SEC Proposes Joint Data Standards Under the Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022
08/02/2024 01:00 PM EDT
Securities and Exchange Commission today proposed joint data standards under the Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022 that would establish technical standards for data submitted to certain financial regulatory agencies. Eight additional agencies have…
Our Strategic Plan focuses on three goals that advance our mission: investors, innovation and performance. Read more.
07/31/2024 04:45 PM EDT The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Abraham Shafi, the founder and former CEO of Get Together Inc., a privately held social media startup known as “IRL,” with defrauding investors by making false and misleading statements about the… |
Search OFAC's Sanctions Lists
SDN List
Additional Sanctions Lists
Sanctions FAQs
Press Releases
OFAC Sanctions Programs
Contact OFAC
Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.
Important Announcement for Users of OFAC’s Compliance Hotline
To improve efficiency in responding to requests for sanctions guidance from the public, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is updating its Compliance Hotline by streamlining and enhancing the query submission process.
Thanks to helpful feedback from Compliance Hotline users, OFAC is transitioning to a single, user-friendly online platform to receive questions from the public. Users can now submit queries—and provide all necessary details—directly through OFAC’s new OFAC Compliance Hotline page. This new platform is designed to improve OFAC’s tracking of queries and help OFAC assess when additional public guidance may be helpful.
OFAC will fully transition its Compliance Hotline to this web form platform by January 1, 2025, and will retire other existing forms of contacting the OFAC Compliance Hotline according to the following schedule: OFAC will retire the Compliance Hotline email (OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov) on August 16, 2024; and its Compliance Hotline telephone (1-800-540-6322 and 202-622-2490) on December 31, 2024.
Please submit questions about how to comply with OFAC-administered sanctions programs or where to find helpful guidance on OFAC’s website via the new online OFAC Compliance Hotline.
As a reminder, please continue to use OFAC’s License Application page for license applications and requests for formal interpretive guidance. Other information about contacting OFAC, including where to submit voluntary self-disclosures or appeal designations, can be found on our Contact OFAC page.
For more information on this specific action, please visit our Recent Actions page.
A long wait.
The wrong number.
Getting disconnected.
These can frustrate taxpayers and tax practitioners when trying to contact the IRS. You may remember we called 102 IRS customer service telephone numbers during last year's tax filing season. We found that 21 of them placed us on hold for more than 30 minutes before we ended the call.
This time around, we called phone lines at the Taxpayer Advocate Service.
What's the Taxpayer Advocate Service?
If you need help resolving a problem with the IRS, one option is to call your local Taxpayer Advocate Service office. It's an independent organization within the IRS whose mission is to ensure every taxpayer is treated fairly and understands their rights.
Why did we look into their telephone coverage?
A concerned tax practitioner told us they had left a message on the local Taxpayer Advocate Service telephone line and didn't receive a call back. In two subsequent calls, they received a message that the voicemail box was full.
So, we tested it ourselves and got the same result. Then, we called their other 75 phone lines to see what happened.
How many times did an employee answer?
Only twice. We got a voicemail prompt for the rest of our calls, but sometimes we couldn't leave one because the mailbox was either full or the number wasn't in service.
What can the Taxpayer Advocate Service do to fix the issue?
To their credit, they cleared the full voicemail boxes so taxpayers can leave a message.
Longer-term solutions are also being considered. They are exploring technology to transcribe voicemails so employees in other areas can help return calls and to expand the size of voicemail boxes to prevent them from becoming full.
Read the full report for more of our findings.
Read the full report
U.S. Department of the Treasury Announces New Mexico Will Join IRS Direct File for Filing Season 2025
08/01/2024
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Office of Public Affairs
Press Release: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 1, 2024
Contact: Treasury Public Affairs; Press@Treasury.gov
U.S. Department of the Treasury Announces New Mexico Will Join IRS Direct File for Filing Season 2025
New Mexico Becomes Fourth New State to Offer Free Tax Filing Option Next Year Made Possible by President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that New Mexico will be the fourth new state to join IRS Direct File for Filing Season 2025. IRS Direct File was made possible by President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which provided new resources for the IRS to improve customer service and ensure taxpayers claim the benefits and deductions for which they are eligible.
Following a successful Pilot Program in 12 states that saw 140,000 taxpayers claim more than $90 million in refunds and save an estimated $5.6 million in filing costs using the new free online filing tool, Treasury and the IRS announced the expansion of Direct File as a permanent offering. New Mexico becomes the fourth new state to offer Direct File to its taxpayers after Oregon, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania announced their participation this summer. More than 200,000 New Mexicans will be eligible to use the free online filing tool next Filing Season.
“Thanks to President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, more than 200,000 New Mexico taxpayers will be able to file their taxes online for free, directly with the IRS this coming Filing Season. Direct File will save New Mexicans time and money and help ensure they receive the tax benefits they are owed,” said U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen. “After a successful pilot this Filing Season, we are pleased to expand the program as a permanent offering and welcome New Mexico as the fourth new state to offer this free option to taxpayers.”
“This collaboration with the IRS will simplify the tax filing process for New Mexicans. The Direct File program empowers taxpayers with a free, reliable, and efficient way to manage their federal and state tax filings,” said Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham.
“In May, I pushed the IRS to expand its Direct File program to make filing taxes free and easy for more working families. I’m pleased the IRS listened to our calls and have now made this successful program available to New Mexicans, ensuring access to a free and accessible tool to help the hardworking people in our state claim all available tax refunds in time for the next tax filing season,” said Senator Martin Heinrich.
“Creating a way for New Mexicans to file their taxes directly with the IRS and online for free is a huge step in easing the stress of tax season for people in my district,” said Representative Melanie Stansbury (NM-01). “We're seeing positive, real-world impacts on the working class in our state every day all thanks to the Biden-Harris Administration and the Inflation Reduction Act.”
The Treasury Department’s goal in the coming years is to expand the reach and tax scope of Direct File to provide an option for working-and middle-class taxpayers nationwide. Direct File is central to the Biden-Harris Administration’s efforts to deliver modern, world-class customer service using Inflation Reduction Act resources. Direct File also advances a goal of the IRS’s Strategic Operation Plan (SOP) to ensure that taxpayers receive tax credits that they are eligible for, including the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit. The IRS will continue to improve the product over time and ensure that it remains free, secure, and easy to use.
BACKGROUND ON THE DIRECT FILE PILOT PROGRAM
The average American spends $270 and 13 hours filing their taxes. (Taxpayer Burden Survey) President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act required the IRS to study the potential for an IRS-run Direct e-File System that would allow taxpayers to file taxes for free, directly with the IRS. After reviewing the report, which showed strong taxpayer interest in a free IRS filing option, the Treasury Department initiated a pilot of IRS Direct File during the 2024 Filing Season.
In Filing Season 2024, Direct File was available to taxpayers with simple tax situations in 12 states. The Pilot exceeded expectations with more than 140,000 Americans successfully filing in the five weeks the program was widely available following extensive product testing. These filers claimed more than $90 million in refunds and saved an estimated $5.6 million in tax preparation fees on their federal returns alone.
Direct File users also reported a high degree of satisfaction and quick answers to their filing questions. In a GSA Touchpoints survey of more than 11,000 Direct File users, 90 percent of respondents ranked their experience with Direct File as “Excellent” or “Above Average.” Among survey respondents, 47 percent of users paid to file their taxes last year and 16 percent did not file last year at all.
In Treasury and IRS engagements with Direct File users, taxpayers relayed that Direct File was straightforward to use, and they valued features that allowed them to learn more about different tax situations, credits, and deductions. Taxpayers emphasized their appreciation for the fact that Direct File is always free and there are no hidden fees or attempts to upsell users as they moved through the filing process. Taxpayers also shared that filing directly with the IRS gave them confidence and that they were able to quickly fix mistakes and get their taxes filed accurately.
###
|
The Summary of NLRB Decisions is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for the opinions of the NLRB. Inquiries should be directed to the Office of the Executive Secretary at 202‑273‑1940.
Summarized Board Decisions
International Longshoremen’s Association, Local 1413 (Ports America Terminals, Inc.) (01-CB-328360; 373 NLRB No. 79) New Bedford, MA, July 24, 2024.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the complaint. The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by failing to refer a unit employee from its exclusive hiring hall for arbitrary or discriminatory reasons. The Board further found that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) by causing an employer to discriminate against its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3).
Charge filed by an individual. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Starbucks Corporation (03-CA-310676; 373 NLRB No.75) Liverpool, NY, July 24, 2024.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) when, in the runup to an election, it solicited grievances, made threats, and increased management’s in-store presence to create the impression of surveillance.
Charge filed by Workers United. Administrative Law Judge Michael P. Silverstein issued his decision on February 9, 2024. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC (16-CA-103387 and 16-CA-112404; 373 NLRB No. 80) Dallas, TX, July 26, 2024.
On remand from the D.C. Circuit Court, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty; Member Kaplan, dissenting) reaffirmed its finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging an employee for his protected concerted union activity of testifying on behalf of the Union before a Texas state legislative committee concerning the safety of smart electric meters. In addressing concerns raised by the court that the underlying Board decision did not fully address the requirements under NLRB v. Electrical Workers Local 1228 (Jefferson Standard), 346 U.S. 464 (1953), the Board found that the General Counsel bears the burden of proof under the first prong of the Jefferson Standard test. The Board then concluded that the General Counsel had met that burden by showing that the employee’s communication to the state legislative committee indicated a relationship to an ongoing dispute because the employee identified himself as a longtime employee and union representative, spoke directly on the negative impact of a product on his day-to-day working conditions, and addressed how he had discussed these changes to working conditions with another union local.
Dissenting, Member Kaplan agreed that the General Counsel bore the burden under the first prong of the Jefferson Standard test, but would have dismissed the allegation and found that the employee’s testimony regarding smart meters was not related to a labor dispute.
Charges filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 69. Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron issued his decision November 4, 2014. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
***
Saint Joseph Health System, Inc. d/b/a Chi Saint Joseph Health—Saint Joseph London (09-CA-297427; 373 NLRB No. 78) London, KY, July 26, 2024.
The Board found that the Respondent is a successor under NLRB v. Burns International Security Services, Inc., 406 U.S. 272 (1972), and affirmed the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union upon request.
Charge filed by United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 227. Administrative Law Judge Renée D. McKinney issued her decision on September 28, 2023. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Jonna Corporation, d/b/a Premier Recycle Company (32-RD-336679) San Jose, CA, July 22, 2024. The Board granted the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order Dismissing Petition. The Board determined that because the complaint allegations do not include a general refusal to bargain and are the type of bargaining violations that would typically be remedied by a limited bargaining order, it was appropriate under Rieth-Riley Construction Co., 371 NLRB No. 109 (2022) to remand the proceeding to the Regional Director to apply Master Slack, 271 NLRB 78 (1984), and, if the Regional Director deems it necessary, to conduct a hearing pursuant to Saint Gobain Abrasives, Inc., 342 NLRB 434 (2004). Petitioner—an individual. Union—International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 853. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated in the decision.
Paragon Systems, Inc. (21-RD-343514) Los Angeles, CA, July 24, 2024. The Board granted the Party in Interest’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Order Denying Motion to Intervene as it raised substantial issues warranting review. The Board also granted the Party in Interest’s request to stay proceedings. Petitioner—an individual. Union—United Federation LEOS-PBA Law Enforcement Officers Security & Police Benevolent Association. Intervenor—International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA). Intervenor—California Protective Security Officers Association (CPSOA). Party in Interest—United Trades & Transportation Workers Union Local 323. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
Action Logistics, Inc. (25-CA-314654 and 25-CA-314663) DeKalb, IL, July 22, 2024. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint, finding that the Respondent had not demonstrated that the consolidated complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Charges filed by Arise Chicago. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Troy Grove and a Div. of Riverstone Group Inc., Vermillion Quarry a Div. of Riverstone Group Inc., Board Case No. 25-CA-234477 (reported at 371 NLRB No. 138) (7th Cir. decided July 23, 2024).
In a published opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against the Riverstone Group, a mining aggregate company that operates sand and stone quarries in Vermilion Quarry in Utica, Illinois, and Troy Grove Quarry in Oglesby, Illinois. Additionally, the Court denied two petitions for review, one filed by Riverstone and the other by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO, which represents employees at both quarries.
In early 2018, after the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement expired, negotiations for a successor contract were unsuccessful, and the employees went on strike. Riverstone hired replacement workers, one of whom joined the Union, was denied his request for union representation during an investigatory interview, and was later discharged. Further, Riverstone required another union member to sign a preferential hiring list in order to return to work, removed a union picket sign from public property, and changed its punching-in policy to prohibit employees from punching in more than 5 minutes early.
The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Ring and Wilcox) found that Riverstone violated Section 8(a)(1) by denying the union member’s request for representation at the investigatory interview, removing the union picket sign from public property, and requiring the returning union member to sign a preferential hiring list. The Board also found that Riverstone violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally implementing a new punch-in policy for bargaining unit employees, while finding that there was no violation with respect to strike replacements. Further, the Board (Member Wilcox, dissenting) found that Riverstone did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by disciplining and discharging the union member because Riverstone had demonstrated that it would have taken those actions even absent his union activity based on his numerous and undisputed infractions.
On review, the Court held that the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and the applicable labor law. Overall, the Court noted that its review of Board decisions is “deferential and circumscribed,” and that “we do not flirt with fact-finding or quibble with the Board’s reasonable conclusions as we would on de novo review.” For legal conclusions, the Court explained that “our scrutiny of the Board’s decision is deferential out of respect for Congress’s broad delegation of responsibility for developing national labor policy to the Board,” and that the Court therefore will “accept the Board’s legal conclusions unless they are irrational or inconsistent with the Act.”
Applying those standards of review, the Court agreed with the Board that Riverstone unlawfully denied the employee’s request for union representation during the investigatory interview in violation of his rights under NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975), and rejected Riverstone’s argument that replacement workers had no such rights. In upholding the Board’s Wright Line analysis of the employee’s discharge, the Court agreed with the Board that given the employee’s four attendance-based infractions, coupled with his four performance and safety infractions, Riverstone had met its burden of proving it would have discharged him even absent his union activity. In doing so, the Court rejected the Union’s challenges to that finding, noting that “[a]t bottom, [the Union] asks us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.” On the issue of Riverstone having required the other union employee to sign a preferential hiring list after he had unconditionally offered to return to work, the Court explained that Riverstone had imposed “an additional obligation” on the employee “without a legitimate and substantial business justification.”
On the Board’s finding that Riverstone unlawfully removed a union picket sign from public property, the Court held that “Riverstone essentially asks us to reconsider the ALJ’s credibility findings,” to which the Court owes “great deference” in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, not shown here. Finally, regarding the unilateral change to the punch-in policy, the Court noted that it was contrary to Riverstone’s “regular and longstanding practice,” and that no notice or opportunity to bargain had been provided to the Union. However, contrary to the Union’s contention, the Court upheld the Board’s determination not to extend the unilateral-change finding to replacement workers, noting that, under extant Board law, an employer need not bargain with a union regarding the terms and conditions of employment for strike replacements hired during a strike.
The Court’s decision is here.
Enright Seeding, Inc., Board Case No. 25-CA-210670 (reported at 371 NLRB No. 127) (8th Cir. decided July 25, 2024).
In a published opinion, the Court denied enforcement and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings. The Board’s order issued against this Employer that performs erosion-control services at construction sites around building projects in Iowa and Illinois. The Board (Members Wilcox and Prouty; Member Ring, dissenting) found that the Employer recognized the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, as the Section 9(a) majority representative of its employees pursuant to a recognition agreement executed in 2007, rather than a relationship governed by Section 8(f) . Based on that status, the Board found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to provide certain requested information to the Union.
On review, the Court disagreed with the Board’s application of the relevant law to the facts of the case, and concluded that the Board’s order regarding the employer-union relationship was not supported by substantial evidence. The Court also disagreed with the Board’s additional finding that the Employer could not raise a defensive claim that the Union lacked majority support at the time the recognition agreement was executed. Remanding, the Court stated: “We express no view on whether Enright Seeding repudiated the 2007 agreement or whether the union was entitled to the information it requested under an agreement governed by § 8(f).”
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Atlantic HVAC and Property Care, Inc. (10-CA-301130; JD-45-24) Pooler, GA. Administrative Law Judge Renée D. McKinney issued her decision on July 22, 2024. Charge filed by Georgia-Carolina Pipe Trades Association.
Starbucks Corporation (19-CA-303717, et al.; JD(SF)-22-24) Seattle, WA. Administrative Law Judge John T. Giannopoulos issued his decision on July 23, 2024. Charges filed by Workers United Labor Union International a/w Service Employees International Union with Service Employees International Union Local 513, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 30, and Central and Rock Partners Union.
Floss N Gloss PA, d/b/a Aqua Dental (16-CA-305753; JD(SF)-23-24) Los Angeles, CA. Administrative Law Judge Amita Baman Tracy issued her decision on July 26, 2024. Charge filed by an individual.
B & L, Inc., d/b/a Boyds Drug Mart (18-CA-321513; JD-46-24) Rapid City, SD. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on July 26, 2024. Charge filed by an individual.
***
The Summary of NLRB decisions for the week of July 22 - 26, 2024 is now available on the NLRB’s website. The summary can be accessed by clicking the links below.
Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of July 22 - 26, 2024 | National Labor Relations Board  August 2, 2024  Your Home for Government Benefits Information is Changing to USA.gov! In September, Benefits.gov is shutting down and federal government benefits information will be available on USA.gov. This transition marks the continuing dedication of the Federal Government to provide critical government resources for the public. READ MORE Editor's Picks  December 31, 1998 Welcome to Benefits.gov Benefits.gov (formerly GovBenefits.gov) was one of the earliest “E-Government” initiatives to launch in 2002 as part of the President’s Management Agenda and was established as the official benefits website of the U.S. government. Read More  March 30, 2022 Benefits.gov Recognizes 20 Years of Citizen Service For 20 years, we have helped millions of people find benefit programs they may be eligible for and learn how to apply. We’ve listened to your feedback and created online tools to meet citizen needs. Read More Government Benefits News Update  New report: Fiscal Year 2024 IRS Federal Information Security Modernization Act Evaluation Why did we do this audit? We're required to perform an annual independent evaluation of the IRS's information security programs and practices. Last year, the IRS processed 271.5 million tax returns and other forms - a substantial amount of taxpayer personal and financial information. The IRS is responsible for implementing appropriate security controls to protect the confidentiality of this sensitive information against unauthorized access or loss. What did we find? The IRS continues to be not effective in the same program areas. The agency could improve on:maintaining a comprehensive and accurate inventory of its information systems; tracking and reporting on an up-to-date inventory of hardware and software assets; implementing flaw remediation on a timely basis; encrypting to protect data at rest; and implementing multifactor authentication on its systems and facilities. Without a security program in compliance with FISMA requirements, taxpayer data could be vulnerable to inappropriate and undetected use, modification, or disclosure. Read the full report |
