Quoted Text

ROTTERDAM
Town puts time stamp on second-hand sales
BY JUSTIN MASON Gazette Reporter
Reach Gazette reporter Justin Mason at 395-3113 or jmason@dailygazette.net.

    Businesses buying second-hand jewelry or electronics will now need to hold onto their merchandise for 10 days before reselling.
    Members of the Town Board approved a second-hand dealers law they hope will provide police investigators with a tool to track stolen goods fenced in Rotterdam. The law was unanimously passed after a brief discussion Wednesday and goes into effect immediately.
    Among other things, the local legislation requires all second-hand dealers to hold on to purchased items for 10 days and send police a report of the inventory they take in each day. The legislation also requires second-hand dealers to secure a license through the town, require all sellers to present valid identification before selling their wares and allow police to inspect their records during regular business hours.
    Board member Robert Godlewski was the only board member to raise issues with the law. He questioned whether the broad-ranging description of the legislation would apply to all second-hand merchandise, such as model trains sold and resold at a business on Hamburg Street.
    Deputy Chief William Manikas assured him the law only pertains to merchandise that is typically stolen. He said the police will specifi cally apply the law to jewelry, precious metals and electronics, rather than for items typically sold by hobby shops.
    “We have no intention of enforcing it that way,” he said.
    Rotterdam Police have identifi ed 14 businesses that will be subjected to the law and will dispatch offi - cers to each in order to walk owners through the steps they need to take to come into compliance. He anticipates enforcing the law sometime within the next 30 days.
    The law drew stern rebuke from several area jewelry stores, largely due to the increased reporting component and the extended waiting period. Some said the 10-day waiting period would put them at a competitive disadvantage when buying gold and make them vulnerable to market whims.
    In response, town offi cials compiled a list of Capital Region municipalities with second-hand dealer laws that include a 10-day waiting period or more, including Colonie, Cohoes, and Amsterdam. The city of Buffalo has a 21-day waiting period, according to material compiled by the town.
    “I truly believe 10 days is fair,” Manikas said.
    But this hasn’t alleviated the concerns of some local second-hand dealers. Michael Hug of Jewels in Rotterdam Square mall said the 10-day waiting period will likely crush everything that he has worked to build since starting his business 16 years ago.
    “It took 16 years to build this business up and now they’re going to knock it down,” he said. “It’s going to cripple us.”
    Hug said he regularly pays out upward of $7,000 in a day to buy gold and makes about a 5 percent profit by selling it to smelters. He estimates he’ll run out of cash to purchase more gold within five days. .....................>>>>..............................>>>>....................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r01202&AppName=1

Quoted from Patches

It may be a good plan in one sense.....but the addicts can't get access to their habit with the drug dealers around

when is that going to be addressed......here in Rotterdam......they are living among us...and get away with it...

what now???

Quoted from CICERO

Decriminalize drugs and regulate them...Then treat the addiction.

Quoted from bumblethru

The Tool Shed accepts 2nd hand tools. They take a copy of the seller's license and hands on to the goods for a while. There are folks that we know that have gone there and re-bought tools that their family member sold for drugs.

I personally think that it may become a hardship for some businesses. But with the increase of robberies due to drugs, it seems only fair for the folks who have been robbed of their possessions.....some jewelry that had belonged to their parents or grandparents and other possessions that have been passed down generation to generation.

Quoted from bumblethru

The Tool Shed accepts 2nd hand tools. They take a copy of the seller's license ...

Quoted from Libertarian4life

Perhaps in exchange we should demand the police dept to show all purchases and sales made by the police department.

Quoted from Libertarian4life

Take a digital photo of the seller, his items and his ID. Email it instantly. The item should now be ready for sale.

Businesses should also be allowed to charge the police for the cost of working for them.

Quoted Text

How 9/11 redefined insurance
By Jay MacDonald · Bankrate.com
Friday, September 9, 2011
Posted: 9 am ET

When terrorists attacked New York's World Trade Center 10 years ago this weekend, it was the largest single insurance loss in history, resulting in an estimated $33 billion in insured damages and shaking the insurance industry worldwide.

Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute, witnessed firsthand the attacks on what is now known as Ground Zero with the same numb incomprehension as the rest of us watching in horror on morning TV around the country.


When one day you visit the Freedom Tower, you can thank our insurance industry for making it possible.

"The event was absolutely unprecedented in every single respect, producing the largest property losses ever, the largest workers' compensation losses ever, the largest aviation losses in history," Hartwig says in a special online remembrance. "It sent shockwaves through the global insurance industry around the world. Insurance is a global business and some 200 insurers wound up sharing in the losses associated with the 9/11 attack."
The attack shattered our comfortable illusion that it can't happen here. With the future suddenly interrupted by shock and uncertainty, Hartwig says insurance companies were quick to partner with the federal government in 2003 on the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program. It makes terrorism insurance available and affordable to protect similar national landmarks as well as power plants, airports, shipping ports and sports stadiums.

How does the insurance industry fare 10 years after 9/11?

"It's safe to say that no event has more fundamentally transformed how insurers think about risk than the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack; not Hurricane Katrina, not the Japanese earthquake, nothing, on a global scale," Hartwig says.

Today, insurers measure commercial property and casualty risk, especially to dense urban areas and such potential targets as airports, stadiums, power plants and shopping centers, not just against 9/11 but on the possibility of an even larger disaster.

For that reason, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program is slated to continue through 2014.  

"There would be a sharing of losses in the event of a very large-scale attack, whereas smaller attacks, the losses would be absorbed by the insurers themselves," Hartwig explains.

So one day when you see or visit the Freedom Tower currently under construction at 1 World Trade Center, which will stand not only as the tallest building on our shores but a symbol of America's response to lawlessness and murder, lift a glass to the insurance industry that made it possible.



Read more: How 9/11 redefined insurance | Bankrate.com http://www.bankrate.com/financing/insurance/how-911-redefined-insurance/#ixzz1tT37ACjh

Quoted Text

NY Motor Vehicle Law Enforcement Fee
STATUTORY REFERENCE: New York Insurance Law § 9110

The purpose of this Circular Letter is to provide guidance to insurers writing motor vehicle insurance in New York regarding the recent amendments to New York Insurance Law § 9110, entitled “Motor Vehicle Law Enforcement Fee.”  Section 9110 requires every insurer authorized to do business in New York to charge and collect an annual motor vehicle law enforcement fee from each holder of a motor vehicle liability insurance policy delivered or issued for delivery in New York.

Effective June 1, 2009, the annual fee is imposed at the rate of $10 per insured vehicle registered pursuant to the provisions of New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401(1)(b).  However, the Legislature also amended section 9110(b) to provide “that such fee shall be reduced by fifty percent per insured motor vehicle registered pursuant to the provisions of paragraph b of subdivision one of section four hundred one of the vehicle and traffic law where a policy issued in the state or for delivery in the state for motor vehicle liability insurance coverage is for a term of six months or less.”  There has been some confusion as to how to interpret these amendments and therefore, the Insurance Department is seeking a legislative clarification.  However, since insurers are already issuing renewal notices on policies to be effective on and after June 1, 2009 and cannot wait for possible amendments to the law, this circular letter provides guidance as to how to apply the new law.

Accordingly, an insurer should, with respect to policies issued or renewed on or after June 1, 2009, implement procedures consistent with the following:

A policy with a term longer than six months

An insurer must collect a $10 fee per insured vehicle when the policy is first issued and upon the policy’s anniversary date.  For example, on a policy written on January 1, 2009 with a one-year policy term, an insurer must collect $10 on January 1, 2010.  For any possible multi-year policy, an insurer must collect a $10 fee upon each anniversary date.
For a vehicle added or replaced on or after June 1, 2009, an insurer must collect a $10 fee at the time of the addition or replacement and thereafter upon the policy’s anniversary date.
A policy with a term of six months or less:

An insurer must collect a $5 fee per insured vehicle when the policy is first issued and upon renewal of the policy, but the total fees collected should not exceed $10 per insured vehicle annually.  For example, on a policy written on January 1, 2010 with a six-month term, an insurer must collect $5 on both January 1, 2010 and July 1, 2010.
For a policy issued prior to June 1, 2009, an insurer should not collect any additional fee until the policy’s next anniversary date.  For example, if on May 1, 2009 an insurer collected $5, then it should not collect a fee on the same vehicle on November 1, 2009, but rather, must collect the fee on May 1, 2010.
For a vehicle added or replaced on or after June 1, 2009, an insurer must collect a $5 fee at the time of the addition or replacement and thereafter upon the renewal of the policy.
All policies:

An insurer may refund a fee only if the policy is rescinded without having become effective, and may not refund the fee simply because a vehicle is removed from the policy.
An insurer no longer needs to itemize the fees by type of vehicle on the Department’s remittance form.
An insurer may not calculate or include the fee in its rate filings.
An insurer should show the fee as a separately identified amount on a premium bill, the declarations page of the policy, or in a separate written communication to the policyholder.
An insurer should maintain its records in such a manner that amounts billed and collected from each policyholder can be identified.
An insurance producer may not earn a commission on the fee.
The fee is not subject to premium tax.
Updated remittance forms are available on the Department’s website.  Insurers may file and remit fees on-line through the Department’s website.

Please refer any questions to:


Mark E. Daigneault
Director of Taxes and Accounts
New York State Insurance Department
One Commerce Plaza
Albany, New York 12257
billing@ins.state.ny.us
  

Quoted Text

George E. Pataki
Governor     
Howard Mills
Superintendent

The Office of General Counsel issued the following opinion on October 31, 2005 representing the position of the New York State Insurance Department.

RE: New York Taxation of Insurers.

Questions Presented:

1. Does New York impose a corporation income tax on insurance companies?

2. If a tax is imposed, what is the rate?

3. Does the retaliatory tax imposed by New York on Nebraska insurance companies include the Nebraska corporation income tax in its computation as well as the premium tax?

Conclusions:

1. New York does not impose a "corporation income tax" on insurance corporations; rather, they are subject to a corporate franchise tax.

2. The imposition of the New York corporate franchise tax on insurance corporations operates as follows: For tax years beginning January 1, 2003, the taxation of non-life insurers differs from that of life insurers in that non-life companies are now subject only to a premium-based tax. Life insurers remain subject to both a premium-based tax and an income/capital/payroll based tax, but in no event pay an amount of tax in excess of 2.0% of life premiums. The maximum tax rate imposed on non-life premiums is 1.75% for accident and health premiums and 2.0% for all other non-life premiums.

3. Yes, New York would consider both the Nebraska corporation income tax and the Nebraska premium tax in determining whether to impose the retaliatory tax.

Facts:

This inquiry is prompted by a Nebraska corporation income tax return that has been filed by a New York domiciled insurance company and the fact that the inquirer has learned that the New York Tax law has been amended with respect to the taxation of non-life insurers.

The inquirer notes that the state of Nebraska imposes a net income tax on corporations ("Corporate Income Tax"). This tax applies to both foreign and domestic insurance companies. Nebraska also imposes on foreign and domestic insurers a tax on premiums received ("Premium Tax"). Insurers are allowed a credit against the Corporate Income Tax for any Premium Tax paid. The practical effect of this credit is that in most instances insurers have a zero Corporate Income Tax liability.

A Nebraska tax statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. � 77-2734.02(2) (1995), provides that a foreign insurance company is subject to taxation at the lesser of the Nebraska Corporate Income Tax rate or the rate imposed in its state of domicile if the retaliatory tax imposed by its state of domicile on Nebraska insurance companies would include a tax based on the Corporate Income Tax.

The inquirer's department is currently reviewing the above-referenced Corporate Income Tax return, and the insurer in question is invoking the benefit of the above-quoted statute, claiming that New York State imposes no corporate income tax on non-life insurance companies.

Analysis:

Taxes are imposed upon insurers by the State of New York pursuant to Article 33 of the New York Tax Law [N. Y. Tax Law �� 1500 – 1520 (McKinney 2000 & Supp. 2005)]. Recent legislation (Part G3, Ch. 62, L. 2003) significantly amended the tax regime of non-life insurers. As indicated by the below-quoted section 1502-a of N.Y. Tax Law, non-life insurers are now subject only to a premium-based tax. The newly added provision of the law provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

� 1502-a. Tax on non-life insurance corporations. In lieu of the tax imposed by section fifteen hundred one of this article, every domestic insurance corporation, every foreign insurance corporation and every alien insurance corporation, other than such corporations transacting the business of life insurance, (1) authorized to transact business in this state under a certificate of authority from the superintendent of insurance or (2) which is a risk retention group ... , shall, for the privilege of exercising corporate franchises or for carrying on business in a corporate or organized capacity within this state, and in addition to any other taxes imposed for such privilege, pay a tax on all gross direct premiums, less return premiums thereon, written on risks located or resident in this state. The tax imposed by this section shall be computed in the manner set forth in subdivision (a) of section fifteen hundred ten of this article as such subdivision applied to taxable years beginning before January first, two thousand three, except that the rate of tax imposed by this section shall be one and seventy-five hundredths percent on all gross direct premiums, less return premiums thereon, for accident and health insurance contracts, and two percent on all other such premiums. All the other provisions in section fifteen hundred ten of this article, other than subdivision (b) of such section, shall apply to the tax imposed by this section. In no event shall the tax imposed under this section be less than two hundred fifty dollars.

N.Y. Tax Law � 1502-a (McKinney Supp. 2005).

Under the current New York Tax Law, for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2003, non-life insurance corporations are subject only to a franchise tax based on premiums. The tax rate is 2.0% except for accident and health premiums, which are taxed at the rate of 1.5%. I note that life insurance corporations remain subject to the tax regime described in this Office’s letter to the inquirer dated November 21, 2000.1 The amount of Franchise tax imposed on a life insurance corporation is capped, however. Under N.Y. Ins. Law � 1505, the maximum tax imposed may not exceed 2.0% of premium.

With regard to the retaliatory tax imposed under the New York Insurance Law, Section 1112 of the N.Y. Ins. Law (McKinney Supp. 2005) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a)(1) If, by the laws, or the action of any public official, of any other state, any insurer organized or domiciled in this state, or its duly authorized agents, shall be, required to deposit securities in such other state to protect policyholders or for any other purpose, or shall be required to pay taxes, fines, penalties, fees for licenses or certificates of authority or any other sum for the privilege of doing business in such other state, or shall be subjected to any restrictions, obligations, conditions or penalties, imposed for such privilege, and such requirements are greater than those required of similar insurers organized or domiciled in such other state by the laws of this state for the privilege of doing business herein, then all similar insurers organized or domiciled in such other state and their duly authorized agents in this state shall make like deposits for like purposes with the superintendent, and pay him for taxes, fines, penalties, fees for licenses or certificates of authority or for any other requirement for the privilege of doing business in this state, an amount determined in the manner prescribed by such other state, and shall be subjected to such greater requirements imposed by such other state upon similar insurers of this state and their duly authorized agents.

Under N.Y. Ins. Law � 1112, a retaliatory tax is imposed on an insurance company domiciled outside of New York State when that company’s home state imposes taxes (and fees, penalties and fines) against New York insurers that are higher than those imposed upon that company by New York. Not all taxes imposed upon New York insurers by other states will trigger retaliation. Rather, only those taxes levied for the privilege of doing an insurance business will trigger retaliation. Please note that in connection with this inquiry, both the Corporate Income Tax and the Premium Tax are treated by the New York Insurance Department as taxes that would be taken into consideration for calculating any retaliatory tax.

For further information you may contact Supervising Attorney Michael Campanelli at the New York City office.

1   It is impossible to categorically state the “effective” rate of taxation for life insurance corporations.   Only after the tax liability for a given company has been finally determined will it be possible to calculate the rate, relative to income, at which the tax was imposed.  This is because the tax imposed on life insurance corporations is a combination of a premium tax and a basic franchise tax.  The basic franchise tax component of the tax is the sum of (1) a tax computed on whichever of the following bases produces the greatest amount of tax: (i) entire net income, (ii)  business and investment capital, or (iii) net income and compensation paid; and (2) a subsidiary capital tax imposed on the value of subsidiary capital allocated to New York State.    In any event, as noted in the accompanying text, the total franchise tax imposed cannot exceed 2% of premiums.  See N.Y. Tax Law �� 1501, 1502, 1505, and 1510 (McKinney 2000 and Supp. 2005).