The Washington Restaurant Association, which opposes King County's plan to mandate that chain restaurants label their menus with nutritional information, is lauding a New York court decision that essentially strikes down a similar plan.

In U.S. District Court in Manhattan, a judge ruled in favor of the New York State Restaurant Association, which challenged a similar menu labeling plan enacted by the New York City Board of Health.

The Washington State Restaurant Association (WRA) applauded the New York court decision, with officials saying that King County's mandate that was enacted in July and takes effect next year is in jeopardy.

"We are hopeful that the findings in New York City will compel the King County board of health to come back to the table and work in partnership with the industry. While we believe obesity is an issue we must address as a community, the WRA strongly opposed the board's menu labeling requirement this summer," said Anthony Anton, WRA president and CEO, in a statement.

The King County board of health plan would require chain restaurants with more than 10 national locations to display calorie, fat, sodium and carbohydrate information on menus. Restaurants would have until Aug. 1, 2008 to put the information on menus and menu boards.

"My office contacted the IRS and determined that this is yet another scam for people to be wary of in their e-mail. The IRS has advised us that they will never initiate contact with you via e-mail."

This particular scam lures unsuspecting people in by dangling $80 in front of them upon completion of the survey.

The catch is the person filling out the survey must include pertinent credit card or bank account information for the cash to be direct deposited into the account.

The e-mail is littered with IRS references and the link to the survey and all of the information on the page has a phony copyright statement at the bottom.

Anyone who receives the survey scam message should immediately forward it to phishing@irs.gov so the IRS can investigate the sender.

"Anyone who is unfortunate enough to fall for one of these scams can face identity theft, which can cause financial hardship and ruin your credit," Donovan warned.

"If you have any doubt regarding the legitimacy of an e-mail you receive, you should immediately contact the company of government agency whose name is being referenced."

Automakers General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG -- which has since sold its Chrysler unit -- sued in 2005 to block the law, arguing that states do not have the authority to regulate the amount of CO2 released by cars, which is closely related to fuel economy.

Vermont is one of nearly a dozen states that followed California's lead in adopting the strict standard, which is tougher than federal rules and is intended to reduce the rise in global temperatures and changing weather patterns associated with greenhouse gas emissions.

The automakers argued that they could not meet the new standards, and in court testimony said they would have to pull out of the state as a result.

In a letter posted to EMC's Web site, Joe Tucci, the company's chairman, president and CEO strongly denied that discrimination or harassment happened or continue to occur at the company. "EMC has long been committed to maintaining a workplace free of discrimination and harassment, with significant opportunities for every employee to succeed and grow," he wrote.

He said that during the four years covered by the case, women sales reps at the company in the U.S. earned, on average, more than their male counterparts. Since 2001, the number of women at the vice president and senior vice president levels has more than doubled and the number of women at the director level has nearly tripled, he wrote.

However, the suit filed by former sales representatives Tami Remien and Debra Fletcher paints a very different picture. At the time they filed the suit, they said just one of EMC's most senior executives was a woman and that the Chicago sales office of 30 had at most six women.

Remien's managers, according to the suit, denied her the engineering and managerial support that her male counterparts received, took accounts that she had begun selling products to and gave them to less successful male sales people, and was told that she couldn't take on certain accounts because she didn't tolerate strip clubs, hunt, fish, drink or smoke. She claims that when she complained to human resources, her managers retaliated by taking away essentially all of her accounts and continued to deny her support.

She also claims that her boss often shouted gender-based obscenities at her and called her stupid.

Fletcher had similar experiences under the same manager. She also once made a large sale but her commission was given to a male co-worker because he had a family, according to the suit. One account was taken away from her after she was falsely accused of having a sexual relationship with the client, the suit claims.

Both women were let go from their jobs at EMC after being left with no accounts or with accounts that didn't generate revenue.

The decision, citing past rulings, said the court "will not place a duty on doctors when there is no consensus in the medical community or among the public" on when life begins.

The 5-0 Supreme Court ruling reversed a unanimous ruling by a three-judge appeals panel and dismissed the lawsuit of a woman who had an abortion. Abortion cases pending in Illinois and South Dakota have raised the same issue.

"On the profound issue of when life begins, this court cannot drive public policy in one particular direction by the engine of the common law when the opposing sides, which represent so many of our citizens, are arrayed along a deep societal and philosophical divide," New Jersey Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the court.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by a woman who accused a doctor of failing to give her enough information before she signed a consent form for him to perform an abortion.

Rose Acuna questioned whether Dr. Sheldon C. Turkish misled her in 1996 about the development of the pregnancy, then in the sixth or seventh week. She was 29 at the time and had two daughters following a miscarriage when she consulted Turkish, who had delivered her second child.

"According to Acuna, Turkish told her that she 'needed an abortion because (y)our kidneys are messing you up,'" court papers said. "Acuna asked Turkish whether 'the baby was already there.' According to Acuna, Turkish replied, 'Don't be stupid, it's only blood.'"

Acuna signed a consent form, and Turkish did the abortion. Bleeding continued, however, and seven weeks later Acuna went to a hospital. She was diagnosed with an incomplete abortion and had another procedure.

"According to her, one of the nurses caring for her explained that the procedure was necessary because Turkish 'had left parts of the baby inside of (her).' Thus, Acuna concluded based on the reference to 'the baby' that she had given consent to an abortion based on erroneous information," the appellate panel wrote last year.

Acuna, now 40, says she suffered emotional distress for the death of an unborn child.

Acuna's lawyer, Harold J. Cassidy, said he was considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Millions of women across the nation have made the same complaint as Mrs. Acuna," said Cassidy, an anti-abortion lawyer based in Monmouth County who is also involved in the South Dakota case.

"They have lost something of great value, which is dismissed as mere tissue," added Cassidy, who is also known for successfully arguing against surrogate parenting contracts in the 1987 "Baby M" case.

The doctor's lawyer, John Zen Jackson, said "the court properly recognized there are limits to a physician's duty in obtaining a patient's consent."

In South Dakota, Planned Parenthood is challenging a 2005 law that requires abortion doctors to tell women several things, including that an abortion ends human life. It has never been enforced, however, having been put on hold by a federal judge. The lawsuit challenging its constitutionality is pending.

The American Civil Liberties Union said a class-action medical malpractice lawsuit with similar claims as those raised by Acuna was recently brought in Illinois.

Marie Tasy, executive director of the anti-abortion group New Jersey Right to Life, decried the ruling. "My reaction is that once again the court relies on an outdated schizophrenic mentality to the detriment of women and indulges in semantic gymnastics to avoid the indisputable fact that a child in the womb is a human being," she said.

The ACLU praised the decision, saying it "sends a message that New Jersey will not tolerate backdoor efforts to curtail reproductive rights or free speech," said Ed Barocas, legal director of the state's ACLU chapter.

Whenever something of value changes hands, the Internal Revenue Service is usually going to want its cut.

But if you plan ahead and employ tax-smart strategies, you can make sure more of your wealth goes to your nephew Steve than to Uncle Sam.

Although many people would rather share their wealth with family while they're alive, the IRS often makes this a tall task -- but not impossible.

The Gift of Gifting

The easiest way to share your wealth, of course, is by simply giving money or assets away. There is a limit, however, to how much you can give before the IRS starts taking its cut. And the tax consequences can turn a gift into a burden -- just ask the Oprah audience members who discovered they owed thousands to the IRS after the generous host gave them all cars in 2004.

This year, the inflation-adjusted annual gift tax exclusion is $12,000 per donee (there is no limit if the recipient is a spouse and a U.S. citizen). That means you can give as much as $12,000 to any individual each year without incurring taxes, and there is no limit to the number of beneficiaries.

So you can give to as many people as you want, as long as each one doesn't receive more than the annual limit. In addition to benefiting your loved ones, the added advantaged to gifting is that it also reduces your taxable estate, and thus the estate tax burden on your heirs.

The gift tax rules, however, don't apply only to cash, but to assets such as property and equities. And in some cases this may be even more advantageous than giving away just cash. Because of inflation, cash depreciates in value over time, while stocks have the ability to increase in value. Even if you give away a stock that appreciates, for tax purposes it will be taxed on its market value as of the day of transfer.
A Trustworthy Strategy

Another effective way to share your wealth while limiting your tax exposure is with a grantor retained annuity trust. A GRAT is an irrevocable trust set for a specific amount of time, during which you receive a set annual payment. At the end of the trust's term, the length of which you set, the assets in the trust are passed along to your heirs.

For example, you can create a GRAT and fund it with $500,000 that generates an annual cash flow of $50,000. Under the terms of the GRAT, you receive that annual annuity for 10 years. At the end of the term, the remainder, including any appreciation, is passed along to your beneficiary. However, once established, you can't add to the trust during its term.

Another trust useful for transferring wealth is an irrevocable life insurance trust, or ILIT. This is a trust that takes ownership of your life insurance policy and, like the GRAT, removes it from your taxable estate. On the other hand, if, for example, you have a life insurance policy that pays out $5 million and it is included in your estate, your heirs will be burdened with a hefty estate tax bill.

With a GRAT, you can not only give to your loved ones, but you can dictate the terms under which they are entitled to receive benefits. This means that if you are concerned one of your heirs is not responsible enough to handle their whole inheritance at once, you can have the trust distribute a predetermined amount of the proceeds over a specified period of time.

But it's important to remember that the terms and conditions of any irrevocable trust cannot be changed once it has been created. To learn more about choosing a life insurance provider see "How to Measure Your Life Insurer's Health."
529 and Feeling Fine

While the IRS may seem to be the bane of your financial existence, it can be of some help too. One such example is with section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code, better known as a 529 plan or qualified tuition plan.

These tax-advantaged savings plans allow you to sock away money to help pay for future college costs. While contributions to the plan are not deductible on your federal tax return, the investment grows tax-deferred and distributions to pay for the beneficiary's college costs are free of federal taxes. You can make withdrawals from the plan, however, the funds must be used for eligible expenses, such as tuition, books and housing. If they are not, you will be subject to income tax plus a 10% federal tax penalty.

Each state, and Washington, D.C., offers its own 529 plan with various investments, though you don't have to live in the state whose plan you use. You can contribute as much as $12,000 each year to the 529 plan ($24,000 for married couples), and under a special five-year averaging election, you can contribute as much $60,000 in a lump sum ($120,000 for married couples).