Pop-Up Disney! To End This September at Downtown Disney in Disneyland

first_imgShare This!If you haven’t visiting the Pop-Up Disney! A Mickey Celebration experience, you’ll only have through Labor Day, September 2, to be able to do it. The Downtown Disney District exhibit is a social media lover’s dream. Guests have been able to can step inside nine different imaginatively themed rooms where multi-dimensional art and vibrant, visual displays salute Disney’s most recognizable icon.Want to know what some of the rooms have in store for Guests? In the Mickey at Disneyland room, Guests can share how much Mickey means to the Disneyland Resort, even getting a photo inside an 8-foot-tall Mickey balloon. In the Mickey Around the World room, you can see how Mickey is loved in different countries. The Forever Mickey Room allows Guests to reflect on what Mickey means to them thanks to a mirrored hallway. Finally, in the most social media move ever, you’ll also want to get your photo taken with the large polka dot bow sofa couch.The cost is $30 Monday to Thursday before 4 p.m. and $38 on evenings (after 4:00 p.m.) and weekends. The full experience takes approximately 1.5 hoursBook your reservation to visit the Pop-Up Disney experience here before your time runs out!last_img read more

Read More →

Supply-Chain Focus Should Be “Left of Boom”

first_imgSupply-chain asset protection (SCAP) in business has traditionally been reactive instead of proactive. SCAP teams are often housed in headquarters or a regional hub and called upon to investigate incidents and deal with the outcomes. That means the “protection” side of the role isn’t aggressively fulfilled, and the process becomes one of mopping up a mess. The management team may learn something in the aftermath, but collectively the group grows frustrated, and the time-consuming work lacks strategic direction.Members of the military use the powerful term “left of boom” to describe all events that lead up to an explosion. Left of boom is where one can have a positive effect—gathering intel, training the team, and putting systems in place that make the explosion less likely. Everything to the right of that boom deals with consequences and clean up—securing the area, treating the injured, repairing the infrastructure, and raising morale again.In retail, far too many loss prevention teams talk about events left of boom but actually and unwillingly function a right-of-boom operation. Being left of boom means being proactive and having the correct resources—the “protection” part of an SCAP team is active. Being right of boom can be brand tarnishing. As an industry, we need to move camp. We need to pick up all our equipment and ideas and move them to the left of the boom. It will generate better results and improve morale. And don’t underestimate the power of morale. Stopping an event from happening is far more satisfying than dealing with the mess after it has happened and sometimes getting a trophy for clean-up work.- Sponsor – We can do many things to get left of boom. We need to consider our roles not just in the companies we work for, but also in the processes that happen in and to our role. SCAP is an integral part of any modern retailer, but it also has a function that lies slightly outside the normal day-to-day running of a store. Being proactive here allows the loss prevention team the opportunity to make a lasting difference to the operation. A retailer that doesn’t get a loss problem under control has a real problem. It bites into profit margins and pushes them closer to the brink. But a proactive asset protection strategy changes all of that. The timeline of events that precede a boom are vitally important. Following is what it could look like.Obtain CapitalThe first step on the path to preventing that boom is getting the money you need to perform your operations successfully, which isn’t always easy in a retail environment. Sometimes costs are under heavy control. So you need to do your homework. Know the resources you will require and have them costed thoroughly. Look to the more innovative, hands-off ways of effective loss prevention. You may end up proposing a cost saving or future cost avoidance instead of requesting an increased budget.Finding innovative ways to use your budget will help you build a proposal that works for you and the company as a whole. Have a defined strategy from the outset to make sure you get the most from the whole process. Think about new ways of doing things, such as:Using WiFi, RFID, Bluetooth, and GPS to track products through your systems.Developing a thorough supply-chain risk-management strategy.Employing feature recognition to address negative event creators as well as to promote a better service experience.Develop Team Skillsets and Design Your OrganizationOnce you have the budget, you need to set up your organization. You are now in a position to make your plans. Look at how you might do things differently to create better outcomes. You may have to start from scratch in many areas to define an operation that will be effective and fit for purpose.Assess the skills of your existing team and align them with your new way of working to see how they match up. You will need the right players in the right places as well as the correct structure. As you develop these ideas further, you will be able to communicate new roles or new expectations for the team you have and look to recruitment or training to fill any gaps you have identified.Gather Intel and Provide ResourcesIf your organization has been gathering information for some time, then this is the point to put that data to use. If you haven’t been gathering intel, then now is the time to start. The more information you have, the more effective you can be. You want to know the answer to questions such as:Where is our product being lost?What procedures do we already have in place?Are they fit for purpose?What would be a more proactive way of dealing with this?As you pull together the intel that will allow you to operate left of boom, then you can determine and allocate resources. For example, if you decide feature recognition will create positive change and get you left of boom, then look at the different options available to you and procure the one that works best with your company and customer base. An ideal feature-recognition software system will have uses for various departments.Design Your Attack PlanThis is where the planning stops and implementation begins—time to put all you have decided into practice. For example, if you have chosen RFID as an effective tool to manage the supply chain of products, then the tags need to be sent to the right locations, attached properly, and monitored. Assessing tools and compliance to the program you have implemented is a necessary part of the process. Reporting a successful new strategy ensures the asset protection team retains backing from those who hold the purse strings.The attack plan can be to deal with the overall supply-chain asset protection issues in the organization (those that you identified earlier in the process) or to look at a specific event. With supply-chain enterprise criminality being a major threat to the retail industry, intel can uncover a specific attack on your brand or modus operandi. This puts you in the perfect position to deal with these brand-altering events.Master the Devices NeededBuying the latest devices to operate effectively and protect your assets is all well and good. But you and your team need to master those devices to use them most effectively. A comprehensive training program (with the solution provider in the room) is the best way to ensure understanding and effectiveness.If you promote a culture within your team that you want to operate left of boom as much as possible, then they will come with you on this journey. Having the most motivated team with the best tools available and delivering the training and support to maximize the effect of these tools will give the best results. “Culture eats strategy for breakfast” has become a cliché because there is so much truth running right through this statement.Plan and Execute the Specific EventIf your strategy (and culture) is geared toward preventing one specific event, then you are now in the best place to deliver the results you planned. Your organization will be ready, your plans will be in place, your team will be ready, and you can affect the best plan possible to deal with that specific event. You will be amazed at how many booms you can stop or minimize.The BoomThis is where, in a normal timeline of events, the boom will happen. The efforts that you have gone to before this point will make one of three things happen:You will delay the boom. There will be longer periods in between these events happening.You will lessen the force of the boom. An event may still happen but not on the scale of how it was before.You will actually stop the boom from happening. Sometimes you don’t even know if this has happened until shortage numbers come in and success is plain to see.In any industry, there are issues to be solved. But waiting for them to happen and dealing with the consequences doesn’t feel like much of a strategy. Everything that happens on the right of the boom is “business as usual,” and some may even go as far as calling it unproductive. But learning from an event—a boom—and managing the outcomes can be a part of this valuable process. Add in constant monitoring and any revision to your process, and you have a culture of success and a strategy that continually improves. Stay UpdatedGet critical information for loss prevention professionals, security and retail management delivered right to your inbox.  Sign up nowlast_img read more

Read More →

How to Save Money on Retail Security Services—Without Hurting Relationships with Suppliers

first_imgWhen you’re a large retail company, even minor cost savings can be meaningful. Case in point: Brett Biggs, Walmart’s chief financial officer, recently described his company’s plan to save millions annually.The strategy? Better floor wax.“Not only is the new wax cheaper, it’s also sturdier,” Biggs explained in October during investor day at its headquarters in Bentonville, AR. “It doesn’t need to be buffed as often, resulting in less spent on the actual buffing, as well as fuel for the machines.” That one change in floor wax will save Walmart more than $20 million per year, he estimates.- Sponsor – The retail behemoth also announced plans to replace all fluorescent fixtures with LEDs in stores and parking lots. After rollout is complete in the next few years, the switch is expected to net Walmart savings from lower energy costs totaling $200 million annually. It’s stark proof that a small savings project—tallied over time and multiplied across a chain—can add up big.Loss prevention directors have certainly done their part to help in this regard. Over the years, they have aggressively tried to eliminate waste, used technology to reduce costs, maximized staff productivity, and employed other cost-cutting strategies. And, like Walmart, they have reported that seemingly minor operational changes can yield significant budget savings. For example, a national cost-control survey, conducted by IOMA/LPM, revealed the following:Sixty percent of retail respondents have undertaken a project related to security lighting to reduce energy consumption and save money. These retailers gave their projects an average score of 3.48 for meeting cost-control expectations (where 1 is “failed to meet” expectations; 3 is cost savings “as expected”; and 5 is “substantially exceeded” expectations).Thirty-eight percent of security departments overall have tried to save money by making changes to patrols or in the fuel efficiency of security fleets. (Not surprisingly, this is a more popular strategy in organizations where there is a good deal of patrol work, like among utility and telecom companies.) The average rating of these projects was 3.45, indicating that security departments typically saved more money than they had expected.The security chief at a Florida shopping mall said his department replaced its fleet of Ford Explorer V6s with six Toyota Highlander Hybrid vehicles, and because each vehicle logs an average 24,000 miles per year in patrols, the mall sees significant savings from vehicles that get twice the gas mileage. One survey respondent said his security department’s switch to hybrid vehicles is saving his company $12,000 per year.The Supplier Side of Retail Security ServicesThe loss prevention director for a food company said it saved $129,000 in a single year by conducting an evaluation of key contracted security services to see whether they were getting their money’s worth.“In some cases, we’ve changed providers to increase service for the same cost. In other cases, we’ve reduced costs for the same services,” he said. “In all cases, our providers no longer take us for granted, and do a better job of providing quality service and equipment.” The food retailer also canceled contracts with some service providers and, by moving the services in house, they managed to provide the same services at a lower overall cost.The vendor relationship is the focus of a Perpetuity Research report released in July 2018, “The Barriers to Effective Buyer-Supplier Relationships in the Security Sector.” This new study makes the point that a close relationship a security supplier not only leads to better outcomes, it can save money.“In collaborative relationships suppliers are most often subsidiaries or affiliates of the buyer; there is often some form of interdependence. Buyers typically engage in these long-term relationships with a few select suppliers, with whom they establish high levels of trust,” according to the report. “Compared to transactional relationships, the benefits of these types of relationships include enhanced communication, costs savings, reliable delivery, higher quality, and greater flexibility.”The report also warns against allowing cost-control initiatives to dominate a relationship with security suppliers. “When an opportunity to reduce costs presents itself parties can jump on these opportunities in a way that undermines their relations with each other, with adverse consequences for levels of trust and cooperation,” the report warns.Said one director of global security, “You should always require your supplier to sharpen the pencil, but don’t make them regret the relationship.” A divisional loss prevention manager was more forceful: “Are you going to be able to get what you are looking for if you keep drilling on price?…They need to make a profit too. You can’t keep screwing the supplier.”It’s not a surprise that focusing on finances can be a significant source of conflict between security suppliers and end users. The report identified cost issues as the top barrier to buyer-supplier relationships, with 74 percent expressing the opinion that buyers are ‘frequently’ or ‘always’ too focused on price over quality.But price is always a concern, and there are ways that buyers of security services can control costs without chasing the lowest price in a way that sparks a “rush to the bottom” in terms of service level.One way, suggests the new Perpetuity Research study, is to truly understand your own security needs. When a buyer does not fully map its needs, or misunderstands them, it is unlikely to get the best fit and it becomes difficult to manage costs effectively.Another way, the report suggests, is for operations personnel to have sufficient power in the procurement process. If they are only brought in after the fact, some costs associated with how the service will be utilized may be ignored in the contract phase.Organizations may also pay a hidden price for their lack of involvement. “It can mean risks not being properly identified and mitigated and even in the buyers incurring additional costs to correct errors, let alone the inherent cost of having inadequate security in the first place,” according to the study.Finally, LP leaders may want to review the composition of their LP teams. Respondents suggested that having staff members who are former suppliers is often valuable during negotiations and for assessing suppliers’ expertise. Stay UpdatedGet critical information for loss prevention professionals, security and retail management delivered right to your inbox.  Sign up nowlast_img read more

Read More →

New Jersey ~ Corporate, Personal Income Taxes: Gain from Deemed Sale of an S Corporation’s Assets Sourced to New Jersey

first_imgCCH Tax Day ReportFinding for the Division of Taxation on the main issue, the New Jersey Tax Court stated that the correct method of sourcing the income on the deemed sale of a New Jersey S corporations’s assets was with reference to the Corporation Business Tax (CBT) statutes. All the income had to be allocated to New Jersey as the S corporation’s (taxpayer) state of domicile. Thus, the division’s assessment of gross (personal) income tax (GIT) on the non-resident shareholders was affirmed. However, the Tax Court granted the taxpayer’s motion to void an additional assessment on the taxpayer based on the income attributable to trust shareholders. The Tax Court found that the retroactive S corporation election filed by the trust shareholders had cured their prior failure to elect to be consenting shareholders.The taxpayer was a New Jersey corporation that had elected in 1997 to be taxed as an S corporation for both federal and New Jersey tax purposes. It was owned until February 2010 by a non-resident of New Jersey who was its sole shareholder (Paz). Around February 1, 2010, Paz transferred 49 of its 350 issued and outstanding shares to three Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts (GRATs) established by him as the grantor. These GRATs and Paz were the taxpayer’s only shareholders. About August 3, 2010, the shareholders sold all of the shares of the taxpayer. The parties elected to apply Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sec. 338(h)(10) to the transaction. For federal income tax purposes, the election caused the sale of stock by the shareholders to be disregarded and the transaction treated as a sale of all the assets of the corporation followed immediately by the liquidation of the corporation. The division audited the taxpayer and eventually issued a notice of assessment on December 16, 2015. However, on January 8, 2015 the taxpayer had filed a retroactive S election application that included a consent by the GRATs to New Jersey’s jurisdiction. Most of the additional tax assessed by the division was a result of the characterization of gain on the IRC Sec. 338(h)(10) deemed asset sale as nonoperational income of the taxpayer allocable to New Jersey under the CBT act and includable in the shareholders’ non-resident gross GIT calculations as New Jersey source income.Retroactive S Corporation ElectionTo be a New Jersey S corporation, a corporation and its shareholders must on the date of the election (the “initial shareholders”) consent to the election and to New Jersey’s jurisdictional requirements. These includes the state’s right to tax and collect the tax on the shareholder’s income and to collect the tax directly from the corporation, if a shareholder (other than an initial shareholder) fails to consent to the state’s jurisdiction. For shareholders that are not initial shareholders, the S corporation must either deliver the consent or make payments to the director of the amount of tax on the subsequent shareholder’s pro rata share of the S corporation’s income calculated at the highest rate of tax under the GIT. The taxpayer elected in 1997 to be a New Jersey S corporation. The director argued that the GRATs were not initial shareholders and their consent was required once they had become shareholders. Because the consents were not timely filed, the director further argued that the state could collect the tax directly from the taxpayer. The taxpayer argued that the GRATs were “grantor trusts” and all of the income otherwise allocable to the trusts was includable in Paz’s personal return. Also the taxpayer argued the regulation requiring the S corporation election be filed by the trustee of a grantor trust that becomes a shareholder was invalid because it was contrary to the income tax definition of “shareholder” and was inconsistent with the GIT treatment of a grantor trust as a disregarded entity. The regulation provided that a grantor trust be treated as a shareholder which was not an initial shareholder and required a New Jersey S corporation election form be filed. The Tax Court upheld the regulation finding that it was consistent with the plain language and probable intent of N.J.S.A. 54:10A-5.22(b), the statute requiring each initial shareholders and the corporation to consent to jurisdiction.New Jersey’s regulations allowed for the filing of a retroactive S corporation election. However, they did not address consents for non-initial shareholders. The division argued that the retroactive election was only meant to benefit corporations that had filed S corporation returns but had failed to timely file the New Jersey S corporation election. Under this interpretation, since the taxpayer had neither the executed consents from that GRATs at the appropriate time nor paid the required tax it could not be granted relief. The Tax Court stated that to adopt the director’s interpretation would mean that any time a taxpayer contested the action of the director without first paying the tax alleged to be due, the taxpayer would not be afforded the remedy of a retroactive election. This interpretation would have a chilling effect on the ability of a corporation and its shareholders to legitimately contest an assessment. Thus, the Tax Court found that the failure of the GRATs to file the necessary consents was cured by the filing of the retroactive S election. Although the amount of income required to be included in the shareholders’ returns had not be determined, the tax due from all shareholders had been paid by Paz.GIT Sourcing an S Corporation’s Income from a Deemed Sale of AssetsThe GIT regulations governing the complete liquidation of an S corporation provided that” if the adopted Federal plan of liquidation requires the S corporation, and ultimately the shareholders(s), to recognize a gain or loss from the deemed sale of its assets, the gain or loss from the deemed sale is reported by the shareholder(s) for gross income tax purposes.” The regulations also stated that the income from these sales should be reported by the shareholder in the category “net gains or income for the disposition of property”. However, the regulations did not precisely address sourcing rules. This contrasted with the GIT regulations for sole proprietorship and partnerships, which did contain sourcing rules for business activities carried on both inside and outside New Jersey.The director argued that McKesson Water Products Company v. Division of Taxation, ¶401-306. Tax Court of New Jersey, No. 000156-2004, August 13, 2007; New Jersey Superior Court, No. A-5423-06T3, July 16, 2009, aff’d., ¶401-452, conclusively established that gains from an IRC Sec. 338(h)(10) deemed sale are nonoperational income assignable to the domiciliary state of the corporation. Applying that holding to the facts of the taxpayer’s case, the gain on the taxpayer’s deemed asset sale would be assigned to New Jersey and would constitute New Jersey income to Paz and the GRATs. The taxpayer argued that there was no statutory cross reference to the CBT for determining the portion of net gains or income from the disposition of property that should be sourced to New Jersey and that the CBT principles apply only to source S corporation income under N.J.S.A. 54A:5-1(p) (net pro rata share of S corporation income). The taxpayer then argued that the principles of McKesson were inapplicable and the methodology of the regulations for sourcing the gain on the sale of assets disposed of in the complete liquidation of the businesses of sole proprietorships and partnerships should instead control. The Tax Court concluded that applying the CBT sourcing rules to the deemed gain on sale of assets under IRC Sec. 338(h)(10) was wholly consistent with the taxation of such income as net gains from the disposition of property under the GIT.Allocation of Nonoperational IncomeThe Tax Court stated that McKesson was binding and that there was no discernible difference between the transaction in McKesson and the taxpayer’s case. Further, the Tax Court stated that McKesson was not distinguishable. As McKesson was controlling, the income from the deemed sale of assets by the taxpayer constituted nonoperational income. Further, the Tax Court concluded that the income, having been deemed to be earned by the taxpayer, must be sourced with reference to the CBT and was assignable to New Jersey as the principal place of business of the taxpayer under N.J.S.A. 54:10A-6.1. McKesson controlled to allocate the income to New Jersey as the taxpayer’s domiciliary state.The taxpayer argued that sourcing the entire gain from the deemed asset sale was a violation of the fair apportionment requirement of the Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because sourcing the entire gain to New Jersey would be out of all proportion to the business activities conducted in the state by the taxpayer. This issue was not addressed by McKesson, where the court resolved the issue before them on purely statutory grounds and did not reach the constitutional issues implicated in the unitary business principle.The Tax Court stated the definitions of operation and nonoperational income in N.J.S.A. 54:10A-6.1 have their origin in the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) definitions of business and nonbusiness income. Under UDITPA business income of a unitary business is apportioned and nonbusiness income is allocated. The income at issue arose from the deemed sale of assets in connection with a complete liquidation of the taxpayer. That income, the Tax Court stated, was clearly nonoperational income under McKesson, by which precedent the Tax Court was bound. There was no constitutional requirement that such income be apportioned and it was appropriately allocated to the domiciliary state, New Jersey.The Tax Court also abated the penalty imposed on Paz for the incorrect sourcing of income, but denied the taxpayer’s request for litigation costs.Xylem Dewatering Solutions, Inc. et al. v. Director, Division of Taxation, New Jersey Tax Court, Nos. 011704-2015, 000056-2016, 000057-2016, April 7, 2017, ¶402-067last_img read more

Read More →

Victolero praises Ginebra’s defense in Magnolia loss

first_imgMRT 7 on track for partial opening in 2021 Jordan delivers on promise: 2 Cobra choppers now in PH “I give credit to Ginebra because they played a very good defense, especially when they gave us low percentage shots,” said Magnolia coach Chito Victolero of his team’s struggles against the reigning 2017 PBA Governors’ Cup champions.Ginebra didn’t look like it missed a beat from its championship run, limiting Magnolia to 36 percent shooting from the field and a paltry 18 percent clip from threes.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSSEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completionSPORTSBoxers Pacquiao, Petecio torchbearers for SEA Games openingSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hosting“We had tough shots and they weren’t going in. We can’t convert,” lamented Victolero in his team’s second outing this 2018 PBA Philippine Cup.In contrast, the Gin Kings had their way as they shot 44 percent from the field, with the tandem of Greg Slaughter and Japeth Aguilar making a living down low as they scored 32 of the team’s 46 points in the paint. Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Ethel Booba on hotel’s clarification that ‘kikiam’ is ‘chicken sausage’: ‘Kung di pa pansinin, baka isipin nila ok lang’ Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss PLAY LIST 02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games Malditas save PH from shutout Hotel says PH coach apologized for ‘kikiam for breakfast’ claim Tenorio says Ginebra can’t be satisfied with win over Magnolia MOST READcenter_img After 30 years, Johnlu Koa still doing ‘hard-to-make’ quality breads ‘A complete lie:’ Drilon refutes ‘blabbermouth’ Salo’s claims The Fatted Calf and Ayutthaya: New restos worth the drive to Tagaytay “We allowed them to shoot 56 percent from two-points, and most of those were in the paint with Slaughter and Japeth. We had a hard time defending those two big guys and that’s the story of the game,” he said.Despite the defeat, Victolero could still draw positives from this game, especially with Ian Sangalang notching a career-best 25 points on top of 11 rebounds in the loss.“Ian has always been consistent for us since the last conference. I think he can still improve on a lot because he’s just 26 years old,” he said.Victolero sees the long break as a chance for the Hotshots to go back to basics and allow the injured players to heal up as they still await the full recovery of Paul Lee and Marc Pingris, as well as the return of Jio Jalalon and Rafi Reavis to their lineup.“At least, we have a long break to improve on the aspects of our game that we need to improve on. One loss won’t break our conference and I told them that these things happen,” he said.ADVERTISEMENT LATEST STORIES “Luckily for us, we have the time to wait for the other guys to be 100 percent. We’ll wait for Ping, Rafi, and Jio, and also with Paul because I want to see this team as a complete unit and what we can do with a complete lineup. Hopefully, by January they’ll be with us and let’s see how far we can go.”Magnolia’s next game is slated on January 10 against Kia.Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Photo by Tristan Tamayo/ INQUIRER.netBOCAUE — Defense wins championships.Unfortunately for Magnolia, it’s the same title-tested Ginebra defense which doomed the Hotshots in their Christmas Clasico clash at Philippine Arena on Monday.ADVERTISEMENT View commentslast_img read more

Read More →