Summer’s Not Over Until Last Firework Lights Up Night Sky
“No Dad, I have to go for the team.”
When I suggested to my son, Casey, he could bypass the weekly “Team Trivia” competition he gave me a very matter-of-fact reply of “No Dad, I have to go for the team.” So off we went to the Village Inn to meet up with “Casey’s Team” for an evening of burgers and “I’ve got that one, it’s The Matrix” or “Luxembourg” as “the northern most country beginning with the letter “L” to not play in the last winter Olympics.” Luckily the Coopers were on hand to offer up “entropy” for “the science of boiling and cooling water,” and “Baltimore” as the “location of John Hopkins Medical Center and University.” Another round of high fives and beaming smiles as the points began adding up.
“Who makes up these questions?”
In the past I’ve shared comments with you that while listening to Casey I sometimes ask myself, “Who knows this stuff?” While listening to the trivia questions I kept asking myself, “Who makes up these questions?” And then I realized it didn’t matter, because teams were coming together, joining in hushed huddles to come up with their own answers. What mattered was the feeling of community with friends and neighbors in spite of the competitive atmosphere. The timing of one song between each round of questions and answers is enough time spaced out across the evening to catch up on recent events, upcoming activities, and to discover something new about friends and swap summer stories. It’s also enough time to lean back, relax and share a few laughs at our own expense.
We talked about what a great summer it’s been in Suttons Bay, how the Visitor Center continues to be swamped even though Labor Day weekend is fast approaching. We all agreed it’s been a “Chamber of Commerce” summer in northern Michigan.
Spike’s busy summer
During this summer many clients and friends spending time at summer cottages stopped by The Depot to say hello, and some even stopped in just to see Spike, The Depot’s resident cat.
A few weeks ago I also had the chance to discover something far more effective than advertising to attract attention to The Depot and draw a crowd - put on a t-shirt, a pair of khaki shorts and grab some lawn tools and begin trimming bushes, edging and weeding garden beds. Honking horns, whistles, yelps and cat calls were just a few of the sounds (that I can share here) I endured while standing in the hot sun, attached to my tools, smiling and waving. Spike didn’t want to have anything to do with any of this and somehow was able to grab a nap during the ruckus and activity (yes, that’s Spike in the photo).
A “thank you” to our community
Each and every one of us will have our own memories of this great northern Michigan summer. I hope you and your family will add one more special and local event to your calendar. I would like to invite you to be our guest to attend the annual Fireworks Display at the Suttons Bay Marina Park on Saturday, September 4th of Labor Day Weekend. 
This is a very special evening when business owners come together to sponsor an event for “locals” to say “thank you” to our community for a great summer. Wright Penning & Beamer is proud to be one of three senior sponsors, along with Hansen Foods and Bahle’s of Suttons Bay.
So gather together a picnic basket filled with summer snacks, blankets and lawn chairs and join us along with your friends and neighbors to enjoy an evening of “Oohs and Aaahs” as fireworks light up the night sky over Suttons Bay. You too will discover that fireworks aren’t just for kids!
Dan A. Penning
The software involved in the New York case is titled BusyBox. It is described as a series of small utility-type programs that are tailored for and embedded in various products, such as wireless routers, firewalls, modems, internet radios, PDAs, media players, and HDTVs. Various manufacturers use the BusyBox software and its source code to make their products work. Although BusyBox and its source code are available without charge, the use of BusyBox is subject to the GNU General Public License (or “GPL”). GPL is an open-source copyright license. Although the software is free, the license places requirements on further distribution of the licensed software. For example, if a product is embedded with BusyBox software, the product’s manufacturer/distributor must provide the source code and any upgrades or modifications available on the same terms, i.e. without charge. The GPL also prohibits licensees from distributing the software under a license that is more restrictive than the GPL. Gartner, Inc., a leading international IT firm, estimates that 85% of companies use open-source software in some fashion (Source: www.groklaw.net).
BusyBox claimed that Westinghouse, in addition to 13 other distributors, infringed the copyright license in the software. Westinghouse distributed HDTVs that were embedded with the BusyBox software while, at the same time, imposing more restrictive licensing terms than those in the GPL. The more restrictive licensing terms included a limitation for “personal, non-commercial purposes only.”
Still wondering how the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (”PPACA”) will affect you or your business? Not sure what changes you may need to implement to avoid penalties? You’re not alone. While the nation attempts to navigate the overhaul of the health care system, here are a few key points to help you understand some aspects of this complex law:
If a large employer does not provide any coverage, and for that reason an employee qualifies for a subsidy (or “premium credit”), the employer faces a monthly penalty, calculated as follows:
With a tremendous amount of hoopla, Michigan’s law banning texting while driving took effect this past July 1, 2010. In so doing, Michigan joined somewhere between 14 and 23 states (the reported numbers vary widely) and the District of Columbia, that have taken this approach in an effort to deal with the growing problem of distracted drivers. A summer 2009 study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that the act of writing a text message while driving substantially increased the chances of becoming involved in an accident. According to figures published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, accidents resulting from some form of distracted driving resulted in 6,000 deaths and 500,000 injuries in 2008. Overall, distracted drivers accounted for almost 80% of all accidents and 65% of near accidents, nation wide. Here in Michigan, some 3,315 accidents were attributed to distracted driving in 2009, with 900 of those specifically linked to some sort of cell phone use.
(a) For a first violation, $100.00.
It’s too early to tell. I do know this. As someone who rides a motorcycle, distracted drivers scare the daylights out of me. On a motorcycle, I am pretty much at eye level with drivers, and can easily see what they are doing. Just this past weekend, on a trip to the west side of the state, I encountered numerous erratic drivers; you know the ones, driving too slow, too fast, drifting in and out of their lanes, and so on. In every instance, the driver was either talking on a cell phone or texting while driving. Very scary stuff.
Until recently, most U.S. nonprofit organizations were not required to file an annual information return with the IRS. Beginning January 2007, all that changed when even the smallest of nonprofits became subject to IRS annual reporting requirements. The only exceptions were state organizations, churches and their affiliated organizations, and certain religious groups. Nearly all others were required to file some version of Form 990, and the failure to do so for three consecutive years would mean automatic loss of the organization’s tax-exempt status.
Welcome relief for small nonprofits only
For charities that receive an IRS revocation letter next year, all is not lost. A nonprofit can regain its tax-exempt status by filing a lengthy application (Form 1023 or Form 1024) with the IRS and paying the applicable user fee. (Unfortunately, this application process applies even to organizations that did not have to apply in order to gain their initial tax-exempt status.) Reinstatement will usually be effective as of the date the application is filed. However, if a nonprofit can demonstrate that it had reasonable cause for failing to file returns for three years, reinstatement will be effective as of the date of revocation.
Several weeks ago, I shared a poem written by Emily Perl Kingsley entitled, “Welcome to Holland.” (
One Saturday morning, we packed our provisions for the day and headed over to the 
Remember, whatever disappointments you may experience in your vacation that was supposed to take you to your version of “Italy,” that sometimes the experiences you have in “Holland” are even more special and meaningful.
Whether you personally post or tweet, chances are good your company’s employees participate actively on any number of social networking websites. According to the Pew Research Center, adult use of such sites accounted for almost fifty percent of the internet activity in America in 2009. Aside from its personal and entertainment value, social networking can be a valuable tool for fostering successful business relationships. The blurry line between personal and business use, however, can create unforeseen risks for your company, including the risk that posted comments by your employees will be treated as official statements from the company.
If the company later lets Sally go for poor performance, can the supervisor’s post be used as evidence that Sally’s performance was fine and that she is being discriminated against because of gender? In both instances, the answer is probably “yes.”
For the time being, the Senate has again abandoned efforts to impose a “carried interest tax” on venture capitalists, investors, and managers of family businesses. The tax would have increased the 15% capital gains tax rate on certain investors’ profits to the top income tax rate, which is scheduled to hit 39.6% on January 1st (H.R. 4213). The share of investors’ profits is called “carried interest.” It might appear at first glance that it’s perfectly fine for investment managers to be taxed at higher rates on their “carried interest.” But venture capitalists and investors don’t reside exclusively on Wall Street. The law was written so broadly that it could have hit approximately 6.5 million people invested in real estate partnerships that own anything from a single dwelling to sizable commercial properties.
In reality, the proposed legislation could have imposed a higher tax rate on any partnerships invested in particular assets. The higher rates would apply to investment gains and also to gains from the sale of the partnership, and therefore, a sale of the family business would not qualify as a capital gains transaction. Family operations are commonly formed as partnerships and managed by a family member. Under the proposed legislation, the managing family member could be subject to the “carried interest tax.” For a family partnership to gain liability protection and also not be subject to the higher taxes, an outsider – not a family member — would have to manage the partnership. The House version of the legislation exempted family farms and ranches held in partnerships. Other family partnerships would have had to wait for the Treasury Department to exempt them through regulations.
Previously, we informed you of a Michigan Court of Appeals decision from 2008, which held that a parent’s waiver of liability for a child’s personal injuries is ineffective. On June 18, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court decided that the Court of Appeals reached the correct conclusion: parental waivers are unenforceable. The Court reasoned that parental waivers are an attempt to contractually prohibit a minor from filing a lawsuit. Since parents cannot legally contract on behalf of their children, such waivers cannot be enforced.
In fact, a bill is currently pending in the Michigan House of Representatives that would allow a parent or guardian of a minor who participates in a recreational activity to sign a written waiver releasing a person (the sponsor or organizer of the activity, or the owner or lessee of the property) from liability for resulting injuries. The bill would authorize parents or guardians to sign the waivers in advance of the activity. It is unknown at this time, however, if and when the bill will become law.
Also, some establishments may want to investigate the suitability of contracts that provide for the parents themselves to “indemnify” (or reimburse) the establishment for any losses that arise from the injuries that a child suffers while participating in the activity at the establishment. While parents cannot contract for their children, they can enter contractual commitments of their own. An indemnification agreement would essentially have a parent agreeing that, “If my child is injured while participating in your activity – and if that injury leads to a claim against you – I will reimburse you for the cost of that claim.” While not nearly as clean or as risk free as a release, such an agreement would at least provide one additional tool to use in defense of an injury claim.
These days it’s hard to listen to the radio, watch television or go on-line without being inundated by ads pitching the latest and greatest do-it-yourself, on-line, estate plan documents: who needs those money grubbing lawyers anyway? One thing all of these pitches have in common is the assurance that the forms are legally valid and binding. Truth be told, “legally valid” is not a tough threshold to meet. If the person signing the Will (or trust, or, you name it) has the requisite mental capacity under the laws of the state where the document is being signed, and the document is signed, witnessed, or notarized in accordance with the laws of the state, it is legally valid. Legal validity, however, is only part of the story. Imagine the shock years down the road when it is discovered that an estate plan put in place by well meaning parents, intending to provide for each other and their children upon their disability and eventual deaths, does nothing of the sort.
Second, the document was premised upon property law concepts that are not followed in Michigan. Admittedly, this is where the explanation can get technical and complicated, so I’ll convey only the basics. Insofar as property ownership between a husband and wife is concerned, 40 states follow concepts derived from, and based upon, English common law. There are 10 states, however, that characterize property owned by a husband and wife pursuant to concepts that can be traced to French and Spanish civil law. Those states are said to be “community property” states. And, even within these groupings of common law and community property law jurisdictions, there are many variations. The salient fact remains, however, that property owned by a husband and wife is treated differently in community property and common law jurisdictions. Michigan is not a community property state. Yet, this document, although touted to be a Michigan specific document, employed community property terminology and concepts.
