Clayton Walker, Alaska Law Offices, Inc.
Anchorage, AK 99518 — 907-230-6988
Anchorage Alaska Tax Attorney Services
Clayton Walker, Attorney
Alaska Law Offices, Inc.
240 E Tudor Rd, Ste. 230
Anchorage, AK 99503
The annual right of passage for Anchorage property owners is the receipt in the mail of the Anchorage Board of Equalization green property appraisal card. If you do not agree with the property value as assessed you may appeal the valuation. You may appeal on the grounds that the appraisal is “unequal, excessive, improper or under evaluation.” Continue reading “Anchorage Board of Equalization — Property Taxes”
August 17, 2013
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement audited Ketchikan Drywall Services, Inc. (“KDS”) personnel records — the I-9 Employment Information form. The ICE determined that KDS violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. ICE proved 225 of the 271 alleged violations of § 1324a(b) and the issued a bill for the resulting civil penalty of $173,250.00. KDS argued that it substantially complied with the requirements of the statute. KDS had copies of the employees documents containing the relevant information. ICE refused to consider those documents. The court upheld the penalties. The court held that retaining copies of the underlying documents was neither necessary nor did it comply with the regulations.
Don’t skimp on filling out the I-9.
To discuss this issue or other business or legal matters call us at 907-375-9226.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KETCHIKAN DRYWALL SERVICES, INC.,
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
Submitted April 8, 2013* Seattle, Washington
Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, A. Wallace Tashima, and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges.
Petro Alaska v. Davis Wright Tremaine
Corporation’s shareholders brought a derivative suit against a shareholder-director and the corporation’s former attorneys for fiduciary fraud, fraudulent conveyance, legal malpractice, and civil conspiracy. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court ruled all the claims were time-barred. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of all claims accept two claims against the law firms. Thirty five pages of information on statutes of limitations, tolling, discovery rule, and the distinction between attorney fee awards as damages versus costs.
[contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
CLAYTON WALKER, JD
JULY 20, 2013
Varilek
v.
Municipality of Anchorage,
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
ALASKA SUPREME COURT
S-14448
The Alaska Supreme Court issued another decision addressing Alaska municipal real property tax valuation appeal. The case doesn’t break new ground. However, it stands as a reminder of the the appellate process on municipal tax appeals and the standards of review used by the courts. The matter arose from the Anchorage Municipalities appraisal assessment in January 2010. You can expect that the full appeal process from filing through a Supreme Court opinion may take as long as 42 months as it did in this case. That fact, combined with the review standards addressed in the opinion make it clear that the boards opinion is likely to stand if it is based on based on substantial evidence applied on a reasonable basis involving the agency’s expertise. These facts underscore why engaging tax counsel is necessary. Counsel can advise you on the merits of your case. Counsel can assist in determining the valuation method used by the municipality in your matter. Counsel can assist in creating a strategic plan for accumulating and presentation of your evidence before the board. They can also keep you from spending 42 months pressing a legal theory that was repeatedly rejected.
For an appointment call
907-375-9226
It’s good to get out and take in the views on a sunny day. From Wolverine Peak across the Chugach Range. Lots of people were out for the adventure. I wound up meeting with a judge, a former board member and client at various points along the hike.
It’s good to get out and take in the views on a sunny day. From Wolverine Peak across the Chugach Range. Lots of people were out for the adventure. I wound up meeting with a judge, a former board member and client at various points along the hike.
I frequently am asked by landlords and tenant how long different furnishings should last. This question comes up frequently when a landlord wants to charge the tenant with the cost of repair or replacement of components in a rental property. Landlords tend to want to charge the complete cost of replacement on the last tenant in possession before the item broke or was scheduled for replacement. In contrast the tenant is not liable for mere ordinary wear and tear. The closer the furnishing is to its life expectancy before failure or replacement the more it looks like the failure was simply ordinary wear and tear. The parties could rely on pictures and anecdotal evidence of the life expectancy of home components. Or they could hire an expert to give evidence and direction. Or they could look to industry standard material. A recent study was performed in 2006 by the National Association of Home Builders and Bank of America Home — The Equity Study of Life Expectancy of Home Components.
This information can also be used for scheduling maintenance and refurbishment of rental property or evaluating structures for acquisition. Knowing the expected life of the residence components can also aid in forecasting future property maintenance expenses. Using the list you can find which components are near their life expectancy and either negotiate a reduction in price on those components.
If you are an investment property buyer, landlord, tenant and want more information on how you can use this information in your business, give us a call at 907-375-9226 to schedule an appointment.
On Friday, June 7, 2013, the Alaska Supreme Court issued an opinion in favor of a trust advisory committee that had sued Wells Fargo Bank, NA. The reversed the trial court’s failure to either award the trust committee attorneys fees or adequately explain why there were not entitled to fees.
The trust advisory committee spent four years seeking property insurance premium and coverage information from the trustee. The committee then sought a superior court order to get the documents they were entitled to and for an attorney’s fees award under Alaska Civil Rule 82. The superior court granted approximately half of the committee’s information and document requests and compelled the trustee to provide copies of the insurance policy. The trial court then ruled that neither party clearly prevailed and denied the committee’s attorney’s fees request. The committee appealed, arguing that the superior court misinterpreted Rule 82 and abused its discretion by not determining that the committee was the prevailing party entitled to a fee award. The Supreme Court reversed.
By: Clayton Walker, JD
DEARLOVE
v.
CAMPBELL
May 31, 2013
A driver caused injury to the passenger of another car in a two-car accident. The passenger brought suit for damages, including her insurer’s subrogated claim for medical expenses. State Farm Insured both the driver and passenger. The driver made an early offer of judgment, which the passenger did not accept. State Farm then made a direct payment to itself reducing the amount from the passenger’s potential recovery. The driver then made a second offer of judgment, which the passenger did not accept. After trial both parties claimed prevailing party status; the driver sought attorney’s fees under Alaska Civil Rule 68.
The superior court ruled that the Driver’s first offer of judgment did earnRule 68 fees, but the second offer did. Both parties appealed, arguing the superior court improperly considered the State Farm Insurance’s payment in its Rule 68 rulings. The Alaska Supreme Court concluded that the trial court must take into account State Farm’s payment to itself had when evaluating the offers of judgment.
The Supreme Court found the record unclear on the nature of State Farm’s. The Alaska Supreme Court vacated the decision that the second offer of judgment entitled the driver to Rule 68 fees and remanded for further proceedings on this issue. Hopefully a closer look at the effect of State Farm’s treatment of its insureds results in a fair outcome for their policy holders.