IL for www.theindianalawyer.com

Major U.S. cities and counties are beefing up legal services for immigrants to help them fight deportation and avoid fraudulent lawyers in the wake of Donald Trump’s election and his hard-line immigration enforcement promises.

Tapping local government funds to represent immigrants in federal proceedings provides an early example of the type of pushback the Republican incoming president will receive in Democratic strongholds. Advocates call it a matter of justice and smart economics, but some question whether it’s a fair use of taxpayer money.

Chicago has approved a $1.3 million legal fund. Los Angeles city and county officials and private organizations are working on a $10 million plan, according to a mayor’s spokeswoman, while some California state lawmakers have proposed spending tens of millions of dollars to provide lawyers to immigrants facing deportation. New York is mulling a public-private legal fund, building on New York City’s public defender program that’s considered a national model.

“We need able to be able to stand by people who are fearful,” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a former White House chief of staff, said after the measure passed the City Council last week.

Trump’s pledges to build a border wall and deport the estimated 11 million people living in the country without legal permission have triggered uncertainty in immigrant circles. He’s since scaled back the deportee number, but not detailed his platform.

Since his win, a lack of legal representation for immigrants has become a growing concern. It was the top issue raised by a Chicago task force of leaders, including Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, convened after the election. A proponent of a Los Angeles County measure slated for consideration Tuesday, Supervisor Hilda Solis, said she’s especially worried about the fate of unaccompanied minors and young immigrants who filed personal information with the federal government to obtain work permits under the Obama administration.

“Right now, the most important thing is that this fund be established and that our most vulnerable communities know that we are working towards keeping them safe and protected,” Solis said.

Immigrants aren’t guaranteed a lawyer in immigration court and only about 37 percent of those in deportation proceedings have legal representation, according to a September American Immigration Council report.

Democratic state lawmakers in California have proposed legislation that could cost up to $80 million for immigration attorneys and other legal training. Santa Clara County is looking into the idea and San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee added $1.5 million to a fund for immigrant legal services.

In Chicago — where an estimated 150,000 people do not have permanent legal status — the money will be divided among two nonprofits. One will focus on poor immigrants facing deportation. The other will employ 200 “community navigators” who will network through churches, schools and community events to find immigrants who are in the country illegally and help them figure out if they have avenues to stay.

“People are nervous,” said Esperanza Villalobos, who already does the job in Mexican-heavy Chicago neighborhoods. She reports a surge in immigrants seeking her out since the election.

In Chicago, which has some of the most immigrant-friendly laws in the nation, the debate over the fund had tense moments, highlighting how contentious the issue is outside Democratic strongholds. Chicago set aside money only for one year and is banking on private donations to keep it going.

Three aldermen representing neighborhoods with strong Trump support voted against it, including Nicholas Sposato. He dismissed it as “the legal defense fund for the illegals” and said Chicago should consider the money for other issues. The cash-strapped city diverted the funds from a little-used homeowner rebate program.

“I’m not a hater,” Sposato said during the vote at full the council meeting. “Any given day, 1,000 homeless veterans out there. What are we doing for them?”

Another reason cited by local governments for creating the funds is the economy, because immigrants, regardless of legal status, work and pay taxes. In addition, children of immigrants who are deported may end up needing publicly-funded services such as foster care and health care, said Avideh Moussavian, a policy attorney with the National Immigration Law Center in Washington.

“There’s the due process issue, but there’s actually quantifiable economic impact,” she said.

In 2013, New York City tested a program to infuse public defender offices with money for attorneys dedicated to representing detained immigrants. The program has grown from $500,000 in its initial year to roughly $6 million. Attorneys have represented more than 1,500 immigrants from 2013 through late last year, the most recent statistics available. About 70 percent of attorneys won their cases, according to the nonprofit Vera Institute of Justice.

In Chicago, another goal is to help immigrants avoid fraudulent services, something 24-year-old Jose Lopez knows firsthand.

The college student, brought to the country illegally as a child, qualified for a work permit under the Obama administration. Twice he sought out attorneys who advertised on Spanish-language radio stations.

However, the paperwork they filed was unnecessary, his case stalled and he lost nearly $2,000. He’s since obtained the permit and has a graphic design job, but hopes others can avoid his mistakes.

“I had to stall a career. I had to stall school,” he said. “I had to stall life.”

Olivia Covington for www.theindianalawyer.com

A popular travel and booking website will not have to pay the state more than $200,000 in back taxes after the Indiana Tax Court held that the website is not considered a retail merchant.

During the time between Jan. 1, 2004, and Dec. 31, 2006, an Orbitz LLC regional market manager traveled to Indiana to build relationships with Hoosier hoteliers, who subsequently executed contracts with Orbitz that allowed the travel company to provide its services for hotels in Allen, Clark, Floyd, Harrison, Jefferson, Marion, Scott and Shelby counties.

As part of those contracts, the hoteliers delegated some of their responsibilities to Orbitz, including marketing, tax collecting, payment processing, reservations and customer service functions. The hoteliers also established wholesale rates for their hotel rooms, but agreed to allow Orbitz to charge customers at higher rates when it facilitated pre-paid reservations. Orbitz, in turn, agreed to, among other things, collect sales and innkeeper’s taxes for customers based on the wholesale rate of the hotel rooms alone.

In December 2007, the Indiana Department of Revenue issued sales and innkeeper’s tax investigations reports to Orbitz, showing that the travel company owed more than $200,000 in sales tax, innkeeper’s tax and interest for the period between Jan. 1, 2004, and Dec. 31, 2006, because it should have collected taxes based on the retail rate of the rooms, not just the wholesale rate.

After the revenue department denied Orbitz’s protest filing and request for rehearing, Orbitz appealed in Orbitz, LLC v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, 49T10-0903-TA-10, in March 2009, and both parties moved for summary judgment in August 2013.

Indiana Tax Court Judge Martha Blood Wentworth granted Orbitz’s motion for summary judgment Tuesday, writing that the travel company was not considered a “retail merchant” under Indiana tax law.

To be a retail merchant, state statute requires Orbitz to “rent” or “furnish” rooms to others for less than 30 days at a time. Although Orbitz’ agreement with the hoteliers gave the company the rights to market, sell or rent hotel rooms, Wentworth wrote that the agreement “merely provided Orbitz with the right to confirm a pre-paid reservation for a hotel room, while the hoteliers themselves…were alone able to transfer possession or control.”

The tax court judge based that opinion on the case of 2625 Building Corp. v. Deutsch, 385 N.E.2d 1189 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), which held that a hotel’s obligation to transfer possession of its hotel rooms to customers who make pre-paid reservations with the hotel or a third party remains executory until the customer checks in or cancels.

“The facts in this case establish that the hoteliers, not Orbitz … delivered or transferred possession and control of hotel rooms to customer during the check-in process,” Wentworth wrote.

Further, she held that the fact that Orbitz is not a retail merchant relieves the travel company of liability for sales or innkeeper’s taxes “regardless of the statutory proclamation that each rental or furnishing of a hotel room is a unitary transaction.”