Out-of-the-Box Lawyering

An out-of-the-box solution — maybe — if your high-school senior (or a client's high school senior) has been denied admission by their dream college. Appeal. (That's right: Appeal.)

The Wall Street Journal, in its May 13 edition (page D1), has these headlines:

“Kvetching Your Way Into College: Schools Establish Procedures To Appeal Rejection Letters; What Works — What Doesn't”

So what are the chances for a successful appeal? Depending on the college, the range is from maybe it's worth the effort to faggetaboutit. Here are some of the numbers that the Journal reports:

UC Berkeley as of May 3 had granted 55 out of 761 appeals; and

University of Southern California, this year, had granted 32 out of 500 appeals.

Some other schools aren't so liberal:

Brown University has changed only one or two decisions in the past decade! That's right, the past decade;

And Georgetown isn't taking any appeals this year.

The article details, as the sub-headline describes, “What Works — What Doesn't.”

If you're interested, the article can make valuable reading and maybe get your child in the dream school of his/her choice. (Don't you hate that his/her??)

Here's an out-of-the-box solution for bars that have been fined after under-age drinkers used fake IDs: Sue the fakers!!

In San Francisco, a bar can be fined $3,000 or lose its license for 15 days for a first offense of allowing underage drinking. A second offense can result in a 25-day liquor suspension, and, for a third offense, a bar can lose its license. Making matters worse for the bars, fakes, with the new technology, are so easy to make or to obtain. In addition, owners are also faced with the older traditional technique: the use of someone else's ID. How can conscientious bar owners stop the under-age drinkers from using fake or false IDs?

The San Francisco Chronicle, on May 10, reported an out-of-the-box solution: a bar owner sued the unwanted customer. The Chronicle reported that a bar in San Francisco that had been fined $3,000 and had incurred substantial attorney fees attempting to defend itself filed suit in small claims court against a 20-year-old who had used someone else's ID. What was the result? The owner was awarded judgment for $5,000. And this was not the first judgment against an underager. Another owner who had to temporarily close after two women had used fake Ids sued the two women and settled with them — also for $5,000.

These suits probably did not provide full recompense for the owners, but once the word gets out to the drinkers and their parents, this may reduce the use of the bad IDs.

(National Public Radio also has an audio segment on the case.)

P.S. Actually, the bar owners filing suit was not an out-of-the-box solution since the owners were using a traditional tort remedy. However, the solution was out-of-the-box in the way that the owners applied that traditional tort remedy. As with so many out-of-the-box solutions, once you think about them, the solutions were "obvious." (To me, if a solution is "obvious," that's a sign that it's a truly effective solution.)

P.P.S. How can this type of solution be used in other non-obvious situations? Please post your comments and your suggesions for your fellow lawyers.

Here's a real out-of-the-box way to save on income taxes: If you were subject to the alternative minimum tax, you might save money by itemizing your deductions even if your standard deduction was higher that your itemized deductions

“With AMT, Think Out of the Box on Deductions.” That was the headline of an article in the April 29 issue of the Wall Street Journal. (Page D2.) The article stated:

“In some cases, taxpayers actually might owe less by choosing to itemize their deductions, instead of taking the standard deduction — even though their total itemized deductions are less than the standard deduction.”

The article quotes Martin Nissenbaum, national director of personal income-tax planning at Ernst & Young. He concluded that the itemized choice may be preferable “if all — or a large percentage — of those itemized deductions are allowable for purposes of the alternative minimum tax, such as charitable contributions or mortgage interest.”

The article also discusses how taxpayers may file amended returns to take advantage of the out-of-the-box choice of claiming the lower deductions and how taxpayers should write “IE” for “itemized elected” on the dotted line next to line 37 of the 1040. (It also cites an example of how a taxpayer received a bill even though she made the IE notation.) (Good old IRS.)

The Wall Street Journal's web site can be searched only with a subscription. Therefore I am including a link to a public article that's on the Tax Policy Center's site. That article gives the following advice:

“Test the itemized deduction “One of the many oddities of the AMT is that taking the standard deduction may lower your regular tax burden but raise your AMT. The reason: In the AMT you can't use the standard deduction ($9,500 for marrieds, $4,750 for singles), but you can deduct, say, $1,000 of charitable contributions that wouldn't be allowed with the standard deduction. Worse, the rules say that once you've claimed the standard deduction to calculate your regular tax bill, you must also use it for AMT, even if itemizing would save you money. So calculate your potential tax four times — with and without itemizing for both the 1040 and the 6251[the form for the AMT for individuals] — before you file.”

It isn't too late to do the numbers if you are working on an extension. Also, if you have already filed your return, depending on your savings, it may be worth while for you to file an amended return.