In January, the City of St. Louis sent a very unusual notice to one of the biggest law firms headquartered within it: a Statement of Tax Delinquency.The notice was sent to Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, one of the few white-shoe law firms remaining in downtown St. Louis. Most of its competitors have decamped to Clayton, where the lawyers aren’t subject to the city’s 1 percent earnings tax. Now the city was saying Bryan Cave owed $370,000 in past-due taxes, interest and penalties.The firm paid the sum under protest. And then, last week, it filed a lawsuit over the city’s demands.In its suit, Bryan Cave alleges the the city’s Collector of Revenue changed the equation it uses to calculate the earnings tax for law firms with no notice or explanation. And that, its suit says, makes its collection of the $370,000 “unconstitutional, illegal, unenforceable and otherwise unlawful.” It’s demanding a refund.The lawsuit is only the latest problem facing the city’s earnings tax, a 1 percent surcharge assessed on the incomes of anyone who lives or works in the city. St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones cited threats to the earnings tax as among the reasons she ordered a hiring freeze for non-essential city workers last month. The tax faces the prospect of abolition from conservative lawmakers in Jefferson City, along with legal threats from workers who say that while their offices are in St. Louis, they’re actually working from their couches in Chesterfield (or Boise, Idaho). Lawyers have also sought class-action status for workers seeking to recoup the money they paid for the pleasure of working in the city even at a time that they were stuck working from home during the pandemic, although those efforts have thus far ended in frustration.The Bryan Cave suit is a bit more complicated. Filed by Bryan Cave attorney Mark Leadlove, it says the city arbitrarily changed the way it handles law firm revenue last November, and that led to an outsized bill for the firm.As Bryan Cave notes in its filing, it now has offices in 31 cities. For the past 10 years, with the city’s blessing, it’s filed composite earnings tax returns on behalf of itself and its partners. Since each partner gets a unique share of the firm’s net profit, the firm historically listed each person’s total, and then taxed it at one of two rates: 14.3704 percent for non-city residents and 100 percent for city residents.That changed with no notice last fall, the lawsuit says. “On November 17, 2023, the City notified the Firm that it had adjusted its 2022 Earnings Tax Return by changing the allocation percentage of nonresident Partners who were ‘assigned’ to the St. Louis office from 14.370 percent to 100 percent,” the suit says. After several communications, the firm now understands that the city considers partnership income like any normal salary.  And that, the firm says, is unprecedented — and wrongly suggested the partners had earned their income solely within the city “even though such partners perform legal services in other Firm offices, at client locations and at their residences outside the City.” Now the firm is asking for a refund and a declaratory judgment in its favor.In a statement, the office of Gregory F.X. Daly, the city’s collector of revenue, said this: “The Collector of Revenue’s Office is required to collect earnings taxes as stated by law. It is common for the office to work with businesses and individuals to resolve potential differences of opinions over earnings taxes, real estate taxes, and other fees and taxes the office is required to collect. “The issue with Bryan Cave resulted after the office conducted an audit of the firm’s earnings tax filings, as we do with many individuals and businesses on a regular basis. Given the pending litigation, we can’t discuss the details of this matter. We will continue to work to resolve this issue as required.”Some conservative critics of the city applauded the suit — and predicted dire consequences.Bryan Cave is suing the City over improperly imposed earnings taxes and is seeking a refund of taxes paid under protest. This is a very big deal and a VERY, VERY bad development for St. Louis City government. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/qShRpdO1zN— Gregg Keller (@RGreggKeller) May 14, 2024
“Trust me,” wrote political operative Gregg Keller on X, “other large employers will follow Bryan Cave’s lead. They really have to if they are to look their shareholders in the eye next time they report quarterly results.” And while it’s not clear — yet — whether Keller is correct (the facts of the case only apply to law firms), it’s hard to argue that it won’t be an expensive case to fight. After all, Bryan Cave has some serious expertise on matters of tax law — and every incentive to try to win this one.Editor’s note: This story was updated soon after publication to include a statement from the city’s collector of revenue. Subscribe to Riverfront Times newsletters.Follow us: Apple News |  Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed




Source link

Police have identified the 19-year-old woman killed over the weekend on a MetroLink platform.

Police say that Jordan Gunn was on the platform near Forest Park and the Missouri History Museum on Saturday, May 11, when another teenager, a 17-year-old, opened fire, striking her in the chest and killing her. 

The shooting occurred around 3:30 p.m. and Gunn was initially taken by an EMS crew to a hospital, where she was listed in critical condition before succumbing to her wounds. 

The 17-year-old alleged shooter was apprehended thanks in part to what police called the “robust surveillance system” present at the Metro station.

The 17-year-old is being held in a juvenile facility in the county on second-degree murder and armed criminal action charges. 

Similar to the case of the near-fatal beating outside Hazelwood East, a judge will determine if the case against the 17-year-old will advance in the juvenile or the adult system. 

Police have released very little additional information about the victim, Gunn, other than that she lived off Natural Bridge Avenue. 

This is a developing story and we will update it as new information becomes available.

Subscribe to Riverfront Times newsletters.Follow us: Apple News |  Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

Source link

A bill proposed at the St. Louis Board of Aldermen would ask voters to raise sales taxes to fund early childhood education programs. This bill has led to contentious debate and, yesterday, was unanimously opposed by the St. Louis Public Schools Board.

Board Bill 7, sponsored by Ward 10 Alderwoman Shameem Clark Hubbard, would add a question to the November 2024 ballot asking voters to approve a levy that would increase the city’s sales tax by 0.5 percent. The funding would be used to support early childhood education programs for children who are not yet in kindergarten.

If approved, the revenue generated from this tax would go into an “early childhood education fund,” to be administered by the City of St. Louis Mental Health Board of Trustees.

There was a public hearing for the bill before the Transportation and Commerce Committee on Monday. Public speakers were cut off after an hour during the hearing due to another aldermanic committee meeting beginning at 3 p.m. that could not be rescheduled due to STL TV’s ongoing budget problems. 

Clark Hubbard said before the hearing that she wanted to answer the question of who could access the potential revenue from the bill. 

“The funds may be used for early education and care for children ages 0 to 5 provided by public — as a proud SLPS parent I’m glad that’s first — public, private, not for profit, and for profit entities licensed, license exempt, or registered by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,” Clark Hubbard says.

She says she wanted to share that information with the media and those present from the public because a “different narrative” was shared online.

WEPOWER, a nonprofit organization, previously acknowledged to the RFT that in order for public programs to receive any funding, state law would have to change. A spokesperson for the organization said, “The way the Community Children’s Services Fund currently exists creates limitations. As a result, there are efforts underway to amend the structure of the Community Children’s Services Fund. At the state level, a bill was voted out of the Select Committee on Empowering Missouri Parents & Children that would allow funds to also become available to public schools. Additionally, the bill would allow Children’s Services Funds to administer dollars to improve the quality, affordability, and access to early childhood development programs. This could include but not be limited to increasing educator wages and benefits.”

WEPOWER has not yet responded to requests to provide more information about the state bill they’re referring to. We will update this story when we hear back.

SLPS’ board passed a resolution opposing the bill 7-0 in a special meeting Monday morning. The resolution says, among other criticisms of the bill: “Board Bill 7 directs taxpayer dollars to non-public entities with no oversight or accountability measures in place.”

Matt Davis, vice president of the school board, spoke at the hearing, citing the board’s similar opposition to Proposition R, a property tax increase that city voters approved in 2020. He said it also included funds for early childhood education that would be distributed by the Mental Health Board. None of the money from Prop R has gone directly into services or to increase capacity and wages for childcare centers and instead it has gone to nonprofits, he said.

“It’s really unclear where that money has gone and most importantly, whether that’s been effective,” Davis said. “To increase the money by tenfold at this point seems to be a little premature. In addition we also do oppose the addition of a regressive sales tax.”

This sentiment was echoed by community members speaking in opposition to the bill, who alleged that WEPOWER, the organization that helped draft the bill, may not have the intention of supporting public programs.

Gloria Nolan, a former WEPOWER employee and the campaign coordinator for Prop R, says the nonprofit has failed to deliver on any of its promises regarding early childhood education. Nolan has been public about how she believes WEPOWER is being used by proponents of charter schools like the Opportunity Trust. 

“WEPOWER and their affiliates have been working hard at requesting funding from every stream available starting with their funder the Opportunity Trust, then moving on to proposition R, they’ve asked for ARPA funding, now they’re asking for this regressive sales tax, they’re asking for Rams settlement funds, and they’re even rolling baby strollers through the halls of Congress asking for more funding to undermine democratically run public education,” Nolan says. “Everything that has been said sounds lovely but nothing has been proven, nothing has been shown and we have to stop this now.”

As Nolan spoke, a row of supporters for the bill laughed, smiled, whispered and shook their heads at her comments. One of these supporters was WEPOWER’s Director of Early Childhood Power Building, Paula-Breonne Vickers, who spoke after Nolan.

“I was actually that parent that pushed my stroller through Congress because there is a crisis at all levels, local, state and federal, where funding that existed before is coming to an end and without stabilization at all levels, it will be a crisis that harms us all,” she says. 

Vickers shared her experiences as a mother living in north city, saying that she was on a two-year waitlist for childcare as of 2020. She says she was encouraged to move out of the city to position her family near more resources.

She stresses that she believes in SLPS but says spaces in its early childhood programs are not readily available to parents. She argues that Board Bill 7 would be a progressive opportunity to set young children up for success.

“I ask you to move this Board Bill 7 forward so that voters can decide if this is something we want for St. Louis City,” Vickers says. 

Local public school advocacy group Solidarity with SLPS started a letter-writing campaign against the bill.

“This bill is a naked attempt by known proponents of education privatization to trick the public into funding their and their friends’ consulting operations under the guise of childcare or early childhood education,” Ben Conover, an activist with the group, said at the hearing. “Let’s be clear, the funds for this bill cannot go towards increasing the affordability or the accessibility of early childhood education. None of the state statutes that pertain to this bill allow for the funds to be spent towards either purpose.”

There will be additional public hearings before the committee in the future. No vote was taken Monday.

Subscribe to Riverfront Times newsletters.Follow us: Apple News |  Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

Source link