TGIF from http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~acadian/humor.htm:
Thank goodness for the fellow who helped draft Treasury Regulation section 1.170A-12(e)(2) to explain the "special factor" used for "the valuation of a remainder interest following two lives" --
FYI from the "I/P Updates" news service:
According to an article in the June 7, 2004 issue of the New Jersey Law Journal, Congress will almost certainly enact another extension to the research tax credit expiring June 30, 2004. This incremental credit is equal to the sum of 1) 20% of the excess of your qualified research expenditures for the taxable year over a base amount, and 2) 20% of your basic research payments. However, in order to qualify for the credit, the information discovered from the research must be "technological:"
Issuance of a patent is conclusive evidence that the information discovered is technological in nature. In patent law, an innovation is patentable if it is useful, new, and nonobvious. The tax regulations, as a general matter, are similar to the patent rules in that the innovation clearly needs to be new and useful. In addition, the capability, method, or appropriate design of the innovation must be uncertain as of the beginning of the taxpayer's research activities. The "uncertainty" rule appears to be akin to the "non-obvious" rule for patent eligibility.
More information is available from IRS Form 6765.
For more on the latest USPTO procedures contact the author of this "APLF Update," Bill Heinze (firstname.lastname@example.org), at Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer & Risley LLP in Atlanta, Georgia USA and via the new "I/P Updates Blog" at http://billheinze.blogspot.com (RSS/Atom feeds).
The information contained in this email is provided for informational purposes only and does not represent legal advice. Neither the APLF nor the author intends to create an attorney client relationship by providing this information to you through this message.
APLF · PO Box 7418 · Washington, DC · 20044-7418