• Home
  • About Us
    • Our Team
    • Our Mission
    • Testimonials
    • Service Areas
  • Services
    • Tax Services
    • Audit & Assurance
    • Accounting
    • Litigation Support
    • Valuation Advisory
    • Forensic Accounting
    • Business Consulting
  • Resources
    • Client Center
    • Online Tools
    • Important Sites
    • Timely Opportunities
  • MBA News
  • Careers
    • Senior Tax Accountant
    • Tax Manager
    • Bookkeeper / Accountant
  • Contact Us
  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Savvy
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Our Team
    • Our Mission
    • Testimonials
    • Service Areas
  • Services
    • Tax Services
    • Audit & Assurance
    • Accounting
    • Litigation Support
    • Valuation Advisory
    • Forensic Accounting
    • Business Consulting
  • Resources
    • Client Center
    • Online Tools
    • Important Sites
    • Timely Opportunities
  • MBA News
  • Careers
    • Senior Tax Accountant
    • Tax Manager
    • Bookkeeper / Accountant
  • Contact Us

Blog Post

Recent Supreme Court Cases That May Affect Your Business

29 Jun 2015
Comment are off
MBA Site Administrator
Supreme Court in St Petersburg Florida

As the U.S. Supreme Court adjourns for its summer recess, the landmark cases about same-sex marriage and the Affordable Care Act premium tax credits have garnered most of the publicity. However, you should also know about these three lesser-known Supreme Court decisions that may significantly affect your business.

Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises (S. Ct. No. 13-270, June 22, 2015)

Supreme Court Rules on ACA Premium Tax Credits

On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision in King v. Burwell (S. Ct. No. 14-114). In a 6-3 ruling, it upheld a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that taxpayers purchasing health care coverage on a federal exchange can qualify for premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The bottom line: The ACA remains intact.

In this case, four individuals who live in Virginia — a state using a federal exchange rather than establishing its own exchange — didn’t want to purchase health insurance. So they argued that, because Virginia’s exchange wasn’t “an Exchange established by the State,” they shouldn’t receive any tax credits for buying health insurance. If they weren’t eligible for the tax credits, the cost of buying insurance would be more than 8% of their income. This would make coverage unaffordable, exempting them from the ACA’s coverage requirement.

The Supreme Court found that the text of certain provisions of the ACA is somewhat ambiguous, requiring the Court to look to the broader structure of the law. To that end, the majority opinion concludes, “[The tax] credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid. […] Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.”

An inventor created a toy that simulated the web-shooting powers of Spiderman. The invention consisted of a glove with a valve and a canister of pressurized foam, allowing users to shoot webs from the palms of their hands.

In 1991, the inventor obtained a patent on the device. Subsequently, he met with representatives from an affiliate of Marvel Enterprises (Marvel) that markets Spiderman products, but the company didn’t enter into any agreement with him. Soon afterward, Marvel began selling a similar toy.

The inventor sued Marvel in 1997 and the two sides settled in 2001. Under the terms of the agreement, Marvel agreed to pay an ongoing 3% royalty rate on sales of the toy. The patent expired in 2010, but the settlement had no “sunset date.” The parties went to court after they disagreed about the royalty calculation.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court preserved its holding from a controversial 1964 case — Brulotte v. Thys Co. — that effectively punishes parties who sign away their patent rights. Citing Brulotte, the Court ruled that royalty agreements weren’t enforceable after a patent expires.

This case reinforces the controversial notion, based on Brulotte, that royalty payments may be limited to the patent term. In practice, many royalty agreements don’t include a “sunset date,” or they otherwise imply that payments will occur indefinitely.

In the United States, the term of a new patent is generally 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. Although 20 years may seem like a long time, it often takes several years from the application date for a patent to be approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and for a product to go to market.

As the dissenting opinion points out, entities that own patents — such as inventors, high-tech start-ups, research hospitals and universities — may be adversely impacted by this decision. On the other hand, businesses that pay royalties may be able to reduce their royalty expenses by keeping track of patent expiration dates.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (S. Ct. 14-86, June 1, 2015)

Abercrombie & Fitch Stores (Abercrombie), a national chain of clothing stores, requires employees to meet a “look policy” reflecting its style. The policy prohibits black clothing and caps, although it doesn’t expressly define the term “cap.” If a question concerning the policy arises during a job interview, the policy specifies that the job applicant should contact the company’s human resources department.

In 2008, a practicing Muslim applied for a position at an Abercrombie store. The job applicant wore a hijab, a kind of headscarf, every day, including on the day of her interview. There was no discussion of the hijab during the interview, but it did result in a lower rating in the “appearance” section of the application.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Abercrombie on behalf of the job applicant. It claimed that the company had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) by refusing to hire the applicant because of the hijab.

Abercrombie argued that the applicant had failed to meet her duty to inform the interviewer that she required a special accommodation from the appearance policy. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling, deciding that the trial court should have granted summary judgment in favor of Abercrombie because the job applicant hadn’t expressed any potential conflict.

The Supreme Court held that the job applicant didn’t have to make a specific request to wear a headscarf to accommodate her religious beliefs, even if such a request was dictated by company policy. According to the opinion, proof of “actual knowledge” of the job applicant’s religious need isn’t required for an accommodation.

Title VII prohibits certain motives regardless of the employer’s knowledge of the applicant. So, the job applicant had to show only that her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision not to hire her. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the EEOC.

Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (S. Ct. No. 12-1226, April 27, 2015)

A delivery driver for United Parcel Service (UPS) requested a leave of absence in 2006 to undergo in vitro fertilization. The procedure was successful, and she became pregnant.

During her pregnancy, medical personnel advised the driver that she shouldn’t lift more than 20 pounds while working. But company policy at UPS requires drivers to be able to lift up to 70 pounds. Because the pregnant driver couldn’t meet this work requirement — and because she had used up all of her available family and medical leave — UPS forced her to take an extended unpaid leave of absence.

While the driver was out on leave, she lost her medical coverage. After giving birth in 2007, she resumed her duties at UPS. In her lawsuit, she claimed that she was the victim of gender and disability-based discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).

UPS countered that the driver couldn’t prove that its decision was based on her pregnancy or that she was treated differently from any other worker in similar circumstances. Also, UPS argued that pregnancy didn’t qualify as a “disability” under the ADA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the claim.

Although the ADA didn’t come into play, the Supreme Court advised courts to evaluate 1) the extent to which an employer’s policy treats pregnant workers less favorably than nonpregnant workers with similar inabilities to work and 2) any legitimate reasons for such differences. The top court’s interpretation of the PDA is that employers must offer the same accommodations to pregnant workers as others with comparable physical limitations, regardless of other factors.

The majority opinion concluded that a pregnant worker can “create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a significant burden exists by providing evidence that the employer accommodates a large percentage of nonpregnant workers while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant workers.” The Court remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit for additional analysis.

 

© Copyright 2015. All rights reserved.
Brought to you by: McClanathan, Burg & Associates, LLC

About the Author
McClanathan, Burg & Associates, LLC. is a full service accounting firm. Our team members provide services including: Tax, Audit, Assurance and Accounting, Estate and Trust, Forensic Accounting, Litigation Support and Business Valuation.

Social Share

  • google-share

Search

RECENT NEWS

  • IRS Extends the Tax Filing and Paying Deadline for Individuals
  • Do you know the tax impact of your collectibles?
  • Making 2017 retirement plan contributions in 2018
  • When an elderly parent might qualify as your dependent
  • AMT Calculations: It’s Showtime

Categories

  • MBA Events
  • MBA News
  • Opinion & Editorial
  • Resources & Tips

Archives

  • March 2021
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • November 2013

Social Media

Facebook
Linked In
SavvyCard
Twitter

“Best
Congratulations to this year's honored business!
Featured in the Tampa Bay Times.
Click here to view my profile >>

Categories

  • MBA Events
  • MBA News

Archives

Sign Up For Newsletter

First Name:
Last Name:
Email Address (required):
Company:
Phone Number:
© 2014 McClanathan, Burg & Associates, LLC | Website Design by ThinkTankConnect.com

Send to Mobile

Text or Email McClanathan, Burg & Associates online business card to your mobile device using the form below
From the card you will be able to:
  • Get turn by turn directions to the company's office
  • Access a visual company directory of employee cards
  • Call, email or text the company
  • Share/Refer the company to others
  • Save the card to your phone's home screen for future access