Estate, Gift, and GST Taxes

Estate, Gift, and GST Taxes

The federal government imposes taxes on gratuitous transfers of property made during lifetime (gifts) or at death (bequests/devises) that exceed certain exemption limits. Gift taxes are imposed on transfers during lifetime that exceed the exemption limits, and estate taxes are imposed on transfers at death that exceed the exemption limits. The generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax is imposed on transfers to grandchildren and more remote descendants that exceed the exemption limits so transferors cannot avoid transfer taxes on the next generation by "skipping" a generation. The GST tax is levied in addition to gift or estate taxes and is not a substitute for them.

The gift, estate, and GST tax exemptions were $5 million in 2011.  The exemptions are indexed for inflation, resulting in exemptions of $5.12 million for 2012, $5.25 million for 2013, $5.34 million for 2014, and $5.43 for 2015. An individual can transfer property with value up to the exemption amount either during lifetime or at death without paying any transfer tax.  In other words, any portion of the exemption used during lifetime reduces the amount of exemption available at death for estate tax purposes. For example, if you made a lifetime taxable gift of $2 million in 2013, your remaining exemption amount that could be used by your estate at your death would be $3.34 million ($5.34 million 2014 inflation adjusted exemption, less the $2 million lifetime gift). The GST exemption essentially allows the earmarking of transfers, made during lifetime or at death, that either skip a generation or are made in trust for multiple generations.  Certain gifts are not applied toward the exemption, such as “annual exclusion” gifts and direct payments to medical or education providers, and can be made completely tax-free.

Transfers between spouses and to certain trusts for spouses, made during lifetime or at death, may be made without the imposition of any tax.  These transfers also do not use any exemption. This is known as the “unlimited marital deduction.”

The $5 million inflation adjusted estate tax exemption is "portable" between spouses beginning 2011 so that a surviving spouse may take advantage of a deceased spouse's unused exemption (DSUE) through lifetime gifts by the surviving spouse, or at the surviving spouse's later death.

This means that no transfer tax is assessed on estates up to $5.34 million for individuals and $10.68 million for married couples, assuming no lifetime gifts other than annual exclusion gifts or certain transfers for educational or medical expenses were previously made.

It is important to note that there was no inflation indexing of the transfer tax exemption prior to 2012. Given the large $5 million base amount that is indexed, the annual increases in the exemption amounts are likely to be substantial, even when inflation is not particularly high. This will create new planning opportunities. First, for taxpayers who fully use their exemption in any given year, there will be a significant new exemption available the next year. Second, for the first time, the growth in the exemptions will enable taxpayers whose estates grow to remain protected from the imposition of transfer tax.

With the new high exemptions, most people will no longer be subject to the federal estate tax, but this fact should not be interpreted to mean that planning is not necessary. Federal estate, gift and GST taxes are but one component of the myriad of issues addressed in the estate planning process.  In addition, many states now impose state estate tax, and the state estate tax exemption, if any, may be much lower than the federal exemption. The most common state estate taxes are based on a specified percentage of the federal estate tax.  Some states impose an inheritance tax tied to the family relationship between the decedent and the recipient of property from the estate.

Only Connecticut currently imposes a state gift tax. This means that residents of any state, other than Connecticut, that imposes a state estate tax, may be able to significantly reduce or even eliminate their state estate tax at death by making gift transfers during their lifetimes.  These taxes can be particularly complex or apply in unexpected ways.  In addition, the determination as to which state may tax a particular taxpayer or tax property located within that state regardless of where the taxpayer resides is complex.  Accordingly, this type of planning should be pursued only with professional guidance.

source http://www.americanbar.org/groups/real_property_trust_estate/resources/estate_planning/estate_gift_and_gst_taxes.html

 To join the ABA, call  the ABA Service Center at 1.800.285.2221.   Join the Section of Real Property, Trust and Estate Law RPTE Section Today!

They offer three types of membership designed to meet the needs of different professional roles in the areas of Real Property, Trust & Estate Law:

Lawyer Membership

       Open to any licensed U.S. attorney

Law Student Membership

       Open to anyone currently enrolled in an ABA-approved U.S. law school

       Visit the law student webpage

Associate Membership

       Open to attorneys not licensed to practice law in the U.S. (international lawyers), paralegals, law office administrators, CPAs, appraisers, surveyors, title examiners, escrow officers, financial service professionals, and legal educators

How to Join

If you're already an ABA member, simply add the Section of Real Property, Trust and Estate Law to your membership. Not yet an ABA member? Click here to get started.

The ABA Solo Division’s book “Wills and Estate Administration” written by Kenneth Vercammen will be published in January 2016.

Legislation that changed OPRA’s copy fee provision at N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5.b

Legislation that changed OPRA’s copy fee provision at N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5.b. Said provision of OPRA has since been amended to provide that:

“[a] copy or copies of a government record may be purchased by any person upon payment of the fee prescribed by law or regulation. Except as otherwise provided by law or regulation, the fee assessed for the duplication of a government record embodied in the form of printed matter shall be $0.05 per letter size page or smaller, and $0.07 per legal size page or larger. If a public agency can demonstrate that its actual costs for duplication of a government record exceed the foregoing rates, the public agency shall be permitted to charge the actual cost of duplicating the record. The actual cost of duplicating the record, upon which all copy fees are based, shall be the cost of materials and supplies used to make a copy of the record, but shall not include the cost of labor or other overhead expenses associated with making the copy except as provided for in subsection c. of this section. Access to electronic records and non-printed materials shall be provided free of charge, but the public agency may charge for the actual costs of any needed supplies such as computer discs.” (Emphasis added). N.J.S.A. 47:1A- 5.b.
To fully understand the impact of this amendment to OPRA’s copy fee schedule, the Government Records Council interprets each sentence of the amended fee provision below:
1. “[a] copy or copies of a government record may be purchased by any person upon payment of the fee prescribed by law or regulation.”
This sentence means that custodians are to charge OPRA requestors any copy fees that are established by other New Jersey laws or regulations, if said fees exist. For example, N.J.S.A. 22A:4-1a sets forth specific fees for certain records filed with the New Jersey Department of Treasury (and requested from the Department of Treasury). Specifically, said statute provides that “[i]f a roll of microfilm images is requested, the State Treasurer shall collect a fee of $1.00 for each image on the microfilm roll.” Thus, if a requestor seeks access to a microfilm roll from the Department of Treasury, the Department’s custodian must charge the fees established in N.J.S.A. 22A:4-1a. The same applies for any other records that have specific fees established in other New Jersey laws or regulations.
2. “Except as otherwise provided by law or regulation, the fee assessed for the duplication of a government record embodied in the form of printed matter shall be $0.05 per letter size page or smaller, and $0.07 per legal size page or larger.”
For records that do not have a specific fee established by statute (like the Treasury example above), custodians must charge a flat rate of $0.05 per letter size (8 1⁄2” x 11”) page or smaller, and $0.07 per legal size (8 1⁄2” x 14”) page or larger, if providing a requestor with paper copies. For example, a custodian providing access to 3 pages of printed meeting minutes on letter size pages would charge a requestor $0.15 ($0.05 per page for 3 pages = $0.15).
3. “If a public agency can demonstrate that its actual costs for duplication of a government record exceed the foregoing rates, the public agency shall be permitted to charge the actual cost of duplicating the record. The actual cost of duplicating the record, upon which all copy fees are based, shall be the cost of materials and supplies used to make a

Page 20 of 32

copy of the record, but shall not include the cost of labor or other overhead expenses associated with making the copy except as provided for in subsection c. of this section.” (Emphasis added).
It is possible that the actual cost to produce paper copies will exceed $0.05 per letter size page or smaller and $0.07 per legal size page or larger for some public agencies. In these instances, the OPRA amendment allows custodians to charge the actual cost of duplication, which is limited to the cost of materials and supplies used to make the copy.
How to Calculate Actual Costs (only if paper copies exceed the $0.05 and $0.07 rates)

•   Custodians should contact their supplier to determine the cost of paper and toner. A supplier is wherever the agency obtains those materials – paper and toner (i.e. central purchasing unit, Staples, Office Depot, etc).
  
•   Calculate or contact copying company to determine the agency’s annual copying volume (calendar or fiscal year, however the agency operates). This does NOT only include copies pertaining to OPRA requests – this is ALL copying on all copy machines in the agency for all purposes.
  
•   Contact copying company to determine the average paper life of one toner/ink cartridge (i.e. how many pieces of paper the ink or toner should be able to copy).
  
•   Custodians must maintain documentation of all information provided by copying company or office supplier (i.e. contracts or correspondence from purchasing agent or copying company) regarding this calculation.
  
•   Actual calculation is the total cost of paper purchased for 1 year (calendar or fiscal) + the total cost of toner purchased (calendar or fiscal) ÷ the annual copying volume.
  This calculation can be averaged for all copy machines in an agency that produce letter and legal copies. Special copiers, such as for color printing or blueprints copied in house, should be calculated separately. 
  

Remove+&+Expungement+of+Criminal+Arrests+and+Convictions-+Free+Seminar

Remove+&+Expungement+of+Criminal+Arrests+and+Convictions-+Free+Seminar

Remove & Expungement of Criminal Arrests and Convictions- Free Seminar

May 6, 2015 from 5:00pm-5:45

Location: Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen, 2053 Woodbridge Ave, Edison, NJ 08817

Cost: Free if you pre-register. Complimentary materials provided. This program is limited to 15 people. Please bring a canned food donation, which will be given to the St. James Food Bank located on Woodbridge Avenue in Edison, NJ. Please email us if you plan on attending or if you would like us to email the materials.

Speaker: Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. (Author: Criminal Law Forms by the American Bar Association).

If someone has been arrested or even had a private criminal complaint signed against them in the Municipal Court, they have a criminal record, even if the charges were dismissed or received a Conditional Discharge. Under NJ Law past criminal arrests and convictions can be expunged/erased under certain instances. This program will discuss the expungement process. Do you have children or someone you know or work with that needs an expungement?

To attend, email: VercammenLaw@NJLaws.com

Can’t attend? We can email you materials. Send email to VercammenLaw@NJLaws.com

http://www.njlaws.com/expungement-seminar.html

More Info: The Petition all expungements are filed in the Superior Court. It takes a minimum of three months for the court to grant the expungement. The requirements are very formal. There can be a waiting period between 6 months up to 10 years after the criminal case is finished. For someone who had a drug charge, they can hire an attorney, apply for expungement 6 months after the Conditional Discharge is complete. The statute requires detailed notices served by the attorney on the State Police, Attorney General and numerous other government entities.

The statute on expungement was revised. Court costs and legal fees for expungement range from $1,500-$2,500.

Subscription Form NJ Municipal Court Law Review

Kenneth Vercammen began publishing the NJ Municipal Court Law Review for Municipal Court Judges and police chiefs in 1993 as the Cranbury Municipal Court Prosecutor. Based on the overwhelming response, we made the NJ Municipal Court Law Review available to all municipalities for an annual subscription of only $20.00 per year. Prosecutors, police, Attorneys, Courts, Judges, municipalities, mayors, law enforcement, and individuals involved in the Municipal Courts and Criminal Courts in New Jersey should read this newsletter. To receive this quarterly newsletter reporting how changes in New Jersey law or court decisions could affect the prosecution or handling of Municipal Court matters, please subscribe today using this subscription form, or sending a municipal voucher. You will receive quarterly updates on selected revised motor vehicle laws and articles on Municipal Court practice. Already over 400 New Jersey police departments, prosecutors, and towns have subscribed. Please give me a call if you have any questions. I look forward to hearing from you. Name: ______________________________________ (or staple business card here) Address: ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Return to: Kenneth A. Vercammen, Esq., ________________ Editor- NJ Municipal Court Law Review 2053 Woodbridge Ave., Edison NJ 08817 For information call: (732) 572-0500 We also have a free email newsletter on wills, probate & elder law To subscribe for the email newsletter, mail or fax us your email ad

Proposed DWI law to require car interlock device but permit driving scheduled for vote on February 5, 2015

Proposed DWI law to require car interlock device but permit driving scheduled for vote on February 5, 2015

SENATE, No. 385

with committee amendments

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

The Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee reports favorably, Senate Bill No. 385 (SCS), with committee amendments.

As amended, this bill revises the penalty provisions for various drunk driving offenses, particularly making changes concerning the use of, and applicable time periods covering, driver’s license suspensions and installations of ignition interlock devices on motor vehicles owned or operated by these drivers.

Drunk Driving

Concerning the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (R.S.39:50-4), the bill revises the relevant penalty provisions as follows:

For a first offense, if that offense involved a person’s blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher but less than 0.10%, or otherwise operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the court would order a 10-day license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, for three months, unless the court was clearly convinced, based on a series of aggravating factors outweighing mitigating ones as set forth in the bill, to instead order a license suspension of three months (the three month suspension would also apply instead of device installation if the person did not own or lease a motor vehicle and there was no motor vehicle the person principally operated).

The aggravating and mitigating factors for consideration by the court to order a license suspension instead of device installation would include, but not be limited to: the nature and circumstances of the person’s conduct, including whether such conduct posed a high risk of danger to the public; the person’s driving record; whether the character and attitude of the person indicate that the person would be likely or unlikely to commit another violation; and the need for personal or general deterrence.

If the court did order the installation of the ignition interlock device, the person’s driver’s license would only be reinstated within the 10-day suspension/device installation period by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and the commission would imprint a notation concerning driving with the device on the person’s driver’s license.

Additionally, for a person with an ignition interlock device installed, the three-month installation period would be subject to possible extension for an additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period, for attempting to operate the affected motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher during the last one-third of the installation period, or for failing to present the affected vehicle for device servicing at any time during the installation period. This extension would occur without need of further court order, following notification of the event to the court by the Chief Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Commission, which notification would be supported by a certification from the ignition interlock device manufacturer, installer, or other party set forth in regulation responsible for the servicing or monitoring of the device.

If the first offense involved a person’s blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or higher but less than 0.15%, the court would order a 10-day license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, for not less than seven months or more than one year, unless the court was clearly convinced, based on the series of aggravating factors outweighing the mitigating ones as described above, to instead order a license suspension of not less than seven months or more than one year (the seven month to one year suspension would also apply instead of device installation if the person did not own or lease a motor vehicle and there was no motor vehicle the person principally operated). As above, if the person was ordered to install an ignition interlock device, the person could only reinstate the person’s driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended by an additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period in the same manner as previously described.

If the first offense involved a person’s blood alcohol concentration of 0.15% or higher, the court would order a 10-day license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, and maintain installation of the device during a period of license suspension of not less than seven months or more than one year and after license suspension for an additional period of not less than seven months or more than one year, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive an initial period of suspension plus an additional period of suspension equal to the total period the person would have had an ignition interlock device installed.

With respect to the license suspension of a person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15% or higher, the person would have the opportunity, beginning 90 days after the start of the suspension, to petition the court to reinstate the person’s driving privileges for the duration of the initially ordered suspension period, subject to the person maintaining the installation of the ignition interlock device in the person’s motor vehicle both for the remainder of the initially ordered suspension period and afterward for the additional seven- month to one-year period. Additionally, a person whose driving privileges were suspended for an additional period because the person does not own or lease a motor vehicle and there is no motor vehicle the person principally operates, may petition the court that established the forfeiture period, upon proof of owning, leasing, or principally operating a motor vehicle, to reinstate the person’s driving privileges for the duration of the initial and additional suspension period, subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle. As above, a person ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only reinstate a driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended by an additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period in the same manner as previously described.

If the offense involved a “drugged” driver (i.e., operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a narcotic, hallucinogenic, or habit- producing drug), the court would order a license suspension of not less than seven months or more than one year, with no option to instead operate a motor vehicle with an ignition interlock device installed.

For any such first offense of drunk or “drugged” driving occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other first offenses.

For a second offense, the bill increases, for all drunk and “drugged” drivers, the period of license suspension from the current law’s two years to instead a period of not less than two years or more than four years. The court would order a 10-day license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the two to four year suspension period, and to remain installed afterward for a period of not less than one year or more than three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive an initial period of suspension plus an additional period of suspension equal to the total period the person would have had an ignition interlock device installed.

With respect to a second offender’s license suspension, a person who does not own or lease a motor vehicle or have a motor vehicle the person operates may petition the court that established the forfeiture period, upon proof of owning, leasing, or operating a motor vehicle, to reinstate the person’s driving privileges for the duration of the additional one to three year suspension period (not the initial two to four year period), subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle.

As above for any first offender, a person who is a second offender ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only reinstate a driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended by an additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period in the same manner as previously described for a first offender.

For a second offense occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other second offenses.

For a third or subsequent offense, the bill increases, for all drunk and “drugged” drivers, the period of license suspension from the current law’s 10 years to instead a period of not less than 10 years or more than 20 years. The court would order a 10-day license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the 10 to 20 year suspension period, and to remain installed afterwards for a period of not less than one year or more than three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive an initial period of suspension plus an additional period of suspension equal to the total period the person would have had an ignition interlock device installed.

With respect to a third or subsequent offender’s license suspension, a person who does not own or lease a motor vehicle or have a motor vehicle the person operates may petition the court that established the forfeiture period, upon proof of owning, leasing, or operating a motor vehicle, to reinstate the person’s driving privileges for the duration of the additional one to three year suspension period (not the initial 10 to 20 year period), subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle.

As above for both first and second offenders, a person who is a third or subsequent offender ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only reinstate a driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended by an additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period in the same manner as previously described for first and second offenders.

For a third or subsequent offense occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other third or subsequent offenses.

Refusing a Breath Test

Concerning the offense of refusing to submit to a breath test (section 2 of P.L.1981, c.512 (C.39:4-50.4a)), the bill revises the relevant penalty provisions as follows:

For a first offense, the court would order a 10-day license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, for not less than seven months or more than one year, unless the court was clearly convinced, based on the series of aggravating factors outweighing the mitigating ones as described above for drunk driving offenses, to instead order a license suspension of not less than seven months or more than one year (the seven month to one year suspension would also apply instead of device installation if the person did not own or lease a motor vehicle and there was no motor vehicle the person principally operated). As above with respect to drunk driving offenses, if the person was ordered to install an ignition interlock device, the person could only reinstate the person’s driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended by an additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period in the same manner as previously described.

For any first offense of refusing a breath test occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other first offenses.

For a second offense, the bill increases the period of license suspension from the current two years to instead a period of not less than two years or more than four years. The court would order a 10- day license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the two to four year suspension period and remain installed afterward for a period of not less than one year or more than three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive an initial period of suspension plus an additional period of suspension equal to the total period the person would have had an ignition interlock device installed.

A person who does not own or lease a motor vehicle or have a motor vehicle the person operates may petition the court that established the forfeiture period, upon proof of owning, leasing, or operating a motor vehicle, to reinstate the person’s driving privileges for the duration of the additional one to three year suspension period (not the initial two to four year period), subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle.

As above with respect to any drunk driving offense, a person who is a second offender ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only reinstate a driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended by an additional period equal to one- third of the originally designated period in the same manner as previously described for a drunk driving offense.

For a second offense of refusing a breath test occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other second offenses.

For a third or subsequent offense, the bill increases the period of license suspension from the current 10 years to instead a period of not less than 10 years or more than 20 years. The court would order a 10- day license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the 10 to 20 year suspension period, and to remain installed afterwards for a period of not less than one year or more than three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive an initial period of suspension plus an additional period of suspension equal to the total period the person would have had an ignition interlock device installed.

A third or subsequent offender who does not own or lease a motor vehicle or have a motor vehicle the person operates may petition the court that established the forfeiture period, upon proof of owning, leasing, or operating a motor vehicle, to reinstate the person’s driving privileges for the duration of the additional one to three year suspension period (not the initial 10 to 20 year period), subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle.

As above with respect to any drunk driving offense, a person who is a third or subsequent offender ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only reinstate a driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended by an additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period in the same manner as previously described for a drunk driving offense.

For a third or subsequent offense of refusing a breath test occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other third or subsequent offenses.

Ignition Interlock Device Installation – License Reinstatement

With respect to all cases for which a person has been ordered to install one or more ignition interlock devices, the court would notify the Chief Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Commission. The commission would thereafter require that the one or more devices be installed before the reinstatement of the person’s driver’s license, whether after a 10-day suspension period or some longer period as applicable to the specific offense. The commission would imprint a notation on the reinstated driver’s license stating that the person could not operate a motor vehicle unless it is equipped with an ignition interlock device, and would enter this requirement in the person's driving record.

Ignition Interlock Device – Failure to Install, Tampering

Lastly, a person who fails to install an ignition interlock device as ordered by a court, or who drives a device-equipped vehicle after being started by means other than the person blowing into the device, or who drives an unequipped vehicle, would be guilty of a disorderly persons offense. A disorderly persons offense is ordinarily punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to six months, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. Furthermore, the court would suspend the person’ s driver’ s license for the period of time associated with a drunk driving offense under R.S.39:4-50, except that the applicable period applied by the court would be the period for a second offense (not less than two years or more than four years) if the underlying act was committed by a first offender drunk driver/breath test refusal, and would be the period for a third or subsequent offense (not less than 10 years or more than 20 years) if the underlying act was committed by a second offender drunk driver/breath test refusal; the suspension period for a third or subsequent offender drunk driver/breath test refusal would not be enhanced (remaining not less than 10 years or more than 20 years).

This bill, as amended and reported, is identical to Assembly Bill No. 1368 (ACS/1R), also reported by the committee today. Please note the bills are considered identical even though the Assembly bill was not amended to incorporate provisions of the relevant drunk driving statute, R.S.39:4-50, updated by the enactment of P.L.2014, c.54 on September 10, 2014 (which in relevant part increases a drunk driving offense surcharge to, in part, help fund the installation of mobile video recording systems on municipal police vehicles); only this bill, being amended to match the Assembly bill, incorporated the update. Such a statutory update alone is considered technical in nature and absent any further substantive amendments to the Assembly bill by the Legislature, at which point this technical update would be incorporated, the update can occur after the Legislature’s passage of that bill pursuant to the authority of the Office of Legislative Services’ Legislative Counsel to make such corrections, as concurred to by the Attorney General. See R.S.1:3-1.

COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS:
The committee amendments to the bill:

- provide, for all of the relevant drunk driving and breath test refusal offenses described above, a 10-day license suspension period, during which an offender would have to install an ignition interlock device in the one or more motor vehicles required by the bill’s provisions;

- clarify the device installation requirements for repeat offenders, so that an ignition interlock device would have to be installed in all motor vehicles operated by such offenders (along with all vehicles owned or leased), not just those vehicles “principally” operated by such offenders;

- add provisions to further explain the available penalties for offenders who are required to install ignition interlock devices versus those offenders who face license suspension because they do not have a motor vehicle in which a device would be installed, as detailed above;

- update the existing law concerning the procedure to be followed by drunk driving and breath test refusal offenders who are seeking the reinstatement of their driver’s licenses through the Motor Vehicle Commission;

- update provisions of the relevant drunk driving statute, R.S.39:4- 50, to account for the enactment of P.L.2014, c.54 on September 10, 2014, providing a $25 increase to the surcharge assessed against drunk driving violators ($100 to $125) in order to, in part, help fund the installation of mobile video recording systems on municipal police vehicles as required by that act;

- reinsert provisions concerning the currently operating supervised visitation program for convicted offenders, providing visits to hospitals which receive drunk driving victims, facilities caring for advanced alcoholics or drug abusers, and public morgues or county medical examiner offices holding deceased victims; the provisions were inadvertently marked for deletion by the underlying bill (see R.S.39:4-50, subsection (h)); and

- reinsert the penalty provisions for offenders who fail to install ignition interlock devices, tamper with devices, or operate unequipped vehicles, as detailed above, which were included in the bill as introduced but inadvertently left out of the underlying bill.

KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC

ATTORNEY AT LAW

2053 Woodbridge Ave.

Edison, NJ 08817

(Phone) 732-572-0500

(Fax)    732-572-0030

website: www.njlaws.com