Where's My 1099?

Many will receive them later this year (from Fairmark.com)

By Kaye A. Thomas
Posted January 22, 2009

Weekends, holiday, and a change in the law.

For as long as most of us can remember, the deadline for financial firms to mail Form 1099 to their customers has been January 31. This year you may be receiving these forms more than two weeks later than you normally expect to see them appear in your mailbox.

A change in the law

The biggest reason is a change in the law. Congress decided to allow brokers and other firms that send Form 1099-B (such as mutual fund companies) until February 15 to mail this form. The change comes as part of a law that requires brokers to begin reporting basis, along with sales proceeds, on this form used to report sales of stock or mutual fund shares. The change relating to basis reporting won't take effect until later, so you won't see that information on Forms 1099-B for the 2008 tax year. The new mailing deadline took effect right away, though, so the this change applies for the current tax season.

What's affected

Strictly speaking, the change affects only Form 1099-B. The date by which your employer has to send Form W-2 is still January 31. Ditto items like Form 1099-INT and Form 1099-DIV.

However, just about all financial firms that send out Form 1099-B provide a combined report that includes information that would otherwise appear on Forms 1099-INT and 1099-DIV. The IRS has told these firms (PDF) they can use the later deadline for the combined report. What's more, they're allowed to do that even if you didn't have any sales this year, so the only information on your report is interest and dividends, which are otherwise subject to the earlier deadline.

Calendar effect

Then there's the calendar effect. Generally speaking, when a tax filing date falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline moves to the next business day. This year, January 31 falls on a Saturday, so that means anything normally due to be mailed by that date doesn't have to be mailed until February 2.

What's more, February 15 falls on a Sunday, and February 16 is Presidents' Day. That means Forms 1099-B, and combined reports from companies that issue these forms, don't have to be mailed until February 17.

How long you wait after that is between you and the Post Office. The upshot is that you may be well into the third week of February before you see forms that normally arrive early in the first week.

Possible benefit

Although the focus of this change is Form 1099-B, it may produce a benefit in the form of fewer corrections to Form 1099-DIV. Investors have been plagued with those corrections ever since a change in the law to provide different tax treatment to different categories of dividends. Most firms required to send Form 1099-DIV report that information in a combined form with information that goes on Form 1099-B, and that means they'll have more time to assemble accurate information before sending the forms to their customers.

Girl enters guilty plea in death of her daughter

by Emily Canning-Dean

July 9, 2003

Reporter

Bedford A Bedford girl who pleaded guilty last Wednesday to delinquency by involuntary manslaughter in the death of her in 21-month-old is awaiting sentencing from the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court.

Sharnese Brock, 17, was originally charged in March with delinquency by way of murder after the death of her daughter, Charmaria Drake.

Ms. Brock did not admit to killing her baby, said Brocks attorney Michael Astrab. She admitted to creating a circumstance that caused the death of her child. She is grieving right now because she lost her daughter.

Peter J. Corrigan of the Cuyahoga County Prosecutors office said the prosecution decided to drop murder charges against Brock and take an involuntary manslaughter plea. Brock also will not be tried as an adult. Her case is being treated as a serious youth offense.

The serious youth offense means Ms. Brock will serve time in a juvenile facility until she is 21. The rest of her sentence will be served in an adult facility, Corrigan said. Before she turns 21, there will be a hearing and the judge will determine if she needs to complete the rest of her sentence. Chances are, if she doesnt violate any rules at the juvenile facility and shows improvement, she might not have to go on to an adult facility.

Corrigan said Judge Janet Burney will sentence Brock Aug. 8.

Involuntary manslaughter is a first degree felony, so she could receive three to 10 years, he said.

He said the prosecution is satisfied with Brock serving her time at a juvenile facility.

There, she will receive rehabilitation and counseling, Corrigan said. In an adult prison she wouldnt get any of that.

Brock was arrested by Bedford Police March 15 and was turned over to the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Detention Center, said Bedford Det. Tim Oleksiak.

Brock and Charmaria were living with Brocks foster mother, Truanita Williams. Police responded to a call from Williams March 13 when she and Brock were en route to UHHS Bedford Medical Center with the child.

Oleksiak said Charmaria was flown to Rainbow Babies and Childrens Hospital where she was pronounced dead.

2007-0291 and 2007-0472.  State v. D.H., Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-9.
Franklin App. No. 06AP-250, 169 Ohio App.3d 798, 2006-Ohio-6953.  Certified question answered in the negative, and judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, and Carr, JJ., concur.
Lanzinger, J., concurs in judgment only.
Donna J. Carr, J., of the Ninth Appellate District, sitting for Cupp, J.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-Ohio-9.pdf

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."

(Jan. 8, 2009)The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that in cases where a juvenile is charged as a “serious youthful offender,” a section of state law authorizing a juvenile judge, rather than a jury, to consider certain factors in determining whether to impose a “blended” juvenile and adult sentence does not violate the defendant’s jury trial rights under the U.S. or Ohio constitutions.

In a 7-0 decision authored by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, the Court also held that, in serious youthful offender cases where sentencing took place prior to this Court’s 2006 decision in State v. Foster, constitutional jury trial rights do not apply to findings made by a juvenile court under Ohio’s adult felony sentencing statutes in imposing the adult portion of a blended sentence.

Under R.C. 2152.13, an Ohio juvenile judge sentencing a “serious youthful offender” (a minor convicted of an offense that would constitute a violent felony if committed by an adult) is authorized to make factual findings to determine whether the defendant should receive a “blended” sentence that includes not only a normal juvenile sentence but also a stayed term of adult imprisonment. Under R.C. 2152.14, the adult portion of the sentence may be invoked (activated) if the juvenile engages in certain misconduct during the pendency of his juvenile sentence and if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the juvenile is “unlikely to be rehabilitated during the remaining period of juvenile jurisdiction.” In today’s decision, the Court noted that its opinion did not address the constitutionality of R.C. 2152.14.

In this case, a 15-year-old boy identified as D.H. was charged with murder and attempted murder for firing shots from a handgun during a neighborhood fight that resulted in the death of a bystander and the wounding of another person involved in the fight. The Franklin County Juvenile Court conducted jury proceedings prescribed by R.C. 2152.13 for prosecuting serious youthful offenders. The jury found D.H. not guilty on the murder and attempted murder counts, but guilty of the lesser offense of reckless homicide with a firearm specification. At a Feb. 8, 2006, sentencing hearing, the juvenile judge made factual findings that, given the seriousness of the offense, the defendant’s use of a firearm and other factors, a traditional juvenile sentence was not adequate to rehabilitate D.H. Based on those findings, the judge imposed a blended sentence including a term of juvenile commitment potentially lasting until D.H.’s 21st birthday, plus adult prison terms totaling an additional six years. Pursuant to the statute, the court stayed the adult prison term pending D.H.’s successful completion of his juvenile sentence.
D. H. appealed his sentence to the 10th District Court of Appeals. His attorneys argued that imposition of the adult portion of his blended sentence was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Feb. 27, 2006, ruling in State v. Foster, in which the Court held that an adult defendant’s constitutional right to trial by jury included the right to have a jury, rather than a judge, make any factual findings resulting in an enhanced or non-minimum sentence. The 10^th District overruled D.H.’s appeal and affirmed the action of the trial court, but certified that its ruling was in conflict with an earlier decision of the 3^rd District. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case to resolve the conflict between appellate districts.

Writing for the Court in today’s decision, Justice Pfeifer pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) and this Court’s holding in In re Agler (1969) that because the fundamental objectives of juvenile proceedings are different than those of an adult criminal prosecution, juvenile offenders do not have a constitutional right to have their cases decided by a jury. He noted, however, that because juveniles like D.H. who are charged under Ohio’s serious youthful offender statute face the potential imposition of an adult sentence, this case differed in an important respect from the cases of the juveniles in McKeiver and Agler, and thus merited separate consideration. 

By giving minors charged as serious youthful offenders the right to have their guilt or innocence determined by a jury, but vesting juvenile judges with discretion to impose an appropriate sentence, Justice Pfeifer found that Ohio’s statutory scheme balances the due process rights of defendants with the state’s strong public interest in rehabilitating delinquent children.

“Should a juvenile exercise his right to a jury under R.C. 2152.13(C)(1), that jury will determine whether the juvenile did, in fact, commit the acts he is accused of. The determination of guilt – whether the defendant committed these acts – is little different from a jury’s determination in a case involving an adult tried in a criminal court. The General Assembly has decided that a juvenile deserves a jury in that fact-finding role. ... Only the jury’s factual determination makes the juvenile defendant eligible for a disposition that might include a stayed adult sentence,” wrote Justice Pfeifer.

“Despite the jury’s role in the adjudicative phase, removing the jury from the dispositional process does not violate due process,” Justice Pfeifer continued. “The court’s dispositional role is at the heart of the remaining differences between juvenile and adult courts. It is there that the expertise of a juvenile judge is necessary. The judge, given the factors set forth in R.C 2152.13(D)(2)(a)(i), must assess the strengths and weaknesses of the juvenile system vis-à-vis a particular child to determine how this particular juvenile fits within the system and whether the system is equipped to deal with the child successfully. That assessment requires as much familiarity with the juvenile justice system as it does a familiarity with the facts of the case. To leave that determination to an expert, given the juvenile system’s goal of rehabilitation, does not offend fundamental fairness, especially since the adult portion of the blended sentence that the judge imposes upon a jury verdict is not immediately, and may never be, enforced.” 

Justice Pfeifer concluded: “The constitutional test to be applied in regard to whether a statute violates a juvenile’s jury trial rights is whether the statute meets the requirements of due process and fundamental fairness. We hold that due process does not require a jury determination on the imposition of a serious-youthful-offender dispositional sentence under R.C. 2152.13, including the determination of the stayed, adult portion of the sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court below.

Justice Pfeifer’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O’Connor and Terrence O’Donnell, and Judge Donna J. Carr of the 9^th District Court of Appeals, who sat in place of Justice Robert R. Cupp. Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger concurred in judgment only.

How to Avoid Problems With Your Broker (from Finra.org)

The following steps may help you avoid future problems:

1. Thoroughly read and retain your monthly account statements, confirmations, and any other information you receive about your investment transactions.
   
   
2. Immediately question any transaction or entry that you do not understand or did not authorize with your broker. If you are not satisfied with your broker's response, consult with the firm's branch manager or compliance department.
   
   
3. To allege improper business conduct or to make monetary claims, you should complain promptly in writing to the management of your brokerage firm's sales office, and then directly to the firm's compliance department. Retain a copy of your letter and of all other related correspondence with the broker/dealer. If the problem cannot be resolved through the firm, other alternatives, such as mediation or arbitration, may be appropriate. A delay in pursuing your complaint for whatever reason may lessen its credibility.
   
   
4. Follow up if you do not receive a satisfactory response to your complaint. Failure to receive a satisfactory response may warrant your filing a written complaint with FINRA or another SRO.
   
   
5. Beware of sales pitches that make exaggerated claims about the expected profitability of a particular investment, or make specific price predictions, such as, "your money will double in six months," especially if dealing with a broker who is new to you. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
   
   
6. Beware of any broker who pressures you to invest quickly to avoid missing out on a "once in a lifetime opportunity." Investment decisions should be made only after deliberation and thought, and with the benefit of all the relevant facts--take the time to learn them. Be suspicious of any broker who uses high-pressure sales tactics.
   
   
7. Never send money to a firm or broker that you are hearing from for the first time simply based on a telephone sales pitch.
   
   
8. When investing for income and yield, whether in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc., make certain that you understand fully the nature of the security in which you are investing - there normally are varying market and price risks associated with each type of security.
   
   
9. Investing in lower-priced, so-called "penny stocks" is inherently risky and should be done only after a thorough investigation is made of the company and of the market for its shares. Generally, you should not engage in such speculation unless prepared to accept the risk of losing your entire investment.
   
   
10. Investing your money is a major decision, similar to the purchase of a house or an automobile. Investigate thoroughly any potential investment before you make it, as well as the broker and securities firm that are recommending it to you. To do so, you should:

• Request a prospectus, annual report, and/or research information, and read them carefully. Discuss the potential risks, rewards, and consequences with your broker, certified public accountant, or independent adviser before taking any action.
  
  
• Contact FINRA BrokerCheck's toll-free number at (800) 289-9999, or visit FINRA BrokerCheck, to learn whether the broker has been the subject of consumer-initiated pending arbitrations and civil proceedings involving investment activity; written customer complaints alleging sales practice violations and compensatory damages of $5,000 or more which were filed in the last 24 months; settlements of $10,000 or more of arbitrations, civil suits, and customer complaints involving investment-related activity; consumer-initiated arbitrations or civil proceedings that involved an award, regardless of the amount, to the customer; and written customer complaints alleging forgery, theft, misappropriation, or conversion of bonds or securities that were filed in the last 24 months.
  
  
• Become better informed about investing by attending classes, seminars, or checking the business reference section of your public library.

Here’s an interesting piece from another blog page.  Recognizing scams like these are critical to preserving your money and identity.  As the economy grows worse, behavior like this will surely increase and will become even more sophisticated.  If you believe you are the victim of a scam or are being targeted by a potential scammer, please contact your local law enforcement as well as an attorney for legal advice.

By: Daria Dolan
Nov 26th 2008 at 8:00AM

We have a very important warning for you today about a new wave of scams being reported nationwide. This financial crisis has unleashed a new torrent of scam artists who are working overtime to get their hands on your money. We want to make sure that doesn't happen.

Many of these scams prey on current fears about bank safety, mortgage foreclosure, and the credit crisis. Learn how to protect yourself as we expose 10 popular scams being run right now.

1. Phishing scams related to the financial crisis
According to the Federal Trade Commission, there is a new round of email scams out there that are tied to the financial crisis. Many of these emails "phish" for personal information -- your Social Security number, account numbers, passwords, etc. The scammer then uses that info to steal your identity.

Proceed with extreme caution if you get an email that purports to be from your mortgage company, a government agency, or other official institution. If the email is requesting ANY personal information, you know it's a scam. No government or reputable financial institution will ask you to share confidential information in an email.2. Scams related to the banking crisis
The banking crisis is presenting scammers with another golden opportunity. We're hearing numerous complaints about official-looking emails that claim to be from a bank or from the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). These emails prey on your fears, claiming your bank is in trouble or that money has been stolen from your account. Most ask for your personal information, which they then use to steal your identity or illegally access your account.

If you receive an email from your bank requesting any personal information, contact your bank immediately and do not respond to the email.

3. Home rescue scams
With today's housing troubles, mortgage rescue scams are crawling out of the woodwork. These scams target people who fear losing their home and ruining their credit because of foreclosure. A "real estate investor" contacts you and offers to bring your payments current if you'll sign over the deed. He offers to keep making the payments in the future. You'll need to move out so he can rent the house, but you won't have a foreclosure on your credit.

Here's what really happens: the "investor" will rent the house to someone else alright, but he'll never make a payment on your mortgage. Eventually, the bank will foreclose, you get the black mark on your credit and the renter will be evicted. The only one who gains here is the "investor," who collected his free rent.

4. Mortgage renegotiation scams
A smooth-talking salesperson tells you he can renegotiate your mortgage with your lender and help you keep your house. He'll require a fee (as much as $1,000 or more) before he can start, of course!

Problem is, the "deal" he gets is one that you could have gotten on your own, and it probably won't be enough to keep you in your home. However, because he was "successful" in getting the loan renegotiated, he has technically earned his fee and there's little that you can do about it.

The lesson here is you don't have to pay someone else to negotiate with your mortgage company. If you're having problems making your payments, contact your lender and tell them you need to renegotiate your loan. You have nothing to lose, and – believe us – they don't want to foreclose!

5. Fake check scams
Everyone is looking for a little extra money these days. But if you get a check in the mail that you weren't expecting, don't get excited-and don't cash it. It could be one of the many "fake check" scams going around.

These scams involve everything from claiming you won the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes to offering you work as a "mystery shopper." But they all have one thing in common: you receive a check – a real-looking check, payable to YOU – for several thousand dollars. They tell you the money is to pay for contest fees, or is your fee for being a mystery shopper. They ask you to deposit the check and then wire them most of the money back.

But here's the kicker ...

6. Fake check scams, part 2
That check they gave you is no good and will bounce eventually. When it does, you are left holding the bag for the amount you wired plus a bounced check fee plus the wire transfer fee!

Here are a few warning signs to spot this kind of scam before you get taken:

A. The check will have the name and address of a company completely unrelated to the offer. Scam artists steal the name and account number of real companies so that the check won't bounce as soon as you deposit it.

B. Anytime you are asked to wire money at someone else's request, it's a big red flag.

C. No legitimate company requires you to send money to enter a contest.

7. Advance-fee credit card scam
In today's tight credit market, getting a new credit card is becoming more difficult. That means this next scam is only going to get more popular and it's going to cost consumers millions.

The gimmick is simple: get a $7,500 credit limit with an unsecured card – guaranteed, regardless of your income or credit history. All you have to do is send in a "processing fee" of $79 to $99. Of course, the credit card never comes.

We don't know of a single legitimate credit card issuer that collects its annual fee before the credit card is approved or issued. Never, EVER agree to pay a fee in advance!

8. Credit repair scam
Most of the claims that these "credit repair" companies make are downright false. The simple truth is nobody can legally remove accurate and timely negative information from your credit report. Nobody!

There are no shortcuts to rebuilding your credit report. If you do have legitimate mistakes on your credit report, you can work with the credit bureaus on your own – for free! – without getting a credit repair company involved.

9. Work at home
More and more people are trying to find ways to make extra money, so we're hearing a steady drumbeat about "work at home" scams. Most of these scams all try to accomplish the same thing, though, and that's to get an "application" or "initiation fee" out of you.

You will be asked to pay $49 to $99 for the privilege of being added to their group, but of course, there's no real work to be had. Once they get your money, you never hear from them again!

Never, ever give any of these work-at-home companies any money in advance.

10. Fake emails that prey on your good nature
This is the time of year that many charities will be asking you to open your hearts and wallets to help others in need. And scam artists are right in the mix to take advantage of your charitable nature.

Beware emails that appear to come from big charities such as Red Cross and UNICEF. These scams use images and domain names that are so close to the real thing it's VERY hard to tell the difference. But when you click a link to contribute, you're taken to a Web page that has NOTHING to do with the charity!

When in doubt, make your donation through the organization's Web site or use their toll-free number. Also, be sure to pay with your credit card to protect yourself from fraud!

Now that you know what to look for, please be sure to send this information to your friends and family so that they don't lose a penny to scam artists. If you have a scam you want to warn others about, email us at dolans@dolans.com.

This blog is a service of Astrab Legal Services LLC and is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial or tax advice.  As always, please consult your legal, tax or financial advisor for the specifics of your particular situation.

IRS Begins Tax Season 2009 with Steps to Help Financially Distressed Taxpayers; Promotes Credits, e-File Options