On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

20th Annual Real Estate Tax Forum

Released on: Feb. 6, 2018
Running Time: 09:55:16

Our 20th Anniversary program will continue to focus on transactions, highlighting the tax problems encountered by practitioners in today’s typical commercial real estate transactions and structures, and examining the simple and sophisticated solutions being used by the experts.  Panels of nationally-recognized real estate tax experts from major law and accounting firms will provide attorneys, accountants and real estate professionals with a detailed analysis of the most cutting-edge and creative tax planning techniques available for structuring, restructuring and unwinding different types of real estate transactions in today’s challenging environment.  Using extensive visual aids and actual deal structures, this group of entertaining, experienced and knowledgeable speakers will share their experiences with today’s state-of-the-art planning techniques, and emphasize practical approaches to solving difficult tax issues affecting real estate investment and operation. 

Lecture Topics [Total time 09:55:15]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.
  • Introduction and Opening Remarks* [00:08:16]
    Sanford C. Presant, Blake D. Rubin
  • Key Provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Affecting Commercial Real Estate [02:02:10]
    Stefan F. Tucker, Sanford C. Presant, Blake D. Rubin, Lary S. Wolf, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Robert D. Schachat
  • Current Developments in Real Estate Taxation Other than the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act [00:59:09]
    Stefan F. Tucker
  • Sophisticated Partnership Structures and Issues – Moving Property to and from Partnerships and REITs [01:47:23]
    Sanford C. Presant, Blake D. Rubin, Robert D. Schachat, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Lary S. Wolf
  • Real Estate Investment Trusts – What’s New in the REIT World & Non-U.S. Investors and FATCA; Tax Cuts and Jobs Act International Tax Changes Most Relevant to Real Estate [01:13:15]
    Michael Hirschfeld, Dianne O. Umberger, Sanford C. Presant, Blake D. Rubin
  • Transactions Involving Real Estate – Practical Solutions to Everyday Problems [02:30:18]
    Jill E. Darrow, Sanford C. Presant, Blake D. Rubin, Robert D. Schachat
  • Workouts and Debt Restructuring [01:14:45]
    Bahar A. Schippel, Linda Z. Swartz, Robert D. Schachat

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Recent Developments Affecting Real Estate and Pass Through Entities (September 27, 2017)
    Tammara F. Langlieb, Stefan F. Tucker
  • Developments in Partnership and Real Estate Taxation in 2016 (September 1, 2016)
    Gale E. Chan, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin
  • Developments in Partnership and Real Estate Taxation in 2015 (October 1, 2015)
    Gale E. Chan, Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein
  • Developments in Partnership and Real Estate Taxation in 2014 (September 1, 2014)
    Gale E. Chan, Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein
  • Developments in Partnership and Real Estate Taxation in 2013 (September 15, 2013)
    Gale E. Chan, Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein
  • Jobs Act Tightens Partnership Tax Rules
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Jon G. Finkelstein, Blake D. Rubin
  • Tax Planning for Partnership Options and Compensatory Equity Interests (September 1, 2008)
    Jon G. Finkelstein, Blake D. Rubin
  • Joint Ventures with Tax Exempt Entities and Taxable Operators (Including REITs)
    Sanford C. Presant, Leslie H. Loffman
  • Choice of Entity—Business and Tax Considerations
    Sanford C. Presant, Leslie H. Loffman
  • Tax Aspects of the Initial Partnership or LLC Negotiation
    Sanford C. Presant, Leslie H. Loffman
  • Selected Operating Agreement Tax Allocation Provisions for Limited Liability Companies
    Sanford C. Presant, Leslie H. Loffman
  • Income Recognition Checklist (Problems)
    Sanford C. Presant, Leslie H. Loffman
  • Proposed Regulations on Allocating Partnership Liabilities to Owners of Disregarded Entities
    Blake D. Rubin, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway
  • Put a “Bottom” Deficit Restoration Obligation in Your Partnership Liability Allocation Tool Box (September 1, 2014)
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Jon G. Finkelstein, Blake D. Rubin
  • New Temporary and Proposed Partnership Liability Allocation Regulations Are Deeply Flawed and Should Be Withdrawn (February 1, 2017)
    Maximilian Pakaluk, Blake D. Rubin, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway
  • Final Regulations on the Treatment of Disregarded Entities for Purposes of Characterizing and Allocating Liabilities Under Code Sec. 752: Questions and Complexities Continue
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Jon G. Finkelstein, Blake D. Rubin
  • Rev. Rul. 99-43: When to Hold’em, When to Fold’em, and When to Book-Down
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin
  • Exploring the Outer Limits of Section 704(c)(1)(A)
    Blake D. Rubin, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway
  • Final Partnership Liability Regulations Target “Son of Boss” Abuse But Sweep More Broadly
    Blake D. Rubin, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway
  • The Impact of a Capital Account Deficit Restoration Obligation on a Partner’s At-Risk Amount and Share of Liabilities: Hubert Enterprises, Inc. v. Commissioner
    Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway
  • Sixth Circuit Vacates Controversial Hubert Case Dealing with Partner’s At-Risk Amount
    Blake D. Rubin, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Jon G. Finkelstein
  • Tax Court Sticks to Its Guns and Sticks It to Taxpayers in Hubert Case
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein
  • New Regulations Regarding Assumption of Partnership Liabilities
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin
  • The Proposed Regulations on Partnership Allocations with Respect to Contributed Property
    Seth Green, Blake D. Rubin
  • New Ruling on Allocating Partnership Liabilities Disregards Technicalities to Absolve Taxpayer of Gain
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin
  • Planning for Partnership Liability Allocations, Including the New Proposed Regulations (January 2015)
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Jon G. Finkelstein, Blake D. Rubin
  • Final and Proposed Regulations Regarding Partnership Noncompensatory Options (January 2014)
    Gale E. Chan, Blake D. Rubin, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Jon G. Finkelstein
  • Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures (May 15, 2013)
    Blake D. Rubin
  • New Taxpayer Favorable PLRs Allow Gain on Sale of Partnership Assets to Be Offset by Disallowed Loss on Earlier Sale of Partnership Interest (April 2016)
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin
  • New Partnership Disguised Sale Regulations End Leveraged Partnerships (June 1, 2017)
    Maximilian Pakaluk, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin
  • Partnership Disguised Sales of Property: G-I Holdings Misses the Mark (March 15, 2010)
    Jon G. Finkelstein, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin
  • Tax Court Goes Overboard in Canal (January 10, 2011)
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein
  • Implications of Canal Corporation for Structuring Partnership Transactions (September 15, 2013)
    Blake D. Rubin, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Jon G. Finkelstein
  • Recent Developments Regarding Disguised Sales of Partnership Interests
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin
  • Disguised Sales of Partnership Interests: An Analysis of the Proposed Regulations
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin
  • Tax Court Respects Partnership’s Property Distribution: Countryside Limited Partnership v. Commissioner
    Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway
  • Proposed Regulations on Partnership Interests Issued for Services Create Problems and Opportunities
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin
  • Is Your Transaction a Partnership Merger or Liquidation and Why You Should Care (January 2015)
    Jon G. Finkelstein, Blake D. Rubin, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway
  • New Proposed Regulations on Mergers Involving Disregarded Entities
    Blake D. Rubin, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway
  • Partnership Mergers, the Anti-Mixing Bowl Rules and Rev. Rul. 2004-43: How Could the Service Be So Wrong?
    Blake D. Rubin, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway
  • Proposed Regulations on Application of the Anti-Mixing Bowl Rules After a Partnership Merger to Apply Prospectively
    Jon G. Finkelstein, Blake D. Rubin, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway
  • Handling Partnership Mergers and Divisions (December 2013)
    Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway
  • A Comprehensive Guide to Partnership Terminations, Including the Impact of the New Proposed Regulations
    Stephen B. Teplinsky, Blake D. Rubin
  • Partnership Equity Extraction Techniques (September 1, 2015)
    Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway
  • Taxation of Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REITs”)
    Leslie H. Loffman, Sanford C. Presant
  • Dealer Sales Rules for Real Estate Investment Trusts
    Leslie H. Loffman, Sanford C. Presant
  • Protecting OP Unitholders in REIT Going Private Transactions
    Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway
  • Negotiating Acquisitions Using OP Units
    Sanford C. Presant, Leslie H. Loffman
  • Opportunities and Pitfalls for the Property Owner in Transactions with a REIT (October 2012)
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein
  • A Section 754 Paradox: Basis Step-Up Triggers Gain Recognition in UPREIT and Other Partnership Contribution Transactions
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin
  • Can Code Sec. 704(c) Be Applied to a Capital Gain Dividend Paid by a REIT? (October 1, 2017)
    Maximilian Pakaluk, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin
  • New Ruling on Like-Kind Exchanges of Leveraged Property Solves Problems and Creates Opportunities
    Blake D. Rubin, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway
  • Defeasing Conduit Loans: Tax Issues, Premiums, Like-Kind Exchanges and “New York Style” (May 2015)
    Blake D. Rubin, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Jon G. Finkelstein
  • Capital Gains Planning
    Jill E. Darrow
  • Maximizing Capital Gains in Real Estate Transactions: Case Studies
    Blake D. Rubin
  • Disposition of Real Estate—Capital Gain vs. Ordinary Income
    Sanford C. Presant, Leslie H. Loffman
  • Rev. Rul. 2016-15 Holds Real Estate Dealers Cannot Exclude Cancellation of Indebtedness Income, But Is It Correct?
    Blake D. Rubin, Andrea Macintosh Whiteway
  • “Bad Boy” Nonrecourse Carve-Outs in Real Estate Loan Cause It to Be Recourse—Or Do They? (May 2016)
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin
  • Cancellation of Indebtedness Income Deferral in Economic Stimulus Bill Raises Complex Issues for Partnerships (July 1, 2009)
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein
  • Rev. Proc. 2009-37 Allows Flexibility for Partnerships Electing New C.O.D. Income Deferral (September 22, 2009)
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Jon G. Finkelstein, Blake D. Rubin
  • Recourse or Nonrecourse: Treatment of Liabilities for COD and Other Purposes (September 13, 2010)
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Jon G. Finkelstein, Blake D. Rubin
  • Is It Cancellation of Debt (COD) Income?: New IRS Chief Counsel Advice Takes the Gas Out of Great Plains Gasification (September 1, 2015)
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein
  • Tax Primer for Partnership Workouts
    Leslie H. Loffman, Sanford C. Presant
  • Important Tax Developments Affecting Partnership Workouts
    Leslie H. Loffman, Sanford C. Presant
  • Tax Aspects of Real Estate Workouts
    Elliot G. Freier, Fred T. Witt, Michael G. Frankel, Leslie H. Loffman, Sanford C. Presant
  • Creditors Beware: Proposed Partnership Debt-for-Equity Regulations Deny Your Tax Loss (March 1, 2009)
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein
  • Tax Planning for the Sale or Other Disposition of Overencumbered Real Estate
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein
  • Partnership Bankruptcy Tax Issues
    Linda Z. Swartz
  • Final Partnership Debt-for-Equity Regs Deny Creditors’ Losses (February 27, 2012)
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein
  • Revenue Ruling 2012-14: The IRS Lends a Helping Hand to Insolvent Partners (July 2, 2012)
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin, Jon G. Finkelstein
  • The Tax Treatment of Environmental Cleanup Costs
    Lisa M. Gilbertson, Blake D. Rubin
  • Creative Planning for Partnership Liability Allocations, Including the New Proposed Regulations (PowerPoint slides)
    Blake D. Rubin
  • Selected Tax Allocation Problems for Partnerships and LLCs (PowerPoint slides)
    Sanford C. Presant, Leslie H. Loffman
  • Tax Provision Issues Checklist for LLC and Partnership Agreements (PowerPoint slides)
    Sanford C. Presant, Leslie H. Loffman
  • Handling UPREIT and DownREIT Transactions: Latest Techniques and Issues (PowerPoint slides)
    Blake D. Rubin
  • Making Section 704(c) Work for You (PowerPoint slides)
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin
  • Current Issues in Like-Kind Exchanges (PowerPoint slides)
    Blake D. Rubin
  • Partnerships and Disregarded Entities in Like-Kind Exchanges (PowerPoint slides)
    Blake D. Rubin
  • Maximizing Capital Gains in Real Estate Transactions (PowerPoint slides)
    Blake D. Rubin
  • Hot Like-Kind Exchange Issues (PowerPoint slides)
    Robert D. Schachat
  • Leasing Issues (PowerPoint slides)
    Robert D. Schachat
  • Capital Gains Planning (PowerPoint slides)
    Jill E. Darrow
  • Disposing of Overleveraged Real Estate: Thinking Outside the Box (PowerPoint slides)
    Blake D. Rubin
  • Workouts & Debt Restructurings (PowerPoint slides)
    Robert D. Schachat, Linda Z. Swartz, Bahar A. Schippel

Presentation Material


  • Key Provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Affecting Commercial Real Estate
    Lary S. Wolf
  • New Carried Interest Provision: Section 1061
    Blake D. Rubin
  • Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Real Estate Issues
    Robert D. Schachat
  • Extracting Equity on a Tax-Free Basis
    Blake D. Rubin
  • Partnership Liability Allocation Planning, Including the “New” Rules
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway
  • Non-U.S. Investors Participating in Your Real Estate Deal
    Michael Hirschfeld
  • Selected Tax Allocation Problems for Partnerships and LLCs
    Sanford C. Presant
  • Capital Gains Planning
    Jill E. Darrow
  • Hot Like-Kind Exchange Issues
    Robert D. Schachat
  • Leasing Issues
    Robert D. Schachat
  • Workouts & Debt Restructurings
    Robert D. Schachat, Bahar A. Schippel, Linda Z. Swartz
Co-Chair(s)
Sanford C. Presant ~ Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Speaker(s)
Jill E. Darrow ~ Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
Michael Hirschfeld ~ AndersenTax
Bahar A. Schippel ~ Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
Linda Z. Swartz ~ Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Stefan F. Tucker ~ Venable LLP
Lary S. Wolf ~ Roberts & Holland LLP
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

21st Annual Real Estate Tax Forum (New York, NY) Jan. 28 - 29, 2019

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

20th Annual Real Estate Tax Forum Leslie H. Loffman, Proskauer
Sanford C. Presant, Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Blake D. Rubin, EY
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.