Trusts and Estates Wills and Probate Tax Saving Strategies Medicaid

Schedule an in-office, Zoom or phone consultation Here.

Celebrity estate planning complications and feuds are often used to illustrate basic planning principles or common problems. Perhaps none of those examples are as well-known, especially for New Yorkers, as the sad case of the estate of Brooke Astor. The legendary socialite and philanthropist died several years ago. Since her passing, a wide-range of claims were made regarding the distribution of her assets and criminal activity on the part of those responsible for her care and affairs in the later years of her life.

Astor reportedly suffered from Alzheimer’s at the end of her life–an affliction that similarly affects many New York seniors. Unfortunately, also like many others, it seems that her condition was abused by the very people who were supposed to look-out for her.

Astor’s son, Brooke Marshall, was criminally charged with exploiting his mother to funnel more money to himself. Marshall was ultimately convicted, along with a co-defendant, of illegally giving himself a $2 million “raise” to administer the estate. Claims also suggested that an amendment to Astor’s will in 2004 included a forged signature.

A New York Times article this week took a look at the consequences of a Medicaid change engineered by Governor Cuomo in the hopes of saving money: switching to “managed-care” for NY Medicaid programs.

The basic idea is straightforward: switch from paying providers a “fee for service” and instead make a specific payment to provide proper care–whatever that care might be. The logic goes that when medical care providers receive a fee for specific actions performed, they are incentivized to provide more services, even if they aren’t needed. By switching to a set payment amount, those providers will be incentivized to simply provide the most efficient care possible. They will also be more competitive, trying to increase quality of care to attract more Medicaid participants.

The Reality

Residents are often warned to complete their estate planning–wills and trusts–before it is “too late.” Most assume that the planning is only “too late” if they die before getting it done. But that is a mistake. In many cases “too late” actually refers to losing the competency to create the legal documents. As a practical matter, it may even mean before one even has the appearance of mental health issues, because even a hint of problems may open the door to legal challenge from others.

Estate planning is about ensuring one’s wishes are carried out and maximizing the preservation of assets without controversy. Limiting that controversy includes completing the planning early and efficiently, minimizing the risk of problems down the road. Thought of in that way, “too late” is far earlier than simply “before you die.”

John duPont Estate

From suspicious claims in an email to unsolicited letters, most of us assume we are not naive enough to fall victim to a financial scammer. This is a mistake. It takes only a moment of confusion or a lapse in judgement to provide a fraudster with the the tools they need to steal.

Financial scammers thrive in confusion and unfamiliarity. There is a reason that seniors are targeting more often than others–the elderly may be less familiar with certain aspects of modern technology or culture. As such, scammers are able to poke at their uncertainty in order to gain trust and ultimately take advantage.

These frauds are often connected to current events. Disgustingly, it was only hours after the Boston bombings that some fake charities were set up in an attempt to dupe well-intentioned community members into donating money that would end up in the pockets of criminals. Along the same lines, fraudsters are trying to exploit unfamiliarity and confusion about the high-profile national health care law. Many aspects of the law are set to take effect this year, and most community members are unfamiliar with the details of those changes. Scam artists are stepping into the void, working to use the complexity of the law to solicit funds from unsuspecting community members. Senior citizens are the most likely to be hurt.

Do I have enough to retire? Countless New Yorkers ask their financial advisers, estate planning attorneys, and other professionals that very question each and every day. There is no one-size-fits-all response, as retirement is a personal matter based on individual expectations, goals, and perspective.

Mountains of pages have been written about how much money you should have before retiring and what you should do with it. Perspectives abound.

Interestingly, there is less disagreement about general characteristics that make one more or less likely to be financially secure enough to retire. For example, the Wall Street Journal pointed to a new study last week which found that married couples are far better positioned to make the leap and officially enter retirement.

It can can a confusing, scary, and stressful time for all New Yorkers who use the Medicaid system for necessary health care or for those who suspect they may need it down the road. Not a day goes by that news does not break at either the state or national level regarding payment cuts, service trimming, changes to qualifications, and more.

Considering the complex political dynamics involved in any major decision regarding the New York Medicaid system, it is next to impossible to make predictions with certainty. But many experts in the field are more than eager to share their ideas about what the program might look like in the future.

For example, some may be interested in a recent article a the journal published by the National Association of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA). Entitled “Whither Medicaid,” the comprehensive article takes a look at all of the major notions about how Medicaid might disappear in coming years and how it may be saved via different alternative arrangements. The article can be read for free online in it’s entirety here.

A case recently came before a New York court that delved into a very unique inheritance issue. The case, Matter of Svenningsen involved the inheritance rights of “rejected” adopted children. “Rejected” is a harsh word, but refers to children who were adopted and whose adopted parents terminate parental rights. It is a rare occurrence, but various health issues or circumstantial factors may make such change in parental rights necessary in some cases.

The circumstances in the Svenningsen case are somewhat complex. Essentially, a New York family adopted a child, Emily, from China in 1996. The family had executed a trust in 1995 the had specifically included adopted children. A second trust was executed in 1996 that specifically named Emily. Sadly, the patriarch of the family died the following year, in 1997.

Eventually, Emily began attending a boarding school for children with special needs. Apparently Emily developed a close bond with those working at the school. As such, several years later, in 2003, Emily’s adopted mother agreed to terminate her parental rights under the assumption that Emily would be adopted by one of the director’s of her boarding school. No mention of Emily’s trust was provided during that second adoption hearing.

Earlier this week we touched on the fact that estate tax issues need to be on all New Yorkers’ radar, because the state tax kicks in at a far lower level than the federal tax. The federal rate was seemingly fixed as part of the compromise legislation that averted the “fiscal cliff” earlier this year. While any law can be changed, the passage of this legislation was assumed by most to signal some level of finality on the matter. Debate had raged for months (even years) about the exemption level and rate. The uncertainty was a challenge for estate planners, because it is more difficult to craft complex protection plans when the tax rules are a moving target

In that vein, regardless of one’s own opinion of the estate tax, passage of the compromise bill was a welcome relief–offering stability. But that stability may be short lived, as proposals about changing the federal estate tax have are already making their way back into national political discussions.

Here We Go Again

Much discussion at the end of last year dealt with the estate tax. As federal officials groped for a compromise to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff,” details about the federal estate tax were one part of the negotiations. Democrats wanted it returned to levels during the Clinton Administration while Republicans wanted it eliminated altogether.

Just before the deadline, a law was passed which apparently settled some of the matters of contention. In so doing, it seemed to finally provide some permanence to the federal estate tax. The tax rate now tops off at 40% (a jump from the previous 35%) and begins on parts of the estate over $5.25 million. The exemption level is pegged to inflation, and so it will rise slightly each year.

With news of this new estate tax compromise (and its relatively high exemption level), many have pointed out that the federal tax is now only a concern to a small slice of the population. After all, the majority of residents will not die with assets over $5.25 million, and so estate planning to avoid that federal tax is unwarranted.

A recent Washington Post article discussed the lethal combination of family and finances. The author recounts how even the most close-knit families can be torn apart by disagreements about money matters. The article included one reader to wrote a letter offering an example of how his parent’s will is causing tension and turmoil.

The letter was written by an adult son who was asked by his parents to assist with their estate planning. He was named executor and helped with locating financial documents. The son saw a copy of the will after it was completed, noting that it left assets to a few charities and then split the remaining estate between himself and his one sibling–a sister. This represents a pretty common situation, with families assuming that such a simple estate plan and division will not come with any disagreement.

But then a few years later the parents updated their will. Instead of splitting the assets between their two children, they decided to split it in thirds. Their two teenage grandchildren (from their daughter) will receive a third, and the two adult children will each receive a third. The son noted with shock that his share suddenly went from one half to one third.

Contact Information