WASHINGTON — Individuals and businesses making contributions to charity should keep in mind several important tax law changes made last summer by the Pension Protection Act.

The new law offers older owners of individual retirement accounts a new way to give to charity. It also includes rules designed to provide both taxpayers and the government greater certainty in determining what may be deducted as a charitable contribution. Some of these changes include the following.

New Tax Break for IRA Owners

An IRA owner, age 70 ½ or over, can directly transfer tax-free, up to $100,000 per year to an eligible charitable organization. This option is available in tax years 2006 and 2007. Eligible IRA owners can take advantage of this provision, regardless of whether they itemize their deductions. Distributions from employer-sponsored retirement plans, including SIMPLE IRAs and simplified employee pension (SEP) plans are not eligible.

To qualify, the funds must be contributed directly by the IRA trustee to the eligible charity. Amounts so transferred are not taxable and no deduction is available for the amount given to the charity.

Not all charities are eligible under this provision. For example, donor-advised funds and supporting organizations are not eligible recipients.

Transferred amounts are counted in determining whether the owner has met the IRA’s required minimum distribution rules. Where individuals have made nondeductible contributions to their traditional IRAs, a special rule treats transferred amounts as coming first from taxable funds, instead of proportionately from taxable and nontaxable funds, as would be the case with regular distributions.

Rules for Clothing and Household Items

To be deductible, clothing and household items donated to charity after Aug. 17, 2006, must be in good used condition or better. However, a taxpayer may claim a deduction of more than $500 for any single item, regardless of its condition, if the taxpayer includes a qualified appraisal of the item with the return. Household items include furniture, furnishings, electronics, appliances, and linens.

Guidelines for Monetary Donations

To deduct any charitable donation of money, a taxpayer must have a bank record or a written communication from the charity showing the name of the charity and the date and amount of the contribution. A bank record includes canceled checks, bank or credit union statements and credit card statements. Bank or credit union statements should show the name of the charity and the date and amount paid. Credit card statements should show the name of the charity and the transaction posting date.

Donations of money include those made in cash or by check, electronic funds transfer, credit card, and payroll deduction. For payroll deductions, the taxpayer should retain a pay stub, Form W-2 wage statement or other document furnished by the employer showing the total amount withheld for charity, along with the pledge card showing the name of the charity.

Prior law allowed taxpayers to back up their donations of money with personal bank registers, diaries or notes made around the time of the donation. Those types of records are no longer sufficient.

This provision applies to contributions made in taxable years beginning after Aug. 17, 2006. For taxpayers that file returns on a calendar-year basis, including most individuals, the new provision applies to contributions made beginning in 2007.

The new law does not change the prior-law requirement that a taxpayer get an acknowledgement from a charity for each deductible donation (either money or property) of $250 or more. However, one statement containing all of the required information may meet the requirements of both provisions.

To help taxpayers plan their holiday-season and year-end donations, the IRS offers the following additional reminders:

• Contributions are deductible in the year made. Thus, donations charged to a credit card before the end of the year count for 2006. This is true even if the credit-card bill isn’t paid until next year. Also, checks count for 2006 as long as they are mailed this year.
• Check that the organization is qualified. Only donations to qualified organizations are tax-deductible. IRS Publication 78, available online and at many public libraries, lists most organizations that are qualified to receive deductible contributions. The searchable online version can be found on IRS.gov under, “Search for Charities.” In addition, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and government agencies are eligible to receive deductible donations, even though they often are not listed in Publication 78.
• For individuals, only taxpayers who itemize their deductions on Schedule A can claim a deduction for charitable contributions. This deduction is not available to people who choose the standard deduction, including anyone who files a short form (1040A or 1040EZ). A taxpayer will have a tax savings only if the total itemized deductions (mortgage interest, charitable contributions, state and local taxes, etc.) exceeds the standard deduction. Use the 2006 Schedule A, available now on IRS.gov, to determine whether itemizing is better than claiming the standard deduction.
• For all donations of property, including clothing and household items, get from the charity, if possible, a receipt that includes a description of the donated property. If a donation is left at a charity’s unattended drop site, keep a written record of the donation that includes a description of the property and its condition.
• The deduction for a motor vehicle, boat or airplane donated to charity is usually limited to the gross proceeds from its sale. This rule applies if the claimed value of the vehicle is more than $500. Form 1098-C, or a similar statement, must be provided to the donor by the organization and attached to the donor’s tax return. See IRS Publication 526, Charitable Contributions, for more information.

BOSTON – Overseas Shipholding Group Inc. (OSG) has today agreed to plead guilty to 33 felony counts related to deliberate vessel pollution from nine ships and false pollution log entries in three additional ships, in six U.S. ports around the nation. OSG will pay a record $37 million—the largest-ever criminal penalty involving deliberate vessel pollution—and plead guilty to charges related to illegal dumping of waste oil, criminal violations of the Clean Water Act/Oil Pollution Act and the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, conspiracy, false statements and obstruction of justice. This multi-district investigation was conducted in Boston, Mass.; Portland, Maine; Los Angeles.; San Francisco; Wilmington, N.C.; and Beaumont, Texas.

OSG is a U.S. corporation headquartered in New York and is one of the largest publicly traded tanker companies in the world. Today’s prosecution involves violations that occurred on 12 oil tankers. The $37 million penalty includes a $27.8 million criminal fine which will be divided among the districts and a $9.2 million organizational community service payment that will fund various marine environmental projects coast to coast. “OSG has engaged in repeated and deliberate pollution of our oceans,” said Acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer. “What is more disturbing is that OSG’s management failed to uncover or stop this illegal activity after allegations were brought to the attention of management on several occasions and again after the initiation of the government’s investigation. This penalty has secured justice against OSG and will serve as a deterrent for all other companies who attempt to circumvent the law for their own financial gain and at the expense of the environment.”

“The Coast Guard takes its obligation as a steward of the marine environment very seriously,” said Rear Adm. Tim Sullivan. “We are committed to achieving our ultimate goal—industry-wide compliance with international and domestic pollution prevention rules. The case demonstrates that scofflaws within maritime industry can no longer treat intentional discharging of oil and the penalties associated with those acts as a ‘cost of doing business.’ Instead, the industry must embrace a culture of compliance. Effective, transparent partnerships between industry and our regulators are vital to allow the international pollution prevention system to work as designed. Failure by industry to meet this challenge of change will only result in further investigations, prosecutions and expense to all.”

In addition to the plea agreement, a detailed joint statement of facts was filed today in court, in which OSG has admitted that the following information is accurate:

*OSG made illegal releases of oily waste from approximately August 2001 to October 2003 from the M/T Uranus into waters off the coast of New England, in close proximity to Maine and Massachusetts, including the island of Nantucket. Discharges were made from the M/T Uranus through a long flexible hose trailed overboard at night, then through a hard bypass pipe that the ship’s Fitter was forced to make, and at a later point in time, by flushing an oil detecting sensor with fresh water.

*OSG is responsible for dumping overboard sludge (concentrated black waste oil) at night from three ships. In the case of the M/T Overseas Shirley, the ship’s 1st Engineer wrote a letter to OSG senior management alleging the “habitual criminal of sludge discharge to sea” and estimated that approximately 40,600 gallons of sludge had been intentionally dumped overboard through a bypass hose. OSG discounted the allegations at the time, but they were corroborated by the government’s investigation.

*OSG violated the Clean Water Act by discharging approximately 2,640 gallons of oily waste and sludge from the M/T Neptune off the coast of North Carolina. OSG concluded no oil had been discharged at the time notwithstanding receipt of a “Private and Confidential” memo (initialed by three senior company managers,) from an outside auditor who told the company that he had observed oil leaking from a bypass hose and believed that the discharge was not an isolated event. *OSG made illegal discharges of oily waste in 2004-2005 from the M/T Pacific Ruby in U.S. waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Crew members contacted the Coast Guard alleging that the Chief Engineer had tricked pollution control equipment while making overboard discharges.

*OSG concealed deliberate and illegal discharges by deliberately falsifying official ship records, including the Oil Record Book, making discharges at night, and by hiding bypass equipment during U.S. port calls so that the Coast Guard would not discover the criminal activity.

*Numerous OSG crew members, including chief engineers, engaged in conspiracies to commit illegal pollution and falsify ship records while certain lower level crew members knowingly participated because they were explicitly or implicitly threatened by superiors with loss of employment if they refused.

*Shore-side management failed to provide and exercise sufficient supervision and management controls to prevent or detect criminal violations by its employees.

*A motive for the crimes was financial—OSG was saving the cost of offloading waste oil in port and the time it would take to comply with the law.

Criminal violations continued on some ships during the three years in which OSG was under investigation. On six vessels (M/T Ania, M/T Cabo Hellas, M/T Cleliamar, M/T Overseas Portland, M/T Vega, M/T Pacific Sapphire), OSG self-reported violations which prosecutors credited by imposing fewer charges and reduced criminal fines. OSG also implemented new technology on its ships designed to prevent illegal pollution. According to papers filed in court, prosecutors did not seek even higher penalties on account of OSG’s cooperation during the investigation and because of compliance measures taken before and during the investigation and those promised as part of a plea agreement with prosecutors.

Per the terms of the plea agreement, OSG is also subject to a three-year term of probation during which it must implement and follow a stringent environmental compliance program that includes a court-appointed monitor and outside independent auditing of OSG ships trading worldwide.

The government’s investigation was initiated after the Coast Guard in Boston received a referral from the Marine Safety Branch of Transport Canada, indicating that records for the M/T Uranus showed that bilge waste was being disposed while the official Oil Record Book failed to account for the disposal of waste. It was determined that these illegal discharges occurred within U.S. waters off-the-coast of Maine and Massachusetts. During this time, crew members discharged approximately 150,000 gallons of oil-contaminated waste while “tricking” the Oil Content Meter designed to detect and prevent discharges containing more than 15 parts per million oil, the international limit established by the MARPOL Protocol, an international treaty implemented by the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.

The government’s investigation grew to include evidence of deliberate violations of the MARPOL Protocol and U.S. law by the following 12 oil tankers: M/T Ania, M/T Cabo Hellas, M/T Neptune, M/T Overseas Alcesmar, M/T Overseas Cleliamar, M/T Overseas Shirley, M/T Overseas Portland, M/T Pacific Sapphire, M/T Pacific Ruby, M/T Rebecca, M/T Uranus, and M/T Vega.

Today’s prosecution was made possible through the combined efforts of the U.S. Coast Guard units in each port, the Coast Guard Investigative Service, Coast Guard Office of Maritime and International Law, Coast Guard Office of Investigations and Analysis, and Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigations Division. The case was prosecuted by the Environmental Crimes Section of the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in the affected districts.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration told a federal judge Monday night that it will pay legal fees in a lost lawsuit over video-game restrictions by late January.

Lawyers for Blagojevich and Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan said they had decided to pay the $520,000 fee from unspent money in the budgets of several agencies under the governor.

The document filed in federal court in Chicago indicated necessary paperwork would be to the state comptroller by Friday.

Video-game industry representatives sued Blagojevich and Madigan last year over a law the governor promoted that made it a crime for retailers to sell violent or sexually explicit video games to minors.

The overall 3.7 percent uptick in violent crime between January and June comes amid a still-incomplete Justice Department study of 18 cities for clues on why criminal activity is increasing.

Property crimes like auto theft and other larcenies were down by 2.6 percent over the same six-month period, the data show. But the number of arsons shot up by nearly 7 percent, the FBI reported.

If the numbers stay at the current pace, the rate of violent crime will increase in 2006 for the second year in a row. The FBI's 2005 annual report on violent crime showed that violent crimes increased in 2005 for the first time since 2001; the 2.3 percent increase was the largest jump since 1991. The US Justice Department has launched an investigation to examine why the violent crime rate has increased.

“This is a concern we’ve been focused on,” said Gene Voegtlin, legislative counsel for the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which represents an estimated 20,000 law enforcement officials and has been pushing for more crime-fighting funding. “A lot of (police) agencies are really stretched thin when it comes to the budget and their ability to aggressively combat crime.”

The Justice Department did not have an immediate comment.

"It's the classic kind of case that the Supreme Court has said doesn't belong in federal court," said Theodore Boutrous, who represents Chrysler Motors Corp., General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor North America Inc., American Honda Motor Co. and Nissan North America Inc.

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who filed the suit in September, claims that automakers are violating public nuisance laws by producing high-emission vehicles and should pay damages for polluting. He says automakers could produce cleaner vehicles, but have chosen to fight instead.

"The thrust of what we're saying is the technology to produce vehicles that emit far less greenhouse gases exists," Lockyer spokeswoman Teresa Schilling said. "They fight any attempt to get them to cut back on their pollution."

The lawsuit contends the state is already dealing with the harmful effects of global warming caused by rising emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. Vehicles are the state's largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions.

The complaint cites state reports that say rising temperatures will melt Sierra Nevada snowpack earlier each year, which will flood the Central Valley and threaten the state's water supply.

Automakers are also wrangling with California over a 2002 law requiring them to cut emissions. Under the law, the California Air Resources Board has adopted standards designed to cut carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light trucks by 25 percent and from sport utility vehicles by 18 percent starting in 2009.

The U.S. military repatriated 18 detainees from Guantanamo Bay over the weekend to Afghanistan, Yemen, Kazakhstan, Libya and Bangladesh, a Pentagon spokesman said Sunday.

The men, flown out of the U.S. naval base in southeastern Cuba on Friday, were all transferred to the custody of governments in their native countries except for one Yemeni detainee, who was released without conditions, said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Chito Peppler.

The detainees, held for years at the isolated detention center without being charged, were cleared for departure by a military review process that assesses whether detainees have intelligence value or pose a threat to the United States. The military does not provide details about individual cases.

Since the prison opened in January 2002, about 380 detainees have been released from Guantanamo. About 395 prisoners are still held on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban, including roughly 85 others cleared to leave for other countries, Peppler said.