Web
+site, http://www.nlrb.gov.
+(e) This part does not apply to the
+United States Postal Service.
+Appendix to Subpart A-Text of
+Employee Notice
+"EMPLOYEE RIGHTS UNDER THE
+NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
+The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
+guarantees the right of employees to organize
+and bargain collectively with their
+employers, and to engage in other protected
+concerted activity or to refrain from engaging
+in any of the above activity. Employees
+covered by the NLRA* are protected from
+certain types of employer and union
+misconduct. This Notice gives you general
+information about your rights, and about the
+obligations of employers and unions under
+the NLRA. Contact the National Labor
+Relations Board (NLRB), the Federal agency
+that investigates and resolves complaints
+under the NLRA, using the contact
+information supplied below, if you have any
+questions about specific rights that may
+apply in your particular workplace.
+"Under the NRA, you have the right to:
+• Organize a union to negotiate with your
+employer concerning your wages, hours, and
+other terms and conditions of employment.
+• Form, join or assist a union.
+• Bargain collectively through
+representatives of employees' own choosing
+for a contract with your employer setting
+your wages, benefits, hours, and other
+working conditions.
+• Discuss your wages and benefits and
+other terms and conditions of employment or
+union organizing with your co-workers or a
+• Take action with one or more co-workers
+to improve your working conditions by,
+among other means, raising work-related
+complaints directly with your employer or
+with a government agency, and seeking help
+• Strike and picket, depending on the
+purpose or means of the strike or the
+• Choose not to do any of these activities,
+including joining or remaining a member of
+"Under the NLRA, it is illegal for your
+• Prohibit you from talking about or
+soliciting for a union during non-work time,
+such as before or after work or during break
+times; or from distributing union literature
+Jurisdictional standard
+$1 million.
+Retail/nonretail (depends on customer).
+$500,000.
+$1 million.
+$100,000.
+Either retail or nonretail standard.
+$250,000.
+$500,000.
+$100,000.
+$250,000.
+$500,000.
+$50,000.
+Nonretail standard.
+$250,000.
+$200,000.
+Depends on the entity's substantive pur-
+pose.
+$100,000.
+$500,000.
+$250,000 or nonretail standard.
+$500,000.
+$250,000.
+$1 million.
+$500,000.
+$250,000.
+during non-work time, in non-work areas,
+such as parking lots or break rooms.
+• Question you about your union support
+or activities in a manner that discourages you
+from engaging in that activity.
+• Fire, demote, or transfer you, or reduce
+your hours or change your shift, or otherwise
+take adverse action against you, or threaten
+to take any of these actions, because you join
+or support a union, or because you engage in
+concerted activity for mutual aid and
+protection, or because you choose not to
+engage in any such activity.
+• Threaten to close your workplace if
+workers choose a union to represent them.
+• Promise or grant promotions, pay raises,
+or other benefits to discourage or encourage
+• Prohibit you from wearing union hats,
+buttons, t-shirts, and pins in the workplace
+except under special circumstances.
+• Spy on or videotape peaceful union
+activities and gatherings or pretend to do so.
+"Under the NLRA, it is illegal for a union
+or for the union that represents you in
+bargaining with your employer to:
+• Threaten or coerce you in order to gain
+• Refuse to process a grievance because
+you have criticized union officials or because
+you are not a member of the union.
+• Use or maintain discriminatory
+standards or procedures in making job
+referrals from a hiring hall.
+• Cause or attempt to cause an employer
+to discriminate against you because of your
+union-related activity.
+• Take adverse action against you because
+you have not joined or do not support the
+union.
+"If you and your co-workers select a union
+to act as your collective bargaining
+representative, your employer and the union
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022319
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022320.md

@@ -0,0 +1,220 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022320"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022320.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 7396
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+Federal Register/ Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations
+
+are required to bargain in good faith in a
+genuine effort to reach a written, binding
+agreement setting your terms and conditions
+of employment. The union is required to
+fairly represent you in bargaining and
+enforcing the agreement.
+"Illegal conduct will not be permitted. If
+you believe your rights or the rights of others
+have been violated, vou should contact the
+NLRB promptly to protect your rights,
+generally within six months of the unlawful
+activity. You may inquire about possible
+violations without your employer or anyone
+else being informed of the inquiry. Charges
+may be filed by any person and need not be
+filed by the employee directly affected by the
+violation. The NLRB may order an employer
+to rehire a worker fired in violation of the
+law and to pay lost wages and benefits, and
+may order an employer or union to cease
+violating the law. Employees should seek
+assistance from the nearest regional NLRB
+office, which can be found on the Agency's
+Web site: http://www.nlrb.gov.
+You can also contact the NLRB by calling
+toll-free: 1-866-667-NLRB (6572) or (TTY)
+1-866-315-NLRB (1-866-315-6572) for
+hearing impaired.
+If you do not speak or understand English
+well, you may obtain a translation of this
+notice from the NLRB's Web site or by calling
+the toll-free numbers listed above.
+«*The National Labor Relations Act covers
+most private-sector employers. Excluded
+from coverage under the NLRA are public-
+sector employees, agricultural and domestic
+workers, independent contractors, workers
+employed by a parent or spouse, employees
+of air and rail carriers covered by the Railway
+Labor Act, and supervisors (although
+supervisors that have been discriminated
+against for refusing to violate the NLRA may
+be covered).
+"This is an official Government Notice and
+must not be defaced by anyone."
+Subpart B-General Enforcement and
+Complaint Procedures
+§ 104.210 How will the Board determine
+whether an employer is in compliance with
+The Board has determined that
+employees must be aware of their NLRA
+rights in order to exercise those rights
+effectively. Employers subject to this
+rule are required to post the employee
+notice to inform employees of their
+rights. railure to post the employee
+notice may be found to interfere with,
+restrain, or coerce employees in the
+exercise of the rights guaranteed by
+NRA Section 7, 29 U.S.C. 157, in
+violation of NLRA Section 8(a)(1), 29
+U.S.C. 158(a)(1).
+Normally, the Board will determine
+whether an employer is in compliance
+when a person files an unfair labor
+practice charge alleging that the
+employer has failed to post the
+employee notice required under this
+part. Filing a charge sets in motion the
+Board's procedures for investigating and
+adjudicating alleged unfair labor
+practices, and for remedying conduct
+that the Board finds to be unlawful. See
+NLRA Sections 10-11, 29 U.S.C. 160-
+61, and 29 CFR part 102, subpart B.
+§ 104.211 What are the procedures for
+filing a charge?
+(a) Filing charges. Any person (other
+than Board personnel) may file a charge
+with the Board alleging that an
+employer has failed to post the
+employee notice as required by this
+part. A charge should be filed with the
+Regional Director of the Region in
+which the alleged failure to post the
+required notice is occurring.
+(b) Contents of charges. The charge
+must be in writing and signed, and must
+be sworn to before a Board agent, notary
+public, or other person authorized to
+administer oaths or take
+acknowledgements, or contain a
+declaration by the person signing it,
+under penalty of perjury, that its
+contents are true and correct. The
+charge must include:
+(1) The charging party's full name and
+(2) If the charge is filed by a union,
+the full name and address of any
+national or international union of which
+it is an affiliate or constituent unit;
+(3) The full name and address of the
+employer alleged to have violated this
+part; and
+(4) A clear and concise statement of
+the facts constituting the alleged unfair
+labor practice.
+§ 104.212 What are the procedures to be
+followed when a charge is filed alleging that
+an employer has failed to post the required
+employee notice?
+(a) When a charge is filed with the
+Board under this section, the Regional
+Director will investigate the allegations
+of the charge. If it appears that the
+allegations are true, the Regional
+Director will make reasonable efforts to
+persuade the respondent employer to
+post the required employee notice
+expeditiously. If the employer does so,
+the Board expects that there will rarelv
+be a need for further administrative
+(b) If an alleged violation cannot be
+resolved informally, the Regional
+Director may issue a formal complaint
+against the respondent employer,
+alleging a violation of the notice-posting
+requirement and scheduling a hearing
+before an administrative law judge.
+After a complaint issues, the matter will
+be adjudicated in keeping with the
+Board's customary procedures. See
+NRA Sections 10 and 11, 29 U.S.C.
+160, 161; 29 CFR part 102, subpart B.
+§ 104.213 What remedies are available to
+cure a failure to post the employee notice?
+(a) If the Board finds that the
+respondent employer has failed to post
+the required employee notices as
+alleged, the respondent will be ordered
+to cease and desist from the unlawful
+conduct and post the required employee
+notice, as well as a remedial notice. In
+some instances additional remedies may
+be appropriately invoked in keeping
+with the Board's remedial authority.
+(b) Any employer that threatens or
+retaliates against an employee for filing
+charges or testifying at a hearing
+concerning alleged violations of the
+notice-posting requirement may be
+found to have committed an unfair labor
+practice. See NLRA Section 8(a)(1) and
+8(a)(4), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (4).
+§ 104.214 How might other Board
+proceedings be affected by failure to post
+the employee notice?
+(a) Tolling of statute of limitations.
+When an employee files an unfair labor
+practice charge, the Board may find it
+appropriate to excuse the employee
+from the requirement that charges be
+filed within six months after the
+occurrence of the allegedly unlawful
+conduct if the employer has failed to
+post the required employee notice
+unless the employee has received actual
+or constructive notice that the conduct
+complained of is unlawful. See NLRA
+Section 10(b), 29 U.S.C. 160(b).
+(b) Noncompliance as evidence of
+unlawful motive. The Board may
+consider a knowing and willful refusal
+to comply with the requirement to post
+the employee notice as evidence of
+unlawful motive in a case in which
+motive is an issue.
+Subpart C-Ancillary Matters
+§ 104.220 What other provisions apply to
+(a) The regulations in this part do not
+modify or affect the interpretation of
+any other NLRB regulations or policy.
+(b)(1) This subpart does not impair or
+(i) Authority granted by law to a
+department, agency, or the head thereof;
+(ii) Functions of the Director of the
+Office of Management and Budget
+relating to budgetary, administrative, or
+legislative proposals.
+(2) This subpart must be implemented
+consistent with applicable law and
+subject to the availability of
+appropriations.
+(c) This part creates no right or
+benefit, substantive or procedural,
+enforceable at law or in equity by any
+party against the United States, its
+departments, agencies, or entities, its
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022320
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022321.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022321"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022321.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 302
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+
+Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations
+officers, employees, or agents, or any
+Signed in Washington, DC, August 22,
+other person.
+2011.
+Wilma B. Liebman,
+Chairman.
+[FR Doc. 2011-21724 Filed 8-25-11; 8:45 am]
+BILLING CODE 7545-01-P
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022321
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022322.md

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022322"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022322.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 4045
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+Attachments:
+Paul Morris [
+10/21/2013 12:44:26 AM
+Jeffrey Epstein [jeevacation@gmail.com]
+Fw: Weekend Snippets [C]
+graycol.gif
+Importance:
+High
+Classification: Confidential
+Vinit is working with me on some large clients now, good resource, I will introduce you to him and few other sr. folks before year end
+either in NYC or in europe, just some directional thoughts/observations not necessarily for you,
+Vinit Sahni
+---- Original Message -----
+From: Vinit Sahni
+Sent: 10/20/2013
+07:05 PM GDT
+To: Vinit Sahni
+Subject: Weekend Snippets (internal only) [I]
+Classification: For internal use only
+Here we are -> record highs for the S&P 500, the S&P 400 Midcaps, and small cap Russell 2000. Should we be asking ourselves if
+this is the Terminal Phase or will this continue ?
+In these snippets here is a quick mark to market on where we are and some of the trades below. The theme of the trades below is very
+clear, carry outperformance and lower vol. Vol has broken down and we are on the leg down to 2009 levels (includes FX vol, rates
+vol, commodity vol etc) -> this has prompted additional risk taking and technicians for example are calling for 1775 levels in the S&P
+> sharpe ratios of high carry trades looks very compelling here
+Mark to Market:
+With the US government reopened / debt ceiling raised, Obama stated - there were "no winners." It's been only about 3 weeks, but
+the fourth quarter has already shown itself worthy of the history books. If the spec community can hold gains through year-end (the
+vol markets are alluding to) -> the ranks of billionaires will surely inflate further. No winners, right?
+This week saw the S&P500, the S&P 400 Mid-Cap Index and the small cap Russell 2000 all trade to record highs. The week's 2.8%
+advance increased the small caps' year-to-date gain to 31.3%. Google added about 140 points and $38.5bn of market cap this week (to
+$338bn) to reach an all-time high (up 43% y-t-d). The more speculative "beta" stocks continue to outperform. The NASDAQ 100 (up
+3.7% this week), Morgan Stanley High Tech Index (up 2.6%) and The Interactive Week Internet Index (3.4%) all traded to the highest
+levels since 2000. Treasury, MBS, and corporate debt prices were higher as well. It all adds up.
+The Manhu, s20
+The QE-enhanced 2013 version of "how crazy do things get?" is outshining even the 1999 speculative melee, yeah!!. The (post-
+LTCM bailout) year 1999 saw the small cap Russell 2000 Index jump from 422 to 505 (19.7%). This year, it has already run from 849
+to 1,114 (up 31.3%). The S&P400 Midcap Index jumped from 392 to 445 in 1999 (13.5%). With more than two months to go, so far
+it's 1,020 to 1,290 for the midcaps (up 26.5%).
+Why stop just at the US. Germany's DAX equities index added 1.6% this week to a new all-time high (up 16.5% y-t-d). Italian stocks
+jumped 2.1% (up 18.4% y-t-d) and Spanish stocks surged 3.5% (up 22.5%), both to more than two-year highs. Australian stocks
+gained 1.7% (up 14.5% y-t-d). Despite major economic issues, India's stock market jumped 1.7% this week to within a couple percent
+of new highs. Stocks jumped 4.2% in Brazil and 4.3% in Argentina. Indonesian stocks rallied 4.5%. Around the globe, most equities
+markets pushed higher. Fueled by huge ETF flows, total equity mutual fund inflows this past week jumped to a whopping $12.7bn.
+You may want to see this -> On a weekly basis, global central bank International Reserve Assets (data from Bloomberg). This data
+provide a decent proxy for global financial flows, especially to the emerging markets (EM). From $6.63 TN back in April of 2009,
+International Reserves surged this week to a record $11.415 TN. Reserves have inflated 330% in ten years.
+Lets focus on some trades here:
+1) This environment is supportive for carry trades, which has been reflected in the outperformance of high yielders following the
+announcement of the US debt deal.
+Long AUD/USD: Longer term investors remain relatively short AUD, which suggests that AUDUSD strength has further to run. A
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022322
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022323.md

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022323"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022323.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 5600
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+# house-oversight-022323
+
+move above parity is unlikely as the RBA should step in. Therefore buy 2m 0.9750 call against selling 2x 0.9900 calls. The AUDUSD
+risk reversal looks cheap (calls expensive relative to puts). This suggests selling high-strike calls, either outright for those that do not
+expect further AUD appreciation or to finance a low-strike call for a short-term carry position.
+Long KRW NDF : this trade will benefit should CNY appreciation or band widening expectations gain additional traction
+Long USD TRY: the market remains relatively short TRY, and with risk premium in USDTRY declining the most among major
+currencies, these short positions are likely to be at risk from carry traders.
+2) HY vs IG compression trade in Europe: Six weeks of retail outflows from high-grade funds but retail inflows into high-yield funds
+shows that the compression trade in credit is firmly entrenched in Europe. There is a structural reach for yield and this trade still has
+some legs. I would however hedge out rate risk and stick with spread risk. I will point out that more than $200bn of "cov-lite" loans
+have been issued so far this year, more than double the $100bn sold in 2007. The record issuance means that about 56 per cent of new
+leveraged loans are now cov-lite !!
+3) Long Europe small caps: This is a leveraged trade to a European recovery. European small + mid caps have a higher potential for
+upside. As European economies improve and small to mid cap valuations in the region continue to look attractive, a re-acceleration of
+sales and earnings at these companies should drive better performance in European small to mid caps versus the US. Investors looking
+for yield will find higher levels in Europe versus the US with European small to mid caps yielding near 3% versus approximately
+1.4% in the US.
+4) Long IT stocks: overall IT spend is expected to grow 0.9% in 2014 compared to ~0.7% growth. Corporate spending sentiment now
+is on the uptick prompting this move. Also keep an eye on data center growth. Demand for data center services is due to, First,
+technological evolution -> driving up computing density (servers) and utilization rates (virtualization), therefore data center space
+must constantly evolve to meet power and cooling needs. Second, increased cost consciousness and core competency focus > driving
+greater acceptance of data center outsourcing within Enterprise IT departments.
+5) Long Italian Banks / Italian Govvies: another leveraged play on the European periphery recovery. Unicredit clearly stands out.
+UCG will definitely gain from the European banking union theme. There has been recent talk of this year / early 2014 as a point when
+impaired loan growth may finally subside and I expect a wide range of cost cutting action. Our strategists think "Italy looks attractive
+in a twin deficits framework and should benefit from improving fiscal and credit impasse, political risk premium should decline",
+therefore they recommend buying 10y Italy vs Germany at 230bps, targetting a spread at 200bps
+6) Euro Inflation floors: In the euro inflation options market, Sy 0% inflation floor prices are close to their lows. This is not consistent
+with the Sy inflation swap rates which are by themselves close to lows -> meaning deflation is closer-to-the-money. Inflation volatility
+has collapsed, probably mostly for purely technical reasons as is all other vol !!. Deflation is not anyone's central case, but a
+"underpriced tail risk". This creates opportunity for those prepared to pay premium for this risk and therefore would recommend
+buying the charted Sy 0% zero coupon floors at or around the current level of 20c.
+7) KOSPI Calls: The KOSPI2 has been trading within a tight range, realizing only 9.8% over the past 30 days, the lowest globally.
+Low realized vol has capped short-dated implied vol, driving 1m ATM vol to 12.8%, near all time lows. The Index broke out from a
+tight range last week and investors should consider buying short-dated calls for upside exposure or replace outright longs with calls.
+The differential between positioning in EM equities and European equities has reached an extreme - worst on record and 2.4 stdev
+below its 10-year average. Even the NKY 3M ATM vol dropped to an 8-month low !!!
+8) UK Banks: On the back of weak FICC earnings across the street, Barclays I feel has hit Rock Bottom. This reflects the sentiment
+around FICC geared investment banks generally, but also the horrible six months that management has seen. My personal view is that
+rates + credit will recover in 2014 as tapering will create a steeper curve and volatility. I also think Barclays leverage ratios will
+improve soon and Barclays will push through an aggressive cost cutting plan.
+Quick Macro Snippet:
+What should we be focused on: The most important market drivers will now be the 1) US labor market data and 2) Eurozone inflation.
+An improvement in the former will determine the timing and pace of Fed tapering. A decline in the latter will determine whether the
+ECB will stay on hold, or loosen policies. The Sep NFP is on Tuesday stay focused.
+Gold some technicals - couldn't resist: The bears are still fighting the recent up move, here are some technicals to rebase...
+The volatility in gold over the past several days has been impressive. A close above 1330 (Oct-08 high) would be the first sign of
+basing and a turn higher, while bulls gain control only AFTER a close above 1375 (Sep-19 high). A close below 1270 exposes the
+Jun-13, bear trend lows of 1180
+This communication may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022323
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022324.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022324"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022324.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 425
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this communication
+in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this
+communication. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure of distribution of the
+material in this communication is strictly forbidden.
+Deutsche Bank does not render legal or tax advice, and the information
+contained in this communication should not be regarded as such.
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022324
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022325.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022325"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022325.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2536
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+Deutsche Asset
+& Wealth Management
+Blanche Lark Christerson
+Managing Director, Senior Wealth Planning Strategist
+Tax Topics
+2013-12
+12/20/13
+Budgets, tax reform and "extenders"
+As the year winds down, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senate Budget
+Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-WA) have hammered out a budget deal that forestalls - for two years
+- another government shutdown, and limits some of the forthcoming sequester cuts otherwise slated to go in
+effect in January. Although neither negotiator is entirely happy with the agreement, both view it as a
+workable cease-fire in the budget battles; the House passed the agreement 332 to 94 on December 12th
+and the Senate passed it 64 to 36 on December 18th
+President Obama will sign the bill shortly, thereby
+making it possible for Congress to draft spending bills so as to allocate the budget dollars that have now
+been approved. Note, however, that this budget agreement does not address the debt ceiling suspension,
+which expires in February, and that another fiscal showdown is therefore possible early next year.
+As to tax reform, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has recently put
+forth several discussion drafts of legislation, generally dealing with corporate and international tax, and
+energy incentives, while Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee,
+acknowledged that he fell short on his goal of introducing tax reform legislation this year, but that he would
+rather focus on that than an "extenders" bill.
+What is "extenders" legislation, and how might it fit into the tax reform puzzle? Although "extenders" are not
+defined anywhere, they generally refer to temporary provisions of the tax law that Congress regularly renews
+- usually for a year or two at a time. For example, the research and development credit is an important
+business incentive that has been around since 1981 - and is again among the extenders that expire on
+December 31, 2013 (this year, they number 57). Some of the other extenders on this list are more recent,
+including the $250 above-the-line deduction for certain out-of-pocket expenses of teachers, the deduction for
+state and local sales taxes, and the IRA charitable "rollover"
+provision for taxpayers who are at least 70½.
+Why does the tax law have so many temporary provisions? Several reasons come to mind. If a provision
+was enacted in response to a natural disaster or specific crisis, it is theoretically a short-term measure
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022325
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022326.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022326"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022326.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 4513
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+# house-oversight-022326
+
+designed to get taxpayers through a particularly difficult period - such as the expiring extender dealing with
+mortgage forgiveness. Enacted at the end of 2007 in response to turmoil in the housing market, this
+provision was designed to help borrowers who were underwater with their home mortgages: previously, if a
+lender foreclosed on a home and sold it for less than the outstanding indebtedness, the forgiveness of the
+unpaid balance generated taxable income for the borrower, as did a renegotiated mortgage that reduced the
+outstanding indebtedness. Under this temporary provision, that forgiveness is not considered income - a
+welcome result for taxpayers in this unhappy situation.
+Yet what about temporary provisions that promote favored tax policies but that don't respond to a particular
+situation? If they're such a good idea, why not make them permanent? This gets to a basic reality:
+permanent provisions are more costly than temporary ones. That is because the Joint Committee on
+Taxation must use a current law "baseline" when it estimates the revenue impact of tax legislation. Such a
+baseline assumes that a temporary measure, such as the mortgage forgiveness mentioned above,
+generates only a short-term revenue loss, and will expire as scheduled - even if that is unlikely to occur.
+This means that such measures can paint a rosier fiscal picture than is perhaps justified, and can therefore
+be a more "cost-effective" way to continue desired tax benefits (and policies), regardless of how inefficient
+and counter-productive the resulting uncertainty may be.
+These current expiring extenders seem likely to languish - at least for a bit, especially considering that the
+House has already recessed for the year. Although Congress has often renewed expiring provisions
+retroactively, such a move early next year could take some of the steam out of tax reform (assuming it has a
+chance). In addition, despite how inherently worthy these expiring provisions may be, Congress is under
+less pressure to pass extenders legislation because of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA)
+(Pub. L. 112-240). That is, in addition to making most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, ATRA,
+which was enacted on January 2, 2013, made the "granddaddy" of extenders permanent, by permanently
+indexing the AMT exemption for inflation, thereby permanently sparing over 25+ million taxpayers from the
+AMT, as opposed to the "mere" 4+ million currently affected by it (recall that the earliest incarnation of the
+AMT in the late 1960's was in response to 155 taxpayers who paid no income tax through use of permissible
+credits and deductions).
+Tax reform - and extenders - are thus moving targets. Even though Rep. Camp and Sen. Baucus, along
+with others in Congress, say they would like to address tax reform in 2014, that is a tall order: not only will
+members of Congress soon be pre-occupied with the November mid-term elections, there is also that small
+matter of the philosophical divide between Republicans and Democrats - Republicans want tax reform to be
+revenue-neutral, while Democrats want higher taxes on the top 1% to 2% of taxpayers. Finally, the latest fly
+in the ointment is that Sen. Baucus, who is not running for re-election in 2014, reportedly will be nominated
+as the next ambassador to China - meaning that he will not complete his final term in office, assuming he is
+confirmed. Does this take additional momentum away from the prospect of tax reform in 2014? Arguably
+yes, although Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who could be Sen. Baucus's successor as Chairman of the Senate
+Finance Committee, is also interested in tax reform and has previously put forth bipartisan tax reform
+proposals. It will be interesting to see what develops.
+End of the year recap
+With the end of 2013 upon us, we wanted to highlight a few of the tax and political developments that stood
+out to us this year, and that have long-term implications:
+ATRA. As mentioned above, the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) made the AMT "patch" and most of
+the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. It also raised taxes on the top 1% to 2% of taxpayers, in part, by
+bringing back the top income tax rate of 39.6% and, for those at that rate, the 20% rate on qualified
+dividends and most long-term capital gains. In addition, ATRA reinstated the personal exemption phase-out
+and what is generally a 3% limitation on itemized deductions, such as for mortgage interest, state and local
+Tax Topics 12/20/13 2
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022326
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022327.md

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022327"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022327.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 4846
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+# house-oversight-022327
+
+taxes, and charitable contributions (the exemption phase-out and deduction limitation are colloquially known
+as "PEP and Pease"). These changes, coupled with the new 3.8% tax on net investment income (see
+below), may mean an unhappy surprise for many taxpayers on April 15, 2014, when they pay their 2013
+income tax liability. On the transfer tax front, ATRA also made permanent the $5 million basic exclusion
+against the gift and estate tax, along with "portability," which effectively allows a surviving spouse to "inherit"
+the deceased spouse's unused exclusion. (The exclusion has been indexed for inflation since 2012, and in
+2014, will increase to $5.34 million, the same amount as the generation-skipping transfer tax exemption).
+Finally, ATRA raised the top transfer tax rate from 35% to 40%.
+3.8% tax on net investment income. What has come to be known as the "Affordable Care Act" (or ACA,
+sometimes referred to as "Obamacare") was enacted in two parts in March 2010: the "Patient Protection and
+Affordable Care Act" (Pub. L. 111-148), and "The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010"
+(Pub. L. 111-152). ACA is a seismic shift in health care insurance and is beginning to be phased in (see
+below). It has also brought a number of new taxes, including the 3.8% tax on "net investment income,"
+which took effect in 2013. Such income includes interest, dividends, capital gains, royalties and rents; the
+3.8% tax on these items can apply if a taxpayer's "modified adjusted gross income" (adjusted gross income
+plus otherwise excluded foreign income) exceeds certain amounts that are not indexed for inflation:
+$250,000 (married filing jointly), $200,000 (single taxpayers) and $125,000 (married filing separately).
+The extensive guidance the IRS has issued on this 3.8% tax is indicative of its complexity. To illustrate, in
+November 2012, the IRS issued over 150 pages of proposed regulations on the tax (REG-130507-11), and
+on November 27, 2013, the IRS issued over 300 pages of material: final regulations (T.D. 9644, effective
+December 2, 2013), along with some new proposed regulations (REG-130843-13) that address areas where
+guidance had been requested, or that had seemed unduly burdensome to commentators (such as how to
+calculate gain or loss when disposing of certain partnership or S Corporation property). Additional areas, the
+IRS has indicated, are reserved for future guidance...and then there are the various questions and answers
+the Service has issued, along with the explanations it has added to multiple publications that are designed
+for the general public. Put simply, this is a lot of material for a statute that is barely two pages long!
+With the advent of these final regs, the IRS presumably will soon issue instructions for the new Form 8960,
+where taxpayers will report the 3.8% tax (a draft form was issued this August, but its frequent injunction to
+"see instructions" meant that taxpayers were still in the dark about how to calculate the tax). Note that if the
+"kiddie tax" applies to a child's "unearned income" AND the parent elects to report this income as his own, by
+filing Form 8814, this income will also be part of the parent's "net investment income" for purposes of the
+3.8% tax. (The kiddie tax effectively taxes a child's unearned income in excess of $2,000 (the 2013 and
+2014 thresholds) at the parent's highest rate.)
+Windsor and same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court decided United States v. Windsor on June 26,
+2013, and held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional because it
+defined "marriage" as only between a man and a woman. On August 29th
+, Treasury and the IRS issued
+guidance explaining that, effective September 16, 2013, same-sex married couples are now treated as
+married for all federal tax purposes, regardless of where they live (see, for example, Revenue Ruling 2013-
+17 and various Q&As on the IRS website: irs.gov). Nevertheless, because Section 2 of DOMA still stands,
+states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages that were validly celebrated in a different state.
+Thus, the state tax treatment of a same-sex married couple may differ from the couple's federal treatment,
+depending on where they live. In other words, complications still abound.
+ACA rollout. As mentioned above, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is being phased in, including the rollout
+this fall of HealthCare.gov, the government website through which individuals can seek health insurance so
+as to satisfy the "individual mandate," which requires individuals to procure health insurance by January 1,
+2014, or face a penalty. As has been widely reported, the website has had numerous problems, and many
+individuals who had coverage are now losing it because it apparently doesn't meet ACA's new minimum
+Tax Topics 12/20/13 3
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022327
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022328.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022328"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022328.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 3180
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+# house-oversight-022328
+
+coverage standards, and therefore won't be renewed. It goes without saying that ACA is bound to be an
+issue in next year's mid-term elections.
+Government shutdown. The 16-day government shutdown in October happened because there was a
+spending and debt ceiling impasse between Democrats and Republicans. Although Republicans took much
+of the heat for the shutdown, it nevertheless seemed to reflect badly on everyone in Washington, and had
+wide-reaching effects, including delaying any number of things that the government needed to do, such as
+issuing guidance on the 3.8% tax (see above). The shutdown also delayed the start of the 2013 filing
+season, which the IRS has now announced will begin on January 31, 2014, or about 10 days later than usual
+(this means that taxpayers who are anticipating a refund - and therefore want to file early - will have to wait
+a little longer). As mentioned above, the recent budget agreement, which was born of this shutdown, should
+forestall another one...but another crisis is possible when the debt ceiling suspension expires in early
+February. Given the public's fury over the shutdown, however, it is hard to believe that Democrats and
+Republicans won't reach an agreement over the debt ceiling - the mid-term elections next November are not
+that far away, and voters do have memories!
+"Nuclear option." Senate Democrats recently exercised the so-called "nuclear option," so as to limit
+potential filibusters on presidential executive and judicial nominees (other than those for the Supreme Court).
+In other words, all presidential nominees who are subject to the Senate's "Advice and Consent" can have
+their nomination put forth for Senate confirmation on 51 votes, and can't be filibustered, which requires 60
+votes to overcome. Needless to say, Senate Republicans are unhappy with this rule change, and warn that
+Democrats will be even unhappier with it when they (the Democrats) are again in the minority, as will
+inevitably happen at some point. This move is significant, and may make bipartisan cooperation on
+immigration and tax reform even more improbable. 2014 will be interesting.
+"Permanency." Much of this discussion has referred to "permanent" changes in the tax law, such as how
+ATRA made the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, along with the generous $5 million exclusion against gift
+and estate taxes. But how long a shelf-life do these provisions really have? Here's a thought: they are there
+until Congress later changes them. In other words, perhaps what separates a temporary provision from a
+permanent one is whether there's a built-in expiration date - if the provision has one, it's an "extender"; if it
+doesn't, it's "permanent." And if tax reform actually happens, all bets are off!
+December 7520 rate issued
+The IRS has issued the December 2013 applicable federal rates: the December 7520 rate remains at 2.0%,
+where it was in November. December's mid-term rates are as follows: 1.65% (annual), 1.64% (semiannual
+and quarterly), and 1.63% (monthly), a slight drop from November's midterm rates of 1.73% (annual), 1.72%
+(semiannual and quarterly), and 1.71% (monthly).
+Tax Topics 12/20/13 4
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022328
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022329.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022329"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022329.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 1965
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+Blanche Lark Christerson is a managing director at Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management in New York
+City, and can be reached at blanche.christerson@db.com.
+The opinions and analyses expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Deutsche Bank AG or any
+affiliate thereof (collectively, the "Bank"). Any suggestions contained herein are general, and do not take into account an individual's
+specific circumstances or applicable governing law, which may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and be subject to change. No
+warranty or representation, express or implied, is made by the Bank, nor does the Bank accept any liability with respect to the
+information and data set forth herein. The information contained herein is not intended to be, and does not constitute, legal, tax,
+accounting or other professional advice; it is also not intended to offer penalty protection or to promote, market or recommend any
+transaction or matter addressed herein. Recipients should consult their applicable professional advisors prior to acting on the
+information set forth herein. This material may not be reproduced without the express permission of the author. "Deutsche Bank" means
+Deutsche Bank AG and its affiliated companies. Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management represents the asset management and wealth
+management activities conducted by Deutsche Bank AG or its subsidiaries. Clients are provided Deutsche Asset & Wealth
+Management products or services by one or more legal entities that are identified to clients pursuant to the contracts, agreements,
+offering materials or other documentation relevant to such products or services. Trust and estate and wealth planning services are
+provided through Deutsche Bank Trust Company, N.A., Deutsche Bank Trust Company Delaware and Deutsche Bank National Trust
+Company. © 2013 Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management. All rights reserved. 017074 121913
+Tax Topics 12/20/13 5
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022329
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022330.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022330"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022330.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 1546
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+Deutsche Asset
+& Wealth Management
+Blanche Lark Christerson
+Managing Director, Senior Wealth Planning Strategist
+Tax Topics
+Table of Contents
+2013
+2013
+12/20/13
+11/15/13
+10/07/13
+08/30/13
+08/28/13
+07/01/13
+05/29/13
+04/29/13
+03/21/13
+02/20/13
+01/25/13
+Budgets, tax reform and "extenders"; end of the year round-up
+The government shutdown, and selected inflation-adjusted numbers for 2014 and
+end-of-the-year planning points
+A review of basic planning points
+Revised discussion of Windsor, reflecting guidance from the IRS and the Treasury
+Department, issued on August 29, 2013
+United States v. Windsor: the Supreme Court rejects Section 3 of DOMA, which
+defines "marriage" as only between a man and a woman
+Selected planning points: the now "permanent" $5 million exclusion, indexed for
+inflation, state estate taxes and "portable" spousal exclusions
+Updated discussion of selected options to save for a child's college education
+Selected tax provisions from President Obama's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget
+Updated estate planning glossary and selected income tax terms
+Conservation easement flunks as charitable contribution (Belk); "DD" and the cost of
+employer-provided health care; two important 100-year anniversaries; some lesser-
+known provisions of the American Taxpayer Relief Act
+Selected numbers from official IRS 2013 inflation-adjustments (Rev. Proc. 2013-15);
+façade easement has zero value as charitable deduction (Scheidelman)
+2013-12
+2013-11
+2013-10
+2013-09
+2013-08
+2013-07
+2013-06
+2013-05
+2013-04
+2013-03
+2013-02
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022330
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022331.md

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022331"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022331.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2670
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+01/10/13
+2012
+12/31/12
+11/30/12
+10/31/12
+09/25/12
+07/31/12
+06/11/12
+04/19/12
+03/08/12
+01/23/12
+2011
+12/02/11
+10/21/11
+09/16/11
+07/28/11
+06/13/11
+05/03/11
+Selected overview of the "American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012" (H.R. 8): 2001 and
+2003 tax cuts largely made permanent, but higher taxes for the top 1% to 2%
+2013-01
+Proposed regulations on the 3.8% tax on "net investment income"; Wandry again, and
+how many gift tax dollars the "defined value" clause saved
+The "fiscal cliff," alternative minimum tax and transfer taxes; IRS "non-acquiesces" in
+Wandry; possible taxpayer relief for those affected by Hurricane Sandy
+Countdown to the election; selected 2013 inflation-adjusted numbers and various
+planning points; Wandry appeal withdrawn
+The looming "fiscal cliff" and the shape of possible future tax legislation; how NOT to
+substantiate a charitable deduction (Mohamed v. Commissioner); Wandry appealed
+The Supreme Court's health care decision: The Affordable Care Act upheld
+Wandry v. Commissioner: yes, another taxpayer victory using a "defined value"
+formula clause - but caution may be in order
+Supreme Court arguments on the health care law; Medicare taxes taking effect in
+2013: 0.90% on the wages of "high earners" and 3.8% tax on "net investment
+income"; the Buffett Rule and the "Paying a Fair Share Act" (S. 2230)
+Tax proposals on "high-income" taxpayers from President Obama's Fiscal Year 2013
+Budget and the Treasury Department's "Green Book"
+Estate of Petter v. Commissioner: another taxpayer victory using a "defined value"
+formula clause, and the legacy of Procter v. Commissioner
+2012-09
+2012-08
+2012-07
+2012-06
+2012-05
+2012-04
+2012-03
+2012-02
+2012-01
+"Super Committee" bows out; 2012 inflation-adjusted numbers and various planning
+points; the "Sensible Estate Tax Act of 2011" (H.R. 3467)
+The American Jobs Act of 2011: the 28% limitation, the millionaires' surtax, and the
+"Buffett Rule"
+The Budget Control Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-25) and the "Super Committee": reduce
+the deficit - or else!
+How certain discretionary language almost made a credit shelter trust taxable in the
+trustee/beneficiary's estate (Estate of Chancellor v. Commissioner)
+A Tax Court valuation case that illustrates just how far apart the experts can be, and
+how a judge evaluates those experts (Estate of Mitchell)
+Additional thoughts on last December's 2010 Tax Act: lifetime gifts (GRATs, Sales to
+Defective Grantor Trusts and QPRTs) and how "credit shelter trusts" are still relevant
+despite the "portability" of a deceased spouse's estate tax exclusion
+2011-09
+2011-08
+2011-07
+2011-06
+2011-05
+2011-04
+Tax Topics - Table of Contents - 2013 - 2
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022331
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022332.md

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022332"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022332.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 3065
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+04/06/11
+02/24/11
+01/31/11
+2010
+12/23/10
+11/30/10
+10/26/10
+09/14/10
+07/27/10
+07/01/10
+05/28/10
+05/06/10
+04/05/10
+02/28/10
+What it means to be a "statutory resident" of New York for income tax purposes - and
+how expensive that can be (Matter of Baker)
+Updated "estate planning glossary"
+A discussion of "tax expenditures" and possible tax reform, based on reports from the
+President's Deficit Commission and the National Taxpayer Advocate
+2011-03
+2011-02
+2011-01
+Overview of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job
+Creation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-312): income tax and capital gains rates, tax-free
+distributions from IRAs to charity; estate and gift tax and GST provisions
+Thoughts on the mid-term elections, and selected year-end planning points, along
+with some of the inflation-adjusted pension plan numbers for 2011; brief reminder of
+what low interest rates mean for certain planning techniques, including GRATS
+(grantor retained annuity trusts) and Sales to Defective Grantor Trusts
+Estate of Tatum: another disclaimer gone awry - but taxpayer loses this time;
+possible timeline for retroactive reinstatement of estate tax and GST, based on
+Carlton, a 1994 Supreme Court estate tax case
+Taxpayer successfully rescinds defective disclaimers and avoids significant gift tax
+liability (Breakiron); discussion of Bosch, the vintage case addressing when a state
+law holding is binding on the IRS
+A discussion of next year's likely return of "PEP" and "Pease" (indirect tax increases
+on higher earners) and the potential impact on charitable giving; two cases involving
+purported charitable gifts and a skeptical IRS: Hendrix and Free Fertility Foundation
+A round-up of the still uncertain tax landscape: Sen. Bernie Sanders' estate tax bill
+and its revenue raisers (consistent basis reporting, limits on valuation discounts and
+GRAT restrictions), "PAYGO" and Sen. Kyl's estate tax proposal; Rep. Ryan's
+"Roadmap"; NY drops "privity" requirement for executor's suit against estate planning
+attorney (Schneider v. Finnman)
+"Pierre Il": the Tax Court addresses the "step transaction doctrine" and valuation
+issues in a continuation of the Pierre v. Commissioner saga; valuation of fractional
+interests used in QPRTs (Ludwick v. Commissioner)
+An updated discussion of some of the options to save for a child's college education
+An overview of some of the provisions in the new health care legislation, particularly
+the new Medicare taxes; codification of "economic substance doctrine"; GRAT
+restrictions advance
+President Obama's FY 2011 Budget - increases on higher earners, and estate and
+gift tax proposals: return to the 2009 estate tax regime, consistent values, modifying
+rules on valuation discounts and mandating minimum 10-year term and remainder
+interest for GRATs; under the "check-the-box" regulations, is a single member LLC
+disregarded for gift tax purposes? (Pierre v. Commissioner)
+2010-11
+2010-10
+2010-09
+2010-08
+2010-07
+2010-06
+2010-05
+2010-04
+2010-03
+2010-02
+Tax Topics - Table of Contents - 2013 - 3
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022332
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022333.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022333"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022333.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2756
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+01/26/10
+2009
+12/22/09
+09/30/09
+08/31/09
+07/28/09
+06/15/09
+04/20/09
+03/19/09
+02/09/09
+01/12/09
+The 2010 planning landscape: NO estate tax, GST or basis adjustment rules; what
+Congress may do; possible constitutional "due process" challenge; what can go
+wrong when documents are wrong about how property is titled (Beudert-Richard v.
+Richard)
+2010-01
+The imminent demise of the estate tax? Possible effect on formula provisions and the
+difficulties of modified carryover basis; extenders bill and carried interest; proposed
+stock transactions tax; importance of keeping beneficiary designations current
+(Kennedy v. DuPont SIP)
+More on Roth IRA conversions: calculating what the taxable amount may be; how a
+"decoupled" state may tax a non-resident's property, even if it's passing to a surviving
+spouse; NY advisory opinion on non-resident's proposed condo purchase (TSB-A-
+08(1)M)
+What may happen with estate tax repeal and tax-free IRA distributions to charity;
+early 2009 AMT "patch"; Roth IRA conversions in 2010 - restrictions will be gone so
+that anyone may convert a "regular" IRA to a Roth
+Some pros and cons of several options to pay for health care reform; the case of the
+"tainted witness" and a will's tax apportionment clause (Estate of
+Wu); how some
+states are dealing with economic adversity
+OMB's "Analytical Perspectives" and Treasury Department's "Green Book" offer
+insights on Obama tax proposals and outline of estate and gift tax proposals:
+consistent values, modifying rules on valuation discounts and minimum 10-year terms
+for GRATs; taxing employer-provided health care?; new mortality tables and QPRTs;
+New York's increased taxes and estimated tax payments
+The "Taxpayer Certainty and Relief Act of 2009" (S. 722) - makes lower income tax
+rates permanent, increases higher rates, and freezes the estate tax at 2009 levels;
+focus on whether Congress might reinstate the state death tax credit; new task force
+on tax reform
+President Obama's FY 2010 budget proposal: higher rates, limits on itemized
+deductions and the personal exemption phase-out; the interaction of the regular tax
+with the AMT; historical income tax and capital gains tax rates; S. 394 would enhance
+the tax treatment of art and collectibles
+Rep. Pomeroy's estate tax bill (H.R. 436); basic planning points; basis adjustment
+rules, including modified carryover basis in 2010; "The Rangel Rule" (H.R. 735); intra-
+family loans
+Suspension of 2009 required minimum distributions under The Worker Retiree and
+Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-458); a brief mention of another "bad
+facts" limited partnership case (Hurford)
+2009-10
+2009-08
+2009-07
+2009-06
+2009-05
+2009-04
+2009-03
+2009-02
+2009-01
+Tax Topics - Table of Contents - 2013 - 4
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022333
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022334.md

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022334"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022334.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2660
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+2008
+12/02/08
+11/04/08
+09/30/08
+08/29/08
+07/31/08
+06/30/08
+05/30/08
+04/28/08
+03/31/08
+02/26/08
+01/28/08
+2007
+12/21/07
+11/20/07
+10/26/07
+09/28/07
+08/31/07
+Prospective tax increases and their possible revenue implications; inflation-adjusted
+numbers for 2009 and selected planning points
+The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-343): AMT
+extenders and ISO relief, tax-free IRA distributions to charity, deduction for state and
+local sales taxes, broker basis reporting, and harmonizing preparer penalties for
+undisclosed positions; making lemonade out of lemons - coping with the market
+decline
+A discussion of the upcoming $3.5 million estate tax exclusion, and how it affects
+planning in "decoupled" states, especially for married couples
+A selected review of major tax legislation during the Bush administration, and a
+snapshot of the tax proposals of Senators McCain and Obama
+No discount for "restricted management accounts" (Rev. Rul. 2008-35); final regs on
+"grantor retained interest trusts" (T.D. 9414)
+Charitable remainder trusts and UBTI: final regs (T.D. 9403); charitable lead trusts
+and "tiering" provisions: proposed regs (REG-101258-08)
+Supreme Court holds that muni bonds still tax free (Kentucky v. Davis); IRS issues
+proposed regs on alternate valuation (REG-1 12196-07; Kohler v. Commissioner)
+The awful AMT and its disappearing exemption; Notice 2008-22 and a trust grantor's
+"nonfiduciary" power to swap trust property for property of equivalent value; planning
+techniques that work well in a low-interest rate environment
+Disclaimers and self-adjusting valuation clauses (Christiansen)
+More on the new preparer penalties: Notice 2008-13
+Supreme Court affirms that trust investment advisory fees subject to 2% floor
+(Knight); wash sale rules and IRAs; survivorship and the marital deduction (Lee)
+2008-11
+2008-10
+2008-09
+2008-08
+2008-07
+2008-06
+2008-05
+2008-04
+2008-03
+2008-02
+2008-01
+AMT patch, cont'd.; 11* Circuit reverses Tax Court: built-in capital gains tax
+liability reduces value of closely held corporation: Estate of Jelke (General Utitilies
+doctrine; willing buyer-willing seller; IRA implications)
+AMT patch; inflation-adjusted numbers for 2008 and planning points; 0% rate for
+dividends and capital gains
+Preparer penalties: the new rules under the Small Business and Work Opportunity
+Act of 2007; transition rules under Notice 2007-54
+Charlie Rangel's proposal; AMT and estimated tax; taxing "carried interest"
+2007-12
+2007-11
+2007-10
+2007-09
+Saving for college: the "kiddie tax" and the pros and cons of different savings vehicles
+2007-08
+Tax Topics - Table of Contents - 2013 - 5
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022334
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022335.md

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022335"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022335.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2585
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+07/31/07
+06/28/07
+05/31/07
+04/27/07
+03/29/07
+02/28/07
+01/30/07
+2006
+12/29/06
+11/22/06
+10/23/06
+09/08/06
+07/31/06
+06/27/06
+05/31/06
+04/28/06
+03/29/06
+02/22/06
+Davis v. Kentucky Revenue Department - Supreme Court to examine muni bond
+taxability; proposed regs on trust investment fees and the 2% floor (REG-128224-06)
+Proposed regs on grantor retained income trusts (REG-119097-05); why timing of
+payments matters; why there's a 7520 rate; Rudkin update
+"Kiddie tax" changes; custodial accounts; "pay-go"; whither the estate tax; get a good
+valuation expert! (Kimberlin)
+2a Circuit affirms that trust investment fees subject to 2% floor: Rudkin
+IRS Clarification: non-spousal rollovers and tax-free IRA distributions to charity
+(Notice 2007-7); tax patents; Chuck Grassley on the AMT and the "tax gap"
+Estate Planning Glossary
+The "First 100 Hours"; President Bush's health care proposals; 2006 Annual Report of
+the National Taxpayer Advocate
+2007-07
+2007-06
+2007-05
+2007-04
+2007-03
+2007-02
+2007-01
+The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-432): "extenders"; health
+savings accounts; AMT refundable credit; charitable remainder trusts and UBTI;
+permanent capital gain treatment for self-created musical works
+The mid-term elections; 2007 inflation-adjusted numbers
+More on the Pension Protection Act of 2006: fractional interest gifts and $100,000 tax-
+free IRA contributions to public charities; Charlie Rangel and AMT reform;
+Connecticut marital deduction for same-sex couples
+The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-280): selected retirement and
+charitable provisions
+Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006 (H.R. 5970); Illinois decoupling
+(McGinley v. Madigan); non-resident income taxation and out-of-state property
+Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act of 2006 (PETRA, H.R. 5638)
+Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-222): "kiddie
+tax"; conversions to Roth IRAs; expatriate income and housing exclusion; capital
+gains treatment for self-created musical works
+The AMT and stock options: capital loss carryback prohibitions apply to AMT as well
+(Merlo); attempted assignment of income fails (McManus); assignment of income:
+non-qualified stock options and charitable remainder trusts
+4'" Circuit upholds IRS win in Chawla, but "insurable interest" issue still dangles
+Charitable Remainder Trust Safe-Harbor (Notice 2006-15); more on prepaid tuition;
+debts, forgiveness and taxes
+2006-11
+2006-10
+2006-09
+2006-08
+2006-07
+2006-06
+2006-05
+2006-04
+2006-03
+2006-02
+Tax Topics - Table of Contents - 2013 - 6
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022335
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022336.md

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022336"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022336.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2175
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+01/27/06
+2005
+12/27/05
+11/18/05
+10/18/05
+09/30/05
+09/08/05
+07/29/05
+06/30/05
+05/27/05
+04/20/05
+03/28/05
+02/18/05
+01/28/05
+2004
+12/28/04
+11/24/04
+11/05/04
+10/08/04
+09/10/04
+Prepaid tuition (PLR 200602002); gift and estate tax reminder; "Personal Revival
+Trusts" for cryonauts
+2006-01
+Tax Reform Panel Recommendations; Ron Wyden's "Fair, Flat Tax Act of 2005"
+Hurricane Katrina Provisions; 2006 inflation-adjusted numbers; sale of remaining
+lottery payments is not a sale of a "capital asset" (Prebola)
+Saving for College - round-up of options
+Ittleson - New York taxes sale of non-resident's artwork
+Estate tax thoughts; GST consequences of taxable trust renunciation (PLR
+200532024); note about the "rule against perpetuities"
+Strangi - 5*h Circuit upholds IRS win in Texas FLP case
+Circular 230
+Estate planning glossary; Washington state's new estate tax
+New Jersey loses on decoupling case (Oberhand); retroactive tax changes
+(Nationsbank); charitable remainder trust "safe harbor" rules and the right of election
+(Rev. Proc. 2005-24)
+Insurable interests and trusts: Chawla; "frivolous arguments to avoid when paying
+taxes" (Notice 2005-30)
+Washington State decoupling struck down: Hemphill
+Social security, the estate tax and tax reform; several cases: Banks (contingent
+attorney's fees); Harkins ("corporation sole"); Davis (marital deduction)
+2005-12
+2005-11
+2005-10
+2005-09
+2005-08
+2005-07
+2005-06
+2005-05
+2005-04
+2005-03
+2005-02
+2005-01
+The Barnes Foundation
+2005 inflation-adjusted numbers; how a low 7520 rate affects planning techniques
+Tax reform: flat tax and consumption tax; American Jobs Creation Act deductions for
+sales tax and attorneys' fees; New York tax law change: non-resident's sale of co-op
+now taxable
+The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (H.R. 1308): extension through 2010 of
+10% and 15% brackets; that "ridiculously complex" tax code; a word on PORC;
+reminder about low 7520 rates
+Turner v. Commissioner (formerly Thompson): 3d Circuit affirms IRS Tax Court win
+against FLP (family limited partnership); Turner contrasted with Kimbell
+2004-15
+2004-14
+2004-13
+2004-12
+2004-11
+Tax Topics - Table of Contents - 2013 - 7
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022336
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022337.md

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022337"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022337.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2412
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+08/03/04
+07/14/04
+06/25/04
+05/28/04
+04/28/04
+04/02/04
+03/18/04
+02/27/04
+02/03/04
+01/14/04
+2003
+12/19/03
+11/26/03
+11/10/03
+10/24/03
+10/10/03
+09/26/03
+09/05/03
+Tax Court says stock transfers to FLP are indirect gifts (Senda); co-op's real estate
+taxes not deductible against AMT (Ostrow and Guterman)
+IRS addresses grantor trust rules and implications of tax reimbursement clauses
+(Rev. Rul. 2004-64); LUST tax
+H.R. 4520, the export bill; proposals for state and local sales tax deduction and
+deferred compensation; House bills; temporary Connecticut decoupling; 7520 rate
+chart
+Kimbell v. U.S. - 5' Circuit hands taxpayer a victory in FLP case; how the applicable
+federal rates are determined
+Export bill: economic substance doctrine, expanded "kiddie tax"; no dice on offsetting
+gambling losses (TAM 200417004); QSLOB election
+President Bush's 2005 budget takes aim at 529 plan "loopholes"; deductibility of
+attorneys' fees - Supreme Court grants cert on Banaitis and Banks
+Impact of 2001 and 2003 tax law changes and interplay with AMT; reminder about low
+7520 rates
+More thoughts on "decoupling": New York, New Jersey and Connecticut - the power
+of lifetime gifts; pro-rating the tax on a New York trust that changes situs
+Tax clause nightmare: Lurie v. Commissioner, or the pain of charging taxes to a non-
+taxable share; interrelated computations
+New York fiduciary income tax and trust situs: Estate of William Rockefeller and
+Matter of Harriet Bush; codification of Mercantile
+2004-10
+2004-09
+2004-08
+2004-07
+2004-06
+2004-05
+2004-04
+2004-03
+2004-02
+2004-01
+More changes on New York's 529 Plan; intra-family loans: term and demand loans,
+and forgiving them; note on William Roth and John Breaux
+Inflation-adjusted numbers for 2004; charitable remainder trusts, "ordering rules"
+and qualified dividends (REG-110896-98)
+Connecticut "decouples" for a bit; New York and New Jersey "decoupling" -
+disclaimers and contingent QTIPs; changes to New York's 529 Plan
+IRS acquiesces in Walton GRAT decision (Notice 2003-72); Social Security and "full
+retirement age"
+The Independent 529 Plan
+IRS guidance on reporting requirements for substitute dividends (Notice 2003-67);
+the "Wall Street Rule"; tax reward money taxable (Roco)
+The fall legislative agenda; saving for a child's college education
+2003-21
+2003-20
+2003-19
+2003-18
+2003-17
+2003-16
+2003-15
+Tax Topics - Table of Contents - 2013 - 8
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022337
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022338.md

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022338"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022338.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2666
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+08/06/03
+07/23/03
+07/01/03
+06/16/03
+06/06/03
+05/16/03
+05/02/03
+04/11/03
+03/28/03
+03/13/03
+02/28/03
+02/14/03
+01/31/03
+01/16/03
+2002
+12/19/02
+11/27/02
+Strangi III - the Tax Court thumps taxpayer in Texas FLP case
+7' Circuit upholds IRS win in Hackl: no annual exclusion for gifts of LLC interests
+New York's "tax traps" regarding the estate tax, GST and non-residents
+More on JGTRRA, qualified dividends and the new tax rates
+JGTRRA: lower rates, qualified dividends, increased child tax credit, marriage penalty
+relief; increased AMT exemption; chart with phase-outs of the AMT exemption
+amounts
+Jobs and growth bill; trust's investment fees subject to 2% floor (Scott); tax
+apportionment (PNC Bank v. Roy); Michigan and the TPT credit (Lacks v. Michigan
+Department of Treasury)
+Jobs and growth bill; flat tax proposals; tax apportionment (Kuralt)
+Budget update; estate tax pitfalls for non-resident aliens (Fung); "indirect skips" and
+the GST; QTIP election boo-boo (PLR 200314012); early CRUT termination and
+capital gain (PLR 200314021)
+Budget news; contingent attorneys' fees (Raymond) - and how AMT interacts with
+them
+Budget and legislative update; marital deduction mess-up (Davis); limited education
+no defense against estate tax deficiency (Koester)
+Taxpayer's SCIN works (Estate of Dulio Costanza); SCIN contrasted with private
+annuity; IRS loses on "joint-spousal GRATs" (Cook)
+Details on Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, including various proposed savings accounts
+(lifetime, retirement and employer-sponsored); impact on 529 plans; a closer look at
+arguments in favor of tax-free dividend proposal
+State of the Union address and tax-free dividend proposal; CBO's deficit numbers;
+Sen. Daschle on the Democratic plan; is all retirement plan income "effectively" tax-
+free? (KD 3761); "decoupling" in Nebraska and Kansas
+President Bush's job creation plan and tax proposals, including tax-free dividends;
+Sen. Feinstein on freezing the top rate; JCT lists expiring provisions;House rules to
+require macroeconomic analyses; dynamic scoring
+2003-14
+2003-13
+2003-12
+2003-11
+2003-10
+2003-09
+2003-08
+2003-07
+2003-06
+2003-05
+2003-04
+2003-03
+2003-02
+2003-01
+New faces: John Snow and Steven Friedman; adjustment clause too much like
+Procter - Mom can't take back gift (TAM 200245053); non-immigrant visa doesn't
+preclude domicile (Estate of Jack); payments to Holocaust survivors permanently
+exempted from income tax
+Our "abominable" tax code and how it got that way; Lindy Paull's departure; how
+7520 rates affect planning techniques - why GRATs work better with lower rates and
+QPRTs don't
+2002-22
+2002-21
+Tax Topics - Table of Contents - 2013 - 9
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022338
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022339.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022339"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022339.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2577
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+11/19/02
+10/25/02
+09/20/02
+09/04/02
+08/29/02
+08/01/02
+07/23/02
+07/18/02
+07/02/02
+06/21/02
+05/24/02
+04/18/02
+04/09/02
+03/20/02
+03/15/02
+02/28/02
+02/22/02
+Aftermath of the mid-term elections and the AMT; estate tax issues; inflation-adjusted
+numbers for 2003
+Run-down on proposed legislation: the CARE and NESTEG bills; next year's FICA;
+low 7520 rates and planning: QPRTs, CLATs, CRATS, GRATs and charitable gift
+annuities
+Possible permanency of 2001 Tax Act and its education provisions; "decoupling":
+D.C., Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York
+Treasury ends "abusive" split-dollar scheme (Notice 2002-59)
+CBO's budget numbers and stimulus proposals; IRA discussion correction - comment
+from Cathy Vohs of the IRS
+CARE Act progresses - proposed gifts to charity from IRAs
+Corrections on IRA discussion; single life distribution table
+Corrected discussion on the final minimum distribution regs
+The debt limit increase; IRS retreats from imposing FICA or FUTA taxes on ISOs
+(Notice 2002-47)
+Attempts to make 2001 Tax Act permanent; efforts at estate tax reform; law-school
+expenses not deductible (Galligan); ignorance of the law is no excuse - "innocent
+spouse" relief denied (Mitchell)
+The "sunset" provision of the 2001 Tax Act; new IRA distribution tables
+Thoughts on 529 Plans; IRS issues final rules on IRA distributions; "decoupling":
+Maryland, Nebraska and New York
+Tax Court denies annual exclusion for gifts of LLC interests (Hack/); Florida says
+goodbye to estate tax revenues
+Senate Finance Committee hearing on tax shelters; Joint Committee on Taxation
+report on shelters and judicial doctrines used against them
+Stimulus bill passes; bill to freeze some of 2001 Tax Act; CBO and OMB revenue
+projections; Concord Coalition suggestions about fiscal year 2003 budget; GRAT
+includibility under IRC Sec. 2039 (TAM 200210009); Vermont "decoupling"; the GST
+and "indirect" skips - the opt-out
+Tax shelter amnesty (Announcement 2002-2); whither the corporate income tax?; IRS
+permits early CRUT termination (PLR 200208039) and tax treatment of early
+termination (PLR 200127023); IRS information on Victims' Relief Bill (Publication
+3920); New York City's cigarette tax
+President Bush's fiscal year 2003 budget; Senate vote on estate tax repeal; the
+shrinking surplus; increase in debt ceiling; taxability of frequent flyer miles
+(Announcement 2002-18); cigarette taxes
+2002-20
+2002-19
+2002-18
+2002-17
+2002-16
+2002-15
+2002-14
+2002-13
+2002-12
+2002-11
+2002-10
+2002-09
+2002-08
+2002-07
+2002-06
+2002-05
+2002-04
+Tax Topics - Table of Contents - 2013 - 10
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022339
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022340.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022340"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022340.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2192
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+01/31/02
+01/25/02
+01/11/02
+2001
+12/21/01
+11/30/01
+11/26/01
+10/31/01
+10/24/01
+09/28/01
+09/04/01
+08/07/01
+08/02/01
+07/25/01
+07/10/01
+06/29/01
+06/04/01
+05/22/01
+05/18/01
+Victims' Relief bill signed - planning points; bill to reinstate marital deduction for non-
+citizen spouses (H.R. 3575); the state death tax credit and "decoupling": Minnesota,
+Rhode Island and Wisconsin
+IRS Notice on split-dollar life insurance (Notice 2002-8)
+Tom Daschle speech on the economy; 2001 Report of the National Taxpayer
+Advocate
+2002-03
+2002-02
+2002-01
+The stimulus package; the Victims of Terrorism Relief Act; inflation-adjusted numbers
+for 2002
+More on Victims of Terrorism bill (history of prior such bills); applicability of FICA and
+FUTA taxes to ISOs (incentive stock options): proposed regulations (REG-142686-01)
+and Notices 2001-72 and 2001-73; the AMT and ISOs
+Stimulus package stalls; Victims' Relief bill progresses; 18% capital gains tax rate and
+gain on principal residence exclusion (Revenue
+Ruling 2001-57)
+More thoughts on the Victims of Terrorism relief bill; FICA increase; France and the
+VAT
+Stimulus plans; budget shortfalls in California, Florida, New York and North Carolina
+9/11 aftermath: Victims of Terrorism Relief Act
+More on "timing" and the new estate tax rates; the phase-out of the state death tax
+credit
+AMT ISO relief?; "timing" and the new estate tax rates; the tax rebates
+Possible repeal of the "sunset" provision and the estate tax; GST "indirect" skips and
+deemed allocations
+GST changes under 2001 Tax Act
+Two unfavorable IRA rulings: sons can't be default "designated beneficiaries"
+(PLR 2001260410) and daughter can't name herself as Mom's designated beneficiary
+after Mom's death (PLR 200126036); new IRA rules wouldn't necessarily have made
+a difference
+Some of the numbers behind the 2001 Tax Act
+Rundown on EGTRRA (the 2001 Tax Act)
+Gifts to non-grantor trusts under the "Relief" bill; Neal tries to shut down swap funds
+(H.R. 1785)
+Rundown on the "Relief" bill; the "Byrd rule"
+2001-25
+2001-24
+2001-23
+2001-22
+2001-21
+2001-20
+2001-19
+2001-18
+2001-17
+2001-16
+2001-15
+2001-14
+2001-13
+2001-12
+2001-11
+Tax Topics - Table of Contents - 2013 - 11
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022340
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022341.md

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022341"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022341.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2105
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+04/20/01
+04/13/01
+04/11/01
+03/23/01
+03/07/01
+02/05/01
+01/30/01
+01/24/01
+01/22/01
+01/10/01
+2000
+12/20/00
+11/29/00
+11/22/00
+11/17/00
+10/30/00
+10/18/00
+10/02/00
+Costs of the "Death Tax Elimination" bill; the Joint Committee on Taxation and
+revenue estimates; estate tax reform bills; Rangel bill would make state and local
+taxes deductible against AMT
+The costs of estate tax repeal
+President Bush's tax proposals, H.R. 8, "The Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000,"
+carryover basis and "dynamic" versus "static" scoring
+Competing stimulus bills and possible estate tax relief
+Stimulus bill in the making; IRA hardship exemption fails (Gallagher); tax fraud
+conviction and sentencing of Dorothy and George Henderson; office space for the
+Clinton Foundation
+Projected budget surpluses; President Bush's tax plan; possible estate and gift tax
+repeal
+Clarification on new proposed IRA regs
+Appendix with new IRA distribution period
+Senate Finance Committee takes shape; new proposed regs on IRA distributions
+(REG-130477-00 and REG-130481-00)
+Tax-writing committees take shape; possible tax legislation; IRS loses Walton GRAT
+case; how tax credits lard up the tax code; joint spousal revocable trust wins and
+loses
+2001-10
+2001-09
+2001-08
+2001-07
+2001-06
+2001-05
+2001-04
+2001-03
+2001-02
+2001-01
+The $1.3 trillion tax cut; inflation-adjusted numbers for 2001
+Thoughts on the new faces in Washington; candidates for Chairman of the House
+Ways and Means Committee
+The uncertain outcome of the elections; compromise bill on the foreign sales tax
+regime; standard mileage rates
+Election outcome unknown, but what the tax-writing committees may look like
+House passes tax bill, Clinton promises veto; NY streamlines tuition savings plan;
+FICA increases and Social Security funding
+Details on 18% capital gains tax rate; deduction and credit for college tuition;
+conviction of Dorothy and George Henderson for tax fraud
+H.R. 1102, the "Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000"; estate tax update
+2000-19
+2000-18
+2000-17
+2000-16
+2000-15
+2000-14
+2000-13
+Tax Topics - Table of Contents - 2013 - 12
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022341
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022342.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022342"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022342.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2532
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+09/15/00
+09/08/00
+08/07/00
+07/14/00
+06/29/00
+06/09/00
+05/19/00
+05/15/00
+04/13/00
+03/24/00
+02/28/00
+0/11/00
+Override on "marriage penalty" veto fails; Republican edge in House
+narrows,"surviving spouse" in same-sex relationship loses 50% co-ownership
+argument (Estate of Horstmeier); credit for tax on prior transfers doesn't fly (Estates of
+Harrison); Gov. Jesse Ventura on Minnesota public school education
+Override on estate repeal veto fails; final GRAT regulations issued (T.D. 8899, 26
+CFR Part 25); settlement fees and tax apportionment (Estate of Esther Brabson);
+dependency exemption for kidnapped child (ILM 200034029)
+Strategies for passing tax reform; New Hampshire upholds inheritance tax
+Thoughts on possible estate tax repeal; New Hampshire House overrides inheritance
+tax repeal veto; the problem of joint-ownership (PLR 200034029); draft legislation to
+permit fair market value deduction for charitable contributions by artists and authors
+(S. 2781)
+Projected surpluses; estate tax repeal movement
+New Hampshire governor vetoes inheritance tax repeal; IRS ruling on a "5 & 5"
+power: ever-increasing ownership of the trust (PLR 200022035); IRS wins two cases:
+gifts to a corporation don't qualify for annual exclusion (Stinson); "economic benefit"
+doctrine doesn't accelerate taxability of lottery winnings (Thomas)
+H.R. 8 and estate tax repeal; embezzled money is taxable income (Amini); no
+"married filing jointly" available for taxpayer in same-sex relationship (Mueller)
+Estate tax valuation of a disputed claim: Estate of Algerine Smith. Commissioner - 5th
+Circuit reverse Tax Court
+IRS goes after "ghoulish" charitable lead trusts (REG-100291-00; new tax shelter
+listings apply to individuals as well as corporations; IRS permits disclaimer to change
+IRA beneficiaries (PLR 200013041); community property IRA distribution to ex-
+spouse taxable to IRA owner (Bunney); charitable bequest of non-qualified stock
+options taxable to charity, not estate (PLR 20012076)
+Donees subject to transferee liability (Armstrong); converting NIM-CRUTs to CRUTs
+(Notice 99-31); discharge of GRAT liability (TAMs 200010010 and 200011005)
+Corporate tax refunds are up; taxpayer wins Texas partnership case (Elsie Church v.
+United States)
+President Clinton's final budget (fiscal year 2001); attempted casualty loss for
+property next to O.J. Simpson's estate (Chamales)
+2000-12
+2000-11
+2000-10
+2000-09
+2000-08
+2000-07
+2000-06
+2000-05
+2000-04
+2000-03
+2000-02
+2000-01
+Tax Topics - Table of Contents - 2013 - 13
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022342
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022343.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022343"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022343.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 1986
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+Blanche Lark Christerson is a managing director at Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management in New York
+City, and can be reached at blanche.christerson@db.com.
+The opinions and analyses expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Deutsche Bank AG or any
+affiliate thereof (collectively, the "Bank"). Any suggestions contained herein are general, and do not take into account an individual's
+specific circumstances or applicable governing law, which may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and be subject to change. No
+warranty or representation, express or implied, is made by the Bank, nor does the Bank accept any liability with respect to the
+information and data set forth herein. The information contained herein is not intended to be, and does not constitute, legal, tax,
+accounting or other professional advice; it is also not intended to offer penalty protection or to promote, market or recommend any
+transaction or matter addressed herein. Recipients should consult their applicable professional advisors prior to acting on the
+information set forth herein. This material may not be reproduced without the express permission of the author. "Deutsche Bank" means
+Deutsche Bank AG and its affiliated companies. Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management represents the asset management and wealth
+management activities conducted by Deutsche Bank AG or its subsidiaries. Clients are provided Deutsche Asset & Wealth
+Management products or services by one or more legal entities that are identified to clients pursuant to the contracts, agreements,
+offering materials or other documentation relevant to such products or services. Trust and estate and wealth planning services are
+provided through Deutsche Bank Trust Company, N.A., Deutsche Bank Trust Company Delaware and Deutsche Bank National Trust
+Company. © 2013 Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management. All rights reserved. 017075 121913
+Tax Topics - Table of Contents - 2013 - 14
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022343
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022344.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022344"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022344.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 4186
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+Date:
+From:
+To:
+Monday, January 13 2014 08:14 PM
+Subject: mission acomplished for some
+Boris Nikolic <
+Jeffrey Epstein (jeevacation@gmail.com) <jeevacation@gmail.com>;
+Philanthropy - Full text articles
+Revealed: the world's most admired people
+Stephan Shakespeare - Times
+Bill Gates is the most admired person in the world, according to a global survey for The Times by YouGov. The man who many
+see as responsible for the democratisation of computing and who is the biggest activist philanthropist across the globe is
+highly regarded everywhere.
+In his home, America, he ranks only 5th, behind Pope Francis, President Obama, Billy Graham, and George W. Bush. Mr
+Obama and the Pope have a strong lead in Western nations but Mr Gates is highly regarded in every country polled, from
+Brazil to Egypt, Nigeria to Indonesia, Britain to Russia to Australia. He tops the poll in China — as respondents there said: "He
+got into a good university, but gave up studying to start his business. He has become a rich man despite dropping out of school
+... He has a successful career and a caring heart — he is ordinary, but great."
+The Queen came highest in Britain and second in Australia, but didn't make the Indian top ten. Nevertheless she is the most
+admired woman in the world, in 17th place, closely followed by Angelina Jolie and Oprah Winfrey.
+Half of the top ten admired in Russia are women, including the pop singer Alla Pugacheva and the Queen. That is the highest
+figure in all countries surveyed — women are strikingly under-represented.
+Some light is shed on this by comparing our results with a recent Gallup poll in America, which asked for most admired man
+and woman in separate questions. In that poll, Bill Clinton scored 2 per cent and Hillary Clinton 15. YouGov asked a single
+question, not differentiating men and women, and the two Clintons rated about the same. The two polls also show the power of
+the media to direct public attention: Gallup polled early in December, and Pope Francis was "most admired" by only 4 per cent.
+By the time of the YouGov survey, Time magazine had made him its Person of the Year, and he shot up to 21 per cent.
+Business leaders did well in general. YouGov puts Sir Richard Branson 4th in Britain, the Hong Kong billionaire Sir Li Kashing
+was sixth in China; the Nigerian industrialist Aliko Dangote was third in his home country; Silvio Santos, a media billionaire,
+was 4th in Brazil; Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the tycoon recently freed by Vladimir Putin, was 8th in Russia; while Warren Buffett,
+who is admired in India, Pakistan and China, was 8th in the world.
+Actors and musicians do less well. With the exception of the Bollywood superstar Amitabh Bachchan, Ms Jolie and Stephen
+Fry, who confirms his enormous Twitter following by making 7th in Britain, just below Desmond Tutu. Johnny Depp and Brad
+Pitt get close to the top in a couple of countries and Justin Bieber did well in Indonesia, but the rock star and anti-poverty
+campaigner Bono is notable by his absence.
+Sportsmen were more highly regarded, with the Indian cricketer Sachin Tendulkar 5th in the world — but only because he is so
+adored in the world's second-most populous country. The footballer Lionel Messi had broader support, reaching 15th in the
+world. In Britain, David Beckham squeaked into 10th place.
+In only two countries of the 13 surveyed did no local politician make it into the top ten — Australia and the UK. The omission
+was most striking in Britain where Nigel Farage, the top politician, was in 16th place. David Cameron received the "most
+admired" accolade from only two people in a thousand. In Germany, Angela Merkel scored 65 times higher at 13 per cent,
+second only to the Pope. Vladimir Putin topped the Russian poll with a whopping 24 per cent, Nicolas Sarkozy was third in
+France and Goodluck Jonathan 8th in Nigeria. Edward Snowden, responsible for leaking classified documents that revealed
+the extent of surveillance by America's National Security Agency, was 10th most admired in the country that granted him
+asylum, Russia. He also showed strongly in Germany. We also asked who was the most famous person in the world. The
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022344
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022345.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022345"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022345.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 1969
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+overwhelming choice was Mr Obama, with 26 per cent, and Mr Gates behind on 12.
+YouGov polled in Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, the US, Australia, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, China, Egypt, Nigeria
+and Brazil, representing over half of the world's population and the most populated country on each continent, and spoke to
+total of 13,895 people around the world. We used a mix of internet and mobile phone surveys. In most countries we achieved
+representative samples but in some we were unable to achieve good representation of rural communities. Our survey asked
+two open-ended questions, seeking write-in answers: who do you think is the most famous person in the world, and who do
+you personally most admire?
+Although we specified that only living people should be considered, many wanted to choose Nelson Mandela anyway, and had
+we conducted the survey a month earlier he would have come top. In China there was significant support for Mao Zedong,
+Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping, with 14 per cent between them, and had those respondents considered only the living, Xi
+Jinping would have scored even more highly.
+- Narendra Modi, an Indian politician, is the prime ministerial candidate of the BJP, the main opposition party.
+- Amitabh Bachchan is a Bollywood superstar, who was the "angry young man" of Hindi cinema.
+- Abdul Kalam is an Indian scientist and was president of his country 2002-07.
+- Anna Hazare held a series of hunger strikes in India in a successful campaign for anti-corruption laws.
+- Arvind Kejriwal is the Chief Minister of Delhi, and worked alongside Hazare.
+- Peng Liyuan, a Chinese folk singer, is the wife of President Xi Jingping.
+- The philanthropist Abdul Sattar Edhi founded the Edhi Foundation, the largest welfare organisation in Pakistan.
+- Joko 'Jokowi' Widodo, the governor of Jakarta, is a populist leader who may run in the 2014 Indonesian presidential election.
+Stephan Shakespeare is CEO of YouGov.
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022345
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022346.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022346"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022346.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2497
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+Attachments:
+Paul Morris [an
+not thos
+3/14/2014 10:27:39 PM
+Jeffrey Epstein [jeevacation@gmail.com]
+Re: Oil options [C]
+graycol.gif
+Importance:
+High
+Classification: Confidential
+I do want to talk to u about this, they spent too much thinking about options here, let me know when u have couple minutes.
+Vinit Sahni
+----- Original Message -----
+From: Vinit Sahni
+Sent: 03/13/2014 09:47 PM EDT
+To: jeevacation@gmail.com
+Cc: Paul Morris
+Subject: Ew: Oil options
+Classification: External Communication
+Jeffrey - apologise if this long to execute next time we'll be much quicker.
+Nav Gupta
+---- Original Message -----
+From: Nav Gupta
+Sent: 03/12/2014 09:35 PM GDT
+To: "jeevacation@gmail.com" <jeevacation@gmail.com>
+Cc: Tazia Smith; Paul Morris/ db/
+Subject: Oil options
+_; Vinit Sahni/db/
+Jeffrey
+Just got off the phone with Vinit.
+DB stopped marketmaking OTC oil options - for short dated I'd go for exch traded - better liquidity and lower transaction costs in and
+My central scenario - Kerry Lavrov meeting Friday will be a bust and the Crimea referendum this weekend will result in "yes" given
+the 59pct ethic Russian makeup. Sunday/ Monday sanction rhetoric from ranging from g8 expulsion to Iran-style bank embargo is
+raised a notch. Russia follows with more threats of counter-sanctions. My sense is the Obama 5m of 696m SPR release is to show
+Merkel and co he will step in. He needs to because there are 8 small European and Baltic countries that rec 70%+ of their gas from
+Russia. Germany gets 30%.
+Cross asset correlations outside of the US are increasing past few days - eg copper and the Turkish lira hourly charts are on top of each
+other past 4 days. I'm worried there is a 30-40pct(?) chance of a hard risk off move in markets in first half of next week - more focused
+on European equities, copper, EM FX (Turkey, ZAR, Ruble etc) than SPX. In that scenario oil is way up.
+Exchange WTI calls - there are 2 options (as of 3pm est):
+5day expiry 17march 2014 underlying clj4 97.92
+and
+35d expiry 16april2014 underlying clk4 97.59
+** The 5 day options are a bit short - one possibility is sell a 3usd out of the money put (95.5 strike) for 20cents and buy a 2usd OTM
+100 call for 25. Net pay 5cents. But 5d is a bit short for me.
+**For 35d expiry You could look at selling 91.50 (usd OTM put) for 56cents and buying 103c (5.5usd OTM) for 58cents or the 102c
+(4.5usd OTM) for 76cents.
+CL1 <comdty> OMON on Bloomberg has live strikes and bid/ask.
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022346
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022347.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022347"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022347.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 680
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+# house-oversight-022347
+
+If 5d is too short and 35d is too long / not enough gamma, Tazia may be able to source liquidity from the street. Am Cc'ing her for any
+live pricing or additional comment
+Best
+Nav
+This communication may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
+If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this communication
+in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this
+communication. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the
+material in this communication is strictly forbidden.
+Deutsche Bank does not render legal or tax
+advice, and
+the information
+contained in
+this communication should not be regarded as such.
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022347
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022348.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022348"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022348.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 1054
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+Importance:
+Darren Indyke I
+3/1/2012 3:54:12 AM
+Jeffrey Epstein [jeevacation@gmail.com]
+Fwd: front page of foxnews.com right now!! - Look at this!
+High
+Sent from my iPhone
+Begin forwarded message:
+From: Erika Kellerhals <
+Date: February 29, 2012 10:41:17 PM EST
+To:"!
+Subject: Fwd: front page of foxnews.com right now!! - Look at this!
+Sent from my iPhone
+Begin forwarded message:
+From: "William L. Blum" <
+Date: February 29, 2012 10:26:26 PM EST
+To:'
+P, Erika Kellerhals 1
+P, "Edward B. Reynolds, Jr."
+Subject: Fwd: front page of foxnews.com right now!! - Look at this!
+Did you guys see this?
+Bill
+Sent from my iPhone
+Begin forwarded message:
+From: Justin Blackhall <
+Date: February 29, 2012 10:06:39 PM EST
+To: "William L. Blum" <*
+h>, "Robert A. Solomon" ‹
+Subject: front page of foxnews.com right now!! - Look at this!
+http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/29/obama-bundler-works-as-virgin-islands-tax-adviser/
+Justin B. Blackhall
+Counsel
+OlenderFeldman LLP
+2840 Morris Avenue
+Union, New Jersey 07083
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022348
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022349.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022349"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022349.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 952
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+29 West 38th Street - 17th Floor
+New York, New York 10018
+Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we
+inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments),
+unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
+purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or
+recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.
+This e-mail is confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you received it in error, you are on notice of its
+status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do
+not copy it or use it for any purposes or disclose its contents to any other person. To do so could violate state
+and federal privacy laws. Thank you for your cooperation.
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022349
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022350.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022350"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022350.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 245
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+
+May 2012
+J.E. CASCADING GRAT & INSTALLMENT SALE ANALYSIS
+Investment products: Not FDIC insured • No bank guarantee • May lose value
+Please see important information at the end of this presentation.
+J.P. Morgan
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022350
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022351.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022351"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022351.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 743
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+
+A sale to an IDGT is a tax-efficient way to transfer future appreciation of an asset
+Intentionally Defective Grantor Trust ("IDGT")
+• Grantor makes arm's length sale of assets to an irrevocable trust
+• Grantor receives a note for the fair market value of the asset plus interest at current AFR
+• Grantor pays income taxes generated by trust assets
+• After the note is paid, remaining trust assets pass to heirs gift tax free
+• Additional considerations
+- trust should be "pre-funded" by grantor to provide sufficient coverage for the note
+- having the loan guaranteed by trust beneficiaries may be beneficial
+- advisable to allocate GST exemption to trust in order to maximize benefit to heirs
+J.P. Morgan
+1
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022351
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022352.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022352"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022352.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 1067
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+CONFIDENTIA
+How a sale to an IDGT works
+3)
+Sell asset at fair market value to the trust in
+return for a promissory note bearing interest
+at proper AFR* based upon term of loan
+Receive payments satisfying
+terms of note
+Pay income tax on trust income and realized
+gain
+After note is paid off, remaining assets in trust
+are available, free of gift tax, for
+beneficiaries**
+Grantor
+Sell asset to trust for a note
+IDGT
+Pay income
+Receive
+tax on trust
+income and payments
+realized
+gain
+Remaining assets
+pass to beneficiaries*
+Beneficiaries
+To enhance the potential benefits consider funding a series of cascading GRATs - the
+remainders can be added to the IDGT
+If the cascading GRATs are successful, at the end of the cascading GRAT terms
+additional assets can be sold to the IDGT
+AFRs are defined as: 1) short-term - not over three years; 2) mid-term - over three, but not over nine years; 3) long-term - over nine years.
+** If Grantor dies before note is satisfied, the fair market value of the note is includible in grantor's estate.
+J.P. Morgan
+2
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022352
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022353.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022353"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022353.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 647
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+
+A "Cascading GRAT" strategy enhances the benefits of a GRAT
+• The "Cascading GRAT" strategy uses a GRAT's annuity stream to fund subsequent
+short-term GRATS
+- annual reinvestment of annuity stream enhances potential value for beneficiaries
+• Multiple short-term GRATs allow you to take advantage of
+market volatility
+- shorter terms permit market "spikes" to be captured immediately
+• Short-term GRATs enable you to better manage mortality risks
+- if grantor dies during term of trust, the assets in the GRAT are included in the estate
+- grantor has greater probability of surviving a shorter term
+J.P. Morgan
+3
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022353
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022354.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022354"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022354.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 1380
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+CONFIDEN
+How a "Cascading GRAT" strategy works
+Grantor transfers asset(s) to an irrevocable
+trust. Grantor may manage GRAT assets as
+trustee.
+2 Grantor pays little or no gift tax, or uses
+gift tax exemption*, on present value of
+trust remainder**
+Grantor
+transfers
+asset(s)
+Year 0
+If necessary, grantor pays gift tax or
+uses gift tax exemption on transfer
+Grantor
+GRAT 1
+Grantor pays tax on ordinary income
+and realized gain earned by the trust
+Annuity payments from existing GRATS
+fund a new GRAT
+Annuity payments funds new GRAT
+GRAT 2
+Grantor pays tax on ordinary income and
+realized gain earned by the trust (but not
+on annuity amount transferred from trust
+to grantor)
+When trust term ends, remaining trust
+assets pass to beneficiaries free of gift tax
+- if grantor does not survive the term,
+trust assets are included
+in the estate and subject to
+estate tax
+Year 1
+Annuity 1a
+Remaining
+assets
+Beneficiaries'
+Trust
+Annuity 1b
+Trust ends
+Annuity
+GRAT 3
+Annuity 2a
+Annuity payment funds new GRAT
+*Gift tax exemption in 2012 shelters up to $5,120,000 per individual of value transferred from gift tax.
+**Calculation based on Treasury discount rate in effect at time of funding GRAT. A recent Tax Court decision (Walton v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. No. 41 (Dec. 22, 2000))
+allows GRAT to be "zeroed out," eliminating the need to incur any gift tax.
+J.P. Morgan
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022354
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022355.md

@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022355"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022355.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2174
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+
+Economic flows of Cascading GRATS
+Example
+Value of initial transfer to GRAT
+IRS discount rate
+Number of GRATS
+Length of strategy
+Annuity rate
+Escalating annuity percentage
+Term of individual GRATS
+Future IRS discount rate
+$50,000,000
+1.60%
+4
+5 years
+51.20%
+0%
+2 years
+1.60%
+Note: Assumes grantor survives all GRAT terms
+Note: Model does not include income taxes; the ongoing
+income taxes generated by the trust are paid by the grantor,
+income tax implications should be carefully considered
+Note: Model assumes all annuity payments are made in cash
+GRAT #
+1
+4
+FMV
+50,000,000
+25,601,587
+38,710,413
+32,929,786
+GRAT First Year
+Appreciation
+7,500,000
+3,840,238
+5,806, 562
+4,939,468
+Annuity
+(25,601,587)
+(13, 108,825)
+(19,820,960)
+(16,861,096)
+Beneficiary's trust reinvests remainders
+Balance
+Inflows
+Year
+1
+3
+4
+12,743,825
+21, 180,642
+34, 224, 114
+11,081,587
+5,674, 124
+8,579,456
+7,298,286
+FIMV
+0
+11,081,587
+18,417,950
+29,760,099
+41,522,399
+Pre-tax annual return of asset
+Year
+Return
+1
+15.00%
+2
+15.00%
+3
+15.00%
+4
+15.00%
+5
+15.00%
+FMV
+31,898,413
+16,333,000
+24,696,014
+21,008, 158
+GRAT Second Year
+Appreciation
+4,784,762
+2,449,950
+3,704,402
+3, 151,224
+Annuity
+(25,601, 587)
+(13, 108, 825)
+(19,820,960)
+(16,861,096)
+Grantor reinvests annuities
+Inflows
+FMV
+Balance
+0
+0
+0
+42, 184,364
+36,682,056
+16,861,096
+36,682,056
+59,045,460
+Numbers have been rounded for convenience, are only estimates for illustrative purposes and should not be relied upon. Corporate insiders should consult with
+securities counsel as to any reporting issues under Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 associated with receiving shares in-kind.
+Note: Above example is for illustrative purposes only. These materials should not be construed as providing legal, tax or accounting advice. GRATs involve complex tax
+and, in the case of insiders, securities laws issues that should be discussed with your own advisors and company counsel. Annuity will be paid for full term to the
+grantor or, in case of the grantor's death, to the grantor's estate. Calculation is based on 2000 Tax Court ruling in Walton v. Commissioner (115 T.C. No. 41
+(Dec. 22, 2000).
+J.P. Morgan
+5
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022355
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022356.md

@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022356"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022356.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2740
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+
+Economic flows of IDGT*
+Example - Initial Funding
+Total assets transferred to trust
+Valuation discount
+Valuation of assets for gift tax purposes
+Seed capital/coverage
+Trust term
+Lifetime gift tax exemption applied
+Gift tax paid
+Applicable interest rate (AFR)
+Annual interest payment on note
+Note face value (year 20 balloon payment)
+$69,285,714
+30%
+$50,000,000
+$5,000,000
+20 years
+$5,000,000
+$0
+2.89%
+$1,300,500
+$45,000,000
+Additional funding in year 5 from cascading GRATS
+Assumed assets in trust at the end of year 5
+Additional assets from GRATs
+Additional note (9:1 leverage)
+Initial note outstanding face value
+Total outstanding notes
+Remaining note term
+Lifetime gift tax exemption applied
+Gift tax paid
+Applicable AFR
+Annual interest payment on notes
+Assumptions
+- The arithmetic return of assets = 15%; of which ordinary income/short term capital gains = 15%
+- Income tax rate used for majority of analysis = 48.4% (Federal = 39.6%, New York City = 8.33%, Medicare = 3.8%)
+- Capital gains tax rate used for majority of analysis = 28.8% (Federal = 20%, New York City = 8.33%, Medicare = 3.8%)
+- Income and capital gains tax rates adjusted in early years to reflect current law
+- Assumes note payments are satisfied using yield first, then seed capital, and finally other assets. If a valuation discount is specified, a pre-disount value is used
+$91,799,393
+$41,522,399
+$373,701,591
+$45,000,000
+$418,701,591
+15 years
+$0
+$0
+2.89%
+$12,100,476
+Year
+Return (asset and seed
+capital)
+Interest and principal
+payments on note
+0
+2
+6
+7
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+Return to grantor (nominal)
+Net trust amount
+10,392,857
+11,756, 711
+13,325, 142
+15, 128,839
+17,203,089
+105,895,750
+119,965,041
+136,144,726
+154,751,364
+176, 148,997
+200, 756,275
+229,054,645
+261,597,770
+299,022,364
+342,060,647
+391,554,673
+448,472,802
+513,928,651
+589,202,878
+675,768,238
+1,300,500
+1,300,500
+1,300,500
+1,300,500
+1,300,500
+12, 100,476
+12, 100,476
+12, 100,476
+12,100,476
+12, 100,476
+12, 100,476
+12, 100,476
+12, 100,476
+12, 100,476
+12, 100,476
+12, 100,476
+12, 100,476
+12,100,476
+12,100,476
+430,802,067
+606,711,231
+rust Value (pr
+liscount
+69,285,714
+78,378,071
+88,834,282
+100,858,924
+114,687,263
+705,971,667*
+799,766,941
+907,631,507
+1,031,675, 757
+1, 174,326,644
+1, 338,375, 165
+1,527,030,964
+1,743,985, 132
+1,993,482,426
+2,280, 404,314
+2,610,364,485
+2,989,818,682
+3,426, 191,008
+3,928,019, 183
+4,505, 121,585
+4, 750, 087,756
+4,750,087,756
+* Analysis assumes that at the end of year 5 the $41,522,399 cumulative remainder of cascading
+J.P. Morgan GRATs from the previous page is used as seed capital for another note at 9:1 lever 2e used to
+purchase $373,701,591 of assets at a 30% discount using today's long-term AFR of 2.89%
+6
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022356
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022357.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022357"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022357.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 2852
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+CONFIDEN
+A sale to an IDGT results in greater value for heirs than if the asset were held
+outright
+Cash flow example:
+Year
+0
+Asset held/sold to trust*
+Coverage
+Gift tax on coverage
+Scenario 1
+Hold asset
+$64,285,714
+5,000,000
+Grantor
+Scenario 2: Sell asset to IDGT
+Cost of taxes
+Trust
+$64,285,714
+5,000,000
+5
+Assets from initial funding
+Assets from cascading GRATS
+Assets held/sold to trust**
+100,544,702
+72,558,032
+533,859,416
+7,570,535
+59,045,460
+(37,615,685)
+(28,009,827)
+130,589,853
+41,522,399
+533,859,416
+20
+Value of assets
+Estate tax***
+Net wealth to beneficiaries
+2,066,664,527
+(1,136, 115,490)
+930,549,037
+763,711,690
+(420,041,430)
+343,670,261
+(3,447,134,919)
+1,895,924,205
+(1,551,210,713)
+4,750,087,756'
+4,750,087,756
+Total value to beneficiaries
+$930,549,037
+$3,542,547,303
+Value added by IDGT
+$2,611,998,266
+1. Assets do not receive a step up in basis upon death
+* Value shown is prior to assumed valuation discount of 30%, the value of assets for gift tax purposes is assumed to be $45,000,000
+** Value shown is prior to assumed valuation discount of 30%, the value of assets for gift tax purposes is assumed to be $373,701,591
+*** In scenario 1 an estate tax exemption of $1,000,000 is applied. This is the lesser of the $5,000,000 gift tax exemption applied to scenario 2 and the $1,000,000
+applicable estate tax exemption in year 20
+Assumptions: The arithmetic return of asset years 1-20=15%;of which ordinary income/short term capital gains = 15%; interest rate paid to grantor = 2.89%;
+annual interest payment=$1,300,500; valuation discount = 30%; transfer tax rate (for transfers at the end of year 20) = 55%.
+Numbers have been rounded for convenience, are only estimates for illustrative purposes and should not be relied upon. Corporate insiders
+should consult with securities counsel as to any reporting issues under SEC Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 associated
+with receiving shares in-kind.
+Note: These materials should not be construed as providing legal, tax, or accounting advice.
+On June 7, 2001, President Bush signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act ("'EGTRRA") which significantly changed estate, gift, and
+generation-skipping transfer taxes. On December 17, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Jobs
+Creation Act of 2010, which institutes estate, gift, and GST taxes at 35% with a $5MM exemption for 2011 and 2012 (adjusted for inflation), after which rates and exemptions
+will return to pre-EGTRRA levels.
+NOTE: Analysis assumes that at the end of year 5 the $41,522,399 cumulative remainder of cascading GRATs from page 5 is used as
+seed capital for another note at 9:1 leverage used to purchase $373,701,591 of assets at a 30% discount using today's long-term AFR
+of 2.89%
+J.P. Morgan
+7
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022357
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022358.md

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022358"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022358.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 6054
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+Important information
+IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its affiliates
+do not provide tax advice. Accordingly, any discussion of U.S. tax
+matters contained herein (including any attachments) is not intended
+or written to be used, and cannot be used, in connection with the
+promotion, marketing or recommendation by anyone unaffiliated with
+JPMorgan Chase & Co. of any of the matters addressed herein or for
+the purpose of avoiding U.S. tax-related penalties.
+Each recipient of this presentation, and each agent thereof, may disclose to any
+person, without limitation, the U.S. income and franchise tax treatment and tax
+structure of the transactions described herein and may disclose all materials of
+any kind (including opinions or other tax analyses) provided to each recipient
+insofar as the materials relate to a U.S. income or franchise tax strategy
+provided to such recipient by JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its subsidiaries.
+Bank products and services are offered by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its
+affiliates. Securities products and services are offered by J.P. Morgan Securities
+LLC, member NYSE, FINRA and SIPC.
+This material is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale
+of any financial instrument. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC or its brokerage affiliates
+may hold a position or act as market maker in the financial instruments of any
+issuer discussed herein or act as an underwriter, placement agent, advisor or
+lender to such issuer. The views and strategies described herein may not be
+suitable for all investors. The discussion of loans or other extensions of credit in
+this material is for illustrative purposes only. No commitment to lend by J.P.
+Morgan should be construed or implied. This material is distributed with the
+understanding that we are not rendering accounting, legal or tax advice. Estate
+planning requires legal assistance. You should consult with your independent
+advisors concerning such matters.
+We believe the information contained in this material to be reliable but do not
+warrant its accuracy or completeness. Opinions, estimates, and investment
+strategies and views expressed in this document constitute our judgment based
+on current market conditions and are subject to change without notice. This
+material should not be regarded as research or a J.P. Morgan research report.
+Opinions expressed herein may differ from the opinions expressed by other
+areas of J.P. Morgan, including research. The investment strategies and views
+stated here may differ from those expressed for other purposes or in other
+contexts by other J.P. Morgan market strategists.
+J.P. Morgan Securities LLC may act as a market maker in markets relevant to
+structured products or option products and may engage in hedging or other
+operations in such markets relevant to its structured products or options
+exposures. Structured products and options are not insured by the Federal
+Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal Reserve Board, or any other
+governmental agency.
+J.P. Morgan
+In discussion of options and other strategies, results and risks are based solely on
+hypothetical examples cited; actual results and risks will vary depending on specific
+circumstances. Investors are urged to consider carefully whether option or option-
+related products in general, as well as the products or strategies discussed herein
+are suitable to their needs. In actual transactions, the client's counterparty for OTC
+derivatives applications is JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., London branch. For a copy
+of the "Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options" booklet, please contact
+your J.P. Morgan Advisor.
+Real estate, hedge funds, and other private investments may not be suitable for all
+individual investors, may present significant risks, and may be sold or redeemed at
+more or less than the original amount invested. Private investments are offered
+only by offering memoranda, which more fully describe the possible risks. There
+are no assurances that the stated investment objectives of any investment product
+will be met. Hedge funds (or funds of hedge funds): often engage in leveraging
+and other speculative investment practices that may increase the risk of investment
+loss; can be highly illiquid; are not required to provide periodic pricing or valuation
+information to investors; may involve complex tax structures and delays in
+distributing important tax information; are not subject to the same regulatory
+requirements as mutual funds; and often charge high fees. Further, any number of
+conflicts of interest may exist in the context of the management and/or operation
+of any hedge fund. Structured products involve derivatives. The investment
+decision is yours but you should not invest in any structured product unless you
+fully understand and are willing to assume the risks associated with it.
+JPMorgan Funds are distributed by JPMorgan Distribution Services, Inc., which is an
+affiliate of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Affiliates of JPMorgan Chase & Co. receive fees
+for providing various services to the funds. Call JPMorgan Distribution Services at 1-
+800-480-4111 or visit www.jpmorganfunds.com for the prospectus. Investors should
+carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of the
+mutual funds before investing. The prospectus contains this and other information
+about the mutual fund and should be read carefully before investing.
+As applicable, portions of mutual fund performance information may be provided
+by Lipper, a Reuters company, subject to the following: © 2012 Reuters. All rights
+reserved. Any copying, republication or redistribution of Lipper content, including
+by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior
+written consent of Lipper. Lipper shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the
+content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
+Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
+Additional information is available upon request.
+© 2012 JPMorgan Chase & Co.
+8
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022358
+

cleaned/house-oversight-nov/22/house-oversight-022359.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+---
+document_id: "house-oversight-022359"
+source_file: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022359.md"
+dataset: "house-oversight-nov"
+pages: 1
+chars: 939
+ocr_status: "ok"
+document_type: "other"
+page_vibes_legal: 0.5
+page_vibes_correspondence: 0.5
+page_vibes_journalism: 0.5
+page_vibes_scholarship: 0.5
+page_vibes_flight_log: 0.5
+page_vibes_financial_record: 0.5
+page_vibes_first_page: 0.5
+page_vibes_last_page: 0.5
+---
+
+Paul Morris
+4/30/2013 6:57:28 PM
+jeevacation@gmail.com
+Fw: Tax Topics
+Attachments: Untitled attachment 144206.gif; Untitled attachment 144209.gif; apr29tx13.pdf
+Importance: High
+Classification: Public
+Paul Morris
+Managing Director
+Deutsche Bank Asset & Wealth Management
+345 Park Avenue, 27th Floor
+New York, NY 10154
+--- Forwarded by Paul Morris/db/dbcom on 04/30/2013 02:56 PM -----
+Blanche Christersor
+To:
+Date:
+Subject:
+04/30/2013 02:55 PM
+Tax Topics
+Classification: Public
+ttached is the latest edition of Tax Topics. It discusses some of the tax proposals in President Obama's Fiscal Yea
+014 Budget, which was released on April 10th. It also has the 7520 rate and the applicable federal mid-term rate:
+three cheers for spring!
+Blanche Lark Christerson
+Managing Director
+Deutsche Bank Trust Company, N.A.
+Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management
+345 Park Avenue, NYC 20-2606
+New York, NY 10154-0004
+Passion to Perform
+HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022359
+