Join now!   |   Subscribe   |   Pay an Invoice   |   Sign In
Unclaimed Property Focus
Blog Home All Blogs
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY FOCUS is a blog written by and for UPPO members, featuring diverse perspectives and insights from unclaimed property practitioners across the U.S. and Canada. We welcome your submissions to Unclaimed Property Focus. Please contact Tim Dressen via tim@uppo.org with any questions about submitting a blog post for consideration and refer to our editorial guidelines when writing your blog post. Disclaimer: Information and/or comments to this blog is not intended as a substitute for legal advice on compliance or reporting requirements.

 

Search all posts for:   

 

Top tags: unclaimed property  Compliance  education  UPPO  audits  Delaware  due diligence  litigation  Advocacy  reform  Members  ULC  RUUPA  UP101  Gift Cards  legislation  UP Laws  reporting  Uniform Law Commission  fall reporting  Holders Seminar  UPPO Annual Conference  Canada  service providers  UPPO Asks  VDAs  uniform unclaimed property act  Annual Conference  california  Pennsylvania 

District of Columbia Considers RUUPA Bill ​

Posted By Administration, Thursday, November 8, 2018
Updated: Wednesday, November 7, 2018

On Jan. 5, 2018, District of Columbia Council member Jack Evans introduced bill B22-0654, the district’s version of the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. The bill sat idle throughout much of the year until an Oct. 10, 2018, public hearing.  

 

If enacted, the new law would reflect a substantial overhaul of the district’s unclaimed property requirements, including changes to required due diligence practices, dormancy triggers and covered property types.

 

As with many of the bills introduced nationwide in the wake of the RUUPA’s adoption by the Uniform Law Commission, the D.C. bill contains potential issues, including several discrepancies related to the Derivative Rights Doctrine, which allows the state rights equal to, but not greater than, those of the owner.

 

For example, the bill includes gift cards under the definition of “stored-value cards,” requiring escheat of such cards that are redeemable for goods and services. Because the owner can’t redeem a gift card for money, it stands that the state shouldn’t be able to claim their cash value. The bill’s broad definition of “stored value card”  and “virtual currency” could similarly require escheat of property types not normally redeemable for cash by the owner. 

 

B22-0654 also would require holders to escheat property even if the owner’s rights to the property have expired under a contract, court order or other law. Much like with gift cards and stored value cards, this provision gives the government rights beyond those of the property owner. 

 

The bill may present other challenges as well. The American Council of Life Insurers, which supports the overall bill, has raised concerns that conflicts between regulators may arise as a result of the bill’s provision specifying that a death master file match be considered knowledge of death of an insured or annuitant.

 

With all significant unclaimed property legislation, UPPO’s Government Relations and Advocacy Committee evaluates bill language and develops a response on behalf of the organization. UPPO and GRAC will continue to monitor this legislation, and we will provide updates as appropriate. 

 

UPPO members can track the progress of this bill and all active unclaimed property legislation nationwide via our govWATCH service

 

As more and more legislatures and regulatory agencies take on issues affecting unclaimed property compliance, advocacy has become an increasingly important role for UPPO. Please take a few minutes to complete our Government Relations and Advocacy Survey to help us build our grassroots network. Responses will give us the ability to mobilize UPPO members when we are faced with legislative and regulatory challenges and opportunities. 

Tags:  Death  Derivative Rights Doctrine  District of Columbia  DMF  RUUPA 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Illinois Official Addresses Unclaimed Property Legislation Questions

Posted By Administration, Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Updated: Tuesday, November 28, 2017

On Nov. 14, 2017, Allen Mayer, deputy general counsel for the Illinois Treasurer’s Office, spoke to the Illinois Chamber of Commerce about the Illinois Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. UPPO submitted several questions, most of which Mayer addressed during his presentation. Sara Lima and Freda Pepper, members of UPPO’s Government Relations and Advocacy Committee, attended the event.

 

According to Lima, Mayer’s attitude toward the state’s new law was exceedingly positive, as would be expected given that the law “favors the state’s position on many ambiguous legal issues.” Of particular note, Mayer described Illinois’ prior unclaimed property law as an “antiquated mess” and characterized the prior business-to-business exemption as a “loophole” that has now been closed.  

 

Has the legislature considered the constitutionality issues raised by the transitional provision? Requiring Holders to look back 10 years (five-year requirement plus five-year dormancy period) to report otherwise exempted property raises due process issues. 

Mayer said that, although he cannot speak for the Illinois General Assembly, he considers the lookback period to be eight years (five-year requirement plus three-year dormancy period under the new Illinois unclaimed property statues). He noted that he personally researched the constitutionality issue and believes the exemption can be retroactively revoked, citing Riggs Nat. Bank v. District of Columbia (581 A.2d 1229) in particular.

 

In attempting to comply with the transitional provision, records dating back to that period of time will most likely not exist, particularly because there has been no record retention requirement contained in Illinois’ unclaimed property law. What will be the consequences of not being able to “catch up” report when these records are no longer available?

Mayer responded that there has always has been a record-retention provision, although it was hard to find before the new Illinois unclaimed property legislation. He cited Section 11(h)(ii), which proscribes a five-year retention from when property is reportable. According to Mayer, holders who report “catch up” property on the 2018 report will not be subject to interest and penalties. He also invited feedback and suggestions on how the state should otherwise deal with the issue.

 

Has there has been any study of the impact of the transitional provision on the business community?

Mayer did not directly respond to this question.

 

Has there has been any study of the impact of the removal of the B2B exemption on the business community?

Mayer said there were some fiscal projections and that the exemption was not as significant as he believes many expected. He noted that he believes companies may not have been fully using the exemption in practice.

 

What specifically will the administrative rules be addressing?

Mayer did not provide any specific topics, but noted Illinois will be considering pay cards (possibly in new legislation) and is open to informal discussion about this topic.

 

Could you please provide clarification of when reports are expected to be filed by investment companies? Are they considered “business associations” that are required to file by May 1?

Mayer specified that investment companies are business associations, required to file by May 1. He said he would be open to including clarification in future legislation.

 

Tags:  Illinois  RUUPA 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Tennessee Reduces Dormancy and Lookback Periods, Adds Requirements

Posted By Administration, Thursday, August 10, 2017

Among the first states to pass a version of the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act this year was Tennessee. On May 25, 2017, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam signed H.B. 420 into law, effective July 1, 2017. The new law includes several substantial changes to the state’s unclaimed property requirements. Noteworthy provisions include:

 

New property types: Among the new property types addressed in H.B. 420 are health savings accounts (HSAs) and stored value cards. HSAs are presumed abandoned if unclaimed three years after the earlier of either the date distributions must begin to avoid tax penalty or 30 years after the account was opened. Stored value cards (other than payroll or gift cards) are presumed abandoned five years after the later of: Dec. 31 of the year in which the card was issued or funds were last deposited; the most recent indication of owner interest in the card; or a verification of the balance by or on behalf of the owner. 

 

Due diligence: Holders must perform due diligence for property valued at $50 or more. Notices must be sent to apparent owners by first-class mail between 180 days and 60 days before the unclaimed property report is filed. Owners who have consented to receive electronic communications must be sent the notice by both first-class mail and email unless the holder believes the email address is invalid. 

 

DMF matching requirement: The new law specifies that life insurers must perform searches of the death master file and comply with the Unclaimed Life Insurance Benefits Act. 

 

Dormancy periods: Most property type dormancy periods have been reduced from five years to three years under H.B. 420.

 

Audit lookback period: For audits in Tennessee, the lookback period has been reduced from 10 years to five years. 

 

Record retention: Holders are required to retain records for 10 years after the unclaimed property report was filed or was due to be filed. 

 

Promulgation of examination rules: The new law specifies that the state treasurer should develop rules for examinations, including procedures and standards for estimation, extrapolation and statistical sampling.

 

Sale of securities: H.B. 420 requires the treasurer to sell a security between eight months and one year after receiving it and giving the apparent owner notice. If the treasurer sells the security within six years, and a valid claim is filed before the six-year period expires, the owner will be entitled to receive a replacement of the security or its market value plus interest.

 

Informal conference provision: This law establishes provisions for an informal conference in situations where an examination results in a determination that a holder has failed to pay or deliver reportable property to the treasurer. It also allows for judicial review of the treasurer's decision. 

 

Exemptions: The law retains the state’s business to business and gift card exemptions. 

 

For the latest information about this and other noteworthy unclaimed property bills, visit UPPO’s govWATCH website

 

Tags:  audits  DMF  dormancy periods  due diligence  record retention  RUUPA  securities  Tennessee  unclaimed property 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Illinois Passes New Unclaimed Property Act, Repeal Effort Underway

Posted By Administration, Thursday, July 20, 2017

On July 6, 2017, Illinois budget bill S.B. 9 became law after the House voted to override the governor’s veto. Among the provisions added to the bill shortly before passage was the Illinois Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, which repeals the state’s current unclaimed property statute and replaces it with new language. 

 

S.B. 9’s unclaimed property provisions become effective on Jan. 1, 2018. However, a movement to repeal the Illinois RUUPA is already underway. 

 

Illinois RUUPA

Among the Illinois RUUPA provisions that are most noteworthy for holders are:

  • The new statute’s definition of escheatable “property” specifically excludes game-related digital content, loyalty cards and gift cards. The definition of “stored-value card” specifically excludes loyalty cards and game-related digital content but includes gift cards. Because stored-value cards are escheatable property, these opposing definitions present an obvious conflict for holders that deal with gift cards. 
  • The new statute defines “virtual currency,” and includes it within the list of escheatable property.
  • Tax-deferred accounts are considered abandoned under the new statute three years after either the required distribution date for avoiding tax penalties, or the 30th anniversary of the account’s opening date—whichever is earlier. Earlier abandonment dates are specified for deceased owners of such accounts. The statute specifically includes health savings accounts in the tax-deferred account provision. 
  • Similarly, the statute includes detailed provisions regarding custodial accounts for minors.
  • Holders are required to maintain records for 10 years. Retained records must include unclaimed property report information; the date, location and circumstances that led to the property rights; property value; last-known owner address; details for items that were not reported as unclaimed; and details related to money orders, traveler’s checks and similar instruments. 
  • The statute incudes a “transitional provision” that requires holders to file an initial report for property that was not previously reportable, but is reportable under the new statute for a period of five years from the effective date (Jan. 1, 2018). 
  • The state’s current business-to-business unclaimed property exemption is excluded from the new law. 

 

Repeal Effort

Before S.B. 9 passed, efforts to repeal the Illinois RUUPA provisions were already underway. On July 3, 2017, Rep. David McSweeney introduced H.B. 4078, which specifies that if S.B. 9 becomes law, the Illinois RUUPA provisions contained in S.B. 9 will be repealed, effective immediately. If passed, the state’s current unclaimed property law, the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, would remain in effect. Before the Illinois legislature’s recess, 19 representatives signed on as co-sponsors of the bill. 

 

For the latest information about this and other noteworthy unclaimed property bills, visit UPPO’s govWATCH website

 

 

Tags:  B2B exemption  gift cards  Illinois  RUUPA  unclaimed property  virtual currency 

Share |
PermalinkComments (1)
 

S.B. 13 makes sweeping changes to Delaware’s unclaimed property statutes

Posted By Administration, Thursday, February 16, 2017

On Feb. 2, 2017, Gov. John Carney signed Delaware S.B. 13 into law, significantly updating the state’s unclaimed property statutes. Many of the changes mirror the 2016 Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (RUUPA), and others appear to respond to issues raised by the Temple-Inland case. The new law is intended to “bring greater predictability, efficiency and fairness to the state’s unclaimed property reporting process and compliance initiatives.” Following is a summary of several of the law’s most noteworthy provisions.

 

Lookback, Record Retention and Statute of Limitations

S.B. 13 reduces the lookback period for both audits and voluntary disclosure agreements (VDAs) to 10 years plus dormancy. It also defines an express record retention period of 10 years from the date a holder submits a report. The statute of limitations is now 10 years from the date the duty arose, whether or not the holder reported the property. The previous statute of limitations, although shorter, began to run from the time the holder reported the property.

 

Estimation Methodology

The new law mandates that the secretaries of finance and state develop estimation regulations by July 1, 2017. They must include permissible base periods; items to be excluded from estimation calculation; aging criteria for outstanding and voided checks; and a definition of what constitutes “complete and researchable records.”

 

Audit Conversion

Under the new law, all holders currently under audit may convert to a two-year accelerated audit. Holders under audit as of July 22, 2015, may convert to a VDA program. Holders have until 60 days after the promulgation of the new estimation regulations to decide whether to convert to an accelerated audit or VDA program. Interest and penalties will be waived if conversion is made. Holders remaining in the audit will be subject to mandatory interest that is waivable only up to 50 percent.

 

Subpoena Authority

Provisions of the new law give the state escheator the power to issue an administrative subpoena and the ability to seek enforcement of an administrative subpoena in the Court of Chancery. These provisions appear to address issues raised by Delaware Department of Finance v. Blackhawk Engagement Solutions.

 

Judicial Review

Among the new provisions adopted in Delaware is a process for appeal by holders to the Delaware Court of Chancery, replacing the previous multi-step administrative review process. Under the new appeal process, holders have the ability to challenge the state escheator’s determination of liability. The court’s standard of review is deferential to the state escheator regarding factual determinations, but errors of law will be reviewed de novo. The judicial review provision also expressly gives the Court of Chancery the authority to review questions of state or constitutional law related to the examination. This provision appears to be a response to the Temple-Inland case.

 

Indications of Owner Interest

S.B. 13 adds a specific list of owner activities that prevent running of the dormancy period. Indications of the owner’s interest in property includes:

  • A written or oral communication by the owner to the holder or agent of the holder concerning the property or the account in which the property is held.
  • Presentment of a check or other instrument of payment of a dividend, interest payment or other distribution.
  • Accessing the account or information concerning the account, or a direction by the owner to increase, decrease or otherwise change the amount or type of property held in the account.
  • Payment of an insurance policy premium with some exceptions.

The new law also specifies that if an owner has more than one investment or account with a holder, an indication of interest in one investment or account is an indication of interest in all of those accounts.

 

Knowledge of Death

The new law adopts the “knowledge of death” concept as a dormancy trigger for life insurance proceeds. “Knowledge of death” may be identified through any source, such as declaration of death, a death certificate or the comparison of the holder’s records against the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File.

 

Priority Rules

For the first time, the Delaware unclaimed property law includes a codification of the U.S. Supreme Court’s priority rules. It expressly prohibits Delaware as the state of domicile under the second priority rule from taking property into custody that is exempted in the first priority rule state. It also allows the state of domicile to claim foreign-address property but excludes property claimed under foreign law.

 

Owner Address

S.B. 13 adopts portions of RUUPA’s definition of an owner’s “last-known address.” The last-known address of an owner is defined as “a description, code or other indication of the location of the owner on the holder’s books and records that identifies the state of the last known address of the owner.”

 

Disposal of Securities

The new law specifies that the state escheator shall sell or dispose of securities on any established stock exchange or by such other means as soon as the escheator deems it feasible after the delivery. The escheator may not sell a security listed on an established stock exchange for less than the price prevailing on the exchange at the time of sale. The escheator may sell a security not listed on an established exchange by any commercially reasonable method.

 

S.B. 13 provides for indemnification of security owners for 18 months. The escheator will provide either a replacement security or the market value of the security at the time the claim is filed if the owner comes forward with that 18-month period.

 

Gift Cards

For the first time, Delaware’s statute defines “gift cards,” “stored value cards” and “loyalty cards.” Gift cards and stored value cards remain escheatable after five years of inactivity. The state retained its unique profit retention provision defining the amount unclaimed as “the amount representing the maximum cost to the issuer of the merchandise, goods, or services represented by the card.” S.B. 13 adds “Goods” and “Services” into the mix, as old statute only provided exemption for “maximum cost to issuer of merchandise represented by the card.” Loyalty cards are expressly exempt.

 

Holders are prohibited from transferring their unclaimed property liability or obligation, except to a parent, subsidiary or affiliate. This provision affects third-party, unrelated companies that issue gift cards on behalf of a business and appears to address some of the uncertainty resulting from the Card Compliant qui tam litigation.

 

Compliance Review

Another new provision in the law permits the state escheator to conduct a “compliance review” if the escheator believes a filed report was inaccurate, incomplete or false. The compliance review is limited to contents of report and all supporting documentation. The escheator is required to adopt rules governing the procedures and standards for compliance reviews, but no timeline was included in the statute.

 

Application of the New Law

S.B. 13 represents a major change in Delaware’s unclaimed property practices with many positive developments for holders. They include reduced lookback, clear record retention period, estimation regulations, statute of limitations regardless of prior reporting compliance, direct appeal to Court of Chancery, new definitions and new exemptions.

 

As with any new law, it remains to be seen how provisions will be interpreted and applied. Holders await the regulations still in development regarding audit conversions to fast-track audits and VDAs, and the new compliance review provision. Clarification from Delaware will help holders make informative judgments about whether to convert current audits into VDA or fast track audits, and whether other changes to their unclaimed property practices are warranted.

 

Tags:  audits  Delaware  estimation  gift cards  RUUPA  unclaimed property 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 
Page 1 of 3
1  |  2  |  3
Membership Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal