Are You Eligible for Tax Savings with the Home Office Deduction?

/in , /by

If you conduct some or all of your business from home, you may want to look into a home office deduction this tax season.

By Julie Bawden Davis
February 22, 2019

Do you use part of your home for business purposes? If so, you may be eligible for the home office deduction.

The home office tax deduction can be used whether you own or rent your home—this could mean significant tax savings.

“With proper planning, the home office deduction can offer some real tax savings to business owners who work from home,” says Brendan O’Connor, senior attorney with RJS Law Firm, a tax resolution law firm.

“Business owners who work from home have the potential to write off many costs associated with their home that would otherwise be nondeductible,” says O’Connor. “Taking the home office deduction can benefit a business owner’s tax situation.”

The home office tax deduction is beneficial for company owners who conduct part or all of their business from home, adds Cindy Dillard, CEO and partner of Small Business Accounting Tax & Bookkeeping Service.

“The deduction allows you to deduct a portion of expenses you pay to operate your home, such as mortgage interest and taxes, utilities, insurance, internet and phone and repairs,” continues Dillard. “If you have space in your home to designate for business, you can get a tax deduction for something you’re paying for anyways.”

Eligibility Criteria for Home Office Deduction

“In order to be eligible to take the home office deduction, your residential space must either be used regularly and exclusively for conducting business or be the principal place of the business,” says O’Connor.

According to O’Connor, the two key questions business owners should ask themselves are:

1. Do I have a dedicated space in my home for work?
2. Do I perform some or all of my job functions at home?

“If you can answer yes to both of these questions, I’d suggest exploring this deduction further with your CPA or tax professional, because it could mean hundreds and potentially thousands of dollars of tax savings, depending on your tax bracket,” says O’Connor.

Regular and Exclusive Use

In order to qualify for work from home tax deductions, part of your home must be exclusively used to conduct business. For instance, if you have an extra bedroom, you can deduct expenses for that room, providing you only use it for work. (That means your home office can’t also serve as a guest room.)

“There are exceptions to the exclusivity requirement,” says tax attorney Jennifer Correa Riera, a partner with Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph. “These include if you run a business licensed to provide day care services for children, handicapped individuals or people 65 or older. It also applies when the business’s use of the home is for the storage of inventory or product samples.”

Principal Place of Business

In order to be eligible for the home office tax deduction, the business must have its principal place of business at the home.

“Generally, that means the portion of the home attributable to the business must be used exclusively and regularly to conduct the business’s administrative or management activities, such as keeping the business’s books and records, billing customers or setting up appointments,” says Correa Riera.

You may conduct business at a location outside of your home on occasion, but your home should be your main business location.

Additionally, you can deduct expenses for a free-standing structure that you use exclusively and regularly for your business—like a garage, barn or studio.

Determine a Home Office Tax Deduction Method

There are two ways to apply the home office tax deduction. The IRS refers to these options as the simplified option and the regular method.

Simplified Option

“With the simplified option, entrepreneurs may deduct $5 per square foot for the space used in the home by the business,” says Correa Riera. “This method is limited to a maximum of 300 square feet of space.”

This results in a maximum deduction of $1,500.

As its name suggests, the simplified method is fairly easy to calculate, says Christopher Haas, founder of Haas & Sons Electric. He works from a home office.

“For me, the simplified version works best. It’s much easier to figure out and requires less paperwork to sort through and store,” says Haas. “The write offs have helped me balance my earnings and expense report, therefore paying fewer taxes at the end of the year.”

If you find it difficult to keep records of all the various expenses involved in having a home office, then the simplified option may be your best option, according to Dillard.

“You might miss out on some deductible expenses, but it will save you time figuring out what you can claim and make record-keeping much easier,” she says.

Regular Method

With the standard method, the home office deduction is based on the percentage of your home used for business, which is measured against actual expenditures. This allows you to deduct a portion of your mortgage interest, taxes, utilities, insurance, maintenance and repairs and other expenses.

“Let’s say you have a 1,000-square-foot home and your office is 100 square feet, or 10 percent of the total area,” says Haas. “You could write off 10 percent of your electricity, waste, heat, gas, water, etc.”

“Using the regular method for home office deduction also allows a depreciation deduction for the percentage of the home used for the business’s activities,” says Correa Riera. “It’s important to note, however, that a depreciation deduction may lead to possible capital gains issues when the home is sold or otherwise disposed of.”

The regular method requires that you keep detailed records substantiating the expenses that make up the home office expense deduction, in case of an audit.

“It’s also important to note that the overall home office tax deduction is capped at the income earned from the specific business,” notes O’Connor. “That means the deduction can’t be used to generate a loss.”

FDA Says ‘Rhino’ Male Sexual Enhancement Products May Pose Health Dangers

/in , /by

The agency has issued a warning to consumers about the unapproved sexual products that are sometimes sold at gas stations.

By Christopher Curley
December 3, 2018

Rolling up to your local corner store and trying out one of their dubious, but inexpensive, male enhancement products might seem like a bit of fun.

But these unregulated supplements pose serious health risks, a recent consumer advisory from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warns.

These products — which are usually marketed under the Rhino brand with names like Krazzy Rhino 25000 and Platinum Rhino 25000 — contain unlisted ingredients that are chemically similar to generic versions of sildenafil (Viagra) and tadalafil (Cialis), along with an unknown array of other hidden compounds.

That can make for dangerous interactions with other prescription drugs, especially since consumers don’t know what drugs are contained in these over-the-counter products, FDA officials said.

“Consumers should… be on alert for products that offer immediate or quick results and that sound too good to be true,” the FDA statement reads. “Use common sense. Claims that sound too good to be true probably are; search for information using noncommercial sites rather than depending on information provided by sellers.”

How these drugs end up on shelves

These male enhancement pills are unregulated, illegal, and dangerous. So how exactly do they end up on gas station and convenience store shelves?

The answer has to do with the distinction between dietary supplements and drugs.

The FDA regulates drugs before they hit store shelves. Dietary supplements are only monitored and reviewed if they’re “adulterated or misbranded” after they come to market, the agency says.

That gives the supplement market a bit of a Wild West character: Anything can happen, and you don’t always know what you’re going to get.

“Based on the large holes that are built in the regulatory regime for dietary supplements, companies feel comfortable making whatever claims they want to until they can’t anymore,” Andrew Ittleman, an FDA compliance attorney at the firm Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, told Healthline.

Instead, he says, it’s often up to local law enforcement, municipalities, or states to identify and track dangerous supplements hitting the market.

“In a lot of cases, that information gets to the FDA through those local efforts,” he said.

The appeal of these drugs

Most men probably aren’t expecting sexual miracles from gas station supplements. But the success of these products — 25 of which the FDA identifies under the Rhino name as having suspicious, unlisted ingredients — suggests the appeal is more than mere curiosity.

There are two main reasons, Dr. Don Grant of the U.K.-based online pharmacy The Independent Pharmacy, explains.

“Consumers turn to unlicensed erectile dysfunction (ED) products, like Rhino, primarily due to their low price. Licensed ED products, like Viagra, are often more expensive than their unlicensed counterparts,” Grant told Healthline.

“[But] another reason why unlicensed ED products are so popular is because consumers often don’t need to interact with medical professionals to receive the drugs,” he added.

For many men, the shame factor could make the prospect of an easy transaction at a gas station more appealing than a doctor’s visit.

Then there’s the high cost of healthcare in the United States.

Paying to see a doctor or a specialist if you’re under- or uninsured to get a prescription for Viagra or Cialis might simply be too expensive or onerous. For these consumers, products like Rhino gain extra appeal.

Ill effects are unknown

Another issue with these gray market supplements is that their chemical composition can be changing all the time.

They may “work” for a short time, but not in a directed or safe way, says Dr. David Shusterman, the medical director of urology at NY Urology.

Some of these drugs will increase overall blood flow and blood pressure, which is good for erections, but can also be bad for your brain, heart, and other organs.

“What a urologist would do for you is not give you drugs that are over the counter. He’ll give you drugs that are actually working directly on your penis and do not increase blood pressure and do not increase energy levels but improves just where you need it — which is in your erection,” Shusterman told Healthline.

In short, “nondoctor-prescribed supplements and enhancements should never be used at any time,” he said. “A doctor should always be able to look at the drugs in the supplement to make sure none of the drugs are toxic.”

Staying knowledgeable

In the meantime, consumers can empower themselves by checking any dietary supplements — not just the male enhancement kind — against the FDA’s running list of tainted products.

It’s by no means complete. But the list can help people make a more informed decision.

Independent third-party websites, such as Trustpilot, can also help fill in the gap in vetting online retailers of supplements and medical products.

“The exploitation of legal loopholes by drug manufacturers and illegitimate online prescribing sites is prompting governments around the world to amend regulation procedures. However, it is also down to the consumer to research and educate themselves before purchasing a potentially dangerous product,” Grant said.

“Any ED product that promises impossible results… is probably too good to be true,” he said.

Government bans on pot research have created room for marijuana health hype

/in , /by

November 06, 2018
By Angela Chen

Research is promising, not definitive, but that hasn’t prevented companies from trying to cash in

For most of her life, Elizabeth avoided marijuana. She came from a conservative family of the “just say no” variety, and her first experience with the drug at a party in her late 20s made her want to curl up into a ball and hide. “The whole world seemed frightening and loud,” she says. “Everyone was sitting around and laughing and having fun, and I was becoming paranoid.”

But Elizabeth (who requested we use a pseudonym) also struggled with anxiety and had a high-pressure job; complications with insurance made it difficult to get Xanax. She started hearing about the anxiety-relieving benefits of marijuana and learned about different strains of the plant, like sativa and indica. Maybe it wasn’t all marijuana that would cause her to panic. If she could find the right strain, maybe that would do the trick.

Elizabeth ended up using a kit from EndoCanna Health, which promises to test your DNA to determine which strains of marijuana might be helpful and which might make you afraid. The idea is that variations in genes can affect how our bodies break down different types of marijuana, and genetic testing can match us with the one that has the fewest side effects. “Our mission is to demystify how cannabis interacts with human DNA,” EndoCanna CEO Len May told me. “We want people to feel much more confidence in the way they include cannabis in their health and wellness regimen.”

May’s team referred me to Elizabeth and, for her, it seemed to work. She had started experimenting on her own anyway, but the report went further, suggesting that she try tinctures and providing optimal ratios. “Taking the test made me feel like I wasn’t just playing roulette with what I was taking,” she says. She feels more relaxed in general and no longer gets paranoid from pot.

Elizabeth is a success story for the industry, but experts in the field say that it’s simply too early to know whether these marijuana genetic tests work. “We’re not really at that point yet,” says Saeed Alzghari, director of clinical pharmacy at Gulfstream Diagnostics. There are only a few trials studying marijuana and genetics and most of them have very few participants. “It’s still not enough to say whether these results are going to be meaningful for practitioners,” adds Alzghari. We certainly don’t know enough to recommend exact ratios.

The 2016 election was a tipping point for marijuana legalization. This year’s midterm elections offered residents of Utah and Missouri the chance to legalize medical marijuana in their states. As marijuana legalization spreads, more and more companies will be like EndoCanna: based on some science but with claims that stretch beyond the conclusions of established research.

Once, marijuana was the target of Reefer Madness panic, even though there’s no evidence that it’s caused a single death. Politicians like Attorney General Jeff “good people don’t smoke marijuana” Sessions are still stuck in this narrative, so it’s little wonder that people are pushing back. As a result, we have cannabidiol (CBD) in everything, even though we’re not sure if it’s doing much. One cannabis dispensary will soon offer “luxury products.” Another company claims it’s “one of the first to bring AI, machine learning and the ‘Internet of Things’ to the cannabis market.” The “largest cannabis dispensary superstore/entertainment complex in Vegas” just opened. All the while, the research lags behind. It’s hard to study marijuana, and there’s money to be made in the business. That’s an unfortunate combination that makes it exceedingly hard to separate the truth from the hype.

States that have legalized medical marijuana draw upon a growing body of research. Studies have investigated whether marijuana can be helpful for conditions from nausea to pain to Parkinson’s disease and inflammatory bowel disease. Some results are encouraging, but in many cases, the evidence for health benefits is either not very strong or is quite limited.

Marijuana is frequently touted as a treatment for chronic pain and PTSD, but that claim is questionable, according to a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine last year. The authors note that between 45 and 85 percent of people who use medical marijuana want to manage their pain, but an analysis of 27 studies doesn’t support that cannabis is really helping. When it comes to PTSD, there was too little conclusive data. A different study from the Journal of the American Medical Association found high-quality evidence that marijuana can help conditions like multiple sclerosis — but acknowledged that the drug is also used in many cases where the evidence is insufficient.

There are a lot of problems with the methodology of cannabis research, says Sachin Patel, a cannabis researcher at Vanderbilt University who was not involved in the study. (The study authors work with the Veterans Health Administration, which limits their ability to give interviews on this topic.) For example, many studies only look at participants who self-report using cannabis, which provides much weaker evidence than randomly assigning a group of participants to take either a cannabis product or a placebo. Additionally, many studies only look at the short-term evidence which, of course, won’t tell us much about chronic conditions. It’s not that we know cannabis isn’t helpful for issues such as PTSD or chronic pain, Patel adds. It’s simply that existing research doesn’t provide strong evidence that it does. Research is promising, not definitive.

In short, the public perception of marijuana benefits and risks doesn’t align with the data, according to a study from this September, also published in Annals of Internal Medicine. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if something is being marketed as having health benefits, it needs to be proven to have health benefits,” says Salomeh Keyhani, a professor of internal medicine at UC San Francisco and an author of the study. “I think it’s very dangerous to be asserting that things are very beneficial without thinking about risks.” For example, 66 percent of the 16,000 Americans surveyed do believe that marijuana has big benefits for pain, and 9 percent of Americans believe marijuana has no risks. Nearly 30 percent believe that smoking marijuana prevents health problems. And 22 percent of Americans surveyed believe that marijuana is not at all addictive, which is not true.

Roughly 10 percent of people who start smoking marijuana become addicted, says John Kelly, a Harvard University psychiatry professor who studies addiction. That means that they’ll experience withdrawal symptoms like irritability or cognitive fogginess and behave compulsively to make sure they have access to the drug. “I don’t think anyone in the clinical realm has any doubt that it’s a psychoactive drug that can cause addiction,” says Kelly, “ and marijuana addiction is growing.” Young people, especially, are more likely to become addicted, and Kelly thinks that the growing potency of cannabis may be making things worse. None of this is to say that marijuana addiction is worse than being addicted to any other drug, and Keyhani points out that there are methodological problems with research on the harms of cannabis, too. Marijuana comes with both benefits and risks and there’s a lot we don’t know.

Marijuana is never just marijuana. More than any other drug, it has been linked to politics, from xenophobic attitudes to the injustice of mass incarceration. The way that marijuana has always been a lightning rod for activism can make it hard to see beyond the symbolism. Our government isn’t making it easier.

For the past 50 years, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug alongside heroin, LSD, and cocaine — meaning it is considered to have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” As one example, scientists who want to study the substance must use federally approved samples, which aren’t as potent as the offerings readily available to consumers. Though the agency has repeatedly refused to reschedule marijuana, two years ago, it did promise to give licenses to more universities to do marijuana research. However, Stat has reported that the DEA did not grant these additional licenses and has stopped accepting applications for them, impeding progress again.

The irony is that by trying to keep us “safe” and refusing to reschedule, the DEA is making us less safe by letting us be drowned by hype without quality evidence either way. When it comes to research, many of the methodology problems that Patel points out are the result of government roadblocks.

One way around the bureaucracy is to go through a different type of bureaucracy. Earlier this year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved GW Pharmaceuticals’ Epidiolex, a drug that contains CBD and treats severe childhood epilepsy. As a result, the DEA rescheduled Epidiolex specifically — though not CBD or cannabis in general — to low-risk Schedule V. With the move, the DEA is showing a “fair amount of deference” to the FDA, Andrew Ittleman, a partner of the law firm Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, told The Verge. “The DEA is saying, ‘If you’ve satisfied FDA, you’ve satisfied us.’”

Still, gaining FDA approval is a lengthy and expensive process, and not everyone who wants their product to be legal cares about medical approval. And though the regulatory dam is starting to crack, the rescheduling of cannabis doesn’t look like it’s anywhere on the horizon. This is a dangerous place to be. There are lobbyists on both sides and plenty of money pouring in, but until it becomes easier to study marijuana and conduct high-quality research, it’s hard for the public to know what’s best.

This cannabis-derived drug just got approved, but that won’t make it easier to get edibles

/in , /by

October 03, 2018
By Angela Chen

Once again, the government says it’s okay to get cannabis from your doctor, but not over the counter

Last week, the Drug Enforcement Agency gave the all-clear for Epidiolex, an epilepsy drug derived from cannabis, to be sold on the market. Though cannabis is still illegal at the national level, Epidiolex is now in the least restrictive category of drug regulation, Schedule V. The move is a good news for pharmaceutical companies that want to develop their own cannabis-based drugs, but it won’t mean much for other cannabis “wellness” products.

Epidiolex, made by GW Pharmaceuticals, treats severe forms of childhood epilepsy and is the first drug derived from natural cannabis that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Epidiolex includes cannabidiol (CBD), a chemical that comes from the cannabis plant that is not psychoactive. (In terms of legality, no one really knows how to classify it yet.)
Though the FDA approved the drug back in April, GW couldn’t sell it because the DEA has deemed cannabis a Schedule I drug along with heroin, LSD, and cocaine, meaning it is considered to have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” Now, Epidiolex specifically — but not CBD or cannabis in general — is Schedule V. “The DEA is saying, ‘if you’ve satisfied FDA, you’ve satisfied us,’” says Andrew Ittleman, a partner of the law firm Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph. It’s showing a “fair amount of deference” to the FDA.

In other words: CBD in an FDA-approved product is okay and has a low potential for abuse, and CBD in a product not approved by the FDA is as dangerous as heroin. (Sorry about your CBD lattes.)

Schedule V includes the other anti-seizure drugs, so it makes sense that the DEA made this choice, says Stephanie Yip, an analyst with Informa Pharma Intelligence. For context, other cannabis-based drugs on the market (these are synthetic, whereas Epidiolex is natural) are in Schedules II and III because they contain the psychoactive component THC. Yip adds that, in the past four years, the number of companies doing cannabis research has grown from 16 to 40; these are mostly smaller companies, not including partnerships. The main research interest is pain and then chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

So expect pharmaceutical companies to take note. But this won’t have much of an effect on the CBD wellness products — including mascara, bath bombs, and weed lube — that are popping up everywhere. “I don’t believe there is a practical application for a cannabis manufacturer,” says Serge Chistov, an investor in Honest Marijuana Company. The government might be softening its grip, but the decision is so limited that “it really doesn’t help us unless we want to go the FDA route.”
And the FDA route is bureaucratic and expensive. Because cannabis remains Schedule I, it’s difficult for scientists, both in academia or industry, to do research on the drug. Daniel Friedman, an NYU neurologist who co-authored a study investigating the effectiveness of Epidiolex, told The Verge that the team had to go through a complicated bureaucratic process. This involved obtaining a special license from the DEA, special equipment, and “all that infrastructure makes it prohibitive to do studies in other conditions by people who may want to do so, but don’t have the resources.” These same restrictions mean that as of 2013, fewer than 20 randomized controlled trials (the gold standard for scientific research) have tested the benefits of marijuana, according to the American Medical Association.

That leaves many manufacturers bypassing the FDA entirely. Most CBD products are not exactly legal, and there are plenty of gray areas as individual states decide what to do. In fact, the FDA has sent “warning letters” to CBD manufacturers before, though with giant corporations like Coca-Cola considering CBD drinks, there’s unlikely to be a real crackdown.

We have ended up in a labyrinth of contradictory rules: it is extremely difficult to obtain the license to study cannabis, a dangerous drug. But if you do study it and it gets approved, the cannabis is not dangerous anymore. It’s good that Epidiolex has been moved to Schedule V, but this narrow move won’t solve these two larger and interconnected problems. It’s too hard to study cannabis, full stop. And precisely because it’s so difficult to study, there’s a lot of hype and misinformation, which makes it easy for people to shill CBD and cannabis products that might not live up to their promises. This quasi-legal industry remains unregulated and potentially full of snake oil salesmen. Last year, the FDA tested CBD wellness products, and many didn’t contain the amount they had claimed.

Ittleman doesn’t believe that the DEA will reschedule cannabis anytime soon because the administration is strongly against legalization. (Don’t forget: Attorney General Jeff Sessions has publicly stated that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.”) Ittleman is probably right, but the DEA’s decision regarding Epidiolex is still a move forward. However, it’s not enough to reschedule a single drug and expect that to dramatically change the landscape. Our other issues remain, and they will until we accept once and for all that cannabis is hardly the same as heroin.

Feds Look to Seize Porsche Tower Condo Unit Tied to $1B Money Laundering Case

/in , /by

August 7, 2018
By Keith Larson

Prosecutors allege the $5M unit was used as compensation for illegal services

Federal officials are seeking to seize a condo unit at Porsche Design Tower in Sunny Isles Beach that they allege is tied to a $1 billion Venezuelan money laundering scheme.

Prosecutors allege the scheme laundered money out of Venezuela’s state-run oil company, PDVSA, and into fraudulent investments and Miami real estate. One deal allegedly involved was the $5.3 million purchase of unit 2205 at Porsche Design, a 132-unit, 60-story luxury condo tower built by Dezer Development.

Federal officials are now seeking to seize the unit and recently filed a notice of lis pendens in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Andrew Ittleman, a partner at Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph who focuses on white collar defense and money laundering, said filing a notice of lis pendens makes the property “impossible to sell until the resolution of the case.”

Paladium Real Estate Group LLC purchased the unit from the developer in January 2017, according to property records. State records show that the wife of the Venezuelan Ministry of Oil and Mining’s former legal counsel originally managed the LLC. Juris Magister, a Brickell law firm, is the registered agent.

In the initial indictment, federal prosecutors allege the former legal counsel, Carmelo Urdaneta Aqui, discussed transferring the unit to an alleged Venezuelan money launderer, Jose Vincente Amparan Croquer, as compensation for his services. Amparan’s wife was added as a manager of the buyer’s LLC in September 2016. A year later, Urdaneta’s wife was removed, “leaving Amparan in control of Paladium and the condominium,” according to the indictment.

Conspirators in the alleged scheme include former PDVSA officials and members of the Venezuelan elite, also known as “boliburgués.” Shortly after the indictment was filed in late July, the Miami Herald reported that Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro is under investigation by the U.S. government for his role in the alleged scheme.

The U.S. Attorney’s office declined to comment, citing pending litigation.

Ittleman said that when the federal government looks to seize an asset in a money laundering case, it is usually successful.

Dezer completed the beachfront tower in November 2016, and a number of owners have tried to flip their units since then. The building is known for its “Dezervator,” a patented car elevator that takes residents up to their units in their cars.

Dezer Development did not immediately return a request for comment.

Russia Sanctions Bill Also Targets Real Estate Deals

/in , /by

August 3, 2018
By Samuel Rubenfeld

Provision would make title insurers reveal owners, broadening a law that exists in some cities

New sanctions on Russia proposed by a group of U.S. senators also includes a provision that would make title insurance companies reveal the owners of shell companies when they make all-cash real-estate purchases anywhere in the U.S.

Shell-company real estate deals are legal, but are attractive to money launderers because the purchase can be made anonymously and the buyer doesn’t have to explain the origin of the funds used. Analysts say that secrecy has allowed kleptocrats, human traffickers and other criminals to exploit a hole in the U.S. financial system to legitimize their funds.

Law enforcement has seized property, ranging from Manhattan apartments to California mansions, in its pursuit of money laundering by corrupt foreign officials stashing their funds in the U.S. as part of its Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative.

A requirement on title-insurance companies to disclose shell-company ownership already exists, but only in certain cities, such as New York City and Miami, and on deals above a specific value threshold. That program, known as a geographic targeting order and subject to a renewal every six months, began in 2016, following years of reporting by media organizations on the secrecy of real-estate transactions.

A push to bring the effort national began this week. Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) on Monday proposed an amendment, separate from the Russia package, that would give Treasury 180 days to provide Congress details about the data it has collected thus far, with an aim toward nationalizing the program.

The proposal on Thursday from the bipartisan group of senators is part of a laundry list of “crushing” sanctions measures targeting Russia. “The sanctions and other measures contained in this bill are the most hard-hitting ever imposed—and a direct result of [Russia President Vladimir] Putin’s continued desire to undermine American democracy,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R., S.C.).

Earlier this year, the Treasury delivered a report to Congress about the potential exposure of key U.S. economic sectors, including real estate, to Russians connected to President Vladimir Putin. The full report hasn’t been made public.

The proposal announced Thursday also follows a separate push from states and federal officials to advance corporate transparency by pushing for legislation that would require shell companies to disclose their owners.

After the program involving title-insurance firms went into effect in 2016, all- cash purchases by companies dropped nationally by about 70%, even in areas not subject to the requirements, according to a working paper from economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the University of Miami. The study found a 95% drop in the cash spent by shell companies and other corporate entities on homes in Miami alone.

Buyers will still come up with another way to purchase the real estate, such as through a straw buyer or a third party, said Andrew Ittleman, a partner at the firm Fuerst, Ittleman, David & Joseph LLP whose practice focuses on anti- money-laundering compliance.

“The government will come up with a law-enforcement tool and the people impacted by it will find a way around it. And we’ll have a new discussion in about five or 10 years,” said Mr. Ittleman.

Las razones para desconfiar de los tratamientos milagrosos con células madre

/in , /by

May 20, 2018
By Natalia Martin Cantero

Uno de los campos científicos más prometedores, el de la investigación con
células madre, es también terreno abonado para los timos. Cientos de empresas prometen tratamientos contra todo tipo de enfermedades que no cuentan con el visto bueno de la FDA.

Doris Tyler es una mujer de Florida que quedó ciega tras someterse a un procedimiento con células madre no aprobado por la FDA.

Las falsas promesas sobre los tratamientos de células madre pueden tener consecuencias mucho más graves que despojar al paciente de su dinero. En el episodio más reciente de su cruzada contra las clínicas que ofertan tratamientos a partir de esas células, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos (FDA) emprenderá acciones legales para impedir la actividad de dos de los centros más prominentes del país: el US Stem Cell con sede en Sunrise, Florida, y el California Stem Cell Treatment Center, con sedes en Beverly Hills y Rancho Mirage.

Los tratamientos que ofrecen estas clínicas –desde curas al cáncer a enfermedades del corazón– podrían suponer un riesgo para la salud, según la FDA.

Una investigación publicada recientemente sobre 368 webs de centros que ofrecen combinaciones de tratamientos con células madre con “medicina alternativa y complementaria” reveló que solamente el 31% de los sitios menciona si la intervención cuenta con el visto bueno de las autoridades sanitarias.

Solo un 19% de los sitios especifica que hay pruebas limitadas de la validez intervención, y únicamente el 25% menciona los riesgos generales de la investigación. El imperio en expansión de estas clínicas promete curas para todo. Desde diabetes a asma, esclerosis múltiple, artritis o incluso una vacuna contra el cáncer.

“Muchas clínicas parecen estar basándose en pseudociencia, lo que puede ofuscar seriamente el discurso público, engañar a la población y dificultar el discernimiento entre la ciencia real y la mercadotecnia”, concluye el estudio. “La publicidad sobre terapias con células madre no probadas tiene el potencial de dañar a los pacientes y a la reputación de la ciencia”, añade.

¿Qué son las células madre?
Las células madre son un tipo particular de célula que se encuentra en el cuerpo humano (como en cualquier otro organismo pluricelular) sobre todo en la sangre y en la médula espinal. Su función es regenerar órganos y otras células a medida que envejecemos, y son fundamentales a la hora de ayudar al cuerpo a recuperarse de lesiones. Hay varios tipos de células madre, con diferentes características. Las que proceden de embriones humanos pueden convertirse en cualquier tipo de célula, y en teoría reparar cualquier órgano o tejido en el cuerpo humano. Por el contrario, las células madre “adultas” por
así decir solo pueden convertirse en el tipo de tejido del que proceden, según explica a Univisión Noticias Morton Tavel, profesor de medicina retirado de la Universidad de Indiana y autor de un libro sobre mitos y bulos en salud.

¿Cuáles son los usos probados con las terapias con células madre?
Morton señala que, mientras que el acceso a las células de embriones está regulado por las autoridades federales, la extracción de las otras células madre (las que proceden del cuerpo del propio paciente) está mucho menos reglada. Por esta razón, se han usado de manera indiscriminada. “De hecho, los tratamientos con células madre están ampliamente aceptados solo para dos situaciones: dolencias relacionadas con la sangre –incluidas leucemia y algunas formas de anemia– y en ciertos tipos de lesiones por quemaduras”, señala. En el futuro, cree Morton, la regulación en torno a las células madre podría ser similar a la que existe con los medicamentos con receta.

Morton indica que incluso clínicas muy reconocidas han sido acusadas de
exagerar sus promesas en algún momento. Por eso, antes de que consideres exponerte a un tratamiento con células madre de cualquier tipo es fundamental informarse todo lo que sea posible, preferiblemente con un experto en este campo con licencia médica, recomienda el profesor.

Por otro lado, los tratamientos experimentales con células madre han resultado prometedores en muchos campos, como osteoporosis o lesiones deportivas, y la FDA está evaluando su aprobación.

Florida es uno de los destinos predilectos de pacientes desesperados en la búsqueda de tratamientos que no han sido aprobados. El Dr. Burton Feinerman, en la imagen, es un pediatra que ha ofrecido terapias con células madre en varias clínicas de Florida durante la última década, cuya efectividad ha sido puesta en duda.

¿Qué enfermedades podrían curarse o prevenirse en el futuro utilizando estas terapias?

Ira Pastor, presidente de una firma de medicina regenerativa, señala que las terapias serán de gran utilidad en patologías en las que se producen dinámicas de degeneración celular, como el Alzheimer o el Parkinson.

La degeneración macular por envejecimiento (el trastorno ocular) es uno de los objetivos más prometedores. Todavía falta mucho tiempo, no obstante, para que podamos disponer de tratamientos seguros y efectivos para estos problemas. Una de las clínicas intervenidas esta semana por la FDA está acusada de dejar ciegos a varios clientes con tratamientos para aliviar la degeneración macular.

¿Qué señales deben hacerte sospechar?
El abogado experto en legislación relacionada con alimentos y medicamentos Andrew Ittleman señala a Univision Noticias que hay que sospechar de las clínicas que ofrecen procedimientos no aprobados procedentes de fuentes que no son el paciente mismo, como la membrana amniótica o el cordón umbilical. Muchos de estos tratamientos, señala Ittleman, se ofertan a ancianos y se venden como poco menos que milagrosos. Sin embargo, “muchas investigaciones muestran que no contienen células madre en absoluto. Este es un problema creciente, y un estado (Dakota del norte) ya lo está investigando. Mi expectativa es que otros estados hagan lo mismo”.

Pastor, por su parte, recomienda estar alerta con esas “clínicas que aseguran curarlo todo”, de forma indiscriminada, con células madre.

¿Qué riesgos representan las clínicas que utilizan tratamientos no aprobados para los pacientes?
Ittleman indica que los riesgos son los mismos que con clínicas de otro tipo: los pacientes pueden resultar lesionados, o recibir tratamientos que no funcionan. “Dada la proliferación de practicantes que no son médicos ofreciendo terapias con células madre en sus consultas, estos riesgos pueden estar más concentrados” con este tipo de tratamientos. Pastor alude a problemas financieros: “los pacientes perderán un montón de dinero”, apunta.

¿Debería involucrarse más el gobierno con las pruebas clínicas?
La FDA está implicada en la regulación de las pruebas clínicas y está haciendo
un gran trabajo asegurándose de que los productos que aprueba son seguros y efectivos, señala Ittleman. “Desafortunadamente, en el entorno de las células madre, la línea que separa los procedimientos médicos de la fabricación de productos puede ser muy tenue”. Esto significa que mientras que los médicos saben cómo llevar a cabo un estudio diseñado para mejorar un procedimiento médico, muchos saben muy poco sobre cómo regula la FDA las pruebas clínicas.

How to Answer Tough Law School Interview Questions

/in , /by

May 10, 2018
By Ilana Kowarski

In law school interviews, it’s important to explain why you’re a strong candidate, experts say.

Trial lawyers and appellate lawyers are often asked questions by judges who expect an immediate response. These attorneys cannot waver over what to say; they must improvise and come up with a compelling argument.

Some of the most influential attorneys in U.S. history are famous for their ability to deliver captivating, off-the-cuff speeches. Before he joined the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall was a litigator known for his powerful speeches during civil rights cases. And Clarence Darrow – a trial attorney who represented clients in some of the most controversial legal disputes of the early 20th century like the “Scopes monkey trial” – was often lauded for his ability to sway juries with his remarks.

Law school admissions committees strive to identify students who have the potential to have a lasting positive impact on the legal profession. That’s one reason why they look for applicants who have the capacity to speak with authority and conviction in a way that inspires others. But law schools also have a more pragmatic reason to recruit students with a silver tongue: Oral advocacy is a crucial part of many legal jobs.

Attorney Andrew Ittleman, a founder and partner with the Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph law firm in Miami, says that showing poise during a law school admissions interview is a must.

“[In] exercises like that, you know, whether it’s sitting in an interview or arguing in court, you want to get to a place where you can be loose going in,” Ittleman says. “It’s not a test… Nobody is grading you the way that they would on a test. They want to see who you are as a person.”

Ittleman advises law school applicants to conduct a few practice interviews with people they trust who can provide honest feedback. “Go through a couple of dry runs,” he suggests. Ittleman says practice interviews help students discover the right words to use to clearly express their thoughts.

With that in mind, attorneys say that law school applicants should figure out how they’d like to answer the following questions before their admissions interviews.

1. Why do you want to become a lawyer? Experts say this is a question that J.D. applicants must have a compelling answer for, because law schools are wary of admitting students who view law school as a delay tactic to avoid making a career choice.

“I believe strongly that we should prepare and produce graduates who passionately want to be lawyers, because I believe lawyers who are passionate about what they are doing will be happy lawyers,” says Kathleen Boozang, dean of the Seton Hall University School of Law in New Jersey. “And so I am looking to see that the student is going to law school because they are inspired to go to law school, as opposed to [because] they really can’t think of anything else to do.”

2. Why are you applying to this particular law school? “Students should go into interviews knowing everything on that school’s website, its values, how it describes itself, who the star professors are, etc.,” says Ella Tyler, a retired lawyer who works as a tutor for Varsity Tutors, a virtual education platform. “Law requires preparation and research, so if you showcase those skill sets in your interview, it’s proof that you have what it takes to be a lawyer.”

3. What kind of law are you most interested in practicing? What is your dream law job? If you want to use a law degree in an unconventional way, such as in a policy job or a nonlegal business position, you may be asked: Why do you need a law degree? What would a law degree allow you to do professionally that you couldn’t do without the degree?

Experts say law schools are looking for applicants who can clearly articulate how they intend to use a J.D., because these schools don’t want to admit students who lack a clear justification for investing the time, effort and expense that law school requires.

“Law school is hard, it’s a lot of work, and you have to have the spark,” Boozang says. “You have to have a passion, you need to want to do it, and I want to just confirm that the student knows what they are getting into and that the desire is real.”

4. What book are you reading at the moment, and what do you think of it? If you aren’t currently reading a book, you may be asked an alternative question: Who is your favorite author and why?

Boozang says she asks questions like this to see whether a J.D. applicant is intellectually curious, enjoys the written word and can formulate a coherent argument about what he or she has read. The ability to analyze a text is a key skill for an aspiring lawyer, Boozang says.

Questions of this type are also meant to reveal whether an applicant has a well-rounded personality that includes interests besides academics, Boozang says. She advises applicants to read the news and continue pursuing their extracurricular interests during the law school admissions process, because it gives them something interesting to discuss when they are asked personal questions.

“I emphasize the importance to young people thinking about law school the need to be thinking about the world around them,” she says.

5. What college paper are you most proud of? The thinking behind this question is that it allows a J.D. applicant to discuss a subject they are enthusiastic and knowledgeable about, Boozang says. This interview question illuminates the way an applicant thinks and clarifies whether they have the mindset of a future attorney, she adds.

Boozang says a J.D. applicant who is asked this question should be prepared to answer follow-up queries about his or her paper, which may ultimately lead to a back-and-forth discussion with the interviewer. She says that the topic or thesis of the paper will be less relevant to the interviewer than whether the applicant is able to clearly explain his or her ideas and make a coherent argument.

6. How would you contribute to a law school class? Experts say questions like this give law school applicants an opportunity to differentiate themselves from their competitors in the J.D. admissions process.

Nyana Abreu, an attorney at Sequor Law in Miami, says the key to answering this question well is to talk less about academic statistics and more about who you are as a person.

“That’s not an academic question, and I think that’s something that a lot of candidates miss – that when you’re given an opportunity to talk about yourself, they don’t want to know your GPA [and] they don’t want to know your test scores,” she says. “They already know all those types of things. They want to know something memorable about you. So I would say, think of that question as more of a first date question. You’re not so much telling the interviewer why you’re so studious and hardworking. You’re telling the interviewer why people want to spend time with you.”

Blockchain Technology May Change the World, But What Are the Risks?

/in , /by

February 9, 2018
By Kinsey Grant

Bitcoin’s incredible price swings have gotten blockchain technology in the news. But what’s at stake when everything heads to a distributed ledger? Experts weigh in.

Not many mainstream investors knew what blockchain technology was a handful of years ago. But today, anyone who doesn’t know the word “blockchain” (or at least “Bitcoin”) must be living under a rock.

The applications for the open source, distributed ledger platform linked through cryptography and backing cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin are boundless, experts agree.

“We’re bullish on blockchain as part of a broader digital transition for public and private companies,” said Bill Briggs, technology chief at Deloitte Consulting. Blockchain could impact every industry Deloitte services, Briggs explained, from government services to healthcare to supply chain analytics.

“It certainly represents a new, unique and possibly disruptive way for people in underserved economies to store value, which they’ve really never been able to do before safely,” said Andrew Ittleman, founder and partner at law firm Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph. “The investment side of crypto, while I know it’s important, that’s not really what motivates me.”

But with every promised revolution comes risk. What should investors know about the blockchain, its capabilities and its implications?

How big can this get?

Think about how disruptive the advent of cloud computing was 10 years ago. That’s how enormous blockchain could become in Briggs’ view.

Tech research firm Gartner Inc. predicts blockchain’s value-add will grow to $176 billion by 2025, Deloitte noted in a Tech Trends 2018 report in December.

If blockchain’s genesis is to be compared to that of the internet in the 1990s, “in terms of development you have to think about it in dog years,” said Blake Estes, counsel in Alston & Bird’s Financial Services and Products Group and co-leader of the firm’s Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Tech Team. Estes means that the pace of evolution is so rapid, it’s hardly useful to think about it in a typical time frame.

Right now, we’re around the year 1996 if the timeline for the internet
and that for blockchain were compared. But just six months ago, Estes said, we were only in about 1994.

“People are still getting AOL CDs in the mail,” Estes joked, suggesting there is still a far way to go until blockchain reaches its potential.

It’s important to note that, although Bitcoin is the headline-grabbing blockchain application, it is just a small part of a much bigger picture. Estes said Bitcoin is to blockchain as email is to the internet. It’s useful, but it’s a minuscule piece of the puzzle.

What can blockchain do for you?

The cross-border payment capabilities of blockchain technology also cross industries, Briggs explained, providing the capacity to merge operations among banking, financial services and trade finance sectors relatively seamlessly.

 

Bitcoin vs. the U.S. Dollar: Which Is the Real Bubble?

/in , /by

February 7, 2018
By Kinsey Grant

Is Bitcoin the bubble, or is Bitcoin the pin?

That’s the question some of the top minds in cryptocurrency have been asking as calls of a “Bitcoin bubble” grow louder. It’s hard to deny that Bitcoin was distinctly bubble-ish at the end of 2017, finishing the year up nearly 1,800% from where it started.

An increasing number of crypto leaders have called out the ability of digital assets to democratize finance and globalize market access, drawing sharp differences with it from that of fiat currencies based on the actions of a select few, former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen included among them.

“Here you’ve got Janet Yellen telling not only normal people that they’re too stupid to understand the reasoning behind quantitative easing, she’s telling Congress they’re too dumb, that they don’t have any business looking into her reasoning for quantitative easing,” said Coindesk head of research Nolan Bauerle.

Bauerle explained that many leaders in the crypto world argue that it’s the dollar, and not Bitcoin, that’s a bubble. That’s because the Fed and other policy leaders are “devaluing the dollar that everyone is working for,” Bauerle said.

The argument ties in well to a key aspect of the founding ethos for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies: immunity from inflation. When anonymous Bitcoin creator Satoshi first established the coin, he created it such that there are only ever going to be 21 million Bitcoins in the world. In the minds of crypto evangelists, the finite supply means Bitcoin is immune to the orchestrated inflation that occurs when the Treasury prints more money.

“If you go back to a macroeconomic argument, there’s an argument there that fiat is a bubble. We don’t know how many U.S. dollars there are,” Bauerle said.

“Put it this way — one Bitcoin is still worth one Bitcoin. And how many dollars it’s worth is a reflection of the devaluation of the U.S. dollar, not necessarily the other way around,” Bauerle said.

He noted that a lot of the leaders in Bitcoin don’t view it as a bubble, but rather as the pin that will pop a larger, more ominous bubble — the fiat currency of the United States.

“It’s a matter of perspective,” he said. “Is Bitcoin worth more dollars because Bitcoin’s value has gone up, or is Bitcoin worth more dollars because the dollar’s value has gone down?”

It’s worth noting that Bitcoin has steadily shed value over the past few weeks, dipping as low as $5,947.40 on Feb. 6, according to Coindesk. That’s after the cryptocurrency soared to a high of $20,089 on Dec. 17.

The U.S. dollar index, which compares the greenback to a basket of other currencies, has moved lower about 2.8% since the start of the year. Bitcoin, on the other hand has decreased 47.3% in the same time.

Bitcoin could trade between $6,000 and $60,000 in 2018, simply because of its “hyper volatility” and reflexivity, said Ari Paul, chief investment officer and co-founder of BlockTower Capital.

“The higher Bitcoin goes and the faster it gets there, the more likely it is to crash,” Paul said. The reflexivity of the currency means that as it rallies, it invites everything from regulation to speculation to scams from bad actors.

By the end of 2018, Paul is looking for Bitcoin between $15,000 and $85,000.

But at the end of the day, the price of Bitcoin is irrelevant, said Andrew Ittleman, founder and partner at law firm Fuerst Ittleman David &

Joseph. Ittleman has focused his law career on fintech regulation, white collar criminal defense and anti-money laundering compliance.

“Nothing about that has changed from when Bitcoin was $100 apiece or $1,000 apiece,” Ittleman explained. It’s about “powerful ways to communicate, share value, send money,” he said, not a means to turn a profit.

“The downturn or the drop in value over the last few weeks in my opinion is more of a consequence of the $20,000 value just not being realistic at all,” Ittleman said.

“I just really have a hard time imagining a Bitcoin being able to hold onto a value of $19,000 or $20,000,” Ittleman said. “It just doesn’t make sense to me.”