Potential Impact of FHA’s Revised Defect Taxonomy on Mortgage Originators and Servicers
On January 7, 2025, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) officially revised its Defect Taxonomy (Final Defect Taxonomy) with the publication of Mortgagee Letter (ML) 2025-01 and the related attachment detailing those changes. The changes are effective as of January 15, 2025, and will be implemented in Appendix 8.0 of FHA Handbook 4000.1 at a later date.
FHA first proposed revising the Defect Taxonomy on October 28, 2021, with the publication of FHA INFO 2021-92. Since then, FHA announced a new proposed version of the Defect Taxonomy with the publication of FHA INFO 2024-25 on July 10, 2024 (Proposed Defect Taxonomy). As we reported at the time, the proposed revisions to the Defect Taxonomy were broad and, most notably, created a new section specific to loan servicing defects. The Proposed Defect Taxonomy did not suggest revisions to the Underwriting Loan Review section of the Defect Taxonomy, but it did propose revisions to the generally applicable introduction of the Defect Taxonomy, as well as the creation of an entirely new Servicing Loan Review section. The Final Defect Taxonomy generally aligns with the Proposed Defect Taxonomy from July 10, 2024. However, based on its own internal review and/or industry feedback, FHA has made some notable revisions to the Final Defect Taxonomy that will likely impact how the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) applies it in practice.
Examples/Explanation of What Constitutes a Tier 2 or Tier 3 Finding
The Defect Taxonomy has general definitions of what constitutes either a Tier 1 or Tier 4 defect. Both relate to Findings of fraud or materially misrepresented information, but a Tier 1 defect is a Finding that the “Mortgagee knew or should have known” about and a Tier 4 defect is a Finding that the “Mortgagee did not know and could not have known” about. Unlike the clearly stated definition of a Tier 1 or Tier 4 defect, the Defect Taxonomy uses specific examples of Mortgagee conduct to define a Tier 2 or Tier 3 defect as something that falls between a Tier 1 or Tier 4 defect. These examples are included in multiple parts of the Defect Taxonomy, including the introduction, the Underwriting Loan Review section, and the Servicing Loan Review section. The recent revisions only impact the introduction and Servicing Loan Review sections.
The edits to the introduction section of the Final Defect Taxonomy are generally clarifying edits. However, FHA made a more substantive change to the examples given in defining a Tier 3 defect. Specifically, the Final Defect Taxonomy now states that a Tier 3 defect includes a Finding “of noncompliance remedied by the Mortgagee prior to review by the FHA.” This example is not included in the Proposed Defect Taxonomy. The addition is helpful in drawing a line between a Tier 3 and Tier 2 defect, because the Final Defect Taxonomy defines a Tier 2 servicing defect as a Finding that requires “mitigating documentation, corrective servicing action, and/or financial remediation.” As a result, it appears FHA recognizes that a self-mitigated defect merits a lower tier rating for purposes of the Defect Taxonomy.
For the Servicing Loan Review section, FHA made numerous revisions to the examples provided for what constitutes a Tier 2 or Tier 3 defect under each specific defect area. The revisions generally reflect a more specific or clear example of a Tier 2 or Tier 3 defect, so these revisions do not present a significant departure from the Proposed Default Taxonomy. However, it would be beneficial for all servicers or impacted parties to review the new examples of Tier 2 and Tier 3 defects under the Final Defect Taxonomy.
Remedies for Tier 2 Findings
Like the revisions to the examples of a Tier 2 or Tier 3 defect, the Final Defect Taxonomy outlines different potential remedies for a Tier 2 defect compared to the remedies outlined in the Proposed Defect Taxonomy. Some of these revisions may be impactful for Mortgagees. For example, in the context of a Loss Mitigation Processing defect, the Proposed Defect Taxonomy stated that FHA would accept a one-year or five-year indemnification if the borrower did not accept the terms of the appropriate loss mitigation option. But now, the Final Defect Taxonomy states that “FHA will accept indemnification (1-Year or 5-Year) only when the Servicer provides documentation of a good faith effort to complete” the loss mitigation option. Similar revisions were incorporated in the context of Home Disposition defects and Home Retention defects. It is unclear what constitutes “a good faith effort,” but at the very least, this revision will potentially impose a new reporting obligation on impacted servicers.
Rebuttal of a Finding or Severity Determination
The introduction section of both the Final and Proposed Defect Taxonomies state that a Mortgagee may provide supporting documentation through the Loan Review System (LRS) to rebut any Finding or severity determination under the Defect Taxonomy. However, the Final Defect Taxonomy also specifies that “Rebuttals are based on information available to FHA prior to the initial Finding.” This seemingly small addition appears to meaningfully limit the scope of the information a Mortgagee can use to rebut HUD’s determinations pursuant to the Defect Taxonomy. As a result, this limitation on the rebuttal process could be a future cause of Mortgagee concern.
Takeaways
Going forward, Mortgagees and other impacted parties likely should review the Final Defect Taxonomy to develop a better idea of what FHA and HUD view as a Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, or Tier 4 defect. It would also likely be beneficial for Mortgagees to implement this information in their policies and procedures, such as internal audit and quality control, to try to preempt potential origination or servicing defects. Other factors to consider include: (1) identifying defects that could be self-mitigated and therefore characterized as a Tier 3 defect; (2) documenting good faith efforts to complete loss mitigation; and (3) reviewing the information submitted in the LRS to ensure that it is detailed enough to support a potential rebuttal to a Finding or severity determination pursuant to the Defect Taxonomy.
The impact of the Final Defect Taxonomy will become clearer as HUD interprets and implements it in the near future.
Listen to this post
Trump Tariffs Survival Guide: 10 Strategies for U.S. Importers
Tariffs remain the focus of the incoming Trump Administration. Over the past several months, the announcements from president-elect Trump and his transition team have been dynamic. We expect the Trump trade policy team to use creative methods to deliver aggressive new tariff policies this year.
There are several strategies U.S. importers may consider to cope with the anticipated tariff increases. Some of the strategies are lessons learned during the first Trump Administration (e.g., to mitigate the impact of the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese-origin imports). The key to success remains to plan ahead, understand the laws, and weigh all options.
Potential New U.S. Import Tariffs
Before turning to strategies, we outline the potential types of tariffs that have been shared by Trump insiders. For each type, we cover the potential tariff action, timing for such imposition, and our assessment of the potential likelihood of imposition. Exporters, please note that we may expect to see other countries impose retaliatory tariffs against imports from the United States following the increase of U.S. import tariffs. China, Canada, Mexico and the EU have all threatened such tariffs.
Chinese-Origin Goods.
Potential Tariff Action: Currently, the Section 301 tariffs on most imports of Chinese-origin goods are largely in the 25-50 percent range. During the Trump presidential campaign, we heard about a 60 percent tariff on all Chinese-origin goods. At the end of November 2024, president-elect Trump announced immediately upon taking office, tariffs on imports from China would increase by 10 percent. When coupled with the existing Section 301 tariffs, that action would result in a 35 to 60 percent tariff on such imports.
Timing: Such a tariff could be imposed using the same Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, but that method would take several months to implement. The wild card option under consideration (leaked on January 8, 2025) would be to use the president’s emergency authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), which would enable the incoming Administration to impose tariffs almost immediately. IEEPA has not been used previously to implement tariffs, so any such tariff action could be a bit of the Wild West.
Likelihood: Very likely.
Chinese-Owned or Operated Ports.
Potential Tariff Action: During the Trump presidential campaign, we heard brief threats about the imposition of tariffs on any goods, regardless of country of origin, that entered the United States through any Chinese-owned or operated ports.
Timing: Such a tariff could be implemented quickly after inauguration. Congress has delegated broad authority to the Executive Branch to impose tariffs for reasons of national security. Thus, the same IEEPA-type action could authorize such tariffs immediately upon inauguration, or potentially even Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. Any Section 232 action would require several months.
Likelihood: Not likely.
Mexico and Canada.
Potential Tariff Action: Trump has all but promised a 25 percent tariff on all imports from United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) partners Canada and Mexico. The USMCA was negotiated by the first Trump Administration. The agreement has a national security carveout (a theme here) that enables a party to the agreement to apply measures it considers necessary for protection of its own essential security interests. Thus, the USMCA gives the incoming Administration the pretext it needs to impose such tariffs.
Timing: Such a tariff could again be implemented quickly using IEEPA or much longer should negotiations drag on related to any such tariff. The immediate imposition of such a tariff would be aggressive, though not impossible. There is a decent chance the threat is being used as a negotiating tool (or stick) ahead of the 2026 joint review of the USMCA by the member parties.
Likelihood: Possible, but more likely used as negotiating leverage.
Universal Tariff.
Potential Tariff Action: The incoming Administration has also announced the potential for a 10 or even 20 percent universal tariff. Such a tariff would apply to all imports from all countries. However, in recent weeks, we have seen leaks that such a universal tariff would be targeted to imports relating to national security as follows: defense industrial supply chain (through tariffs on steel, iron, aluminum and copper); critical medical supplies (syringes, needles, vials and pharmaceutical materials); and energy production (batteries, rare earth minerals and even solar panels).
Timing: Such a tariff could again be implemented quickly using again using national security arguments. There are also recent reports that it would be phased in gradually to minimize disruption to supply chains and financial markets.
Likelihood: A broad universal tariff is not likely, but also not impossible. A universal tariff targeting imports relating to national security considerations is fairly likely.
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties.
Potential Tariff Action: President-elect Trump’s team is committed to the fair trade end of the free trade/fair trade spectrum. The main tool in that arsenal is an old one: antidumping duties and countervailing duties (AD/CVD). We expect the use of the AD/CVD laws to increase steadily during the incoming Trump administration. One major focus will be anti-circumvention proceedings that are designed to punish imports from countries where foreign manufacturers under AD/CVD orders may try to shift their production.
Timing: AD/CVD cases are slow by nature. No real changes will be noticeable until 2026 or 2027.
Likelihood: Very likely.
Top 10 Tariff Coping Strategies
The potential for new tariffs is substantial. We provide the following for consideration in preparing for such actions. Any plan requires tailoring to specific supply chains, products, and compliance realities. Sometimes a combination of the below strategies may be necessary.
Contract Negotiation: Review supplier and customer contracts to assess the assignment of liability for tariff increases; and negotiate favorable tariff burden-sharing.
Supply Chain Management: Consider suppliers in countries subject to lower tariffs, but be aware of the potential for AD/CVD and circumvention issues. Also consider sourcing a different product or raw material subject to a lower tariff rate. Don’t forget to examine whether manufacture in a third country using raw materials from a high tariff country creates a “substantial transformation,” such that the end product would be considered to originate in the third country. And of course, to the extent possible, review the possibility of sourcing from domestic suppliers.
Trade Agreements: Consider sourcing from countries subject to free trade agreements with the United States, which would enable duty-free imports. But do not assume that Canadian and Mexican goods will be duty-free; be aware of the potential of a national security-based tariff or renegotiated USMCA.
Trade Preference Programs: Keep an eye on potential programs that provide duty-free imports. For example, past programs included the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB). But be aware that the GSP and MTB programs have been languishing without reauthorization by Congress for years.
In-Bond Shipments and Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ): If a company’s supply chain involves goods transiting through the United States, for sale elsewhere, consider use of in-bond shipments or an FTZ, where tariffs do not normally apply. But be aware that in-bond and FTZ schemes can involve high storage fees, rigorous accounting procedures, and other costs.
Duty Drawback: If manufacturing products in the United States for export, consider making use of a drawback program. Drawback enables importers to obtain refunds of certain U.S. duties paid on the imported component goods or materials. Section 301 duties are eligible for drawback, but AD/CVD are not.
Exclusions: If new tariffs are issued under Sections 301 or 232, consider seeking a tariff exclusion if such an administrative process is provided.
Comments: If Sections 301 or 232 are used, we expect to see a notice and comment period as part of the rulemaking, which should provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the economic impact of the proposed tariffs.
Congressional Relations: Consider whether outreach to congressional delegations could help in any tariff mitigation strategy.
Litigation: We expect multiple lawsuits challenging the authority to impose certain tariffs. But U.S. courts have generally been receptive to the national security justifications offered for such tariffs, and the timeline to resolve such actions requires years.
In sum, while the imposition of additional tariffs will be challenging for U.S. importers, there are several possible strategies that may reduce certain negative impacts of these tariffs. All importers must carefully analyze any supply chain changes under the applicable laws, and each decision should be well documented and supported by the company’s written import policies and procedures.
Direct Employer Assistance and 401(k) Plan Relief Options for Employees Affected by California Wildfires
In the past week, devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, California, have caused unprecedented destruction across the region, leading to loss of life and displacing tens of thousands. While still ongoing, the fires already have the potential to be the worst natural disaster in United States history.
Quick Hits
Employers can assist employees affected by the Los Angeles wildfires through qualified disaster relief payments under Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code, which are tax-exempt for employees and deductible for employers.
The SECURE Act 2.0 allows employees impacted by federally declared disasters to take immediate distributions from their 401(k) plans without the usual penalties, provided their plan includes such provisions.
As impacted communities band together and donations begin to flow to families in need, many employers are eager to take steps to assist employees affected by the disaster.
As discussed below, the Internal Revenue Code provides employers with the ability to make qualified disaster relief payments to employees in need. In addition, for employers maintaining a 401(k) plan, optional 401(k) plan provisions can enable employees to obtain in-service distributions based on hardship or federally declared disaster.
Internal Revenue Code Section 139 Disaster Relief
Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code provides for a federal income exclusion for payments received due to a “qualified disaster.” Under Section 139, an employer can provide employees with direct cash assistance to help them with costs incurred in connection with the disaster. Employees are not responsible for income tax, and payments are generally characterized as deductible business expenses for employers. Neither the employees nor the employer are responsible for federal payroll taxes associated with such payments.
“Qualified disasters” include presidentially declared disasters, including natural disasters and the coronavirus pandemic, terrorist or military events, common carrier accidents (e.g., passenger train collisions), and other events that the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury concludes are catastrophic. On January 8, 2025, President Biden approved a Major Disaster Declaration for California based on the Los Angeles wildfires.
In addition to the requirement that payments be made pursuant to a qualified disaster, payments must be for the purpose of reimbursing reasonable and necessary “personal, family, living, or funeral expenses,” costs of home repair, and to reimburse the replacement of personal items due to the disaster. Payment cannot be made to compensate employees for expenses already compensated by insurance.
Employers implementing qualified disaster relief plans should maintain a written policy explaining that payments are intended to approximate the losses actually incurred by employees. In the event of an audit, the employer should also be prepared to substantiate payments by retaining communications with employees and any expense documentation. Employers should also review their 401(k) plan documents to determine that payments are not characterized as deferral-eligible compensation and consider any state law implications surrounding cash payments to employees.
401(k) Hardship and Disaster Distributions
In addition to the Section 139 disaster relief described above, employees may be able to take an immediate distribution from their 401(k) plan under the hardship withdrawal rules and disaster relief under the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (SECURE 2.0).
Hardship Distributions
If permitted under the plan, a participant may apply for and receive an in-service distribution based on an unforeseen hardship that presents an “immediate and heavy” financial need. Whether a need is immediate and heavy depends on the participant’s unique facts and circumstances. Under the hardship distribution rules, expenses and losses (including loss of income) incurred by an employee on account of a federally declared disaster declaration are considered immediate and heavy provided that the employee’s principal residence or principal place of employment was in the disaster zone.
The amount of a hardship distribution must be limited to the amount necessary to satisfy the need. If the employee has other resources available to meet the need, then there is no basis for a hardship distribution. In addition, hardship distributions are generally subject to income tax in the year of distribution and an additional 10 percent early withdrawal penalty if the participant is below age 59 and a half. The participant must submit certification regarding the hardship to the plan sponsor, which the plan sponsor is then entitled to rely upon.
Qualified Disaster Recovery Distributions
Separate from the hardship distribution rules described above, SECURE 2.0 provides special rules for in-service distributions from retirement plans and for plan loans to certain “qualified individuals” impacted by federally declared major disasters. These special in-service distributions are not subject to the same immediate and heavy need requirements and tax rules as hardship distributions and are eligible for repayment.
SECURE 2.0 allows for the following disaster relief:
Qualified Disaster Recovery Distributions. Qualified individuals may receive up to $22,000 of Disaster Recovery Distributions (QDRD) from eligible retirement plans (certain employer-sponsored retirement plans, such as section 401(k) and 403(b) plans, and IRAs). There are also special rollover and repayment rules available with respect to these distributions.
Increased Plan Loans. SECURE 2.0 provides for an increased limit on the amount a qualified individual may borrow from an eligible retirement plan. Specifically, an employer may increase the dollar limit under the plan for plan loans up to the full amount of the participant’s vested balance in their plan account, but not more than $100,000 (reduced by the amount of any outstanding plan loans). An employer can also allow up to an additional year for qualified individuals to repay their plan loans.
Under SECURE 2.0, an individual is considered a qualified individual if:
the individual’s principal residence at any time during the incident period of any qualified disaster is in the qualified disaster area with respect to that disaster; and
the individual has sustained an economic loss by reason of that qualified disaster.
A QDRD must be requested within 180 days after the date of the qualified disaster declaration (i.e., January 8, 2025, for the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires). Unlike hardship distributions, a QDRD is not subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty for participants under age 59 and a half. Further, unlike hardship distributions, taxation of the QDRD can be spread over three tax years and a qualified individual may repay all or part of the amount of a QDRD within a three-year period beginning on the day after the date of the distribution.
As indicated above, like hardship distributions, QDRDs are an optional plan feature. Accordingly, in order for QDRDs to be available, the plan’s written terms must provide for them.
GeTtin’ SALTy Episode 44 | California 2025 SALT Outlook [Podcast]
In the latest episode of the GeTtin’ SALTy podcast, host Nikki Dobay and guest Shail Shah, both shareholders at Greenberg Traurig, discuss the complexities of California’s state and local tax landscape as 2025 begins. The episode kicks off with a surprising announcement from Governor Gavin Newsom: California has shifted from a significant budget deficit to a surplus.
The discussion delves into the implications of this fiscal roller coaster, with Shail offering insights into Governor Newsom’s positioning on taxes. The conversation explores indirect tax increases through adjustments in apportionment factors and deductions.
Nikki and Shail address the changes in California’s apportionment rules from the 2024 budget. They provide updates on legal challenges against these retroactive changes, with organizations like the National Taxpayers Union questioning the constitutionality. This litigation is likely to shape the tax landscape in 2025, with potential outcomes still uncertain.
They also tackle the topic of California’s market-based sourcing regulations, which have been in development since 2017, and the future of FTB (Franchise Tax Board) guidance.
The episode concludes with a surprise non-tax question about the perils of a malfunctioning coffee maker.
Practical Considerations for Navigating Tariff Risk on Construction Projects
As the second Trump administration begins next week, developers, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers are evaluating the extent of the construction industry’s international ties – and contractual exposure to potential tariff increases. While President-elect Trump has been forthright about his intent to impose and increase tariffs, he has not provided details about which products, goods, and countries may be affected.
This uncertainty leaves many in the construction industry concerned, and both upstream and downstream parties are carefully negotiating contractual risk of changes in tariffs. Broadly speaking, tariffs are typically considered import (or export) taxes imposed on goods and services imported from another country (or exported). In the United States, Congress has the power to set tariffs, but importantly, the president can also impose tariffs under specific laws (most notably in recent years, the Trade Act of 1974), citing unfair trade practices or national security.
Many different contractual provisions may be impacted by the introduction of new tariffs: tax provisions, force majeure provisions, change in law provisions, and price escalation provisions, for example. Procurement contracts routinely rely on Incoterms, which allocate tariff risk to either buyer or seller depending on the selected Incoterm. Negotiating an appropriate allocation of risk of changing tariffs can be as much an art as science and requires consideration of how tariffs are administered and their effects on the market. Consider, for example, the following:
Tariffs are paid by the importer of record to U.S. Customs & Border Protection. If a contractual party is not the importer of record, such party will not be directly liable for payment of tariffs.
Instead, tariffs raise the ultimate cost of goods or services because importers increase their price to buyers to account for the tariffs.
Tariffs also tend to indirectly increase the cost of goods or services related or equivalent to the goods or services subject to tariffs by raising demand for domestic or non-affected substitute goods or services.
Some goods and services are higher risk than others (e.g., goods originating from China, and potentially in a second Trump administration, goods originating from Canada and Mexico). Understanding the extent of the international reach of a construction project’s supply chain may assist in evaluating exposure and negotiating appropriate relief from imposition of new or increased tariffs.
Having a working knowledge of how tariffs are implemented and their impacts on related markets is important to assessing and mitigating contractual risk. Parties to a construction contract may have different methods for managing tariff impacts. A supplier may choose to source goods from less risky countries, even if the cost of such goods is incrementally higher than their Chinese equivalent in the short term. A buyer may choose to enter into a master supply agreement, allowing the buyer to set a long-term fixed price on a guaranteed volume of goods that in turn permits the seller to better forecast its demand and supply chain. Many developers and contractors may negotiate shared risk of changed tariffs, establishing a change order threshold or cost-sharing ratio. Ultimately, those who consider and carefully negotiate provisions addressing changes in tariffs will be better prepared to face and manage their economic impact.
Listen to this post
Ohio Streamlines Unemployment Insurance Reporting for Commonly Controlled, Concurrent Employers
New for January 1, 2025, Ohio has streamlined its unemployment insurance reporting process to allow employers that control multiple corporate entities to report unemployment insurance for their concurrent employees in a single account.
Quick Hits
Ohio now allows commonly controlled, managed, or owned companies—or companies reorganized in such a way—to apply for a single unemployment insurance account for reporting purposes.
Companies must file a “transfer of business form,” which began to be accepted on January 1, 2025.
On December 11, 2024, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) adopted revisions to Ohio Administrative Code Rule 4141-11-13 that rescinded the prior prohibition on common paymaster reporting, where one entity reports unemployment insurance for a group of related entities with concurrent employment. This change allows Ohio unemployment insurance reporting to be more closely aligned with the Internal Revenue Service’s “common paymaster” employment tax reporting.
Under the new Ohio rule, commonly controlled, managed, or owned companies, or companies reorganized in such a way, may apply for a single unemployment insurance account to report all employees. The rule is currently being interpreted to include registered professional employer organizations in which shared employees are coemployed. Companies meeting the rule’s definition must file a “transfer of business form … identifying the concurrent employers, and whether the employees will be reported on the primary account due to concurrent employment or transfer.”
The rule defines “concurrent employment” as the employment of an individual with at least two substantially commonly owned, managed, or controlled employers during the same time period.” According to ODJFS, commonly owned companies may further reorganize their structure to “create a new commonly owned entity” or may “use one of their existing commonly owned businesses as the primary-wage-reporting entity.”
The changes significantly streamline the unemployment insurance reporting process for commonly owned companies. Under the prior Rule 4141-11-13, each corporate entity was required to report payments for employees regardless of whether it was controlled by another entity under a “common paymaster arrangement” or similar.
The rule also makes clear that common paymaster reporting is an exception to the rule that one legal entity may not report another legal entity’s employees for Ohio unemployment insurance purposes without transferring the direction and control of the employees to the legal entity that will report the employees for Ohio unemployment insurance. Thus, common paymaster reporting is more than just an administrative election to report unemployment insurance under a particular entity.
Next Steps
The ODJFS began accepting applications for a single unemployment insurance reporting account on January 1, 2025. Employers must file a “Transfer of Business” form (JFS 20101), which can be found on the ODJFS website here.
If the primary account does not have an employer ID, ODJFS requires the employer to open a new account online or file “Report to Determine Liability” form (JFS 20100), which can be found on the ODJFS website here.
2025 Budget Reconciliation Roadmap: Impacts and Action Steps
Overview
The budget reconciliation process is a critical legislative tool that allows Congress to pass budget-related measures with a simple majority in the Senate, bypassing the filibuster and expediting passage of significant legislative priorities. Established under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, reconciliation is designed to align revenue and spending with Congress’ annual budget resolution. This mechanism is particularly valuable when one party controls Congress and the White House, as it allows major initiatives to advance without bipartisan support. However, reconciliation is subject to strict rules, including the “Byrd Rule,” which restricts provisions to those with direct budgetary impacts, i.e., with direct impact on either spending or revenues.
Prior Uses of Reconciliation During President Trump’s first term, budget reconciliation was a key tool for advancing significant legislative priorities, including the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which enacted sweeping tax changes. Similarly, the Biden Administration utilized reconciliation to pass key components of its agenda, such as the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which provided critical pandemic relief and economic stimulus. These examples highlight reconciliation’s utility in enacting transformative policies under unified government control.
Trump and Congressional Agenda for Reconciliation For the incoming Trump administration and Republican-majority Congress, reconciliation will be instrumental in enacting an ambitious agenda, that encompasses tax provisions, border security, energy production and deregulation, and defense funding. As stakeholders in energy, maritime, transportation, trade, defense, and railway, and Native American and Alaska Native affairs, all stakeholders should prepare for significant opportunities and risks as these measures take shape.
Reconciliation Strategy: One Bill or Two?President-elect Trump’s position on the scope and structure of reconciliation has evolved in recent weeks. While initially favoring a single comprehensive package, he has expressed openness to a two-bill strategy. The first bill would focus on energy, border security, and defense, while the second would address tax provisions and broader fiscal priorities.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has strongly advocated for a single reconciliation bill, arguing that it is the most efficient way to advance Trump’s agenda within the first 100 days. Johnson’s approach is supported by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX) and House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO), who believe a unified package will maximize legislative momentum. However, Senate Republicans, including Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC), have emphasized the urgency of addressing border security and defense separately to mitigate national security risks, with tax policy changes following later this year in a second bill. This internal debate could impact the timeline and scope of reconciliation efforts.
Scope of Potential Legislation
Tax ProvisionsTax changes are expected to play a significant role in the reconciliation process, with the extension of the 2017 tax cuts at its core. These extensions aim to provide continued relief for businesses and high-earner individuals while reducing corporate tax rates further to enhance global competitiveness and attract investment. Additional measures under consideration include eliminating taxes on tipped income to support the service industry, eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits, simplifying the tax code by reducing brackets, and eliminating certain deductions to streamline compliance and reduce costs. A new revenue-generating mechanism involving tariffs on imports is also being proposed.
Border Security and DefenseBorder security and defense funding are poised to feature prominently in the reconciliation agenda. Significant allocations are anticipated for border wall construction, advanced surveillance technologies, and enhanced U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. Simultaneously, the military will receive increased funding to address strategic vulnerabilities and modernize equipment. These measures not only aim to provide immediate legislative wins but also to mitigate pressing national security concerns.
Energy PolicyEnergy policy will focus on streamlining permitting processes for critical infrastructure projects, such as pipelines, renewable energy installations, and oil and gas export terminals. Domestic energy production will be promoted through the reduction of regulatory barriers, particularly in the oil, gas, and nuclear sectors. Further, energy independence initiatives, including incentives for clean energy and advanced technology adoption, will be advanced. However, proposals to reform environmental protections, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) review process, are expected to face legal and public opposition, even as they aim to accelerate project timelines. Whether or not permitting reform meets the Byrd Rule by saving tax revenues remains to be seen.
Debt CeilingDebt ceiling adjustments are also on the table, with plans to raise the debt limit within the reconciliation package to ensure government solvency and avoid market disruptions. To secure support from conservative members, this increase will likely be paired with $2.5 trillion in spending cuts over ten years, focused on discretionary spending and the reduction of waste and inefficiencies. It remains to be seen whether these tax cuts can be balanced out simply with discretionary spending cuts. Balancing the debt limit increase with long-term fiscal sustainability will be a key focus.
Tentative Timeline and Legislative Actions
Early February: Adoption of a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions is expected, providing the framework for committees to draft detailed legislation.
March 14, 2025: Deadline to pass final fiscal 2025 spending bills to avoid a government shutdown.
Early April: House passage of the reconciliation package, with the goal of Senate approval by the end of April or early May.
May 2025: Final reconciliation measures enacted, aligning with Trump’s first 100 days.
It is important to note that this is an ambitious one-bill strategy timeline, and dates could be delayed due to lengthy negotiations. A two-bill approach may stretch until the end of the 2025 calendar year to meet the deadline for expiration of the original Trump tax cuts.
Implications for Stakeholders
EnergyIn the energy sector, increased project approvals and decreased regulatory hurdles may present significant opportunities for developers of fossil fuels, renewables, and nuclear energy. However, potential reforms of environmental protections may lead to legal risks for stakeholders. Moreover, the introduction of tariffs on imports, aimed at funding reconciliation priorities, could disrupt supply chains for energy infrastructure projects reliant on imported materials and potentially cause consumer prices to rise, creating inflation-related risks. This may be ameliorated if the incoming Administration, as reported, focuses the tariffs on only certain critical imports. This may, though, positively impact domestic energy producers due to an increased demand for low-cost, non-tariffed energy.
Maritime and TransportationThe maritime and transportation sectors stand to benefit from infrastructure investments that could drive growth in port modernization and rail projects. Streamlined regulatory approvals are expected to accelerate construction timelines, creating additional opportunities for stakeholders involved in large-scale projects. However, proposed discretionary spending cuts could reduce the availability of federal grants that support critical transportation infrastructure upgrades.
Native American/Alaska Native AffairsFor Native American and Alaska Native communities, the reallocation of federal funding poses a significant risk to vital services, including healthcare, education, and housing programs. Advocacy will be essential to ensure equitable treatment and representation in legislative negotiations. Despite these challenges, tribes, native organizations, and corporations may find opportunities to leverage energy and infrastructure investments to promote economic development, including through federal contracts, provided their interests are safeguarded in the reconciliation process.
What to Watch
Legislative DevelopmentsThe reconciliation strategy debate between a single comprehensive package and a two-bill approach will significantly shape the legislative process. Stakeholders should closely monitor the resolution of this debate, as it will determine the sequencing, timeline, and scope of legislative priorities. The progress of key committees in drafting specific provisions will also be critical to understanding how reconciliation impacts various industries.
Stakeholder AdvocacyProactive stakeholder advocacy will play a vital role in shaping favorable outcomes. Engaging with congressional offices to advocate for specific language in reconciliation provisions, particularly those impacting energy, defense, transportation, trade, and tribal programs, will be essential. Building coalitions to amplify industry voices and address shared concerns about proposed cuts or regulatory changes can further strengthen advocacy efforts.
Market ImpactsAdditionally, stakeholders should evaluate the market implications of proposed tax policies, including corporate rate reductions and import tariffs, to understand their potential impact on profitability and supply chain operations. Assessing the implications of energy deregulation measures on project feasibility and financing opportunities will also be critical. Finally, stakeholders should prepare for potential shifts in federal funding priorities, particularly those affecting grant-dependent programs and projects, to mitigate risks while seizing new opportunities.
Download This Alert
SEC Updates Names Rule FAQs
On 8 January 2025, the staff of the Division of Investment Management of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) released an updated set of Frequently Asked Questions (the FAQs) related to the amendments to Rule 35d-1 (Names Rule) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the 1940 Act) and related form amendments (collectively, the Amendments) adopted in 2023. The FAQs modify, supersede, or withdraw portions of FAQs released in 2001 (the 2001 FAQs) related to the original adoption of the Names Rule. In addition to the FAQs, the SEC staff also released Staff Guidance providing an overview of the questions and answers withdrawn from the 2001 FAQs (Staff Guidance). Together, the FAQs and the Staff Guidance on the withdrawn FAQs are intended to provide guidance to the various implementation issues and interpretative questions left unclear by the adopting release of the Amendments to the Names Rule (2023 Adopting Release). While the FAQs and the Staff Guidance do not address all key issues and questions related to the Names Rule, they do provide new guidance on certain areas and suggest interpretive frameworks that can be more universally applied.
Revisions to Fundamental Policies
In the revised FAQs the SEC staff updates certain FAQs, broadening the reach of those FAQs’ applicability. For instance, the SEC staff modifies the 2001 FAQ relating to the shareholder approval requirement for a fund seeking to adopt a fundamental 80% Policy to also provide guidance in instances where an 80% investment policy (an 80% Policy) that is fundamental is being revised. The SEC staff provides clarification concerning the process required to revise fundamental investment policies. The FAQ states that a fundamental 80% Policy may be amended to bring such policy into compliance with the requirements of the amended Names Rule without shareholder approval, provided the amended policy does not deviate from the existing policy or other existing fundamental policies. The FAQs restate that individual funds must determine, based on their own individual circumstances, whether shareholder approval is necessary within this framework. Accordingly, funds may take the position that clarifications or other nonmaterial revisions to a fundamental 80% Policy in response to the amended Names Rule would not require shareholder approval. If it is determined that nonmaterial revisions have been made to a fundamental 80% Policy, notice to the fund’s shareholders is required.1 Funds should also continue to provide 60 days’ notice (as required by amended Rule 35d-1) for any changes to nonfundamental 80% policies. A similar analysis can be applied in determining whether a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to rule 485(a) under the Securities Act of 1933 is required in connection to the Names Rule implementation process.
Guidance on Tax-Exempt Funds
The FAQs provide insight into the SEC staff’s view of the applicability of the Names Rule to funds whose names suggest their distributions are exempt from both federal and state income tax. According to the FAQs, such funds fall within the scope of the Names Rule and, per Rule 35d-1(a)(3), must adopt a fundamental policy to invest, under normal circumstances, either:
At least 80% of the value of its assets in investments, the income from which is exempt from both federal income tax and the income tax of the named state.
Its assets so that at least 80% of the income that it distributes will be exempt from both federal income tax and the income tax of the named state.
With respect to the 80% Policy basket of single-state tax-exempt funds (e.g., a Maryland Tax-Exempt Fund), the FAQs reiterate that those funds may include securities of issuers located outside of the named state. For such a security to be included in the fund’s 80% Policy basket, the security must pay interest that is exempt from both federal income tax and the tax of the named state, and the fund must disclose in its prospectus the ability to invest in tax-exempt securities of issuers outside the named state.
Additionally, with respect to the terms “municipal” and “municipal bond” in a fund’s name, the FAQs reiterate that such terms suggest that the fund’s distributions are exempt from income tax and would be required to comply with the requirements of Rule 35d-1(a)(3) described above. It further reconfirms that securities that generate income subject to the alternative minimum tax may be included in the 80% Policy basket of a fund that includes the term “municipal” within its name but not a fund that includes “tax-exempt” within its name.
Specific Terms Commonly Used in Fund Names
In addition, the FAQs provide some insight as to the SEC staff’s view of the application of the Names Rule with respect to a number of other terms such as:
High-Yield
The FAQs affirm the SEC staff’s view that funds with the term “high-yield” in the name must include an 80% Policy tied to that term. The FAQs note that the term “high-yield” is generally understood to describe corporate bonds with particular characteristics, specifically, that a bond is below certain creditworthiness standards. However, the SEC staff made an exception for funds that use the term “high-yield” in conjunction with the term “municipal,” “tax-exempt,” or similar. Based on historical practice and as the market for below investment grade municipal bonds is smaller and less liquid, the SEC staff asserts that it would not object if such funds invested less than 80% of their assets in bonds with a high yield rating criteria.2
Tax-Sensitive
The SEC staff confirms in the amended FAQs that “tax-sensitive” is a term that references the overall characteristics of the investments composing the fund’s portfolio and would not require the adoption of an 80% Policy.
Income
The FAQs confirm that the term “income,” is not alluding to investments in “fixed income” securities, but rather when used in a fund’s name, it suggests an objective of current income as a portfolio-wide result. The FAQs declare that the term “income” would not, alone, require an 80% investment policy.
While SEC staff’s guidance when considering the three terms noted above does not provide an overview of how all terms should be treated because an amount of judgment is required for certain terms, they do confirm the general framework should be used when analyzing the applicability of Rule 35d-1 to other terms. Specifically, and consistent with the 2023 Adopting Release, the examples reiterate that terms describing overall portfolio characteristics are outside the scope of the Names Rule, while the terms describing an instrument with “particular characteristics” are within scope of the Names Rule.
Money Market Funds
The FAQs also confirm that funds that use the term “money market” in their name along with another term or terms that describe a type of money market instrument must adopt an 80% Policy to invest at least 80% of the value of their assets in the type of money market instrument suggested by its name. The FAQs further explain that a generic money market fund, one where no other describing term is included in its name, would not be required to adopt an 80% Policy. The FAQs also cite relevant information included in frequently asked questions related to the 2014 Money Market Fund Reform.
Withdrawals from 2001 FAQs
In addition to the modification of certain questions within the FAQs, the SEC staff also withdrew a number of key questions from the 2001 FAQs. The SEC staff stated that certain questions were removed for several reasons, including the fact that certain questions were no longer relevant as they addressed circumstances that were specific to the 2001 adoption of the Names Rule, or that they believed the questions were already addressed in the 2023 Adopting Release. Below is a discussion of certain questions that were removed:
The SEC staff withdrew the outdated 2001 FAQ discussing revising former 65% investment policies to 80% Policies.
The FAQs also withdrew a question related to notice to shareholders of a change in investment policy as the Amendments and the 2023 Adopting Release both clearly describe the requirements for Rule 35d-1 notices.
The 2001 FAQs’ guidance regarding terms such as “intermediate-term bond” was also withdrawn. This guidance in the 2001 FAQs set forth the SEC staff position that a bond fund with the terms “short-term”, “intermediate-term”, or “long-term” in its name should have a dollar-weighted average maturity of, respectively, no more than three years, more than three years but less than 10 years, or more than 10 years and an 80% investment policy to invest in bonds. The FAQs removal of the definition suggests the potential for expanding the definition of such terms.
The 2001 FAQs’ guidance also removed several FAQs related to specific terms:
The question regarding the use of terms such as “international” and “global” was removed as the 2023 Adopting Release states that such terms describe an approach to constructing a portfolio and thus not requiring an 80% investment policy. However, the SEC staff would often require funds to adopt certain policies reflecting “international” or “global” investing in practice prior to the 2023 Adopting Release, so whether that reference changes the review staff practice will remain to be seen.
The question related to the use of “duration” was also removed as the 2023 Adopting Release states that such term references a characteristic of the portfolio as a whole.
Although the FAQs may be helpful, many uncertainties regarding the implementation and application of the Amendments to the Names Rule exist and additional guidance will be necessary to more clearly understand and implement the Amendments. Additionally, this guidance comes on the heels of the Investment Company Institute’s letter to the SEC in late December 2024 requesting that the SEC delay implementation of the Names Rule. Given that the development and finalizing of the FAQs requires a significant amount of time and effort, the timing of their release does not suggest that the SEC will or will not act on that request.
Bank M&A Outlook for 2025
Overall M&A activity in 2024 continued to be subdued; however, the fourth quarter, especially after the Trump bump, showed signs of a significant pick up. Our M&A outlook for 2025 suggests the potential for a banner year. Numerous variables could hinder deal activity, but improving economic conditions coupled with enhanced net interest margins (NIMs) from lower short term interest rates and possible tax cuts should improve fundamentals. Moreover, a less hostile regulatory regime should eliminate a risk overhang to earnings.[1] The prospect for a more relaxed antitrust enforcement regime or at least less distrust of business combinations could create significant opportunities for strategic growth and investment.
Positive Factors for Dealmaking in 2025
CEO Confidence and Stock Market Performance. CEO confidence continues to go up, which can give C-suites and boards the necessary conviction to pursue M&A. If economic conditions improve, then capital markets should also strengthen. M&A volume frequently tracks stock market performance. In addition, improved economic conditions and higher trading price multiples could narrow valuation gaps between buyers and sellers that were obstacles to some transactions last year.
Antitrust. Not since Grover Cleveland has a President lost a bid for reelection and then ran again successfully. Thus, while a change in Presidential administration and political party leadership ordinarily brings policy uncertainty, we can look to President Trump’s first term for some guidance – but no guarantees – as to how his administration may govern this time around. This is particularly the case with the current regulatory skepticism, if not hostility, toward M&A. In 2023, President Biden adopted an Executive Order ostensibly designed to promote competition. The effect of that admonition was that regulators touching M&A across his administration, whether as part of an independent agency or otherwise, added criteria for M&A while also slowing the pace of review to allow for greater scrutiny. Bank regulators leaned into this Executive Order. Over the next four years, we generally expect regulators to be more open to structural remedies and less likely to block mergers outright. But caution is warranted. We may see bipartisan scrutiny of certain aspects of banking such as Fintech in light of lingering Synapse concerns. There are also populist views in the Trump administration and Congress that may scrutinize major consolidations or mergers, particularly if they will impact US jobs. The current expectation is also that the recently adopted HSR filing requirements for nonbank acquisitions will remain in effect.
Lower Interest Rates. Acquisition financing should become more attractive if the Federal Reserve moderates its rate cutting, so that long-term rates might stabilize. Because acquisition financing tends to be longer term in duration, long term rates are much more important. If Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is truly effective in cutting spending or at least the pace of increased spending, then long-term rates might actually come down. Private equity financing of corporate debt has taken bank market share. This competition has lead to greater availability of deal funding. An open issue is whether private credit will continue to play as large a role in corporate financing if the cost of traditional bank debt goes down.
For bank buyers, the Federal Reserve may maintain the current Fed Funds rate. As a result, NIMs may continue to widen as the yield curve steepens. Short term deposit rates have declined while the bond market expects long term rates to increase from inflationary tariffs, government spending and tax policy. Wider NIMs lead to higher bank valuations.
Tax Policy. If Congress pursues tax cuts, the resulting savings could generate more cash flow to pursue acquisitions and make exit transactions even more attractive to selling shareholders. Another issue to watch is whether the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which expires at the end of 2025, is extended and/or modified.
Deregulation. Dealmaking could be impacted if the new administration carries out its goal of deregulation, although it is not clear how quickly that impact might be felt. Deregulation is most likely to open M&A doors not just in banking but for fintech, crypto, and financial services generally. The nominations of Scott Bessent for Treasury, Kevin Hassett for the National Economic Council, and Paul Atkins for the Securities and Exchange Commission all indicate a more hospitable banking environment.
While we expect a significant uptick in M&A activity, we may see particular volume from the following:
Private Equity Exits. It has been widely reported that many private equity funds need to sell their interests in portfolio companies in order to wind-up and return profits to their investors. Exit transactions have been delayed for a variety of reasons, including valuation gaps and a lack of sponsor-to-sponsor M&A activity (largely due to the increased cost of capital associated with leveraged acquisitions caused by higher interest rates).
Strategic Divestments. Banks will continue to explore divesting branches, non-core assets and business lines, especially insurance, to simplify their organizations and footprints and possibly to ward off threats from activist shareholders.
Credit Unions. While we have started to see pushback on credit union and bank tie ups from state regulators, it is likely that the NCUA will continue to permit such combinations. The rise in bank stock valuations may add competition in 2025 that was not available for many deals in 2024. Nonetheless, the lack of credit union taxation or comparable tangible equity requirement and risk-based capital rules should enable credit unions to continue to compete effectively for deals.
Higher Long-term Rates. Certain banks continue to suffer AOCI pressure from the run-up in long-term rates that accompanied recent Federal Reserve rate cuts. Increasingly, national banks with less than 2% tangible capital and all banks with poor NIMs may be pushed by their regulators to sell or at least engage in a dilutive capital raise.
Purchase Accounting/Stock Valuations. For over 40 years, economies of scale have led to vibrant annual results for bank M&A transactions. The punishing accounting marks (AOCI, loan mark-to-market and core deposit intangibles) from M&A have held back such pent up need for growth. Buyers need to use stock consideration to replace the capital from purchase accounting. Higher stock prices are allowing more buyers to do so with less dilution to their shareholders.
Countervailing Factors and Uncertainties
Of course, M&A activity in 2025 may fall short of expectations, particularly if economic conditions deteriorate. Various factors that could adversely impact M&A in 2025 include:
Trade Wars / Tariffs. President Trump has made clear his goal to negotiate trade agreements and expressed his willingness to impose tariffs, which would necessarily impact borrowers in affected industries as well as inbound/outbound investment involving certain countries. As with most government policies, tariffs invariably have winners and losers. To the extent tariffs allow businesses to raise prices, the higher returns could impact creditworthiness, while other businesses will suffer if their supply chain falls apart or they are unable to pass along higher costs to consumers. There may also be bipartisan support for some tariffs, particularly on China.
Politics. Uncertainty over important government policies could hold M&A back. There is the constant specter of disfunction in Washington, D.C., and a thin Republican majority. In addition, proposed cuts in government spending—perhaps led by DOGE—could impact the economy. Staffing or other budget cuts at key governmental agencies (e.g., banking regulators) could also delay the ability to consummate M&A transactions.
Near-Term Transition Issues. Compared to his first term, President Trump is acting more quickly in naming key appointees. Nonetheless, the people who need to run the various important government agencies must obtain Senate approval, where a successful confirmation is not guaranteed and there is a backlogged Senate calendar. Delayed appointments may also stall President Trump’s high-priority items such as border security and tax policy.
Inflationary Pressures. Ongoing inflation will impact markets and economic conditions generally. There are also particular government policies under discussion (e.g., immigration) that could contribute to inflationary pressures. If the Federal Reserve reverses recent accommodation, banks may again suffer shrinking NIMs. This would revive the negative spiral of reduced valuations and impact whether there can be a meeting of the minds on price.
State Attorneys General/State Bank Regulators. A more business-friendly antitrust posture from the federal government could be offset by state attorneys general or state level bank regulators. This could be led by more localized concerns about competition or by state officials who see political upside in challenging transactions.
Geopolitical Risks. Numerous geopolitical risks could escalate in 2025, including the spread of war in the Middle East, Europe or elsewhere, acts of terrorism, sanctions, and the worsening of diplomatic and economic relations with certain countries, any of which could adversely affect markets.
[1] Bank Director survey indicated that almost 75% of bankers viewed regulatory risk as one of the top three risk areas.
Carleton Goss, Michael R. Horne, Lucia Jacangelo, Nathaniel “Nate” Jones, Jay Kestenbaum, Marysia Laskowski, Abigail M. Lyle, Brian R. Marek, Joshua McNulty, Betsy Lee Montague, Alexandra Noetzel, Sumaira Shaikh, Jake Stribling, and Taylor Williams also contributed to this article.
2025 Updates to Georgia’s Notary Laws: What You Need to Know
Starting January 1, 2025, Georgia’s notaries public must comply with new provisions enacted by House Bill 1292. The law introduces updates to the obligations of notaries, focusing on journal-keeping, identity verification, and training requirements. Below is an overview of three key updates for notaries in Georgia.
Journal Requirements for Certain Notarial Acts: One of the most impactful changes is the mandatory maintenance of a written or electronic journal for notarial acts performed for “self-filers.”[1] A “self-filer” is defined as an individual submitting real estate-related documents, such as deeds or liens, for recording but who is not affiliated with certain exempted professional groups, like attorneys or title insurance agents.[2]
Confirmation of Identity: To address ambiguities in the prior statutory language, the new law clarifies the acceptable methods for confirming the identity of signers, oath-takers, and affirmants. The previous statutory language allowed identity verification through “personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence,” with only one example of “satisfactory evidence:” a Veterans Health Identification Card issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The amended statute replaces the vague standard with a requirement for verification using government-issued photo identification documents (valid driver’s license; personal identification card issued under Georgia law; or military identification card—still including a Veterans Health Identification Card).[3] Personal knowledge remains a valid method of identity confirmation under the new law.
Mandatory Training for Initial and Renewed Commissions: Georgia notaries public must now complete educational training prior to their initial appointment and within 30 days of each renewal.[4] The Georgia Superior Court Clerks’ Cooperative Authority is tasked with creating and regulating these programs.[5]
Steps to Determine If the Journal Requirement is Applicable to a Notarial Act
In light of the changes, Georgia’s public notaries may consider the following when performing notarial acts:
1: Identify the Type of Document.[6] Confirm if the document being notarized falls into one of the following categories:
Deeds
Mortgages
Liens as provided by law
Maps or plats related to real estate
State tax executions and renewals
If the document is not one of these types, the new journaling requirement does not apply.
2: Determine if the Requesting Individual is a Self-Filer.[7] Check if the individual requesting the notarial act qualifies as a “self-filer.” A self-filer is any individual who submits one of the above documents for recording and is not part of the following excluded groups:
Title insurance agents or their representatives.
Attorneys licensed in Georgia or their representatives.
Licensed real estate professionals.
Agents of federally insured banks or credit unions.
Agents of licensed or exempt mortgage lenders.
Servicers as defined by federal regulations.
Public officials performing official duties.
Licensed professional land surveyors.
If the requesting individual is part of any excluded group, the journal requirement does not apply.
3: Verify the Individual’s Identity.[8] Ensure the individual’s identity is confirmed through:
A government-issued photo identification (e.g., driver’s license, passport, military ID); or
Personal knowledge of the individual by the notary.
Step 4: Record Required Information in Journal.[9] If the document qualifies and the requesting individual is a self-filer, the notary must record the following in their journal:
Self-filer Information:
Name
Address
Telephone number
Details of the Notarial Act:
Date, time, and location of the notarization.
Type of document notarized.
Identification Information:
Type of government-issued photo identification presented.
Elements of the identification document (e.g., ID number, if applicable).
Note if identity was verified through personal knowledge.
Signature:
Obtain the self-filer’s signature in the journal.
Step 5: Maintain the Journal.[10] Ensure the journal is securely stored, either as a physical written document, or electronically. The duration of the notary’s obligation to maintain this journal is not clarified in the new amendment.
[1] O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8(g).
[2] O.C.G.A. § 44-2-2(a).
[3] O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8(e).
[4] O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8(h)(1).
[5] O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8(h)(2).
[6] O.C.G.A. § 44-2-2(b)(1)(A)-(E).
[7] O.C.G.A. § 44-2-2(a)(1)-(8).
[8] O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8 (e). Note: this step is necessary regardless of whether the journal requirement applies.
[9] O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8 (g)(2).
[10] O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8 (g)(2).
5 Trends to Watch: 2025 Capital Markets
1. Strong U.S. Equity Markets, SPACs, and ETFs: The U.S. equity markets are likely to kick off the year strong, as a variety of players are expected to take advantage of the early days of the incoming presidential administration. This may lead to a flurry of deals, particularly during the first three quarters, as companies seek to capitalize on favorable conditions and the markets assess the impact of the new administration on the economy and the broader geopolitical environment.
A new wave of SPAC IPOs gained momentum in late 2024 that is likely to continue into 2025, particularly as the incoming administration takes aim at accelerating business growth through deregulation and expected tax cuts impact capital gains and losses. The decline in the PIPE market to facilitate SPAC mergers will need a robust turnaround, however, to determine if the SPAC will ultimately prove to once again be a viable vehicle for alternative entry to the public markets. Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are also experiencing dynamic growth and change, particularly with the rise of thematic and niche ETFs that concentrate on specific trends like clean energy, technology, or emerging markets, appealing to investors interested in particular sectors or themes. As ETFs gain popularity, there is a possibility of increased regulation, with new rules potentially being introduced to ensure transparency, liquidity, and investor protection. Furthermore, innovation in product offerings, such as the creation of actively managed ETFs or those incorporating alternative assets, could provide investors with a wider array of investment options. These developments are shaping the ETF landscape by broadening the scope of investment opportunities and ensuring a more regulated market environment.
2. Regulatory Changes and Digital Assets: Republican commissioners and staff attorneys at the SEC and CFTC have signaled that, while awaiting comprehensive legislation and confirmation of the new SEC chair, they intend to reduce reliance on enforcement to mold regulatory guardrails, provide increased executive relief through no-action letters, and collaborate with industry participants in crafting rules differentiating tokens as commodities from tokens as securities. In doing so, clearer regulatory guidelines could emerge, fostering a more favorable environment for blockchain investments. Individual states such as California, on the other hand, may increase their enforcement activity in 2025.
3. Divergent Landscape Continues for Climate and Human Capital Disclosures: In the United States, there may be a rollback of regulations at the federal level requiring climate risk disclosures, while international issuers will still need to comply with EU and UK rules, potentially creating disparities in disclosure requirements. Similarly, there could be less emphasis on human capital disclosures, including those related to ESG (environmental, social, and governance) criteria. Investors might also reduce their demands on issuers regarding these disclosures. Meanwhile, certain states (e.g. California, Minnesota, and New York) are continuing to move forward with their climate-risk disclosure reporting regimes. In the EU and UK, the development of sustainability laws and regulations continues at a fast pace, which could influence debt and equity capital markets transactions, including corporate disclosure, product level disclosure, and ESG due diligence obligations and ratings.
4. Revised Regulatory Framework for EU Equity Issuers: In the European Union, the recent implementation of the Listing Act is widely expected to represent a pivotal milestone for EU capital markets, aimed at streamlining access and reducing administrative burdens, particularly for well-established issuers. This legislative measure is anticipated to further enhance the European financial sector by simplifying the process for companies to access public markets, thereby creating a more dynamic and competitive environment and providing a more viable alternative to standard bank financing. By simplifying some of the complex offering and listing regulatory obstacles and facilitating easier market entry, the Act is expected to enhance liquidity and attract a broader range of issuers, including small and medium-sized enterprises, fostering innovation and economic expansion across member states. While it may take some time to fully benefit from all the regulatory changes aimed at addressing the concerns raised by practitioners in the field, the recent legislation clearly indicates that the EU seeks to strengthen its position as a leading global financial center.
5. Anticipated Tax Policy Changes Likely to Influence Investment Strategies: Potential changes in tax policies, such as adjustments to capital gains tax rates, could significantly influence investor behavior and decision-making related to asset sales and investment strategies. With the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 set to expire in 2025, Congress may consider extending it or implementing further tax cuts. Additionally, the use of advanced real-time tax management tools is likely to become more prevalent, enabling investors to optimize their tax positions concerning capital gains and losses. These developments could collectively impact the landscape of capital gains and losses, shaping investment strategies and economic growth.
Dorothee & Rafał Sieński contributed to this article.
Supporting Employees Impacted by Wildfires
The ongoing Los Angeles, California, wildfires have caused widespread devastation, forcing residents to evacuate, and have destroyed homes and communities. President Joe Biden approved a Major Disaster Declaration in response to the wildfires in Los Angeles County on January 8.
There are several ways employers can support employees impacted by the wildfires, including by making qualified disaster relief payments to employees and creating paid leave sharing programs. Employers can also set up employee assistance funds through existing public charities that administer disaster relief programs, create an employer-sponsored charitable organization that provides disaster relief payments to employees, or set up a donor-advised fund with a sponsoring public charity. In addition, employers can allow employees greater access to distributions and loans from accounts under employer-sponsored retirement plans.
This alert provides a high-level overview of qualified disaster relief payments, leave sharing programs, disaster relief options using charitable organizations, and expanded opportunities to receive distributions and loans from employer-sponsored retirement plans. The following is intended to provide a brief introduction to the options available to employers and does not address the specific requirements for each option. Qualified disaster relief payments, leave bank programs, charitable organizations, and expansion of distributions and loans from employer-sponsored retirement plans must be carefully structured to ensure compliance under the federal tax laws. It is recommended to consult with legal or tax professionals to ensure full compliance and avoid potential liabilities.
Qualified Disaster Relief Payments
Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code permits employers to make “qualified disaster relief payments” to employees in areas with an emergency disaster or major disaster declaration. Qualified disaster relief payments are not included in the employee’s gross income or subject to employment tax. Employers can also deduct qualified disaster relief payments to the same extent as payments treated as income to the employee.
A payment qualifies as a “qualified disaster relief payment” if the following requirements are satisfied:
There has been a “qualified disaster” (e.g., a federally declared disaster issued by the President of the United States).
The payment is intended to cover reasonable and necessary personal, family, living, or funeral expenses, or reasonable and necessary expenses incurred for repairing or replacing a personal residence or its contents, provided the expenses were incurred as a result of the qualified disaster and not covered by insurance or other resources.
The payment is not income replacement (e.g., severance, furlough pay, or lost wages from missed work).
Since President Biden approved the Major Disaster Declaration, employers can therefore provide financial assistance to employees impacted by the wildfires, provided that the payments meet the additional requirements described above. Employers who provide qualified disaster assistance payments should maintain adequate records for the program and request that recipients retain receipts and other documentation.
Leave Sharing Programs
Under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notice 2006-59, the IRS allows employers, responding to a “major disaster” (as declared by the president), to establish “leave banks” that enable employees to contribute accrued leave (up to the maximum amount the employee normally accrues during the year) to a collective pool for use by employees who have been adversely affected by a “major disaster” necessitating absence from work. Because President Biden approved a Major Disaster Declaration in response to the wildfires in Los Angeles County, employers can use employer-sponsored leave banks to support employees adversely impacted by the wildfires with additional paid leave. The leave is treated as wages with respect to the leave recipient and subject to federal income tax withholding and employment tax (e.g., FICA and FUTA). Leave donors are not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction on their individual income tax returns for the donated leave, but the portion of leave donated is not treated as income or wages to the leave donor. For employer-sponsored leave banks to qualify for the US federal tax treatment addressed herein, leave bank programs must meet certain additional requirements set forth in IRS Notice 2006-59.
Charitable Organizations
Employers can also support employees and other individuals impacted by the wildfires through disaster relief options using charitable organizations. Employers can set up employee assistance funds through existing public charities that administer disaster relief programs, create an employer-sponsored charitable organization that provides disaster relief payments to employees, or set up a donor-advised fund with a sponsoring public charity.
Employee Assistance Fund Administered by Existing Public Charity
Employers can create and fund an employee assistance fund administered by an existing public charity. This allows an employer to provide critical financial assistance to employees affected by the disaster while leveraging the charity’s established infrastructure and expertise.
Employer-Sponsored Public Charity
Employers can establish an employee-sponsored public charity to provide disaster relief payments to employees and other individuals impacted by current and future disasters. Employee-sponsored public charities are typically funded not only by the employer but also by employees or other donors. An employer-sponsored public charity can generally provide disaster relief to employees affected by current and future disasters, including qualified and non-qualified disasters or emergency hardship situations.
Employee-Sponsored Private Foundation
Employers can also establish an employee-sponsored private foundation to provide disaster relief payments to employees and other individuals impacted by current and future disasters. Employee-sponsored private foundations are generally funded by the employer and subject to additional requirements and restrictions that do not apply to public charities. An employer-sponsored private foundation can provide disaster relief to employees affected by current and future qualified disasters (but not non-qualified disasters or emergency hardship situations).
Employer-Sponsored Donor-Advised Fund
Employers can set up a donor-advised fund with a sponsoring public charity to support employees and their family members who are victims of qualified disasters. The sponsoring organization manages the fund, and a selection committee has advisory privileges over the fund. An employer-sponsored donor-advised fund can provide disaster relief to employees affected by current and future qualified disasters (but not non-qualified disasters or emergency hardship situations).
Disaster relief options involving charitable organizations are subject to complex tax requirements and must be carefully structured to ensure compliance.
Distributions and Loans From Employer-Sponsored Retirement Plans
Employers can allow their retirement plans to offer relief to “qualified individuals” impacted by a qualified disaster through expanded distribution options, increased access to plan loans, and loan repayment relief. A “qualified individual” is an individual whose principal residence during the incident period of any qualified disaster is in the qualified disaster area and the individual has sustained an economic loss by reason of that qualified disaster.
To the extent the plans do not already have provisions related to expansions of distributions and loans in the context of federally declared disasters, employers will need to amend their plans and would have until the end of this year to adopt the amendments.
Qualified Disaster Recovery Distributions
Employers can permit qualified individuals to receive distributions from the employee’s plan account in an amount up to $22,000 per disaster, with no early withdrawal penalty, and the option to repay all or a portion of the distribution within three years.
Increase to Plan Loan Limit
Employers can increase the maximum loan amount available to qualified individuals for plan loans made during a specified period following a qualified disaster. The plan loan limit may be increased to the full amount of the individual’s vested account under the plan, but not more than $100,000 (minus outstanding plan loans of the individual).
Relief for Plan Loan Repayments
Employers can also provide qualified individuals additional time (up to one year) to repay plan loans outstanding on the date of the declaration of the qualified disaster.