Do It Yourself Disaster

Recently we were having some work done at our home. The contractor is a great guy, a true craftsman and a perfectionist. He is also expensive, but his work is so good that he is worth the proce. While finishing up the job, he asked me one day about some estate planning questions that had been bothering him. We chatted for a few minutes, and I suggested we meet to have a more detailed discussion. "Can't I just download some stuff and do it myself?" he wanted to know. I asked him what he thought would have happened if I had tried to do the job he'd just finished for me by myself. "Total mess..." was the response. Exactly. And this case from Massachusetts is a typical example of what happens when youtry to do your estate without any professional input.

Thanks to The California Estate Planning Blog for this post on the subject.

Insurance and Estate/Trust Administration

Joel Schoenmeyer recently offered the following very helpful information at his Death and Taxes blog:

A couple of insurance notes:

1. This article discusses something that fiduciaries (executors, administrators and trustees) sometimes forget when handling real estate: you need to make sure that it's insured. That can be somewhat tricky if the real estate is unoccupied. Even if the real estate IS occupied, some insurers may not want to take on the risk. "Risk" is the key word for a fiduciary, as you cannot be in a situation where a large asset like real estate is not insured.

2. In some cases, you may be administering an estate that is entitled to proceeds from a homeowner's insurance policy. I've got one of these situations right now -- the decedent apparently died in a fire that destroyed her entire house. I'm working with the insurance company to get paid, but realize that this is a negotiation. If the decedent had a $200,000 insurance policy, you probably won't get $200,000. But in order to maximize what you WILL get, you may want to consider hiring a private insurance adjuster. This is a person or company who will work on your behalf to get a fair settlement for the estate or trust you are administering, in the same way that the insurance company's adjusters will work to minimize the payout.

Source: Death and Taxes

Donors Increasingly Seek to Impose Restrictions on Gifts to Colleges

The Wall Street Journal earlier this week published a rather interesting article that detailed an increased effort by large donors to colleges and universities to impose greater restrictions on the uses to which their gifts may be put. Not surprisingly, the article also describes the angst that this is causing college administrators and development officers.

Indeed, perish the thought that a generous benefactor might wish to assure that his or her family's hard earned wealth be put to uses of which the family might approve, or at least not disapprove. In a fit of pointing out the obvious, the Journal author observes that

Campus fund-raising officials far prefer unrestricted gifts, which they can use for pressing needs such as repairs and power bills.

Very inspiring, indeed. Evidently there are also concerns over "academic freedom," which is the usual rallying cry when the university poo-bahs think that the hoi polloi (I mean, alumni) are encroaching on their sacred turf. Heaven forbid that those who keep these institutions running entertain the thought that they should be allowed to have some input as to what an appropriate mission for the institution might be. It seems that those who run and teach at our colleges and universities become more isolated from the real world every day, and they are increasingly hostile to those of us who inhabit that world (witness, for example, Dartmouth's recent moves to assure that its alumni no longer elect independent trustees). I would, without question, advise any clients who are thinking of making a major gift to a college or university to structure the gift in a way to give them maximum control over the uses to which the gift may be put. This might not please the development officer looking to pay a power bill, but it will certainly help to assure that the family's vision for its legacy is honored and respected.

Income Tax Consequences of Same Sex Marriage

What are the economic consequences, including the impact on government tax collections, of same-sex marriages? The tax laws in California are complex and too involved for publication in this blog. However, in an interesting article written a few years ago, several scholars at various universities collaborated in an article which begins an analysis of this topic by stating that:

It is well-known that a couple's joint income tax burden can change with marriage. Many couples, especially two-earner couples with similar incomes, pay a marriage tax because their taxes when married are more than their combined tax liabilities as single filers.

This feature of the income tax suggests that legalizing same-sex marriages would increase income tax revenues, because gay and lesbian households are thought to consist primarily of two-earner couples.

In this paper we estimate the income tax effects of allowing same-sex couples to marry. We use estimates on the size of homosexual relationships, the percent who would marry if same-sex marriage becomes legal, and the average incomes of these couples, in order to generate estimates of the revenue impact.

Our calculations indicate that legalizing these marriages would lead to an annual increase in federal government income taxes of between $0.3 billion and $1.3 billion, with the likely impact toward the higher range of the estimates.

Source: California Tax Attorney Blog

Tags:

Fundamentals of Trust Tax Law

Courtesy of Mitchell Port of the California Tax Attorney Blog comes a nice Q & A from the IRS that addresses many of the fundamentals of trust law and trust taxation. Like Mitchell, I believe that any good attorney practicing in this area knows the answers to these questions. Nonetheless, I think that the information is of use to most non-trusts and estates practitioners, as well as our clients, and I urge you to take a look at the IRS publication to which Mitchell links in the below post:

The IRS published a Q&A about basic trust law and trust taxation which is quite good. Any qualified California tax attorney worth his salt knows this material. Here are the "Qs" and for the "As" click here.

Basic Trust Law

Q: What is a trust?

Q: Who is a grantor of a trust?

Q: What is a trustee/fiduciary?

Q: What is a beneficiary?

Q: What is a simple trust?

Q: What is a complex trust?

Q: What is a grantor trust?

Q: What are irrevocable/revocable trusts?

Q: What are testamentary and Inter Vivos trusts?

Trust Taxation Questions

Q: IRS instructions for Form 1041 and Schedules A, B, D, G, I, J and K-1 provide general tax information and guidance for completing Form 1041. What law controls trust taxation?

Q: Do trusts have a requirement to file federal income tax returns?

Q: How does a trust compute its income tax liability?

Q: I have been told that I can assign income to a trust and I will not be taxed on that income. Is this true?

Q: May a trust deduct contributions to a charity?

Q: Will I owe Federal Gift Taxes on property contributed to a trust?

Q. The information presented by the promoter sounded legitimate. Now I have concerns regarding this promotion. Who do I contact to report information on the promotion and promoter?

Source: California Tax Attorney Blog

Tax Planning Methods May Be Stripped of Patent Protection

From the American Bar Association's RPPt Section eReport comes the news that Congress may enact legislation that would refuse patent protection to tax planning methods. I have previously posted on this issue and, as those whom read my earlier post may recall, I believe that allowing patent protection for tax planning methods is nothing short of silly, and I wholeheartedly support legislation disallowing such patents.

Tags:

Paperless Records Can Cause Headaches for Your Heirs

Leanna Hamill at the Massachusetts Estate Planning and Elder Law Blog, published the following excellent post in which she discusses the problems that "paperless records" can cause for your heirs when you die, as well as certain precautions that you can take to minimize these problems:

This article from the Wall Street Journal, Paperless World Can Leave Heirs in the Dark, outlines the dangers of keeping all your records on your computer.  With online bank accounts becoming more common, there might not be paper statements of your accounts, and if you don't leave a record of them, your heirs might never know you had them.  And it's not just your death that would require them to know what you have, if you become incapacitated and funds are necessary to pay for your care - you'll want your loved ones to know where to find those funds.

The article outlines the information you should have in case of an emergency.  It doesn't need to be posted on your refrigerator, but it should be kept in a safe place in your house, and you should let someone you trust know where to find it.  The information includes:

  • details about your assets, what they are, how they are held, where to find the account information.  If you have out-of-state real estate or other assets, be sure to include these.
  • the names of your advisers - your financial planner, your accountant, your attorney, the guardian you've chosen for your minor children.
  • information about any safe deposit boxes you might have.
  • where your estate planning documents are located: your Health Care Proxy, Durable Power of Attorney, Will, Trust and deeds.
  • insurance policies: long term care, life and health.

A wonderful way to keep track of these things is with the What If... Workbook, created by Gwen Morgan.  The workbook provides a place for you to document:

   
  • financial information
  • personal contacts
  • location of important documents
  • whether you want burial vs. cremation
  • how to care for pets
  • family medical history
  • special gifts you'd like to leave for loved ones
  • and even space for you to start documenting the type of legacy (other than financial) that you would like to leave behind for your loved ones. 

To help you get started, and to provide the often necessary accountability to complete the workbook, Gwen holds small group sessions or individual meetings.

Click here to receive the Workbook at a special rate, just for readers of this website.  You could get them for you and your family members for the holidays, as a good way to start the discussion about planning and  your wishes for the future. 

Source: Massachusetts Estate Planning and Elder Law

Ruling From the Grave

Recent news reports concerning Leona Helmsley's $12 milllion pet trust have spurred many discussions about decedents sometimes undestandable, and sometimes bizarre, efforts to influence from the grave the behavior of their heirs. In this regard, the follwoing is borrowed from Investment News:

Despite widespread incredulity from the public about the weird details of hotel empress Leona Helmsley’s will, some advisers know that bizarre bequests are not uncommon, having watched their own clients seek to rule their families from beyond the grave.

Ms. Helmsley, who died Aug. 20, left her dog, Trouble, $12 million. That made the pooch seem like a higher priority than

Ms. Helmsley’s own grandchildren, two of whom received $5 million each and two who were disinherited.

To collect their fortune, the two favored grandsons, David and Walter Panzirer, must visit their father’s grave at least once each calendar year, preferably on the anniversary of his death. Should they miss a visit, they will be cut off from the money left in the trust.

The other two grandchildren, Craig and Meegan Panzirer, were disinherited for “reasons which are known to them,” according to the will.

Advisers and attorneys say they have seen families torn apart as clients disinherit children or grandchildren or require family members to change religion or sign postnuptial agreements before receiving bequests.

Although it’s difficult not to be judgmental, Jason M. Cole, the managing director of Abacus Wealth Partners LLC in Philadelphia, believes it’s his job to ensure that his clients’ wishes are met.

One of those clients directed that all assets be left to a pet shelter. Anotther forbade paper plates and plastic forks and knives at the memorial-service spread.

“We do try not to judge,” Mr. Cole said. “We need to remain as objective as possible about the estate planning process.”

Clients on ice

In the annals of posthumous micromanaging, surely few compare with a client of Rick Van Der Noord’s, a registered investment adviser and certified financial planner with Van Der Noord Financial Advisors Inc. in Greer, S.C.

He helped a divorced man draft a will in which his sons could use the inheritance only for health or medical care — and then only if the costs exceeded $12,000 a year. The sons could get 10% of the inheritance if they completed four-year college degrees, an additional 10% if they received master’s degrees and 10% more should they earn doctorates.

And there’s more. Each son gets a 20% distribution of the trust if he postpones marriage until age 27. They earn another 20% distribution if they are married to their first spouses for five years, and they earn an additional 20% for every five years of marriage until they’ve been married 15 years.

By age 45, the two sons will be paid the full remainder of the trust.

“He was trying to help parent and direct his heirs from the grave,” Mr. Van Der Noord said. “As his adviser, my job is to help him get whatever he wants, and if that’s what he wants, that’s what we’ve got for him.”

Although some clients try to exert control after death, others plan on coming back to life — hence “cryonics estate planning,” in which advisers manage money for clients who have had themselves frozen in the hopes of being revived years, or perhaps centuries, later.

“It’s an emerging field, one that I’m helping to create,” said Rudi Hoffman, a certified financial planner and chief executive of Hoffman Planning in Port Orange, Fla.

“Obviously, there’s no guarantee it will work,” he said. “It’s a best effort.”

Although Gary Altman, an estate planning attorney and owner of Altman & Associates Inc. in Rockville, Md., hasn’t had any clients make plans for their afterlife, he’s had many clients donate their bodies to science at the University of Tennessee’s Forensic Anthropology Facility in Knoxville, which has been nicknamed the “Body Farm.”

Martin M. Shenkman, an attorney in his eponymous Teaneck, N.J., law firm, draws the line when he thinks the fallout from a will could devastate a family. Recently, he refused to work with a client who wanted to give 80% of her fortune to two of her eight grandchildren while ignoring the others.

“I told her I can’t participate,” Mr. Shenkman said. “She’s going to destroy her family.”

Mr. Shenkman also had a client who wanted to leave someone $50,000 to care for an extensive tropical-fish collection. “I told him there’s a problem with that, and it’s one word,” Mr. Shenkman said. “Flush.”

Instead, Mr. Shenkman directed his client to leave the fish in a trust and to be taken care of by a trustee.

But some clients take a more expansive approach when it comes to estate planning. Several years ago, Jeff Sprowles, an adviser with Jeff Sprowles & Associates LLC in Langhorne, Pa., handled the distribution of a will for a childless husband and wife.

The couple directed that the trust be divided between a brother, three nieces and a nephew, but there was a catch: Each of them had five years from the date of the funding to spend their bequest. Anything left at the end of five years would go to charity.

Additionally, the beneficiaries were allowed to use the money only for activities that would generate immediate enjoyment.

They weren’t allowed to gamble or buy anything of permanent value, such as a vehicle or a house.

“It was pretty cool,” Mr. Sprowles said. “It had to be basically blown. They had a hell of a good time.”

However, the brother thought the idea was frivolous and refused to spend his portion of the money.

“I could almost hear him saying, ‘Bah! Humbug!’” Mr. Sprowles said.

Be Sure Your Trustee Is Willing To Serve

A post by Paul Trudelle at the Toronto Estate Law Blog regarding some brewing problems with the rather generous trust that Leona Helmsley established for her dog in her will provides an opportunity to address one of the most fundamental estate planning issues, and an easily avoided problem. It seems that the primary trustee that The Queen of Mean designated for her faithful companion does not wish to serve. It is, as Paul notes in his post, unclear as to whether the substitute trustee is willing to serve. Should the substitute be likewise unwilling, the result is predictable - costly, asset consuming litigation. It is a fundamental precept that, before you designate a trustee you confirm that that person (or institution) is willing to serve. Failing to take this simple step can, as Ms. Helmsley's family may well discover, lead to needless litigation and the waste of time and assets. These problems are easily avoided by having a short conversation with your intended trustee. I would add, parenthetically, that this is especially important if you are considering what some might consider exotic or unconventional estate planning tools, such as pet trusts.

Great Gift Idea For Your Kids

Jean Chatzy, Editor at Large for Money Magazine has written a great article in which she discusses what I think is a great idea for folks trying to figure out what to give their college graduating kids for a gift. Chatzky discusses a friend's decision to give her child a session with a financial planner. I think that this is really a great idea (even better if you include a seesion with an estate planning lawyer!) I will, from this point forward, recommend to my clients that, if they have not already done so, they arrange such sessions.

Barnes Foundation Headed Back To Court

Seems like the saga of the Barnes Foundation, a venerable institution in the art world, isn't't over quite yet. Three years ago a Pennsylvania state court judge gave the institution, which has been on financial life support, permission to move from its location in the Philadelphia suburbs to new, as yet to be constructed quarters, in Center City Philadelphia. Today comes the news that a group of residents who are neighbors of the Barnes in its current location have filed a petition asking the court to reopen the case and reconsider its earlier ruling, and to put the Barnes into receivership. Many of the allegations in the petition, as reported by The Bulletin, are rather scandalous. If they are to be believed, the petitioners would have us believe that there has been a far reaching conspiracy, of which the participants included Governor Rendell, many prominent Philadelphia lawyers, business people and philanthropists, the board of trustees of a local university, as well as the board of the Barnes, and the CEO of Comcast, among others. The story seems more than fanciful and the petition is, I would predict, doomed to fail.

$1000 An Hour?

The Wills, Trusts & Estates blog, reflecting on recent news stories reporting that certain lawyers at large New York law firms are bow billing their clients at the rate of $1000 an hour, wonders whether any estate planners have breached that mark. I expect that it is possible that there might be trusts and estates practitioners at some large firm that has not jettisoned its practice who might bill at that level, but I tend to doubt it. In my view, as I discussed here, hourly billing is a bad practice, designed mostly to reward lawyers for spending hours on things, and not necessarily solving their problems. I believe that all lawyers, and estate planning practitioners especially, should embrace alternative billing methods, and charge their clients based upon value added and not time spent.

Estate Tax Repeal Revisited

The clock is ticking for Congress to show a backbone and put in place a permanent solution to the estate tax. Until then, tax planning for individuals is a mess of “what ifs” and looking for an oracle to determine which year we will die in. The latest attempt to clean up the mess created by the Economic Growth & Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is HR 3170, currently pending in Committee in the House of Representatives.

HR 3170 would continue to increase the estate tax exemption in smaller increments from the $3 million mark in 2009 up to $4.75 million in 2014. The rate of tax would be linked to the capital gains rate, 15% until 2010 and then 20%. The deduction for state death taxes paid would be eliminated in 2010. And in an interesting move, the Executor of the first spouse’s estate could “give” any unused estate tax exemption to the surviving spouse. This would have an interesting impact on families that for some reason would prefer to not equalize estate values for tax planning purposes.

Who knows how far this Bill will get. Hopefully some meaningful resolution on the estate tax is not far off, although it could easily go unresolved until after the next presidential election.

Source: Connecticut Medicaid and Estate Planning blog

Lifetime Gifting Growing In Popularity

The USA Today recently ran a very interesting article on what appears to be a growing trend in the country toward more use of lifetime transfers of wealth. What is especially encouraging is that such wealth transfer techniques as charitable trusts and inter vivos, or living, trusts, are finding greater use among those outside the reaches of the very high net worth families. As I have commented previously, any family wealth plan should, to the extent feasible and advisable, incorporate lifetime gifts and other lifetime transfer techniques. The USA Today article would suggest that more people are thinking about their family's future and their own legacies, and are doing proper planning to achieve those goals. And that, as Martha Stewart would say, is a good thing.

Use of Incentive Trusts on the Rise

Crain's Cleveland Business reports that estate planners are seeing an increase in the number of clients who are asking about the use of so-called "incentive trusts" as a part of their estate plans. Such trusts are designed to place restrictions on the distribution of funds to heirs, ordinarily tying such distributions to certain life benchmarks, such as finishing college. Whether such trusts are advisable is, of course, a function of the individual client's circumstances and desires. Trusts may be used, moreover, to help insulate family assets from unfortunate events that may be beyond your heirs' control, such as liabilities arising from accidents or unsuccessful investments, or divorce settlements. Discussion of these issues should be a part of the planning process for all clients. Its your family, and your legacy.

Your Ethical Will

When you first think about estate planning it is often only about dollars and cents. Who gets what, how to minimize taxes, how to avoid probate. We often forget that the people we love will be facing one of the most emotionally trying times of their life. Yes you need to take care of the financial aspects of your estate but you should also try to incorporate the emotional needs of your loved ones.

Something you should consider is writing an "ethical will". An ethical will is not a legal document, it is like a final chance to communicate with you loved ones. Ethical wills are a way of sharing some of the wisdom you have accumulated over your lifetime. It can be a short letter to your heirs or a long document that includes things like your family history, a statement of your beliefs, and stories about your life that shaped the way you lived. You can include things like where the money your leaving came from, what it meant to you, and how you would like to see it used. If your children or grandchildren are very young, writing an ethical will can provide a link that can reach through the years.

The hardest part is always where to begin. Some ideas that can get you going might be:

* I am most grateful for..
* The most important gift I ever received..
* My parents taught me..
* From my grandparents I learned..
* What mattered the most in my life..

Look at an ethical will as an opportunity to connect your life with future generations, it can be a satisfying experience.


Source: Oak Street Advisors blog

Will Contests - It Might Not Seem Fair, But You Might Not Be Able To Do Anything

When my children were little, one of their favorite expressions was, “But it’s just not fair.” And I often hear the same protest from a potential client who wishes to object to a loved one’s will on the grounds that they were either promised something, the will was supposed to have been rewritten, or the terms are not fair.

Unfortunately, in most cases, the message that I have to give in response is, “You are right, but the law in will contests is such that you don’t have a case.”

I

n will contests in most states, it is fairly clear that a will may be objected to only on certain grounds. The first is undue influence. This is proven when (1) the person who wrote the will was susceptible to being unduly influenced, (2) the person who exerted undue influence had the opportunity to do so, and (3) the person exerting this undue influence had enough control over the will signer to cause the will to be drafted in accordance with provisions that were not intended.

Normally the opponent or contestant of the will has the obligation to prove that the will should be overturned, but in some cases, when the person who exerted the influence had a relationship with the will signer that was of a nature and relationship that could be construed to be a fiduciary or more than special relationship, the burden may shift to the proponent of the will to prove that they did not in fact exert undue influence.

An example could be somebody who was living with the decedent, such as a child, caregiver, or a close neighbor who had control and the opportunity to speak with the decedent sufficiently enough to be able to coerce the person to change their will. It could also be a person who is acting as health care proxy and power of attorney, or someone upon whom the decedent relied sufficiently to either feel dependent or otherwise controlled.

A second opportunity to contest a will is one in which the testator/testatrix was not of sound mind. In this situation, it would have to be proven that at the time the will was signed, the testator/testatrix was not able to make decisions with a total soundness of mind such that the will signed changed prior provisions, changed asset distribution proportions or created an unnatural distribution of assets to people who shouldn’t be included.

The evidence required to establish this mental incapacity is normally determined by a physician who knew the testator/testatrix and can produce medical testimony to conclusively establish capacity or incapacity of the decedent. This is often very difficult, since it is highly unlikely that the will was signed on the same day that the physician saw the decedent. Nevertheless, this is the best evidence that may be brought to the court. All medical records, physicians, nurses and other medical personnel who may have known or had any interaction with the decedent will certainly be required to testify as witnesses for either the opponent or the proponent of the will.

Another opportunity to contest a will is the allegation that fraud upon the decedent was exercised. Examples of this are that the person did not know they were signing a will, or that the document they were asked to sign was purported to be other papers or documents.

Fraud would also be exercised by telling the decedent something that was not true about a potential beneficiary, which in turn caused the decedent to reduce an inheritance left to that person or possibly to eliminate them. Examples of this would be saying that a child was merely sticking around to gain their inheritance, or a potential beneficiary had intentions of giving money to their spouse, who the decedent may dislike, which may then cause the testator/testatrix to eliminate that person from their will.

A final challenge to a will could be based on the fact that it was not signed properly. In most states, witnesses must be present at the same time of the execution of the will and actually see the decedent sign their will or designate another person to sign it for them. If the formalities of the signing do not complied with the law, the will may fail as a valid document. In these situations, it is necessary to investigate the will signing by deposing the witnesses and possibly the lawyer or delegated staff who attended to the will execution to conclusively establish whether all parties were in the room and paying attention to the signer when the document was executed.

In many states, a probate judge will hear a will contest as opposed to having a jury determine the validity of a will. In addition, it must be noted that the standard of proof with evidence may also vary in a will contest. In a typical civil suit, the test would normally be a fair preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal case, the determining test is beyond a reasonable doubt. In a will contest, the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, this will be a greater test than the civil standard, but less than a criminal standard. The scales of justice will have to be tilted more than just a fraction to nullify a will based on the clear and convincing evidence test.

Of course, there are always exceptions to the evidence rules, standard of proof and other factors which may vary from court to court or state to state. However, before attempting to challenge a will, it should be reviewed to determine whether it contains a so-called “no contest clause,” which may also eliminate a person’s right to inherit merely by making a challenge against it. In some states, this has been determined to be non-enforceable, but it should be reviewed. Also, hopefully anyone who now reads this post will realize that just because a promise was made, or somebody else got more or less, it does not mean that your challenge to a will is going to be successful, even if the will is “not fair.”


Source: Estate Planning Bits


Who Needs an Advanced Healthcare Directive?

The answer to the above question is, in my view, everyone. The thought was prompted by this post by Leanna Hamilll at the Massachusetts Estate Planning and Elder Law Blog, in which Leanna answers a reader's question as to whether married people need to have health care powers of attorney in place. As Leanna so cogently explains, of course they do. And so do you. And so do I.

Protecting Your Kids With Proper Planning

Your children mean the world to you. You’ve done everything within your power to meet their needs and to ward off dangers. You keep a watchful eye out for them, whether they’re swimming in the ocean or wandering too close to the edge of the Grand Canyon. You provide for their needs, from putting food on the table to buying new clothes for school.

We cannot protect our children from every risk in life. When they grow up, they will make some mistakes, just as we did. However, we can afford them some financial protection by leaving their inheritance in trust.

A trust can help because it holds legal title to assets, even though as beneficiary, your child will hold beneficial title. By leaving your assets to your child in a “Family Access Trust,” he or she could still get to the assets at any time. He or she could even remove all the assets from the trust, if desired. Yet, while assets remain in the trust, the trust can protect the assets from your child’s divorcing spouse and, in most states, keeps your child’s future ex-spouse from taking your child’s inheritance.

A Family Access Trust will not act to protect assets from other creditors, however. In order to accomplish that goal, you need a “Family Sentry Trust,” which is a discretionary trust for the benefit of your child. Distributions to your child are made by the person (Trustee) you appoint to make decisions for the trust.

Your child could be a Co-Trustee, but could not act alone to make distributions. Your child could be named as the Investment Trustee and, in that capacity, could direct how the assets are invested. A Family Sentry Trust protects your child from most of their creditors, subject to state law. An additional benefit is that, with a Family Sentry Trust, the assets are not taxed to your child’s estate for estate tax purposes.

You’ve spent your life building your legacy. That legacy will become your child’s inheritance. Keep that inheritance from being attached by future ex-spouses or other creditors. A qualified estate planning attorney can help you provide for your children, and not their creditors.

For more helpful information about estate planning, please visit www.smithbarid.com.

Source for post: Prudent Planning


Brooke Astor, RIP

Noted philanthropist Brooke Astor has died at the age of 105, the New York Times reports. Mrs. Astor, whose care and maintenance was the subject of highly publicized litigation, was better known for her generous support for causes great and small. May she rest in peace.

Is An Autograph a Gift?

Joel Schoenmeyer over at Death and Taxes has published an interesting post that asks some interesting questions about the tax implications of celebrity autographs and the like. Joel's post raises slightly different issues than my recent post about the possible tax implications of, for example, catching Barry Bonds' 756th home run ball, but the questions are somewhat related and no less interesting. Last weekend a friend of mine was lucky enough to attend Cal Ripken's induction into the baseball Hall of Fame, and was even more lucky to get Cal's autograph. Suppose my friend had had Cal sign a cap or jersey that Lou Gehrig, whose record for consecutive games played Ripken broke, had actually worn. Would that autograph add value to the memorabilia in excess of the $12,000.00 annual gift tax exclusion? Probably. Would the IRS experience a black eye bigger than what it suffered after the McGwire home run ball fiasco discussed in my earlier post? Absolutely. Are we likely to ever see the day when the IRS treats celebrity autographs as taxable gifts? Not very.

Let's Bury the Billable Hour

It has long been my belief that the billable hour system, bu which many attorneys charge their clients and earn their livings ( and as I do, too for some matters, by way of disclosure) creates an inherent tension between the attorney's interests and those of the client. If the attorney is being paid by the hour, doesn't he or she benefit from taking as much time as possible, or at least as much as the client will be willing to pay for, in completing a task? Of what possible benefit is this to the client? This is a primary reason that I have started to use alternative fee arrangements such flat fees and the like, for more matters, with the goal ultimately of using such arrangements in all cases. Even some in biglaw are now seeing the light. In an article in the August 2007 issue of the ABA Journal, best selling author and Chicago litigator Scoot Turow fairly well lays bare the flaws in the billable hour system. Whether Turow's large law firm colleagues follow his lead or not, however, I intend to continue to pursue a full transition to alternative fees. legal fees, like fees for any other service, should be based on value added. My clients deserve nothing less.

Gift Tax Fun - The Final Instalment

I would be remiss if I did not point you to the final installment of Joel Schoenmeyer's excellent 4 part post on the gift tax. Without further ado or embellishment, here is part four:

A final word...

16. I've tried to give a number of practical hints on gifting over the years, focusing on things that can be done without an attorney. That being said, there are a lot of gifting situations that simply require the assistance of a professional, and maybe more than one professional:

-you are making gifts of a future interest

-you are making gifts that exceed the $12,000 annual exclusion amount

-you are involved in non-traditional gifting relationships -- loaning money to a child, selling property to a child for less than its fair market value, naming a child as a joint tenant, etc.

-the property being gifted has valuation issues. Obviously it's easy to figure out the value of a gift of $10,000 in cash -- it's $10,000. But what about assets like real estate, or a painting, or a minority interest in a partnership? These are far trickier, and the IRS is far more diligent about auditing in these cases.

Source for post: Death and Taxes

Tags: ,

Planning Your Funeral

I apologize for what some might think is a morose or macabre bent we've taken here the last few posts, but a post that I saw recently on Jennifer Sawday's California Estate Planning Blog got me to thinking about funeral instructions. when I first sit down with a new client to talk about estate planning, one of the things I always ask is whether they have any particular wishes with respect to their funeral or the disposition of their remains. Not surprisingly - to me, at least - most folks tell me that they haven't given it much, if any, thought. Perhaps you would rather leave those decisions to your family. That's fine. If you have particular wishes, though - if you want to be cremated and have your ahses strewn over Yankee Stadium, or want a particular form of service, like a New Orleans Jazz funeral, or music (I want the clergy at my funeral all to wear black birettas - long story) - you need to make them known. I usually advise my clients to prepare a separate document outlining the fuenral wishes, and to provide a copy to their spouse, their children, and to put a copy on file at their church or synagogue, as well as in their safety deposit box. A colleaue of mine puts the instructgions in the will. That's fine too, althougb I also advise the separate letter, for a variety of reasons. The long and short of it is, put it in writing and make it known.

Helping Your Heirs Handle Your Death

If you were to die tomorrow, would your heirs know where to find your will, or who your lawyer or accountant are? Would they know at which banks you had accounts, what credit cards you held or whether you had a safe deposit box? What about who your investment adviser is, or where to find your life insurance policies? These are the kind of nitty gritty detail questions that your family, and your estate, will need to deal with after your death. The lack of complete information can impede your executor's ability to close your estate expeditiously, and can cause headaches for your family and heirs during the administration of your estate and beyond. In her column in this month's Money Magazine, Jean Chatzky discusses a way to address these issues and aide your heirs in coping with the details: a "death letter." Such a letter ideally provides your family with all of the important information they will need - the names and contact information for relevant advisers, information about bank accounts, insurance, safe deposit boxes and more. I highly recommend that you read Ms. Chatztky's column, and that you seriously consider leaving your heirs a "death letter."

Still More Fun Facts About the Gift Tax

A couple of weeks ago I shared with you the first couple of posts in a four part series that Joel Schoenmeyer had done at the Death and Taxes blog on the federal gift tax. Here is part 3 of Joel's informative discussion:


11. The last major credit or exclusion from gift tax is called the "unified credit." It's found in Section 2505 of the Code.

12. The unified credit is currently $1 million, which means you can give away up to $1 million during your lifetime without owing gift tax. Note that this credit works in tandem with the annual exclusion amount. So, for instance, if you gave $100,000 to your daughter in 2007, you would get the $12,000 annual exclusion, and your unified credit would be reduced by only $88,000 (100 - 12).

13. The unified credit used to be, well, unified -- it was tied to the estate tax credit. In other words, there was one credit amount, which could be used during life or upon death.

14. In cases where you make gifts that exceed the annual exclusion, you'll still need to file a gift tax return, even if no gift tax is due. This is so the IRS can keep track of (and potentially challenge) the amount of your unified credit remaining.

15. With all this in place, would anyone ever need or WANT to pay gift tax? I don't know about "want," but in cases involving high net worth individuals, it may be better to make gifts now, and pay gift tax instead of estate tax. Obviously you lose with respect to time value of money (it's better to pay tax later rather than sooner), but you gain a couple of ways:

-You get property and its future appreciation out of the estate. The $1 million you give away today may be worth $2 million (or $3 or $10 million) when you die.

-The estate tax is calculated on the total value of the decedent's estate, including the money being used to pay the estate tax. That's not the case with the gift tax.

Source: Death and Taxes blog


Tags: ,

Do I Need a Will?

This is probably the most frequently asked question for any estate-planning attorney. Anyone with any property at all, whether real or personal, or with children ought to have a will. Even a person who has nothing may be instantly worth a large sum of money at death, if they are killed through someone else’s negligence or are well insured. For a divorced person with minor children, a will eliminates arguments over who will manage any assets or money left to the children (e.g., an ex-spouse). If you do not have a will, then the state decides who gets your property. In addition, the court will decide who will be your Personal Representative and it may be necessary for that Personal Representative to obtain a bond at the expense of the estate. If you prepare a will, then you can direct that the bond be waived.

Source: The Harry Thomas Hackney, P.A. Florida Blawg

Thanks to Neil Hendershot

Neil Hendershot, who publishes the Pennsylvania Elder, Estate and Fiduciary Law Blog, was kind enough to put up a post about this blog earlier today. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank Neil for his kind words, and also for publishing a blog that is a tremendously valuable resource for anyone who either practices trusts and estates law in Pennsylvania, or who has any interest in the field. Neil's blog is the gold standard, and I urge anyone who reads this blog to make Neil an every day read.

Tags:

Should Trusts Be Amended to Suit the Needs and Whims of Beneficiaries?

Like many, I have been following with some interest the progress of Rupert Murdoch's bid to buy Dow Jones, the publisher of the Wall Street Journal. My interest has been especially piqued by the role that a series of what appear to be some very complex Bancroft family trusts play in the matter, not to mention the role that the family trustees and lawyers are playing. The weekend edition of the Journal ran an interesting story on the status of Mr. Murdoch's bid that outlined the divide among the Bancroft family members, as well as the role that the various trusts play in the drama. What especially caught my eye was this little bit:

Family lawyers were scrambling Friday to change the voting structure of the biggest Bancroft trust so it would better reflect the views of all the beneficiaries. The trust's overseers include Christopher Bancroft, a prominent family member who has been outspoken in his opposition to the deal. The restructuring could dilute Mr. Bancroft's influence over the stock now held in the trust.

I have not seen the trust documents that govern the trust in question, and I do not have any knowledge of the terms. I wonder, though, whether it is particularly appropriate for the lawyers to try and restructure the trust to suit the needs of particular beneficiaries under a particular set of facts. If its that easy, part of the purpose of the trust (and in the case of a family such as the Bancrofts. to be sure there are tax reaosns for the trusts) is defeated. It can't be that simple. I will be fascinated to see  how this plays out and, if Mr. Bancroft is on the losing side, whether there will be litigation over this effort to divide the trust. And of course there is a planning lesson here for others. If you have particular wishes, be sure that they are explicitly addressed in your planning.

Buy-Sell Agreements Are Critical Estate Planning Tools

If you are a business owner, your business likely represents a substantial portion of your net worth. Ultimately, your share of the business may very well comprise the most significant portion of your estate when you die. If you are a sole proprietor or are otherwise the sole owner of the enterprise, of course, the business will pass at your death in the manner you direct (assuming you have properly planned your estate!) If you have partners, or if you are a shareholder in a closely held corporation, however, it is critical that you have a buy-sell agreement in place. The buy-sell agreement will govern how your share of the business is to be disposed of, and will also set the price for which your share will be sold. It can also direct how the purchase of your share is to be funded. As Robert Cavanaugh outlined in an article that he authored on this subject, a properly drafted buy sell provides several significant advantages to business owner:


  • The agreement in effect creates a market for an asset for which there might not otherwise have been one, enabling your estate to realize greater value from your share of the business.
  • Allows the surviving members of the business to avoid becoming business partners with the deceasedd owner's heirs, who may not share the deceased's interest in the business or his or her goals and vision for the business.
  • Establishes a price for your interest, and possibly helps to avoid costly litigation over the valuation of your share of the business.
  • Enables your estate to very quickly convert an illiquid asset - your share of the business - into cash.
  • Can be funded through the use of life insurance, thereby assuring that there is a ready, properly funded purchaser for your onership interest.
In sum, every owner of a non-public business that is not a sole proprietorship or otherwise solely owned should have a buy-sell agreement in place. The upsides are numerous, and the downsides potentially very costly in terms of both dollars and time. If you don't have one, you should consult with your attorney.

Transfer to Living Trust Does Not Trigger Due on Sale Provision

Joel Scheonmeyer at the Death and Taxes blog published the following very interesting post that ought to be of great interest to anyone thinking of funding a living trust with real property:

A few weeks ago, I posted (here) about obtaining lender approval when placing property into a living trust. I then received an interesting e-mail from reader Richard Barid of the Savannah, Georgia law firm of Smith Barid, LLC. Mr. Barid pointed me to a portion of the US Code (12USC1701j-3(d)(8), which can be found here) that seems to indicate lender approval isn't needed. To quote the relevant parts of 1701j-3 (the emphasis added is mine):

(a)(1) the term “due-on-sale clause” means a contract provision which authorizes a lender, at its option, to declare due and payable sums secured by the lender’s security instrument if all or any part of the property, or an interest therein, securing the real property loan is sold or transferred without the lender’s prior written consent;

(b)(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d) of this section, the exercise by the lender of its option pursuant to such a clause shall be exclusively governed by the terms of the loan contract, and all rights and remedies of the lender and the borrower shall be fixed and governed by the contract.

(d) With respect to a real property loan secured by a lien on residential real property containing less than five dwelling units, including a lien on the stock allocated to a dwelling unit in a cooperative housing corporation, or on a residential manufactured home, a lender may not exercise its option pursuant to a due-on-sale clause upon... (8) a transfer into an inter vivos trust in which the borrower is and remains a beneficiary and which does not relate to a transfer of rights of occupancy in the property
[.]

Mr. Barid [sic] adds that it's still a good idea to talk to a client's lender, for professional courtesy and to avoid surprises.

Source: Death and Taxes

Tags:

Catch a Home Run Ball, Get a Tax Bill?

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an interesting article about the possible tax consequences to the poor schmoe who catches Barry Bonds' presumably soon to come record breaking home run ball. The question is whether the lucky spectator who grabs the ball is liable for tax on the value of the ball, and if so, when any tax would become due. The IRS isn;t commenting on the matter - and appears to have no intention of issuing a tax bill - evidently still suffering from the adverse publicity it received the last time there was a home run of consequence. When, during Mark McGwire's pursuit of Roger Maris's single season record, and IRS official was asked what would happen if the fan who caught the record breaking ball returned it to Mr. McGwire, the official stated that the poor fan would face a hefty gift tax bill. After a deluge of criticism, the IRS issued a statement to the effect that, under the circumstances suggested, there would be no gift tax bill. But there are a lot of unanswered questions. What if the ball catcher gifts the ball to the Halon-profitl of Fame, or a charitable non-profit? What if he or she gives it to one of their children, or someone else? What position will the service take? What if Bonds is indicted after the season ends, and the ball becomes worthless? Interesting questions all. Tax isn't ALWAYS dull.

Tags: ,

Legislation Introduced to Prohibit Patenting of Tax Planning Strategies

One of the more absurd developments in the tax planning arena during recent years has been the move by some practitioners to obtain patents for certain tax planning strategies. If successful, the applicants would be in a position to prohibit other practitioners and their clients from making use of the patented strategies - some of which, while creative, do not rank as discoveries along with penicilin, the computer microchip or a blockbuster pharmaceutical - or force them to pay royalties for using particular strategies. Congress, for once, appears poised to re-introduce a dose of sanity. It has been reported that the House Judiciary Committee approved an amendment to the Patent Reform Act that would essentially put a halt to this silly practice. Here's hoping that common sense, and the Boucher-Goodlatte amendment, prevails.


Tags:

Common Estate Planning Myths Among Women

Traditional gender roles are fading fast. Gone are the days of Donna Reed and June Cleaver. However, gender still makes a difference. One of the areas in which we see a difference is estate planning.

Why is that?

Women continue to live longer than men do. In fact, according to MsMoney.com 75% of women will become widows at some point in their life. A woman is an average 56 years of age when she is widowed.

It may not be fair, but women are the ones affected by poor planning because, statistically, women live longer—an average of 6.7 years longer.

There are several myths women commonly hold about estate and retirement planning:

Myth #1

I’m not old enough to worry about it, yet.

Planning is important at any age. You are not just planning for what happens to your assets at your death but, also, for who will take care of things if you become incapacitated. Furthermore, while you are young and your children are still minors, it is important to select guardians to raise them if something happens to you.

From a financial perspective, if you start saving early, it will be much easier to have a comfortable retirement. Remember, on average, women are only 56 years old when they become widows. Husbands may not be around when it comes time for retirement.

Myth #2

My estate isn’t big enough to worry about estate taxes.

Maybe it isn’t today but it may be by the year you die. The amount you can pass free from estate taxation under current law goes down in 2011 to $1 million. Meanwhile, the average person’s assets continue to grow.

For example, over the long run, a broad measure of large U.S. stocks, the S&P 500 index, has increased (on average) 10.4% annually since 1926. That means it doubles approximately every seven years. So, if you have over $500,000 today (appropriately invested) and you expect to live more than seven years, you could have a taxable estate! By starting early and planning, you can minimize estate taxes.

Myth #3

If I hold property by joint tenancy, I do not have to worry about estate planning.

Joint tenancy can be a simple way to avoid probate and having to re-title assets upon the death of one spouse. However, if joint tenancy passes all of the dead spouse’s assets to the surviving spouse, we increase the surviving spouse’s estate even more and compound the estate tax problems. Further, joint tenancy is not a solution to the problems of incapacity.

Women live longer than men and are likely to survive their husbands, having to pick up the pieces after their husbands’ deaths. This is why, despite the many myths out there, estate and retirement planning is critical for women.

Estate and retirement planning can be a complex puzzle. A qualified estate and retirement planning attorney can help you put all the pieces together. With a well-planned estate and retirement, you can rest easier. Your future will be secure.

You will have laid the foundation for a great life. You will have guarded against incapacity and the death of your spouse or partner. Finally, you will have set your children off on the right path. It’s amazing what a little bit of planning can do!

Source for post: Prudent Planning blog.

More Estate Planning Mistakes

It seems like everyone has their favorite top ten list of common or egregious estate planning mistakes. A couple of weeks ago, I shared with you another blogger's list of common mistakes. More recently, Morningstar published its own "top ten" list. One of the interesting things, to me, is that there is less overlap among the lists than one might expect. One explanation for this is that there are so very many mistakes that you can make when planning your estate and financial affairs, especially if you try to do it yourself, or are advised by attorneys and financial advisers who fail to focus on your goals and aspirations. In any event, I think that Morningstar provides a valuable list of issues to consider and to discuss with your advisers. The list is reproduced below the fold.

1. Not Having an Up-to-Date Estate Plan
If you've worked hard all of your life and accumulated a lifetime of memories and possessions, you will probably want to give some thought to whom those cherished belongings should go to at your death. Now, I know death is not a subject anyone particularly wants to think about or talk about. But there's no way to avoid it, so let's just deal with it right now.

If you don't have estate documents, like a will or living trust, the state decides who gets your assets. If you go to your state's Web site, you should be able to see how they distribute property.

I bet most of you would rather have some input into that decision. If your estate is at all complicated, please don't try to create an estate plan yourself. Go to an attorney who specializes in estate planning. (You don't want to leave it in the hands of an attorney who does many types of law.) One place to look for an estate attorney is Lawyers.com. Choose "Estate Planning" as the type of lawyer (under "Trusts and Estates").

If you do have estate-planning documents but they are more than five years old, have an estate attorney review them. If you need to make changes, you may be able to amend your plan rather than start over with new documents.

If you don't have durable powers of attorney for health care and property, make sure you get those executed when you do the rest of your estate planning. You only need to think of cases like Terry Schiavo to understand that you need to commit your wishes to paper so there is no misinterpretation by hospitals or family members.

2. Choosing the Wrong Trustee, Executor, or Guardian
Many of you haven't created estate documents or updated existing ones because you just can't settle on whom to have act on your behalf.

You want to find someone with similar values to be guardians to your kids. They shouldn't be too old or too young. For the trustee's role, you want to find someone savvy enough financially to manage your money. And you need to find someone who is willing to put in the time and effort to wind up your affairs in the executor role as part of the settling of your estate.

Don't think you'll find the perfect person. That's a sure way to procrastinate indefinitely. Get as close as you can in choosing the right person for each role. And remember, you can always change who is listed in your documents if you find someone better suited to one of these jobs.

3. Not Funding Your Trusts
If you've gone to the trouble to put trust documents in place, don't fail to retitle your financial accounts and fund your trusts. All this boils down to is a flurry of paperwork. But if you don't do it, your carefully crafted estate plan may be a bust.

If you haven't completed this paperwork yet, you'll need to change your individually held accounts to trust accounts. You will be the primary trustee in most cases until you can no longer manage your affairs.

If you have an irrevocable life insurance trust, make sure the policy pays out to the trustee of your ILIT.

4. Not Using the Full Exemption Equivalent Credit
The "exemption equivalent credit" is a complicated-sounding term that just means you get to bequeath as much as $2 million without paying estate tax. Even if you don't have $2 million, you can still use your exemption to pass whatever you do have to the people or organizations that mean the most to you--free of estate tax.

One of the biggest mistakes married people make is leaving all their possessions outright to their spouse. In so doing, each spouse isn't able to take full advantage of his or her exemption equivalent credit, and the full estate (of both spouses) will be taxed at the second death.

So how can married couples take full advantage of each partner's exemption equivalent credit? If your estate is more than $2 million, you need to consider a "credit equivalent trust," or "B trust." Each spouse would set up this type of trust, and each can fund it with as much as $2 million. That amount would then qualify for the exemption equivalent credit and would not be subject to estate taxes. Income can be paid out to the surviving spouse, and principal can be tapped for certain purposes.

By setting up the credit equivalent trust, as much as $4 million (using the credit for both spouses) is free from estate tax.

5. Failing to Equalize Spousal Estates
A lot of times, one spouse ends up with more of the financial goodies in his or her name. While that may boost an ego here or there, it's actually counterproductive when trying to pass the most assets you can to your heirs.

Here's why: If the couple didn't get the full benefit of both of their exemption equivalent credits, the second spouse may die with more than the $2 million allowed to pass estate-tax-free per person. The assets over $2 million and under $4 million could have been estate-tax-free if the couple had taken advantage of putting as much as $2 million in each name.

Sometimes that may mean putting the house (typically one of the bigger assets) in the spouse's name with fewer assets. If the marriage is on sound footing, that works out just fine. But if you think there's a possibility of divorce, just remember you're giving up your ownership in the house.

6. Failing to Plan for the Care of Family Pets
Fellow planners and some clients sometimes laugh when I say that I often include pets in the estate-planning process. But from my experience, I've found that many individuals consider pets to be just as much a part of their families as people. To ignore pets' care after your death would be a mistake. I know there are millions of pet owners out there who would agree with me.

So what should you do? The Humane Society has prepared a booklet called "Providing for Your Pet's Future Without You" that you can download here. It explains how to devote a portion of your will or trust to the care you want for your pet after you're gone. You can name whom you want to care for your pets, set up money to pay for that care, and set a level of care that you expect your pet to receive.

7. Not Using an ILIT to Shelter Large Amounts of Life Insurance
We talked about using the exemption equivalent credit to save on estate taxes above. The other common way to manage estate tax is to hold your life insurance policies in an irrevocable life insurance trust.

If you have smaller amounts of life insurance, you don't need to go to the expense of having another trust set up. What's a smaller amount? Let's say less than $500,000. A good test of whether you need this type of trust is if your current taxable estate (your house, your retirement plans, your investment accounts) is more than $2 million. If so, it's relatively inexpensive to set up an ILIT.

The trustee of the ILIT should be the beneficiary of your life insurance policy. As long as you live three years after assigning your policy to the trustee of the ILIT, that insurance money won't be part of your taxable estate.

Alternatively, if you're in good health, you can apply for a new life insurance policy purchased by the trustee of the ILIT and avoid the three-year waiting period.

8. Not Sharing Your Estate Plan's Contents with Your Family
While it may give you some satisfaction to know you control what happens with your assets after you've died, you don't necessarily want to spring this information on your family when they read the will. That often leads to big family fights over what each person thinks they "deserve."

A better approach is to talk to your family before you're gone. Let them know what you're planning to do and why. It may not be a particularly comfortable discussion, but at this point in your life you need to be able to speak your mind and live with other people's disapproval.

In some cases, attorneys recommend leaving $1 to an heir you basically don't want to receive any of your assets. This makes it perfectly clear you didn't just forget to mention them in your will (or trust).

9. Leaving an Unorganized Mess of Financial Records
Have you ever had to dig through another person's paper archives for any reason? If so, you know it can be torture. Not to mention the fact that some of your assets may never be found because no one can find the life insurance policy or bank account records.

You owe it to your family to be organized. You can download a simple form for this purpose by clicking here. Fill it out and give a copy to the person you choose to be executor and another copy to your attorney.

10. Not Coordinating Beneficiary Designations
Lots of people don't realize that a will doesn't necessarily control all of their assets. For example, even if you have a will that leaves everything to your spouse, if you own real estate in joint tenancy with rights of survivorship (a very common way to hold property) with anyone other than your spouse, your spouse won't be entitled to it. Ditto for life-insurance policies that specify someone other than your spouse as beneficiary. I've seen this happen when people name a beneficiary for a retirement account or life insurance policy before they were married (or divorced) but then forget to change it.

Source: Morningstar.com


Whenever you update (or create) your estate documents, go through all your life insurance policies and work-related benefits, such as retirement plans and even stock options, to see if the people listed as beneficiaries are still whom you would choose today.

Succession Planning: More Than Just a Will

Succession planning can sound intimidating. But taking the proper steps now to designate how your business will operate if you are unexpectedly unable to work can save your loved ones and business partners from future headaches and arguments.

“If you own a small business, planning for the future is especially critical,” says Wynne Whitman, a New Jersey-based estate lawyer and co-author of Wants, Wishes, and Wills (Financial Times, 2007). Such planning should not only include specific arrangements that designate who will step in for you in the case of your death, but also if you become incapacitated.

“You really want it to be clear to your employees and your family exactly what is supposed to happen if you’re in a car accident and out of the office for six months,” she adds. One way to do this is to obtain a power of attorney through either your corporate attorney or estate lawyer to authorize who will legally act on your behalf in business matters. This could include a spouse, a son or daughter whom you have been training, or a trusted employee.

Without a power of attorney, a court action to appoint a guardian may be necessary if you become incapacitated. This is not only expensive and time-consuming, but also very public. The court may ask for documents proving your company’s assets – as well as your illness – when deciding a guardian, whom may be someone you would not have originally chosen.

Whitman recommends that entrepreneurs make sure that their partnership agreements and operating agreements have provisions in place for both the death and incapacitation of a member, including buy/sell agreements which designate how the other owners can purchase a deceased or incapacitated member’s shares. Without one, your partners may argue over how to value your interest and disagree on who should have the right to purchase the shares from your estate if you pass away or must leave the business. (To afford your partner’s shares, you may want to consider purchasing a life insurance plan that would pay you a premium in the event of a partner’s death. For more on buy/sell agreements, see our Success Guide to Estate Planning.)

However, for sole proprietorships, similar documents may not exist.

“If you’re a sole proprietor, it’s unlikely that you have any kind of operating agreement,” says Whitman. She urges single owners to consult with an attorney to make sure their succession policies and procedures are clear. Also, she recommends that sole proprietors obtain life insurance and disability income insurance to help their family absorb the lost income and pay for estate tax obligations, which may prevent them from having to sell the business.

“It’s not the happiest subject to discuss, but I find that people make better decisions when they’re feeling well and death isn’t imminent,” says Whitman, who urges her clients to consider these possibilities when their heads are clear. “The expense, the cost, the time, and the heartache that’s left to your beneficiaries and your employees if you don’t do any planning, are really catastrophic.”

But the focus, she adds, should not rest solely on your business.

“It’s really hard to focus your attention on your personal needs; we always seem to put ourselves last,” says Whitman, who finds that entrepreneurs are no more likely to prepare for their personal obligations than other people – including proxies to act on your behalf in legal and health care matters, as well as wills to designate how your assets should be distributed after your passing. “If you’re a successful businessperson, you need to not only consider the future success of your business, but also the future success of your family.”


Source for post: Success Magazine