|
|
|
Welcome to Fellow Weekly!
Encouraging intelligent and entertaining debate at your Shabbat table.
Fellow Weekly raises issues of business law and ethics through lively emails by featuring your real-life scenarios answered by our leading authorities and professionals. |
|
Your thoughtful and
generous contribution will help us continue our vital and successful
work.
Kindly send tax - deductible checks payable to Minyan Avreichim to 6902 Dorset Place, Baltimore, M.D. 21215 Together...for a better world
New:
To subscribe to our New Yiddish Newsletter slated to appear after Passover, please email weekly@projectfellow.org and write YID in the subject.
To join
this mailing list, please click here
or
send an email to weekly@projectfellow.org with the word subscribe in the subject line. |
|
CASE 145: Taxes & The Mysterious Dowry!
Blessed with five charming
daughters, Dr. and Mrs. Marvin and Hilda Neuberger raised their remarkable
children on Manhattan's Upper
West Side with a sense of responsibility from an early age.
While
many of their girlfriends would fritter their babysitting money and pocket
change freely, Dr. Neuberger challenged his daughters to invest their
well-deserved earnings for the future. He promised to match any of their
childhood savings as a bonus to their dowries.
As they matured, the girls accrued sizeable savings.
A natural economist and
mathematician, Mrs. Neuberger invested each of her daughter's earnings in numerous
long-term CD's and gladly handled the bookkeeping. While Dr. Neuberger kept his side of the
deal, Hilda continued to offer her accounting services to her daughters, long
after they wed. Hilda alone remained
privy to the bank information.
As
five families of rambunctious grandchildren began to leave noticeable
footprints on Marvin and Hilda's mahogany furniture, as well as joyous
handprints on Neubergers' once immaculate off-white living room walls, Grandma
Neuberger's mind slowly began to become more suited for spontaneous fun loving
grandmother-hood than accurate financing. She realized that by now her
daughters matched her once celebrated precision, and responsibly decided that
the time had come to hand over the appropriate bankbooks to
each of her five daughters. Four years later, Grandma Neuberger
was cleaning her walls and furniture for Passover. As she was rummaging through
the papers on her desk, her eyes beheld a windfall - a recently matured CD
worth $9,000. Judging by the date on
which she had opened the account; Mrs. Neuberger reckoned the CD belonged to
one of her two youngest - either to Tammy Stern or to Naomi Adler - both of
whom taught math in the local elementary school. All of Hilda's efforts to identify the true
owner were to no avail.
-
What should Hilda do?
- May she write a check payable to the school's DDF (Dean's
discretionary fund), with a request to add the amount to Tammy's and Naomi's
holiday bonuses and receive a receipt for a tax-refund in return?
What is the law?
Please email us with your comments and answers at weekly@projectfellow.org.
Read next week's issue for the answer!
|
|
LAST WEEK'S CASE
CASE 144: Sited?
Sara Portman ran a popular family
dentistry on East Main Street
in Norfolk, Virginia. Sara was a compassionate woman who
cared for her patients as though they were her own family members. Tragically,
her husband Gil succumbed to a fatal illness three years before. At thirty-three, she still had a life full of
opportunities ahead of her.
Sara's patient, Rebecca Green was a
community activist. At the helm of
numerous ongoing volunteer ventures, Rebecca became familiar with Abe Katz, a
considerate and passionate middle-aged CPA from Queens, N.Y. Rebecca thought that Abe and Sara could make
a good match.
When Rebecca felt that her dentist was ready to move on,
she contacted both Sara and Abe and suggested that they consider meeting each
other.
Sara was seriously interested in meeting Abe. However, Abe was too busy at the time. April
15th was approaching and Abe had his plate full. Yet, he gave Rebecca his word
that he would consider listening to her suggestion after tax season. All the while, Rebecca and Sara stayed in
touch.
Two months later, Abe phoned
Rebecca and expressed interest in pursuing her idea. "By the way, would
you mind reminding me of her name?" asked Abe. "Sara Portman", replied Rebecca.
"Funny thing, we are actually seeing each other
tomorrow night. I was impressed at what
I saw about her on a matchmaking site. I contacted her and we decided to
meet."
Half a year later, Sara Katz was moving part of her
practice to Queens, N.Y.
-
Does
Rebecca receive remuneration?
- If she
does receive remuneration, how much should she receive?
-
Assuming matchmaking rates are generally higher in Queens than in Norfolk, how does Rebecca
configure the value of her services?
What is the law?
[Submitted by: Rabbi Avi Hess, Member Fellow - Yesharim Research Center]
|
|
The Answer
We present you here with a concise ruling. For a more intricate elucidation, please see the detailed explanation below.
Abe
Katz pays Rebecca 1/6 of the gross Norfolk
matchmaker's rate.
|
Detailed Explanation
Sited?implicates the following three laws. Background
-
I. A matchmaker generally provides brokerage services for
two sides. The matchmaker persuades the bride to meet the groom and the groom
to meet the bride. Bluntly, the matchmaker
markets the groom to the bride and the bride to the groom. Thus, each side owes
the matchmaker the accepted brokerage fees for the received services.
Conversely, a matchmaker who provides his or her services
for merely one side may only ask for remuneration from the side that received
his or her services.
-
II. We noted in Issues 42 and 43, [to receive these issues, email info@projectfellow.org] that a matchmaker receives one
third of the going rate for merely introducing the two parties [Pischei
Teshuva, 185: 10]
-
III. Unless otherwise stipulated, terms of employment are
based upon the local custom where the work was performed. [Choshen Mishpat 331:
1,2].
Application
I. Rebecca convinced Sara to meet Abe. Rebecca provided a
service for Abe by marketing him to Sara.
However, Rebecca did not persuade
Abe to meet Sara. Instead, Sara affectively marketed herself to Abe through her
post of which he read on the website.
As Rebecca did not successfully
provide a service for Sara, she cannot legally demand remuneration from Sara
for her efforts. (Of course, it would be more than decent of Sara to display
her appreciation to Rebecca for her efforts in some meaningful fashion).
Consequently, Abe is required to
pay Rebecca for her services, while Sara is absolved from doing the same.
II. Rebecca convinced Sara to meet
Abe, yet Sara and Abe carried out the rest of the process on their own. As such, Rebecca deserves one third of Abe's
half of the going rate (1/6).
III. Rebecca rendered her service
in Norfolk.
Although Abe lived in Queens, she sold Abe in Norfolk
to a girl from Norfolk.
Abe must therefore configure Rebecca's payment according to the rate in Norfolk [Igros Moshe].
Conclusion
In
conclusion, Abe must remunerate Rebecca for one third of his half or one sixth
of the going Norfolk
rate.
[Answered by the Fellow-Yesharim Research Center] |
|
|
|
Fellow Weekly will resume following Passover, in time for the weekend of April 10, 2010
|
|
Note:
Although we aim to present the correct ruling, varying details are always important and decisively influence every individual case. Our readers are thus encouraged to present their personal cases to a competent authority and not solely rely on the information provided.
Together...for a better world
You can help build a better world. Just invite your friends and family to subscribe to
Fellow Weekly.
To join this mailing list, please click here
or send an email to weekly@projectfellow.org with the word subscribe in the subject line. |
|
A project of
Fellow-Yesharim
105/21 Sanhedria Murchevet, Jerusalem
ISRAEL 02-581-6337
USA 845-335-5516 | |
|
|
|
|
