Do You Have Residency In More Than One State? If you spend time in any given year in residences in different states, somewhere in your travels you also may want to schedule an appointment with your professional tax advisor. One topic for discussion would be the legal concept of domicile. In simplest terms, a person's domicile is the place where he or she intends to return after leaving another location. The special significance of where a domicile is established is in tax planning. An individual's domicile determines which state's income, gift, and estate tax laws apply, and in which state or states a person, trust, or estate is taxable. The rules that will govern the administration of an estate also depend on the state of domicile. Inadequate attention to establishing and documenting an intended state of domicile could mean that even the best-laid estate plan might go awry because the laws of a different state could apply. The end result could be an unexpected tax burden that otherwise could have been avoided. Although the basic definition of "domicile" is simple enough, many different criteria may be taken into account in pinpointing a state of domicile. No one factor is controlling, and the states differ in the criteria that they use. The address included in a person's will may be a good indicator of the person's domicile. A nonexhaustive list of other factors would take into account in what state a person votes, registers an automobile, has a driver's license, keeps important personal property, pays state and local income and personal property taxes, last applied for a passport, and keeps the bulk of his or her money. Contrary to the old saying, you can go home again, and it is a good idea to make sure that you and the government agree on where that home is.

A company in the contact lens business learned that its website was in the internal directory and that the software caused pop-up ads for competing contact lens retailers to appear on the screens of individuals who visited the company's website. The contact lens company sued the marketing firm on the theory that the marketing firm had infringed upon a trademark in violation of federal law. From the plaintiff's standpoint, the actions of the marketing firm were allowing competitors to take a free ride on the plaintiff's website. A federal court ruled against the plaintiff contact lens company. A successful trademark infringement lawsuit requires a showing of a protected trademark and a use of that trademark in commerce in connection with the sale or advertising of goods or services, without the plaintiff's consent. The use of the mark by the defendant also must be such as to likely cause confusion between the plaintiff and the defendant. The action brought by the plaintiff failed primarily due to the court's ruling that the defendant had never "used" the plaintiff's trademark in a manner like that in a typical infringement case. First, the defendant reproduced the plaintiff's website address, which was similar, but not identical, to its trademark. In addition, the pop-up ads, which appeared in a separate window prominently branded with the marketing company's mark, had no discernible effect on the functioning of the plaintiff's website.

It was not enough for a successful claim that the defendant and its clients were trying to take advantage of the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation, which had led people to the plaintiff's website in the first place. What the defendant was doing was no more legally objectionable than the low-tech counterpart of chain drug stores placing their own store-brand products on shelves next to the higher-priced and trademarked versions of the same products, so as to capitalize on their competitors' name recognition.

Federal regulations in place since August 2004 have simplified the test for determining which employees come within the white collar exemption. An employee is a professional if each of the following elements is present:

(1) The employee has the primary duty of performing work requiring advanced knowledge, that is, work that is mainly intellectual in nature and which includes the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment;
(2) The employee has advanced knowledge in a field of science or learning; and
(3) The employee has advanced knowledge that is customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction.

Recent Cases
In one recent case, a company refused to pay overtime to some of its employees who were licensed pharmacists. Much to the dismay of the employees, the company's reliance on the white collar exemption held up in federal court. All of the parties agreed that the second and third parts of the exemption test were met by the pharmacists, leaving a dispute only over whether the pharmacists' work required the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment. The court found that this element also was present.

The pharmacists, with little supervision, routinely made discretionary decisions about dispensing prescribed drugs to patients, and sometimes the process required consultation with the physicians who prescribed the drugs. The only factor suggesting a lack of discretion was the fact that the employees, as a rule, were expected to follow standard operating procedures from their employer. But this argument by the pharmacists was undermined by the fact that they regularly were asked to consult with the employer about the standard procedures and to review them for any suggested improvements. The pharmacists also had the employer's blessing to stray from the procedures if, in their judgment, it was necessary for a patient's health.

Assuming an employee is eligible for overtime pay, questions can arise as to what comprises an employee's regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating the overtime obligation. It is not always as simple as using an employee's base hourly rate or salary. For example, in another recent case, a federal court ruled that the regular pay of municipal firefighters included payments made to them under a city's sick leave buy-back program. A firefighter who had built up a certain amount of sick leave had the right to "sell" it back to the city for a lump-sum payment. Whenever this happened, the employer effectively was paying the firefighters a bonus for good attendance and for work they had already done. It was as much a part of the firefighters' regular compensation as their base hourly wage, so it had to be taken into account in calculating overtime wages.