<<

Tax Conference, 31st Annual 8:00am—9:00am Seminar Schedule Continental Breakfast, Exhibitor Showcase, and Registration

8:00am—9:00am Optional Morning Session: Accounting and Auditing for Income Taxes * overview of impact on financial statements * transaction considerations * uncertain tax positions * impact of tax law changes See page 1-1. Melissa Gagacki Plante & Moran PLLC Toledo, OH

8:00am—9:00am Optional Morning Session: Section 280E Planning and Considerations * Overview of section 280E and the disallowance of the deduction of expenses paid or incurred in carrying on a trade or business in "trafficking" in certain controlled substances * Application of Section 280E to Michigan medical cannabis businesses See page 2-1. James H. Combs Tax Conference Planning Chair Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP Detroit William C. Lentine Dykema Bloomfield Hills

Alexander M. Leonowicz Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC Royal Oak 9:05am—9:15am 11:30am—12:30pm Welcome and Introductions Federal Income Tax Committee Andrea D. Crumback The Impact of Federal Tax Reform on You Mika Meyers PLC and Your Clients Grand Rapids * Overview of the key federal provisions * Pass-through entities-- QBID and entity Carolee Kvoriak Smith choice CMS Energy Corporation * Everything lawyers should review with clients Jackson including operating agreements * Impact on international tax 9:15am—10:15am Plenary Session * Guidance that’s been issued and where it’s still needed Washington Update: Current Tax * State responses to tax changes Legislative Developments See page 5-1. * future budget outlook Smitha Hahn * trends in U.S. taxation Ernst & Young LLP * legislative outlook Detroit * impact of tax reform

See page 3-1. 11:30am—12:30pm Patrick Robertson Federal Income Tax Committee Managing Director, Strategic Communications Tax Issues Relating to Cybersecurity FTI Consulting Incidents and Data Breaches Washington, DC * basics of data breaches every lawyer should understand 10:15am—11:15am * non-tax legal issues including state and federal Plenary Session notification requirements A View from the Tax Court * IRS and tax consequences when a client * calendars and trial sessions – the court’s experiences a data breach perspective * preventative and remedial steps for incident * best practices for the bench and the bar response * behind the scenes of opinion drafting See page 6-1. * your questions answered John W. Mashni See page 4-1. Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC Hon. Ronald L. Buch Lansing Tax Court Washington, DC 12:30pm—1:30pm Networking Lunch

11:15am—11:30am Vendor Showcase and Networking Break 1:30pm—2:30pm Douglas J. Upton State and Local Tax Committee Mayer Brown LLP State Tax Commission Updates and New York, NY Property Tax Developments * caselaw 2:40pm—3:40pm * new bulletins Federal Income Tax Committee * new procedures Employee Benefit Options for Small See page 7-1. Employers * Heather S. Frick general benefit-related concerns Executive Director * retirement benefit options State Tax Commission * health and welfare benefit options Lansing * legal reminders See page 10-1. 1:30pm—2:30pm Mindi M. Johnson Federal Income Tax Committee Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC Controversial Tax Issues in Business Grand Rapids Valuation for Estate and Gift Tax Purposes Claire Larson * prominent issues scrutinized by the IRS Chemical Bank Wealth Management * valuing S corporations and other pass- through entities Grand Rapids * treatment of built-in capital gains taxes 3:40pm—3:50pm See page 8-1. Vendor Showcase and Networking Break Aaron M. Stumpf, CPA/ABV Managing Director 3:50pm—4:50pm Stout Risius Ross Plenary Session Chicago, IL Michigan Tax Policy and Administration * where do we go from here? 2:30pm—2:40pm * tax policy issues in Lansing Vendor Showcase and Networking Break * improving the administration of the state and local tax system 2:40pm—3:40pm State and Local Tax Committee See page 11-1. Nick A. Khouri Nationwide State Tax Developments Michigan Department of Treasury * Nexus update Lansing * Section 482 at the state level * apportionment issues 4:50pm—6:00pm * treatment of net operating losses Networking Reception and Drawing (Must * pass-through/disregarded entity review Be Present to Win at 5:15) See page 9-1. Leah Robinson Mayer Brown LLP New York, NY

About the Institute

ICLE is committed to being Your Partner in Practice. We strive to give you the support and resources you need to do the best job for your clients and to be successful at every stage of your career.

We are the leading provider of how-to solutions that harness the wisdom of Michigan’s leading practitioners. Our practical tools save you time and give you confidence in the advice you’re giving.

Whether you need a starting point, advanced strategies, guidance on what to avoid, or the best form for the job, our seminars, publications, and online resources provide step-by-step guidance from Michigan lawyers who do the work every day.

ICLE seminars address the practice problems and challenges Michigan lawyers face. You can count on ICLE’s expert faculty for insightful, engaging presentations every time.

Our collection of seminars provides content to fit every skill level and learning style. Whether you need updates, overviews, in-depth coverage, hands-on training, professional networking, or online learning, there’s a seminar for you.

Presented by acclaimed Michigan lawyers and nationally renowned experts, ICLE seminars build, maintain, and update your knowledge and skills throughout your career. Walk away with newfound confidence, practical materials, and proven advice to help you save time, stay ahead, and serve your clients most effectively.

The Institute of Continuing Legal Education 1020 Greene Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1444

Phone: 877-229-4350 | Fax: 877-229-4351 | www.icle.org Copyright © 2018 The Institute of Continuing Legal Education The Institute of Continuing Legal Education offers an educational program for lawyers in practice. Seminar materials prepared by speakers are published in furtherance of that goal at the time of the live program. These materials are not edited, and case citations are neither checked nor Shepardized. Certain statutes, etc., may be amended or overruled following a seminar presentation and/or purchase of these materials. Lawyers should use the materials as a starting point for their research; the primary source, i.e., the case, statute, or court rule should be consulted. Seminar material authors are free to express legal interpretations and opinions; however, accuracy may vary. These interpretations and opinions do not reflect in any way a position of the Institute, its Executive Committee, or its sponsoring organizations—The State Bar of Michigan, The University of Michigan Law School, Wayne State University Law School, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School, and Michigan State University College of Law. The Institute of Continuing Legal Education 2017-2018 Executive Committee

Paul D. Reingold Clinical Professor of Law & Director, Civil-Criminal Litigation Clinic, The University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor (Chairperson) Laura B. Bartell Professor of Law, Wayne State University Law School, Detroit Gary P. Bauer Professor, Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School, Lansing

Ted Becker Clinical Professor of Law & Director, Legal Practice Program, The University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor

Miriam L. Blanks-Smart Department of Administrative Hearings, Detroit J. Richard Broughton University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, Detroit Katie Lynwood Buhl Little Lynwood & Harris PLC, East Lansing Sanjukta Paul Wayne State University Law School, Detroit Hon. Michael J. Riordan Michigan Court of Appeals, Detroit David A. Santacroce Clinical Professor of Law & Associate Dean, Experiential Education, The University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor

Howard T. Spence Spence & Associates Consultants, Lansing Charles Ten Brink Associate Dean, Library & Technology Services, Michigan State University College of Law, East Lansing

Virginia Thomas Director, Arthur Neef Law Library, Wayne State University Law School, Detroit

Nancy E. Vettorello Clinical Assistant Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor

Janet K. Welch Executive Director, State Bar of Michigan, Lansing Steven L. Winter Walter S. Gibbs Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Wayne State University, Detroit

David R. Watson, Ex Officio Director

The State Bar of Michigan The University of Michigan Law School Wayne State University Law School Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School University of Detroit Mercy School of Law Michigan State University College of Law

SECTION MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION FOR EXISTING BAR MEMBERS

Please check the section(s) you would like to join and submit with prepayment. The membership year is October 1 to September 30. Membership begins immediately through September 30.

SECTION NO. COST SECTION NO. COST  Administrative & Regulatory Law .... 01 .....$20  Labor & Employment Law ...... 14 .....$35  Agricultural Law ...... 37 .....$25  Latin American Bar Activities ...... 15 .....$15  Alternative Dispute Resolution ...... 02 .....$40  Law Practice Management &  American Indian Law ...... 31 .....$20 Legal Administrators ...... 16 .....$25  Animal Law ...... 32 .....$25  LGBTQA Law ...... 40 .....$45  Antitrust, Franchising &  Litigation ...... 29 .....$25 Trade Regulation ...... 03 .....$30  Marijuana Law ...... 39 .....$65  Appellate Practice...... 30 .....$30  Master Lawyers* ...... 27 .....$25  Arts, Communication,  Master Lawyers* ...... 27 .....FREE Entertainment & Sports...... 04 .....$20 $25 for those who are 50 years of age or have 20 years of experience; free for active, inactive, and emeritus members who are 60 years of age  Aviation Law ...... 23 .....$25 or have 30 years of practice.  Business Law ...... 05 .....$35  Military & Veterans' Law ...... 38 .....$25  Children’s Law ...... 13 .....$40  Negligence Law ...... 17 .....$50  Consumer Law ...... 33 .....$15  Paralegal/Legal Assistant ...... 25 .....$25  Criminal Law ...... 07 .....$25  Prisons & Corrections ...... 35 .....$30  Elder Law and Disability Rights ...... 26 .....$40  Probate & Estate Planning ...... 18 .....$35  Environmental Law ...... 08 .....$30  Real Property Law ...... 20 .....$45  Family Law ...... 09 .....$60  Social Security Lawyers ...... 34 .....$35  Government Law ...... 19 .....$35  Solo and Small Firm ...... 10 .....$20  Health Care Law ...... 28 .....$45  Taxation ...... 21 .....$30  Information Technology Law ...... 06 .....$25  Workers’ Compensation Law ...... 22 .....$30  Insurance & Indemnity Law ...... 36 .....$25  Intellectual Property Law ...... 11 .....$35 total: $______ International Law ...... 12 .....$35 (add both columns)

All orders must be accompanied with payment. Check # ______is enclosed, made payable to the S   B  M. P Number ______Please return to: State Bar of Michigan Finance Department Name 306 Townsend Street Address Lansing, MI 48933-2012

If using a Visa or Mastercard credit or debit card, you must join sections online at http://e.michbar.org. City

State, Zip

Phone

Email

Prices are subject to change without notice. Revised 9/17

31st Annual Tax Conference

Special thanks to our generous sponsors!

Plante Moran http://www.plantemoran.com

Plante Moran is among the nation’s largest certified public accounting and business advisory firms. We provide clients with audit; tax; risk management; financial, technology, and business consulting; and wealth management services in industries ranging from professional services, manufacturing, and health care to construction, government, automotive, and more. Our National Tax Office – a center of high-level technical knowledge that provides consulting services on challenging tax issues – is always there to identify innovative ideas and strategies to minimize taxes and monitor tax legislation and developing trends. We establish a team for each client with the best combination of industry and professional expertise to address your specific federal, state, local, and international issues.

Fraser Trebilcock http://www.fraserlawfirm.com

For more than 130 years, Fraser Trebilcock has been an influential presence in Michigan's legal community. We provide comprehensive legal solutions across more than 70 practice areas, with offices in Lansing, Detroit, and Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Mika Meyers PLC http://www.mikameyers.com

Mika Meyers provides a broad range of legal services to individuals, families, businesses, municipalities, and educational institutions throughout Michigan and nationwide.

Stout Risius Ross, LLC http://www.stoutadvisory.com

Stout is a leading independent advisory firm specializing in Investment Banking, Valuation Advisory, Dispute Consulting, and Management Consulting services. Stout has helped clients determine, realize, protect, and optimize the value of their most important assets for more than 25 years. With one of the largest independent valuation practices in the country, Stout has deep and specialized experience across a broad spectrum of disciplines and industries. Stout’s industry-leading professionals are experts in their field and act as trusted advisors to some of the largest publicly traded corporations and family- owned businesses, including more than 40% of the Fortune 500 and Forbes 50.

31st Annual Tax Conference

Special thanks to our exhibitor!

Paragon Underwriters www.paragonunderwriters.com

For over 50 years, countless Michigan attorneys have trusted Paragon Underwriters with their firm's insurance needs. By specializing in Malpractice Insurance and the various insurance needs of law firms, Paragon remains a single source to insure your people, your property and your practice. We represent many insurance companies including CNA, the largest insurer of attorneys in the nation, and only available in Michigan through Paragon! Call us now at 800- 727-0001 or visit our website www.InsuringLawyers.net

Faculty Biographies

Hon. Ronald L. Buch United States Tax Court Washington, DC (202) 521-0810 | [email protected] Hon. Ronald L. Buch was appointed by President Barack Obama as judge, U.S. Tax Court, on January 14, 2013. Prior to his appointment, Judge Buch worked as a consultant at KPMG Washington National Tax (1995-1997) and was an attorney- advisor (1997-2000) and senior legal counsel (2000-2001) at the IRS Office of Chief Counsel. Beginning in 2001, he worked at McKee Nelson, LLP, becoming partner in 2005. He was partner at Bingham McCutchen, LLP, from 2009 to 2013. Judge Buch received the James E. Markham Attorney of the Year Award in 1999. He is a former chairperson of the D.C. Bar Tax Audits and Litigation Committee and former chairperson of the ABA Tax Section's Administrative Practice Committee.

James H. Combs Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP Detroit (313) 465-7588 | [email protected] A partner in the firm, James H. Combs concentrates his practice on corporate taxation, mergers and acquisitions, tax credit projects, and financial products taxation. He is admitted to practice in Michigan and Texas and serves on the Committee on Financial Transactions of the Taxation Section of the American Bar Association. A graduate of the University of Texas School of Law, Mr. Combs has had several articles published.

Andrea D. Crumback Mika Meyers PLC Grand Rapids (616) 632-8051 | [email protected] Andrea D. Crumback practices before the Michigan Tax Tribunal and the State Tax Commission in property tax appeals. She concentrates her practice in civil litigation, with a focus on general corporate, construction, and family law matters. She is a member of the Taxation Section of the Michigan Bar Association, where she chairs the State and Local Taxation Committee. Ms. Crumback earned her B.A. from the University of Michigan, and her J.D. from Wayne State University Law School in 1992, where she was a member of the Moot Court National Team. Heather S. Frick State Tax Commission Lansing (517) 335-1215 | [email protected] Heather S. Frick is the property services division administrator and executive director of the commission. She is a recognized expert on legal research and analysis in the area of property tax matters for the commission and Department of Treasury. Prior to being employed by the State of Michigan, Ms. Frick worked in private practice in Petoskey, representing a broad range of clients in complex real estate, tax, and corporate matters. Ms. Frick is a Michigan Advanced Assessing Officer (3), Personal Property Examiner, and member of the State Bar of Michigan.

Melissa Gagacki Plante & Moran PLLC Toledo, OH (419) 842-6120 | [email protected] Melissa Gagacki is a senior tax manager for the firm. She manages tax compliance, tax consulting, and income tax provision work for large multi-state and multi-national businesses. Ms. Gagacki has worked on the global audits of income tax provisions and uncertain tax positions. She also consults in the areas of transactions, mergers and acquisitions, and emerging issues. As part of this consulting, Ms. Gagacki has spent substantial time with business combination accounting, Section 382, and transactions costs. Smitha Hahn Ernst & Young LLP Detroit (313) 628-8082 | [email protected] Smitha Hahn is a partner with the firm’s indirect/state and local tax practice. She has more than 16 years of public accounting experience and is responsible for the management and implementation of state and local tax projects and services for her clients. Ms. Hahn is also a member of the firm’s national tax practice, where she serves as tax accounting leader. She serves a diverse client base and has significant experience in the state income/franchise tax area, focusing on business-aligned restructurings; merger and acquisition structuring; review and analysis of the state tax implications of proposed business reorganizations; analysis of state tax filings for refunds and prospective favorable filing positions; and representation of clients before administrative boards in state tax controversies. Ms. Hahn has managed state-focused bankruptcy projects at five Fortune 500 companies, focusing on state attribute preservation. She has extensive ASC 740 state tax provision calculation, review, and remediation experience as well as government sector client experience. Prior to joining the firm in 2002, Ms. Hahn spent almost two years with another public accounting firm in Chicago, where she specialized in federal tax planning for the middle-market business sector as well as family wealth planning. She is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and Michigan Association of Certified Public Accountants and is a certified public accountant licensed in the state of Michigan.

Mindi M. Johnson Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC Grand Rapids (616) 726-2252 | [email protected] Mindi M. Johnson leads her firm’s Benefits Group, which helps employers navigate the complex regulatory landscape and provide valuable retirement and welfare benefit programs to their employees. She assists clients by designing retirement programs that comply with relevant rules, advising on fiduciary standards, addressing administrative and plan correction issues, and responding to Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Department of Labor audits. Ms. Johnson also specializes in helping companies develop health and welfare plan arrangements that fulfill the ever-changing health care reform requirements and also achieve unique business objectives. She is a council member for the Taxation Section of the State Bar of Michigan as well as a member of the Taxation Section of the American Bar Association, the Grand Rapids Bar Association, the Michigan Women's Tax Association, the American Benefits Council, the National Center for Employee Ownership, and the ESOP Association. Ms. Johnson has spoken extensively on the topic of health care reform to various trade associations and chambers of commerce. She also coauthored an article for the "Michigan Tax Lawyer" Winter 2017 issue. Nick A. Khouri Michigan Department of Treasury Lansing (517) 241-2624 | [email protected] Nick A. Khouri was appointed as Michigan's 46th state treasurer by Governor Rick Snyder in April 2015. His department is responsible for collecting, disbursing, and investing all state monies. It advises the governor on all tax and revenue policy, collects and administers more than $20 billion a year in state taxes, and safeguards the credit of the state. The department is also responsible for the fiscal health of Michigan’s local governments and schools. In addition, it invests more than $65 billion of state and school employee retirement funds. Mr. Khouri was previously senior vice president of corporate affairs at DTE Energy in Detroit, where he oversaw governmental and regulatory relations, community affairs, and communications. He also served as vice president and treasurer at DTE and was vice president of Public Sector Consultants, where he focused on economic development, public infrastructure, and state and local tax policy. In the 1990s Mr. Khouri was Michigan’s chief deputy state treasurer after having served as chief economist with the Senate Fiscal Agency and analyst with the Congressional Budget Office.

Claire Larson Chemical Bank Wealth Management Grand Rapids [email protected] Claire Larson is managing director of the company’s retirement plan sales and services team. He has 25 years of experience working with a wide spectrum of plan designs (401K, 403b, 457, profit sharing, cash balance, defined benefit, foundation and endowments, institutional clients); fiduciary services (ERISA 3(21) and 3(38), trustee); participant communication; and investment consulting. He leads a team of four administrative officers and four business development officers across Michigan’s lower peninsula. Mr. Larson also provides administrative and relationship management support for key clients. He is a licensed life agent in Michigan and Indiana and has his Certified Retirement Services Professional (CRSP) designation through the Institute of Certified Bankers (ICB) via the American Bankers Association (ABA). William C. Lentine Dykema Bloomfield Hills (313) 568-5371 | [email protected] William C. Lentine is a member of the firm's Taxation and Estates Group, where his practice focuses on federal and state tax matters, corporate matters, and estate planning. He is also experienced in corporate tax matters and governance issues, partnership taxation, and tax controversy, as well as estate planning including sophisticated tax planning. Mr. Lentine has also dealt with public and private mergers and acquisitions and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He is a licensed certified public accountant (CPA) in Illinois, with experience in a broad spectrum of tax and accounting issues. A member of the American Institute of CPAs, Mr. Lentine serves on the Tax Division's Corporations and Shareholders Technical Resource Panel. A magna cum laude graduate of the Michigan State University College of Law, he is a member of the State Bar of Michigan's Taxation Section, where he serves on the section council. Mr. Lentine is admitted to practice in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and the U.S. Tax Court.

Alexander M. Leonowicz Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC Royal Oak (248) 723-0496 Alexander M. Leonowicz concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate law, health care law, cannabis law, and business transactions. Drawing on his litigation background, Mr. Leonowicz provides counsel for entrepreneurs as well as established enterprises, advising them on all aspects of corporate, business, commercial, contract, finance, employment, and real estate matters. He also represents numerous entrepreneurs and business entities in the complex and ever-changing cannabis industry. Mr. Leonowicz’s transactional experience includes licensing; organization of businesses (limited liability company, partnership, and corporation), including shareholder, partnership, and operating agreements; mergers; acquisitions; financing and leasing of commercial properties; asset/stock sales; and a variety of contracts. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Leonowicz clerked at Oakland County Circuit Court for the Hon. Shalina Kumar. John W. Mashni Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC Lansing (517) 371-8257 | [email protected] John W. Mashni leads his firm’s technology group and is an active member of the corporate practice group. He assists clients in all matters relating to business, tax, nonprofits, intellectual property, privacy, technology, and entertainment. He has spoken at numerous cybersecurity events and panels and regularly counsels businesses and individuals on data security and privacy issues. Mr. Mashni also teaches as an adjunct professor in the corporate and tax LLM programs at Western Michigan University Cooley Law School. Prior to earning his law degree, Mr. Mashni worked as the manager of a media department for a large leadership development company. In addition to managing the department, he performed freelance work on numerous film and video projects and worked as a director, director of photography, audio engineer, and visual effects artist. He also attended the New York Film Academy.

Patrick Robertson FTI Consulting Washington, DC (202) 567-2900 | [email protected] Patrick Robertson is a managing director in the firm's public affairs practice. He advises executive teams, boards of directors, and senior decision-makers on public policy issues that pose opportunities and challenges to their organizations' enterprise value. Mr. Robertson focuses primarily on serving clients in the fields of tax policy and regulation, energy matters, transportation, communications, and trade. He has worked on issues including provisions in the tax code, health care implementation, highway permitting, and treaty enforcement. Mr. Robertson has provided both offensive and defensive governmental strategies and execution as well as intelligence about important issues. In addition to these services, he also leads coalitions, drafts legislation, and provides comprehensive messaging for clients' work in Washington and beyond. Before joining the firm, Mr. Robertson served on the staff of Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) for nine years, the last five as deputy to the chief of staff. Leah Robinson Mayer Brown LLP New York, NY (212) 506-2799 | [email protected] A partner in the firm, Leah Robinson leads the state and local tax group and is a member of the tax transactions and consulting practice. She advises public and private business entities on state and local tax planning, controversy, and litigation. Ms. Robinson provides national and state tax strategy and audit assistance for clients on a full range of tax matters, including nexus, combination and apportionment, and net operating loss issues. She regularly advises on the sales tax characterization of goods and services, with a particular focus on digital services and software as a service issue. Ms. Robinson has litigated a number of sales tax cases but is sensitive to most companies’ preference to resolve matters without litigation. She is well-known for her advocacy in New York City and New York state and for advising on the impact of the massive New York tax reform in 2014 and 2015. She was appointed to the New York City Department of Finance Commissioner’s Advisory Board (2014–present) as well as to the city’s Pass-Through Taxation Working Group (2014–2015), a think tank formed by the Department of Finance to assist with bringing reform to the city’s Unincorporated Business Tax. Ms. Robinson has been a principal drafter of six reports issued by the New York State Bar Association Tax Section commenting on tax reform legislation and proposed draft regulations and one report issued by the New York City Bar Tax Section. She is the author of the "In a New York Minute” column published by “State Tax Notes.”

Carolee Kvoriak Smith CMS Energy Corporation Jackson (517) 788-0550 | [email protected] Carolee Kvoriak Smith is director of tax planning and assistant tax counsel at Consumers Energy. Before joining the company in 2010, she was in-house tax counsel for Magna International, Inc., and an associate attorney at Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone, PLC, and Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn, LLP. Ms. Smith served as judicial clerk to Hon. Marilyn Kelly, justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, in 2000. She currently serves as chair of the State Bar of Michigan Taxation Section. Aaron M. Stumpf, CPA/ABV Stout Risius Ross Chicago, IL (312) 752-3358 | [email protected] Aaron M. Stumpf is a managing director in the valuation advisory group and co-leads the firm’s trust and estate valuation practice. He has provided business valuation and financial advisory services for numerous purposes including estate and gift taxation, income tax requirements, buy-sell agreements, mergers and acquisitions, corporate reorganizations and recapitalizations, employee stock ownership plans, fairness and solvency opinions, and other tax, corporate, and litigation related matters. He has extensive experience with engagements involving valuation discount opinions (FLP/FLLC), restricted stock and blockage discount opinions, undivided interest discounts, C to S conversions, promissory note valuations, and private equity and hedge fund interests. Mr. Stumpf has served numerous industries and provided valuation services to a broad client base, including middle market businesses, multi-billion-dollar enterprises, private equity funds and hedge funds, law firms, accounting firms, and high- net-worth individuals. Prior to joining Stout, Mr. Stumpf was with Ernst & Young LLP in its assurance and advisory business services group in Detroit. During his tenure there, Mr. Stumpf planned, performed, and supervised audit engagements across a diverse client base ranging from closely held private companies to Fortune 500 companies in the financial services, manufacturing, and retail industries. He has been published by such groups as Law Journal Press and the American Bar Association.

Douglas J. Upton Mayer Brown LLP New York, NY (212) 506-2383 | [email protected] Douglas J. Upton is an associate in the firm and a member of the tax transactions and consulting practice. He counsels clients on state and local tax matters, including multistate tax planning and structuring, policy matters, and complex transactions related to acquisitions or sales. He also assists with tax controversy matters, from audit defense through litigation, and advises on a full range of tax types such as property, sales and use, and income and franchise taxes. Mr. Upton’s previous experience also includes counseling on compliance with various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations.

Taxation Section Council Officers 2017–2018

Carolee K. Smith Chair Jackie J. Cook Vice Chair James H. Combs Treasurer William C. Lentine Secretary Alexander G. Domenicucci Ex-Officio Sean Cook—Term Expires 2019 Andrea Crumback—Term Expires 2019 Thomas Fabbri—Term Expires 2018 Brian T. Gallagher—Term Expires 2020 Mindi M. Johnson—Term Expires 2020 Andrew W. MacLeod—Term Expires 2018 Michael P. Monaghan—Term Expires 2020 Ryan J. Peruski—Term Expires 2018 Joshua M. Wease—Term Expires 2019

Tax Conference

Optional Morning Session: Accounting and Auditing for Income Taxes

Melissa Gagacki Plante & Moran PLLC Toledo, OH

PowerPoint Presentation...... 1-2

1-1 Tax Conference

PowerPoint Presentation

ASC 740: Accounting for Income Taxes Melissa Gagacki, Tax Senior Manager

1

1-2 Tax Conference

Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 740

• How companies account for and report the effects of taxes based on income

• Objectives  To recognize the amount of taxes payable or refundable for the current year  To recognize deferred tax liabilities and assets for the future tax consequences of events that have been recognized in an entity’s financial statements or tax returns

• Applicability • Domestic • State and local • Foreign

2

1-3 Tax Conference

Key Terms and Concepts

• Permanent differences

• Temporary differences • Deferred tax assets  Deferred tax consequences attributable to deductible temporary differences and carryforwards  Future taxable income decreases

• Deferred tax liabilities  Deferred tax consequences attributable to taxable temporary differences  Future taxable income increases

3

1-4 Tax Conference

Basic Principles

• Components of income tax expense

Current income tax expense/(benefit) + Deferred income tax expense/(benefit) Total income tax expense/(benefit)

4

1-5 Tax Conference

Basic Principles

• Computation of income tax expense without deferred taxes

5

1-6 Tax Conference

Basic Principles

• Computation of income tax expense with deferred taxes

6

1-7 Tax Conference

Basic Principles

• Example of a Deferred Tax Asset

Allowance for bad debts

Deferred balance at BOY: 10,000 CY activity: 20,000 Deferred balance at EOY: 30,000

7

1-8 Tax Conference

Basic Principles

• Example of a Deferred Tax Liability

8

1-9 Tax Conference

Basic Principles

• The measurement of current and deferred taxes is based on the provisions of the enacted tax law

• A change in the tax rate imposed in a jurisdiction will require a revaluation of existing deferred tax assets/liabilities

• The change in value of the deferred tax items is recognized as current benefit or expense in the period in which the tax rate change is enacted

9

1-10 Tax Conference

Valuation Allowances

• Occur when, based on the weight of available evidence, it is more-likely-than not (a likelihood of more than 50 percent) that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized

• Future realization of the tax benefit of an existing deductible temporary difference or carryforward ultimately depends on the existence of sufficient taxable income

10

1-11 Tax Conference

Valuation Allowances

• The following four possible sources of taxable income may be available under the tax law to realize a tax benefit for deductible temporary differences and carryforwards: 1. Future reversals of existing taxable temporary differences 2. Future taxable income exclusive of reversing temporary differences and carryforwards 3. Taxable income in prior carryback years (if carryback is permitted under the tax law) 4. Tax planning strategies

11

1-12 Tax Conference

Uncertain Tax Positions

• An entity shall initially recognize the financial statement effects of a tax position when it is more-likely-than-not, based on the technical merits, that the position will be sustained upon examination • More-likely-than-not likelihood of more than 50 percent • Examined include resolution of the related appeals or litigation process

• In making the required assessment of the more-likely-than-not criterion: • Presume the tax position will be examined with full knowledge of all relevant information • Technical merits of a tax position derive from sources of authorities in the tax law and their applicability to the facts and circumstances of the tax position • Each tax position must be evaluated without consideration of the possibility of offset or aggregation with other positions

12

1-13 Tax Conference

Uncertain Tax Positions

• Applies to all income tax positions subject to ASC 740

• Entities will need to determine and assess all material positions in all tax years that are still subject to assessment or challenge under relevant tax statutes

• An entity’s decision not to file a tax return where it might have nexus is considered a tax position

13

1-14 Tax Conference

Uncertain Tax Positions

• Measurement • For a tax position that meets the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold:  The amount of benefit recognized should be measured based on cumulative probability  The amount of benefit recorded represents the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50% likely to be realized upon settlement with a taxing authority

14

1-15 Tax Conference

Uncertain Tax Positions

• The cumulative probability approach

Possible Individual Cumulative Outcome Probability of Probability of Occurring Occurring $100 40% 40% $75 20% 60% $50 15% 75% $25 15% 90% $0 10% 100% 100%

15

1-16 Tax Conference

Uncertain Tax Positions

• Schedule UTP requirements • Files Form 1120, 1120-F, 1120-L, 1120-PC • Assets that equal or exceed $10M • The corporation issued audited financial statements reporting all or a portion of the corporations operations for all or a portion of the corporation’s tax year • The corporation has one or more tax positions that must be reported on Schedule UTP  Two conditions: 1. The corporation has taken a position on its U.S. federal income tax return for the current tax year or for a prior tax year 2. Either the corporation or a related party has recorded a reserve with respect to that tax position for U.S. federal income tax in audited financial statements, or the corporation or related party did not record a reserve for that tax position because the corporation expects to litigate that position

16

1-17 Tax Conference

Indefinite Reversal Exception

• Presumption is that all undistributed earning will be transferred to the parent entity • A deferred tax liability is generally required for a book-over-tax outside basis difference attributable to undistributed earnings of a foreign subsidiary or corporate joint venture

• Above presumption can be overcome by the indefinite reversal exception • If sufficient evidence shows that the subsidiary has invested or will invest the undistributed earnings indefinitely or that the earnings will be remitted in a tax- free liquidation • Only applies to transfer of unremitted earnings across national boundaries

17

1-18 Tax Conference

Interim Financial Reporting

• Different calculation then year-end financial reporting

• Calculation of estimated annual effective tax rate

• Estimated annual effective tax rate is applied to ordinary year-to-date income or loss

• Discrete items are not included in estimated annual effective tax rate

18

1-19 Tax Conference

Tax Reform Implications

• Corporate rate reduction • Revaluation of deferred tax assets/liabilities

• Changes to bonus depreciation

• Repeal of AMT • Refundable nature of AMT credit carryforwards

• Interest expense limitation • Future deferred tax asset realizability

• Changes to net operating loss treatment

19

1-20 Tax Conference

Tax Reform Implications

• Transition tax • Implications on indefinite reversal exception • Component of tax expense in period of enactment • Payment over 8 years

• BEAT • Similarities to AMT

• GILTI

20

1-21 Tax Conference

Financial Statement Examples

• Deferred Tax Assets/Liabilities

Source: General Electric 2017 Form 10-K

21

1-22 Tax Conference

Financial Statement Examples

• Rate Reconciliation

Source: General Electric 2017 Form 10-K

22

1-23 Tax Conference

Financial Statement Examples

• Uncertain Tax Positions

Source: General Electric 2017 Form 10-K

23

1-24 Tax Conference

Financial Statement Examples

• Uncertain Tax Positions

Source: General Electric 2017 Form 10-K

24

1-25 Tax Conference

Financial Statement Examples

• Tax Reform

Source: General Electric 2017 Form 10-K

25

1-26 Tax Conference

Income Tax Provision Transaction Considerations

• Uncertain tax positions implication in due diligence/transaction structuring • Schedule UTP

• Transaction costs: understanding how they will be reflected in the financial statements • Importance of modeling

26

1-27 Tax Conference

Questions/Comments

Contact Information: Melissa Gagacki [email protected] 419.842.6120

27

1-28 Tax Conference

Optional Morning Session: Section 280E Planning and Considerations

James H. Combs Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP Detroit

William C. Lentine Dykema Bloomfield Hills

Alexander M. Leonowicz Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC Royal Oak

PowerPoint Presentation...... 2-2

2-1 Tax Conference

PowerPoint Presentation

IRC § 280E: Uncertainty in an Uncertain Industry

James H. Combs, Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP William Lentine, Dykema Gosset, PLLC Alexander Leonowicz, Howard & Howard, PLLC

Presentation to the SBM Taxation Section Annual Tax Conference (May 24, 2018)

2-2 Tax Conference

Non-Tax Background

• The Controlled Substances Act • Schedule I of the CSA • The first Cole memorandum • October 19, 2009 • The second Cole memorandum • August 29, 2013 • Rohrabacher-Blumenauer/Rohrabacher-Farr • Revocation of the Cole memorandum • January 4, 2018 • 2018 Federal Budget/Leahy Amendment • Trump/Gardner “Deal”

2-3 Tax Conference

Tax Practitioner Considerations

• Circular 230 • State Bar pronouncements • AICPA and MACPA • Other

2-4 Tax Conference

Taxation- Income and Deductions Generally

• IRC § 61 includes in gross income “all income from whatever source derived.” • Deductions from gross income include, without limitation: • Amounts paid or incurred in carrying on a trade or business (IRC § 162) • Interest expense (IRC § 163) • Taxes (IRC § 164) • Depreciation (IRC § 167) • Research and experimental expenditures (IRC § 174) • A taxpayer may be permitted to take deductions relating to a trade or business even if that trade or business is illegal, absent a statutory prohibition or, in some cases, because the deductions are against public policy • See, e.g., IRC § 162(c)

2-5 Tax Conference

Edmonson v. CIR, TC Memo 1981-623

• The Tax Court permitted deductions of costs associated with running a business of selling illicit substances • Deductions the court permitted included: • COGS • Telephone and car expenses • Home office deduction • Following the court decision in Edmonson, Congress enacted IRC § 280E

2-6 Tax Conference

IRC § 280E

§ 280E Expenditures in connection with the illegal sale of drugs. No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.

2-7 Tax Conference

IRC § 280E – Breaking Down the Statute

• Applies to deductions and credits for amounts “paid or incurred” in carrying on a trade or business of “trafficking” or where there are activities that comprise a trade or business of trafficking • IRC § 7701(a)(25) states that “paid or incurred” shall be construed according to the taxpayer’s method of accounting in computing taxable income • No statutory definition of “trafficking” • Relevance of use of the term in criminal statutes? • See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 841 (provision referred to as drug “trafficking” statute makes it unlawful “to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance”) (enacted in 1970) • The controlled substance trafficking is illegal under federal or state law • The statute does not mention cost of goods sold

2-8 Tax Conference

IRC § 280E – COGS

• The legislative history addresses ability to take COGS into account: All deductions and credits for amounts paid or incurred in the illegal trafficking in drugs listed in the Controlled Substances Act are disallowed. To preclude possible challenges on constitutional grounds, the adjustment to gross receipts with respect to effective costs of goods sold is not affected by this provision of the bill. • Note that COGS is an “adjustment to gross receipts” • Compare IRC § 161 and IRC § 63

2-9 Tax Conference

IRC § 280E – Schedule 1 of the CSA • Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act includes marijuana and does not distinguish between (i) hemp, (ii) CBD, or (iii) THC • Nor is there any distinction between trafficking of controlled substances that is not legal under state law, state-legal medical marijuana and state-legal recreational marijuana • If you “traffic” in a controlled substance listed on Schedule I of the CSA, IRC § 280E applies

2-10 Tax Conference

Recent Cannabis Cases – IRC § 280E and Related

• Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems v. CIR, 128 T.C. 173 (2007) (“CHAMP”) • Olive v. CIR, 72 F.3rd 1146 (9th Cir. 2015) • Canna Care v. CIR, 694 Fed. Appx. 570 (9th Cir. 2017) • Alpenglow Botanicals, LLC v. U.S., 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 65249 (D. Ct. Co. 2017) • Edward A. Jabari, et ux. v. CIR, TC Memo 2017-238 • Green Solution Retail, Inc. v. U.S. (cert denied March 19, 2018)

2-11 Tax Conference

IRC § 280E – What is “Trafficking”?

• The CHAMP case defines “trafficking” as the sale of a controlled substance ◦ Engaging in caregiving at the same facility (and other facilities) as the sales activity was treated as a separate trade or business • IRS is attempting to define “trafficking” more broadly – not limiting the scope of the term to sales activity, but extending it to related activities • How does “trafficking” apply to a transporter or a testing facility? ◦ Note that under Michigan licensing rules, a transporter does not take title to any cannabis products ◦ There are prohibitions on transfers or sales of cannabis by a testing facility to a person other than the party having the testing performed

2-12 Tax Conference

IRC § 280E – Deductions Denied

What types of deductions are covered by IRC § 280E? ◦ Not limited to IRC § 162 trade or business deductions ◦ The courts have applied to IRC § 280E to non- IRC § 162 deductions ◦ Does IRC § 280E apply to IRC § 199A?

2-13 Tax Conference

Other Cannabis Guidance

• Rev. Proc. 2017-5 (no-rule list on determination letters relating to activities involving controlled substance activity) • PLR 201615018 (final adverse determination revoking IRC § 501(c)(3) status of entity with medical marijuana activity) • CCA 201531016 (state tax treatment under IRC § 280E) • CCA 201504011 (inventory accounting under IRC § 471/COGS) • PLR 201333014 (no tax-exempt status for facilitating marijuana sales activity) • PLR 201224036 (no tax-exempt status for advice on “safe legal access to cannabis”) • INFO 2011-0005 and 2011-0024 (IRS letters regarding no medical marijuana exception to IRC § 280E)

2-14 Tax Conference

Effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on IRC § 280E

• New tax rates may make C corporations more relevant in entity considerations • Different considerations now for flow-through entities

Federal Michigan Dispensary Sales/ Federal Federal Michigan Employer/ Self- Capital Gains Corporate Corporate Gross Use Tax Shareholder Individual Individual Employee Employment Tax Income Income Tax Receipts Rate Tax Rate Tax Rate Income Tax Employment Tax (Shareholder Tax Rate Rate Tax Rate (Dividends) (Ordinary Rate Taxes /Individual) Income) Corporation 21% 6% 3% 6%* 23.8%/40.8% N/A 4.25%** 7.65%/7.65% N/A 23.8%/40.8%

Pass-through N/A N/A 3% 6%* N/A 37%*** 4.25%** 7.65%/7.65% 15.3% 23.8%/40.8%

Sole N/A N/A 3% 6%* N/A 37%*** 4.25%** 7.65%/7.65% 15.3% 23.8%/40.8% Proprietorship

• Includes the 3% gross receipts tax in the gross proceeds tax base ** Limitation on deductibility of state taxes by individuals *** Potential 20% deduction under IRC § 199A with respect to qualified business income of pass-throughs/sole proprietorships

2-15 Tax Conference

Tax Planning in Light of IRC § 280E

• CHAMP and separate trades or businesses • Multiple entities? • Choice of Entity • New Considerations in light of TCJA of 2017 • Maximizing COGS; IRC § 263A • Management companies • See generally, Alternative Health Care Advocates, et al. v. CIR (T.C. Docket Nos. 16123-14, 8813, 15, 8852-15, 30186-14, 8850-15, 12321-15)

2-16 Tax Conference

Other Considerations

• Minority investors, lenders and foreign investors • Insurance • Lack of after-tax cash flow • Business combinations and exit strategies • Canadian investments • Cannabis REITs

2-17 Tax Conference

Michigan Taxes on Cannabis

• R.A.B. 2018-2 addresses several state taxes imposed on cannabis businesses • There is a 3% provisioning center tax that applies to the “gross retail receipts” of a provisioning center • This is not limited to cannabis products and applies to paraphernalia, food, services, etc. • Note impact on traditional tax planning under CHAMP • The 6% sales tax applies to the gross proceeds from retail sales of tangible personal property • The sales tax base includes gross proceeds attributable to the collection of the 3% provisioning center tax • No exception for marijuana food products • Prescription drug exception is not applicable • The R.A.B. also addresses use tax related to medical caregiver transactions

2-18 Tax Conference

Tax Remittance Issues

• Cannabis businesses are severely limited in their ability to access traditional financial services • These access issues create tax remittance issues because the cannabis businesses operate primarily with cash • This creates significant security issues • The IRS has accommodated taxpayers in the cannabis industry by permitting them to make payments in cash even where there are electronic filing and payment obligations • The Michigan R.A.B. on taxes imposed on the gross retail proceeds of marijuana provisioning centers and applicable sales and use taxes sets out tax payment procedures • A specific form is required • Payments may be made via cash or check

2-19 Tax Conference

Questions?

2-20 Tax Conference

Washington Update: Current Tax Legislative Developments

Patrick Robertson FTI Consulting Washington, DC

PowerPoint Presentation...... 3-2

3-1 Tax Conference

PowerPoint Presentation

THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE IN WASHINGTON

PATRICK ROBERTSON April 2018

3-2 Tax Conference

PARTING WAYS... AND MEANS

Seeking Other Retiring Turnover Retiring Office

Sandy Levin Sam Johnson Diane Black Darin LaHood (D-MI) (R-TX) (R-TN) (R-IL)

Dave Reichert Jim Renacci Pat Tiberi (R- (R-WA) (R-OH) OH)

Lynn Jenkins Kristi Noem (R-KS) (R-SD)

Pat Meehan (R-PA)

3-3 Tax Conference

SENATE FINANCE SHUFFLE

If Republicans hold the Senate, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is next in line to Chair the Finance Committee, but Grassley could choose to remain Judiciary Chair. If Grassley declines the Finance Chairmanship, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) would be up for the job.

“Every good fighter knows when to hang up the gloves...And for me, that time is soon approaching...I’ve decided to retire at the end of this term.” -Senator Orrin Hatch

3-4 Tax Conference

2018: BY THE NUMBERS

SENATE HOUSE

435 TOTAL RACES

48 COMPETITIVE RACES

------

35 TOTAL RACES

11 COMPETITIVE RACES 10 LEAN DEMOCRAT ------

28 WINS DEMOCRATS 22 TOSS UP RACES NEED TO CONTROL THE SENATE.

16 LEAN REPUBLICAN 9 WINS REPUBLICANS NEED TO CONTROL THE SENATE. Accomplished

NEW YORK TIMES

3-5 Tax Conference

SPECIAL ELECTIONS

According to Cook Political, Dems need an average overperformance of 4% to win the House.

Here's their overperformance in the past 8 specials:

1. Kansas Fourth District: 12% 2. Montana At-Large: 8% 3. Georgia Sixth District: 6% 4. South Carolina Fifth District: 7% 5. Utah Third District: 6% 6. Alabama Senate: 15% 7. Pennsylvania Eighteenth District: 11% 8. Arizona Eight District: 11%

Accomplished

FiveThirtyEight,

3-6 Tax Conference

THE TRUMP TURNOVER

Maj. Gen. Ricky Waddell Carl Higbie

Nadia Schadlow Andrew McCabe

Thomas P. Bossert John McEntee Dina H. Powell Mike Dubke

Michael Anton Gary D. Cohn Tom Price K. T. McFarland

Rex W. Tillerson David Sorensen James B. Comey

Hope Hicks Rachel L. Brand

David J. Shulkin Michael T. Flynn

Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster Brenda Fitzgerald

3-7 Tax Conference

TRUMP’S APPROVAL RATING

Accomplished

RealClear Politics

3-8 Tax Conference

DIRECTION OF COUNTRY

Accomplished

RealClear Politics

3-9 Tax Conference

NOISE IN WASHINGTON

Accomplished

3-10 Tax Conference

TAX LANDSCAPE

3-11 Tax Conference

3-12 Tax Conference

TAX TRACKER

LATEST DEVELOPMENT NOTICE INDIVIDUAL/CORPORATE/BUSINESS DATE

Alimony Payments 2018-37 Individual N/A

2018 Blended Corporate Rate 2018-38 Corporate January 1, 2018

Carried Interest 2018-18 Corporate March 1, 2018

Foreign Withholding Tax 2018-29 Corporate N/A

Health Savings Account 2018-27 Individual N/A

Interest Deduction Limit 2018-28 Corporate N/A

Life Insurance Contracts 2018-41 Individual N/A

Opportunity Zones 2018-16 Business April 9, 2018

Pass-through Businesses Pending Individual N/A

Repatriation: Assets 2018-13 & 2018-07 Corporate N/A

Repatriation: Accounting Period Rev. Proc. 2018-17 Corporate February 13, 2018

Repatriation: Computing Transition 2018-26 Corporate N/A Tax on Foreign Earnings Accomplished Tax Brackets 1036 Individual N/A

POLITICO

3-13 Tax Conference

IRS PRIORITY GUIDANCE PLAN

The Treasury Department's Office of Tax Policy and IRS use the Guidance Priority List each year to identify and prioritize the tax issues that should be addressed through regulations, revenue rulings, revenue procedures, notices, and other published administrative guidance. Published guidance plays an important role in increasing voluntary compliance by helping to clarify ambiguous areas of the tax law.

IRS Priority Guidance Plan: https://www.irs.gov/privacy- disclosure/priority-guidance- plan

3-14 Tax Conference

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

3-15 Tax Conference

MAJOR ENACTED TAX LEGISLATION SINCE 2008 Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Job Reauthorization, and Creation Act of 2010 Patient Protection and Act of Affordable Care Health Care and and 2010 Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 Class Tax Relief Middle and Job Creation Act of 2012 H.R. Jobs Tax Cuts and 1 Act Emergency Economic Act Stabilization of 2008 Housing Assistance Tax of the Housing Act and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 Economic Stimulus of Act 2008

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011

Tax Policy Center

3-16 Tax Conference

TAX REFORM FIXES

In the FY18 spending package, lawmakers made the first major change to the tax reform bill. Republicans exchanged a fix to the “Grain Glitch” for expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, a Democrat priority.

3-17 Tax Conference

CONCLUSION

PATRICK ROBERTSON April 2018

3-18 Tax Conference

A View from the Tax Court

Hon. Ronald L. Buch United States Tax Court Washington, DC

I. Introduction ...... 4-1 II. Background...... 4-1 III. Public Records, Privacy, and Transparency ...... 4-2 IV. The Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure ...... 4-3 V. Reducing the Cost and Inefficiency of Litigation ...... 4-4 VI. Opinion Drafting and Review ...... 4-5

I. Introduction The Tax Court is a unique forum in which to litigate tax matters, with unique challenges not faced by most courts. A few examples:

A. All of our cases involve taxpayer information that the petitioners either want or expect to remain con- fidential. Taxpayer information that the petitioners expect to remain confidential might include: social security numbers, financial account numbers, dates of birth, and names of minor children. See Rule 27(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedure. B. In any given year, between 2/3 and 3/4 of the petitions filed in our Court are pro se. C. We hear cases in 74 different cities. Rules of Practice & Procedure, Appendix I, Form 5. D. Our cases can be appealed to one of twelve geographic circuits (and potentially the Supreme Court). 26 U.S.C. §7482.

The following topics arise because of these unique challenges.

II. Background

A. The United States Tax Court had its origin in 1924, with the establishment of the Board of Tax Appeals, “an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government.” B. In 1942, the name of the Board was changed to the Tax Court of the United States but its status as an agency of the executive branch remained unchanged. C. In 1969, the Court was established as a “court of record” under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, and its name was changed to the “United States Tax Court.” D. In 2015, Congress amended section 7441to provide that “The Tax Court is not an agency of, and shall be independent of, the executive branch of the Government.” Nonetheless, the Court’s place- ment in our government continues to be the subject of debate. Brant J. Hellwig, “The Constitutional Nature of the United States Tax Court”, 35 Va. Tax Rev. 269 (2015). E. Much has changed since 1969, when the Tax Court was established as a “court of record.” We are the primary tax litigation forum in the Federal system, hearing over 90% of all Federal civil tax cases. We

4-1 Tax Conference

provide an opportunity for taxpayers to resolve tax disputes with their government without first hav- ing to pay the tax liability allegedly due. The Court has a well-established tradition and history of accommodating taxpayers who are representing themselves without the benefit of counsel.

III. Public Records, Privacy, and Transparency

A. Some have noted that the Tax Court’s records are not as publicly accessible as those of some other courts. “The Tax Court is letting us down when it comes to electronic transparency. Public documents, such as briefs and petitions, that [sic] are readily available from other federal courts are effectively inaccessible to those of us who don’t live or work in the nation’s capital. And maybe the IRS and even some law firms like it that way.” Peter J. Reilly, “Tax Court IRS And Secret Law”, Forbes.com (Dec. 8, 2017). B. Federal district courts utilize PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records). 1. PACER “was developed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts [AOUSC] and is maintained by the Court Services Office, Programs Division, which manages the elec- tronic public access program for the Federal Judiciary.” 2. PACER “is funded entirely through user fees set by the Judicial Conference.” 3. In PACER, almost all docket entries are accessible electronically. C. The Tax Court’s case management system is not under the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. 1. We do not charge user fees. 2. All opinions and orders are available to the general public online and without fees. 3. All electronic records in a particular case are available online to the parties to that case without fees. 4. Non-parties do not have online access to case files, but files may be accessed by visiting the Court. 5. Because the Commissioner is a party to all cases, this creates a disparity in that the Commis- sioner has access to all cases but petitioners (or petitioners’ counsel) only have access to their own cases. D. The Tax Court is continuing to consider the extent to which its electronic records should be publicly accessible. 1. Pro se taxpayers routinely include confidential information in their filings and fail to redact the information in accordance with Rule 27(a). 2. Unfortunately, petitioners’ counsel also often include confidential information in their filings and fail to redact the information. 3. PACER does not permit unlimited e-access. a. The PACER system excludes certain categories of cases, such as social security cases and immi- gration cases, from electronic access because (like tax cases) those cases contain substantial

4-2 Tax Conference

amounts of personal, sensitive, and private data that are not likely to be adequately protected by redaction procedures. b. The CM/ECF User’s Guide for Attorneys restricts access to tax information in bankruptcy cases. Unless a motion for access to tax information is filed and granted, tax information filed with the Bankruptcy courts “has restricted access and can only be viewed online by court staff.” E. Although the E-Government Act of 2002, sec. 205, 116 Stat. 2913, which requires Federal courts to establish and maintain internet websites containing specified information does not expressly apply to the Tax Court, the Tax Court decided to voluntarily comply with the provisions of the Act. F. What Steps Might the Tax Court Consider to Broaden Electronic Access Without Putting Sensitive Information at Risk? 1. Expand the types of documents that can be accessed electronically by the general public; 2. Limit expanded electronic access to cases in which all parties are represented by counsel; 3. Restrict electronic access only to those individuals who register for electronic access privileges, have an address in the United States, maintain a current email address, and provide reliable information that they are who they claim to be; 4. In an effort to address the concerns of the LITC and calendar call volunteers, who would bene- fit from the ability to access the electronic case files of pro se taxpayers on a particular trial cal- endar, make a computer available at calendar call to the volunteers for use in accessing the files of taxpayers they are assisting. 5. Find a way to give counsel in a case convenient access to sealed documents. G. The Court is actively considering expanding access to its electronic case management system. 1. A constructive conversation among those interested in finding an appropriate balance between expanded electronic access and the Court’s concern about protecting sensitive data would bene- fit the Court as it considers expanding electronic access. 2. We welcome comments, regardless of whether a formal notice soliciting comments is outstand- ing.

IV. The Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure

A. The Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure in their present form were first promulgated in 1974 and have been amended and restated periodically since then. B. The current Rules have the following characteristics: 1. Rule 1(b), which describes the scope of the Rules, states that the Rules “govern the practice and procedure in all cases and proceedings before the Court” but contains a fail-safe provision: “Where in any instance there is no applicable rule of procedure, the Court or the Judge before whom the matter is pending may prescribe the procedure, giving particular weight to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the extent that they are suitably adaptable to govern the matter at hand.”

4-3 Tax Conference

2. The Rules are divided into titles. The current Rules have 33 titles. It has been the Court’s prac- tice to create a new title whenever the Court is granted new jurisdiction by Congress. See, e.g., Titles XXI through XXXIII. 3. The current Rules do not contain specific rules that reflect some of the Court’s current prac- tices. For example, although the Court has permitted the filing of briefs by amicus curiae, the Court has not promulgated an express rule regarding such briefs. C. Over the last three decades, the Judicial Conference of the United States Courts has engaged in a major overhaul of the rules applicable to courts under the umbrella of the AOUSC. This effort led to the release of substantially revised, restructured, and restated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (effec- tive 2007), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (effective 2002), and Federal Rules of Appellate Pro- cedure (effective 1998). 1. The restatement project utilized guidelines for drafting and editing Court Rules prepared by Bryan A. Garner. 2. Robert E. Keeton, former Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules, wrote in the Preface to the Guidelines:

Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure ought to be user-friendly. This is the prime characteristic of good rules of procedure. They should be easy to read and under- stand—as clear in content and meaning as it is possible to make them, and as crisp and readable as clarity permits. *** Even superbly drafted rules are at risk of becoming less consistent, clear, and readable as they are amended. And the need for amendments is inevitable. The only effective remedy for the risks incident to amendment is twofold—eternal vigilance and a com- mitment to excellence in style as well as content. Fortunately, good style and good content reinforce each other.

D. As with electronic access, we welcome comments regarding proposed revisions to our rules, regardless of whether a formal notice soliciting comments is outstanding.

V. Reducing the Cost and Inefficiency of Litigation

A. Tax Court’s rules (particularly with respect to discovery) are designed to streamline litigation. 1. Discovery is intended to be a cooperative process. Branerton Corp. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691 (1974). 2. Informal exchange of information is required. Rule 70(a)(1) (“the Court expects the parties to attempt to attain the objectives of discovery through informal consultation or communica- tion….”) B. Increased use of technology could reduce time and cost. 1. Judges have experimented with remote testimony and hearings. 2. There are at least three limits to the expanded use of remote testimony and hearings: technolog- ical limits, legal limits, and willingness of all parties (including the Court).

4-4 Tax Conference

C. The Court is in the process of acquiring or upgrading equipment to increase its technological capa- bilities. The Court intends that the project be completed by October 2018. D. Relatedly, the Court has been working on developing a platform to allow the electronic filing of peti- tions and decisions.

VI. Opinion Drafting and Review

A. Deciding cases expediently is (or should be) a goal. See 26 U.S.C. §7459(a) (“A report upon any pro- ceeding instituted before the Tax Court and a decision thereon shall be made as quickly as practica- ble.”) B. Tried cases must be decided by written opinion. 26 U.S.C. §7459(b). 1. This does not apply to motions, including motions for summary judgment. 2. The transcript of a bench opinion satisfies this requirement. 3. Written opinions include: a. Bench opinions (made public when released attached to an order), b. Summary opinions, c. Memorandum opinions, and d. Division opinions (sometimes called TC opinions). C. The Tax Court is structured to provide uniformity on questions of law. 1. Section 7460(b) sets forth a review process for opinions, providing: “The report of the division shall become the report of the Tax Court … unless within such period the chief judge has directed that such report shall be reviewed by the Tax Court.” 2. The original report of the division, if not adopted, is not part of the case: “The report of a division shall not be a part of the record in any case in which the chief judge directs that such report shall be reviewed by the Tax Court.” 26 U.S.C. §7460(b). D. The Court Review Process In Action. For a more thorough discussion, see Judge Cohen’s speech to the Corporation & Taxation Law Society at the University of Houston Law Center on November 11, 1999, as published in the Houston Business and Tax Law Journal. 1. A trial judge (aka a Division of the Court) prepares a draft report (opinion). Most judges main- tain a staff of one or two law clerks who might assist with this process. 2. The draft report is referred to the Chief Judge for review. a. The Chief Judge maintains a review staff of experienced counsel who check the draft opinion for consistency with the Court’s precedent. i. Those counsel also make recommendations whether the draft report should be con- sidered by the Court Conference. ii. Those counsel also make a recommendation of whether the draft report should be issued as a summary, memorandum, or division opinion. (1) All reports in “S” cases are issued as summary opinions, unless the S designa- tion is removed. Summary opinions may not be cited as precedent. 26 U.S.C. §7463(b).1

4-5 Tax Conference

(2) An opinion will generally be issued as a memorandum opinion if it does not involve a novel legal issue, such as a case that is fact intensive. (3) An opinion will generally be issued as a division opinion if it involves a novel legal issue or the case will serve as valuable precedent. b. The Chief Judge decides whether to refer a case to Court Conference or, if not referred, whether to release the report as a memorandum or summary opinion. 3. There are many reasons why a case might be referred to Court Conference. The following cir- cumstances may lead to review by the Court Conference. a. The draft report proposes to invalidate a regulation. b. The draft report is contrary to prior Tax Court precedent. c. The draft report reconsiders an issue on which the Court has previously been reversed. d. The draft report may be controversial. e. The draft report has elicited differences in opinion among the judges. E. Once an opinion has been approved for release (either by the Chief Judge or by vote of the Court Conference), further editing is generally limited to formatting, grammar, and “style.”

1. Commonly referred to as “S” cases, small tax cases are those cases that the taxpayer has elected to be gov- erned under section 7463. They must involve disputes of $50,000 or less for each taxable year at issue. 26 U.S.C. §7463(a) and (f). Decisions in S cases are not appealable and are not treated as precedent. 26 U.S.C. §7463(b).

4-6 Tax Conference

The Impact of Federal Tax Reform on You and Your Clients

Smitha Hahn Ernst & Young LLP Detroit

No seminar materials were available for this section when this handbook went to print. If materials become available later, you can download them from the My Seminars page in My Toolbar within three weeks of the seminar.

To download seminar materials:

1. Log in with your ICLE username and password at www.icle.org. If you don’t know this information, use the online help to have it e-mailed to you or call ICLE at 877- 229-4350. 2. You will automatically be directed to the My Resources page. 3. Locate this seminar in the My Seminars section of My Toolbar. 4. Choose the Download Materials link for printable PDFs, PowerPoints, and recorded MP3 sessions (if applicable). You can also choose View Materials to view the Web version of the materials.

Note: PowerPoints, late additions, and recorded MP3 sessions (if applicable) will be available within three weeks of the seminar.

5-1

Tax Conference

Tax Issues Relating to Cybersecurity Incidents and Data Breaches

John W. Mashni Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC Lansing

PowerPoint Presentation...... 6-2

6-1 Tax Conference

PowerPoint Presentation

Cybersecurity Incidents and Data Breaches

John W. Mashni Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, PC

6-2 Tax Conference

Presentation Terms of Use Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, PC presentations are intended for our clients, colleagues, and friends. This presentation highlights specific areas of the law. The information provided is current as of the date of the presentation.

6-3 Tax Conference

6-4 Tax Conference

6-5 Tax Conference

Scenario 1: The Day Before Vacation • Executive was on vacation and traveling in areas with limited cell service. • On a Friday afternoon he checked his email and found an urgent email from the CEO asking for a document that included a list of all of the organization’s employees and their personal information. • He quickly replied to the email and attached the document. • After hitting send, he realized that something seemed wrong. • He attempted to stop the email, but he could not. • He immediately followed up and learned that the CEO had not emailed him. Someone had spoofed the CEO’s email.

6-6 Tax Conference

Scenario 2: Sending Money • Vendor and Supplier have a supply contract for Vendor to provide large mechanical parts to Supplier. • Supplier has paid Vendor by check since the beginning of the relationship. • Supplier receives email from accounts payable individual at Vendor stating that checks will no longer be accepted as a form of payment – only bank transfers will be accepted. • Vendor’s email provides new bank wire information for future payments. • Accounts payable individual accepts this as fact, and seeks approval for wire transfer of $500,000 for next payment.

6-7 Tax Conference

Scenario: Sending Money (continued) • Two weeks later, Vendor calls Supplier and asks why the latest invoice has not been paid. • Vendor refuses to ship any more products until invoice is paid. • Supplier responds by stating that $500,000 was wired to Vendor’s new bank account. • Vendor and Supplier learn that email was hacked and that $500,000 payment was never received by Vendor.

6-8 Tax Conference

Other Threats • Data loss • Data theft • Ransomware • Phishing • Social Engineering • Denial of service attacks • Hacktivism • Negligence • Incompetence

6-9 Tax Conference

Statistics • More than 50% of businesses experienced a cyber attack in 2017 • Cybercrime represents the 2nd most reported economic crime, affecting 32% of organizations in 2016. • Only about 1 out of 3 businesses have a cyber incident response plan. • Average cost to purchase a Social Security Number: $30 • 2 out of 3 data breaches are linked directly or indirectly to third-party access • High profile breaches caused by vendors: Target, Republican National Committee, Netflix • Small and medium businesses are targets too

6-10 Tax Conference

What Legal Issues Arise? • Patchwork Regulatory Regime • Federal • Sectoral, by industry • HIPAA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, FCRA, FERPA, COPPA, others • States • All states have data breach notification statutes • Self-regulation • PCI DSS

6-11 Tax Conference

State Notification Obligations • Governing laws determined by residency of affected individuals • Often, multiple states’ laws apply • Laws are similar, but there are important differences • Examples: definition of personal information and notice to parties • Lack of well-established case law • Shift in law is occurring • See New York statute • For reference, let’s start with Michigan’s statute

6-12 Tax Conference

State Data Breach Statutes: Michigan • Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act, Act 452 of 2004, MCL 445.61 et seq • Definition: Breach - MCL 445.63(b) • the unauthorized access and acquisition of data that compromises the security or confidentiality of personal information maintained by a person or agency as part of a database of personal information regarding multiple individuals.

6-13 Tax Conference

State Data Breach Statutes: Michigan • Definition: Personal Information – MCL 445.63(r) • The first name or first initial and last name linked to 1 or more of the following data elements of a resident of this state: •(i) Social security number. • (ii) Driver license number or state personal identification card number. • (iii) Demand deposit or other financial account number, or credit card or debit card number, in combination with any required security code, access code, or password that would permit access to any of the resident's financial accounts. • Exceptions for encrypted information

6-14 Tax Conference

State Data Breach Statutes: Michigan Risk of Harm Analysis – MCL 445.72 • Unless the person or agency determines that the security breach has not or is not likely to cause substantial loss or injury to, or result in identity theft with respect to, 1 or more residents of this state, a person or agency that discovers a security breach shall provide a notice of the security breach to each resident of this state. • In determining whether a security breach is not likely to cause substantial loss or injury to, or result in identity theft with respect to, 1 or more residents of this state a person or agency shall act with the care an ordinarily prudent person or agency in like position would exercise under similar circumstances.

6-15 Tax Conference

State Data Breach Statutes: Michigan • Previously, individuals affected by a data breach could not sue the breached company due to lack of standing. • Cases are evolving, however. • The Sixth Circuit has allowed standing when theft of personal data increased risk of identity theft • Court considered actual notice that was sent to the affected individuals as proof of the “risk of harm” • Notice advised individuals to take steps to prevent identity theft and offered free credit monitoring • Often, these are required by state laws

6-16 Tax Conference

State Data Breach Statutes: Michigan Notification – MCL 445.72 • A person or agency shall provide any notice required under this section without unreasonable delay. • A delay is necessary in order for the person or agency to take any measures necessary to determine the scope of the security breach and restore the reasonable integrity of the database. • Some statutes may provide a time requirement (for example, 72 hours) • If over 1,000 residents of Michigan affected, then must also notify credit bureaus • Some states require Attorney General notice as well

6-17 Tax Conference

State Data Breach Statutes: Michigan Penalties • $250 for each failure to provide notice, up to $750,000 per incident • Enforced by the Attorney General • No private cause of action under the statute (yet)

6-18 Tax Conference

Anatomy of a Breach: Major Issues • Who is the first person you should call? • Who needs to be involved? • How long does it take? • What are the tax-related issues?

6-19 Tax Conference

Preserving Privilege • If litigation is anticipated, then communications inside and outside of the organization relating to an incident are not necessarily privileged. • The parties must manage privilege internally and externally. • Often information must be disclosed to third parties (including internal IT and IT vendors). • Outside counsel should directly engage IT and other vendors to determine legal obligations associated with breach • Courts have approved dual track investigations • United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1961); In re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.; Genesco Inc. v. Visa

6-20 Tax Conference

Create an Incident Response Team • Internal Team • (1) Executive Officer, (2) IT, (3) HR, (4) Marketing/Communications/PR, (5) Legal • Need decision makers, with authority • External Team • (1) Outside Counsel, (2) IT Vendors, (3) PR, (4) Notice Vendors •Plan • Written • Practice

6-21 Tax Conference

Why Does This Matter to Tax Practitioners? • Targets for Bad Actors • Attorneys, Law Firms, Accountants, Human Resources • What information do you hold for clients that is valuable to other people? • Identity Theft • Transaction Details • Mergers/Acquisitions • Litigation Strategies • Confidential Information • Client Information

6-22 Tax Conference

Tax-Specific Issues

Are ransomware payments deductible for tax purposes?

• Probably, but the IRS has not yet issued specific guidance.

6-23 Tax Conference

Are Ransomware Payments deductible for tax purposes? 1. Ordinary and Necessary Business Expense • In order to deduct a ransomware payment under Tax Code section 162(a), the payment must be an "ordinary and necessary" business expense. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “ordinary” to mean “normal, usual and customary.” • Ordinary. Given the increasing prevalence of cyberattacks, there is a strong argument that could be made that ransomware payments are “ordinary.” • Necessary. According to the Supreme Court, for a payment to be “necessary,” it must be “appropriate and helpful” for “the development of the taxpayer’s business.” To the extent that a cyberattack has crippled a business’s network, a payment made to regain control over the network would almost certainly be deemed “appropriate and helpful” and thus “necessary.”

6-24 Tax Conference

Are Ransomware Payments deductible for tax purposes? (continued) 2. Theft Loss • Under Tax Code section 165(a), an expense is deductible for any theft loss sustained that is not compensated by insurance or some other means. • Definition of theft: “the taking and removal of money or property with the intent to deprive the owner of it. The taking must be illegal under the law of the state where it occurred and must have been done with criminal intent.” • Further, courts have defined theft to include "any criminal appropriation of another's property to the use of the taker, particularly including theft by swindling, false pretenses, and any other form of guile" or any "illegal takings" other than larceny.

6-25 Tax Conference

Are Ransomware Payments deductible for tax purposes? (continued) 2. Theft Loss (continued) • The IRS has applied this rule to kidnapping and found that where the kidnapped person was integral to a company, such as its president, the ransom payment was fully deductible. Considering how important a business's data and operational systems are, it is likely that ransomware payments would be deductible as a theft loss.

6-26 Tax Conference

Illegal Payments are not Deductible • Businesses should keep in mind that illegal payments, even if otherwise ordinary and necessary, are not deductible under Tax Code section 162(c)(2). This section provides that no deduction is allowed for payments that constitute “an illegal bribe, an illegal kickback, or other illegal payment under any law of the United States, or under any law of a [s]tate” • Further, courts may consider whether a payment goes against national policy. For example, many have suggested, and in some cases proved, that cyberattacks are increasingly carried out or aided by non-U.S. governmental actors. Businesses should be wary of funding anti-U.S. cybercrime efforts. At present, however, it is unlikely that a ransomware payment would directly violate a statute.

6-27 Tax Conference

Tax Identify Theft • Tax-related identity theft occurs when someone uses your stolen Social Security number to file a tax return claiming a fraudulent refund. • Fill out Form 14039 (if a return is rejected because of identity theft) • https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/taxpayer-guide-to-identity-theft • Understand the differences between a credit freeze, fraud alert, and credit monitoring

6-28 Tax Conference

International Issues: Happy “GDPR” Day (a day early) • By May 25, 2018, all entities covered under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) must be able to demonstrate compliance • Addresses when, how, and to what extent businesses can collect and use data. • Costly and extensive requirements • Significant fines for noncompliance: The greater of: • (1) €20 million, or • (2) 4% of an organization’s global annual revenue • Many view GDPR as the vanguard of privacy regulation globally

6-29 Tax Conference

Basics of GDPR • All entities must have a legal basis for processing data • Strict rules regarding consent and ability to withdraw consent at any time • Enhanced individual rights • Notices • Access • Right to correct • Portability • “Right to be forgotten”

6-30 Tax Conference

Basics of GDPR • Incident (or breach) response requirements • 72 hour notification to authorities • Businesses must be able to demonstrate compliance to authorities, including “data protection by design” that is integrated throughout the business’s operations • “Data Controller” is responsible for data sent to third party vendors. • Required “data protection impact assessment” • Full text http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.119.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2016: 119:FULL

6-31 Tax Conference

Who is Subject to GDPR? 1. Businesses with an EU Establishment • “Processing data in the context of an EU establishment” • Physical presence in EU • US company using EU sourced data collected by an EU subsidiary, parent, etc. • e.g., Google US collects and processes data of Spanish citizens in the context of sister company Google Spain’s activities • “Data” under GDPR is extremely broad, and includes email addresses, IP addresses, GPS data

6-32 Tax Conference

Who is Subject to GDPR? (continued) 2. Businesses offering goods or services to EU “data subjects” • Facts and circumstances • Targeting and intent analysis • Website that accepts payment in local currency • Website translated to EU-specific languages • Country-specific web domains (e.g., fosterswift.fr) • Testimonials from EU data subjects • Note: “data subject” is broader than “resident” • Lots of grey areas, especially relating to marketing

6-33 Tax Conference

Who is Subject to GDPR? (continued) 3. Businesses monitoring EU data subjects • Intent is not a factor • Trap for the unwary • Possible examples: • Internet tracking (cookies) • Requesting and receiving preferences (mailing list, surveys, etc.) in an online form • Email marketing that monitors whether the recipient opens or clicks within an email (common practice)

6-34 Tax Conference

Proactive Steps: What Should You Do Now? • Technical safeguards, testing, and threat detection • Information access policies, coupled with technical restrictions • Does that employee need access to that data? • Document Retention Policy • Wire Transfer Policy • Employee training • Targeted? • Vendor Due Diligence and Contracting

6-35 Tax Conference

Proactive Steps: What Should You Do Now? (continued) • Incident Response Plan • Build your Response Team • Consider reputational harm • Practice (tabletop exercise) • Business continuity plan • Attorney-client Privilege • Cyber Insurance • Credit monitoring and breach service contracts

6-36 Tax Conference

Thank you!

John Mashni 313 S. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 [email protected] (517) 371-8257

6-37