Gift Certificate Expiration Dates

Question: Do gift certificates expire? I am in California and I just found some gift certificates that I received for Christmas in 2000. Are they still any good?

Answer: With Christmas coming up, I've been getting a lot of questions about gift certificates. Under California law, most gift certificates cannot contain an expiration date, and are valid until redeemed or replaced.

There are exceptions to this rule: (1) certificates issued prior to January 1, 1997; (2) certificates that are distributed under various awards programs; (2) certificates that are sold to employers or to nonprofit and charitable organization for fundraising purposes; (4) and certificates for food products.

California law also bans nearly all service fees on retailer gift cards and gift certificates with one limited exception. On a rechargeable card with a balance of $5 or less, the issuer may charge a dormancy fee of $1 per month after 24 months of inactivity. Even a balance inquiry counts as activity that prevents this fee. All other service fees are prohibited.

California law even allows for the cash redemption of gift certificates. Click here to read the full text of the law regarding gift certificates in California.

About the Author: Carl H. Starrett II has been a licensed attorney since 1993 and is a member in good standing with the California State Bar and the San Diego County Bar Association. Mr. Starrett practices in the areas of bankruptcy, business litigation, construction, corporate planning and debt collection.

Ten Tips For Saving Taxes in 2006

With the end of 2006 approaching, there is still time to save money on your tax bill. Here are 10 useful tips that you can use:

• Business owners can purchase an SUV on credit and get up to a $25,000 instant deduction as well as the benefit of an additional depreciation amount to the extent that the SUV costs more than $25,000.
• Business owners can purchase a 3/4 ton truck (or larger) and write the whole amount off up to $108,000.
• Setup a SEP retirement account in 2006 and you will not have to fund the retirement account until October 15, 2007 if you file extensions.
• Owners of businesses who use the Cash Accounting Method can ask their clients or customers to refrain from paying invoices until 2007. This will defer the taxes into the next year.
• Business owners can pay bills in December 2006 that are due in January 2007 in order to obtain an early write off.
• Property owners can rent a space in your home to their business as an office and write off part of the utilities, insurance, taxes, interest, repairs and depreciate part of the home. The business should be a corporation or an LLC. Otherwise you may take the office in the home deduction for your schedule “C”.
• Incorporate if your own a small business that is netting more than $35,000 annually. Business owners can realize tax savings as well as protect personal assets. The rush is on to incorporate on Jan 02, of 2007.
• Teachers can still write off up to $250. However, there is no line on the 1040 to list it anymore as the write off was approved after the forms were printed.
• Purchase a new car and write off the sales tax in 2006.
• The biggest tax tip is to avoid preparing your own taxes. Software cannot replace a professional in using every benefit available to you. You will save time, taxes and reduce your chances of being audited.

And remember, there are limits and special conditions to the above, so consult your tax expert to make sure you can qualify for any of the above benefits.

About the Author: John Leslie, a certified QuickBooks Pro Advisor, has 20 years of experience in the tax field. Mr. Leslie is a member of the Lakeside Chamber of Commerce has been involved in the San Diego business community since 1986 and has lived in the area for over 40 years. His strong ties to the community have shaped the client-business philosophy for which IRSTAXHELP.COM is known.

California DMV to Start Suspending Vehicle Registrations of Uninsured Drivers

The California Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") has announced plans to step up efforts to crack down on uninsured drivers. The process began in January 1, 2006 when all insurance companies were required to begin provide information to the DMV on automobile policies to California drivers. Beginning in July 2006, law enforcement court personnel were given access to DMV files to check the insurance status of any registered vehicle.

The final step began in October 2006. The DMV can now suspend the registration of any vehicle if the liability insurance has expired, been cancelled or if the insurance company has not provided electronic proof of insurance for a driver's vehicle.

The DMV has already mailed thousands of letters to car owners warning them that their registrations may be suspended if they can't prove they have auto insurance. The DMV will also review information on the 22.4 million private vehicles registered in the state. The DMV will cross-check records of registered car owners in a database of insured vehicles that's updated by insurance companies. If the program works as planned, California drivers should have greater assurance that the car next to them is properly insured.

About the Author: Carl H. Starrett II has been a licensed attorney since 1993 and is a member in good standing with the California State Bar and the San Diego County Bar Association. Mr. Starrett practices in the areas of bankruptcy, business litigation, construction, corporate planning and debt collection.

Update on Star Ambulance Investigation

After announcing an investigation of Star Ambulance in conjunction with Special Investigations Agency, NBC 7/39 in San Diego began to cover the story. Star Ambulance went out of business without notice to its employees, leaving behind thousands of dollars in bounced paycheck. Click below to see the entire story:

Please contact us if you have any information about the Star Ambulance and the wherabouts of founders Larry McEwen and Frank Westbrook.

California Court Grants Partial Victory to Supporters of Mount Soledad Cross

In the recent case of Paulson v. Abdelnour, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District of California (Division One) granted an important victory in the battle to save the Mount Soledad War Memorial in San Diego. The Court of Appeal reversed a trial court decision that invalidated the passage of Proposition A. Proposition A mandated that the City of San Diego Donate the Mount Soledad Memoral, including the cross and surrounding to land, to the federal government to be maintained as a war memorial.

Although a cross has existed on Mount Soledad in some form since 1913, the Mount Soledad War Memorial Association received permission from the City of San Diego ("City)" to erect the present cross as a memorial to fallen Korean War veterans. Mount Soledad is an 822-foot-tall hill that lies between Interstate 5 to the east and the Pacific Ocean to the west.

In 1989, Phillip Paulson ("Paulson") filed a lawsuit against the City seeking removal of the Mount Soledad Cross. Paulson claimed that allowing a cross to remain on public land violated both the California and United States Constitutions. Since 1989, numerous courts have made rulings in one form or another regarding the constitutionality of the Mount Soledad Cross.

In 2005, Congress passed a law that designated the Mount Soledad site as a national veteran’s memorial. The act providing for the designation recites: "Not later than 90 days after the date on which the City of San Diego, California, offers to donate the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial to the United States, the Secretary of the Interior shall accept, on behalf of the United States, all right, title and interest of the City in and to the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial."

The act further states that upon acquisition of the memorial by the United States, the Secretary of the Interior "shall administer the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial as a unit of the National Park System, except that the Secretary shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association for the continued maintenance by the Association of the cross and surrounding granite memorial walls and plaques of the Memorial."

In response, the San Diego city council placed Proposition A on a special July 26, 2005, election ballot allowing the citizens of San Diego to directly decide whether the invitation offered by the federal government should be accepted. Proposition A passed on July 26, 2005, by 76 percent of the vote. Paulson challenged Proposition A in court and the trial ruled that the land proposed land transfer was unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal reversed. In a 33 page ruling, the Court noted that nothing in Proposition A or the federal legislation mandated keeping the cross as part of the memorial. The Court also noted that the matter was decider by the voted and the Court refused speculate whether San Diego voters were motivated by secular or religious reasons.

Although Paulson recently passed away, the remaining plaintiffs could still appeal to the California Supreme Court and this decision does not terminate the federal court proceedings. However, it does bring Mount Soledad supporters one step closer to preserving a cross and war memorial that have existed for more than 50 years.