fishkill estate planning

WILL DOES NOT REVOKE PREVIOUS TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO TRUST

Published on: April 25, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

BEST LAID PLANS DO NOT ALWAYS WORK OUT

A case with an interesting factual background came out of Texas recently. While it was based on Texas law and the case is binding in only Texas, the legal principles discussed by the Court are equally applicable to New York or any other jurisdiction for that matter. More importantly, the set of events that gave rise to the case could happen anywhere. It just so happened that it occured in Texas rather than New York or somewhere else. The Texas Court of Appeals case of Gordon v. Gordon revolved around a trust that took ownership of a specific peace of real estate property and how that transaction related to a will signed subsequent to the trust. More specifically, the Court determined that the act of creating and endorsing a will by the testator subsequent to the transfer of the real estate did not overturn or cancel the previous transfer of the real estate to the trust. The will, however, contained language that by endorsing the will, the testator supersedes all previous transactions indicated in the trust documents, such as annuities or certificates of deposit. It never mentioned the real estate.

In 2009 (Mother) Beverly Gordon and (Father) Patrick Gordon executed a trust document which they funded with personal property and real estate. The very terms of the trust indicated that the trust could only be revoked by either Father or Mother and only by following the specific set of instructions laid out in the trust document, namely by signing and delivering a letter to the trustee. The letter had to indicate that they individually or jointly are going to cancel or revoke the trust. The trust further provided that upon the death of either of them the trust become irrevocable. They funded the trust with personal property and real estate. Soon thereafter, their son John sought to reduce the risk of an estate battle by creating a will that specifically stated that the parties want to cancel the terms of the trust. Neither Mr. Gordon nor Mrs. Gordon did anything to transfer their personal property or real estate out of the trust. Moreover, John did not act to convince his parents to move the property out of the trust. Mr. Gordon passed away within a year of signing the new will.

JOINT SPOUSAL TRUST

Published on: April 15, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

NOT AS USEFUL BUT STILL GOOD TO HAVE

This blog has explored the issues revolving around an ABC trust in the past and how its previously primary reason for existence is now no longer a consideration for many people. The primary reason for their existence was to ultimately lowering the overall tax liability of the parties by sheltering one spouse’s assets and estate tax liability from the others. With the higher estate tax exemption and exemption portability allowed between spouses, its utility is diminished. For those in New York, however, there is some need to maintain it for New York estate tax purposes. There are other benefits to having such a trust. ABC trusts are known by many names, including a credit shelter trust or a joint spousal trust.

There is little if any difference between the names. Another benefit to such trusts is the step up basis that is accomplished upon the passing of the owner. Whenever title to that asset eventually does pass, the new owner will have a higher basis, so that when they in turn pass title, they will have a lower capital gains tax bill. Indeed under federal estate tax law, the stepped up basis will likely be not be an issue for estate tax liability, given the large federal estate tax exemption and availability of the portable exemption between spouses. New York’s estate tax, however, makes it more likely that a joint spousal trust should be employed, so that the deceased spouse’s original basis can be noted and the surviving spouse can account for any increase in basis for their estate when they pass away, since the surviving spouse gets full stepped up basis of the asset. This can help to possibly reduce the overall tax bill.

ABC TRUST PLANNING – WILL IT BE A BURDEN?

Published on: March 16, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

NEW LAWS MEANS NEW RISK AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS

President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act on January 2, 2013 which permanently raised the estate tax exemption and added an inflation index, such that it rises every year to account for inflation. Better still, the same law allows for spousal portability of estate tax exemptions, which this blog recently examined . The amount for 2016 is $5.45 million per person, $10.9 million per couple. This is a significant change from just 2008 when it was $2 million dollars and even as low as $675,000 in 2001 and $1 million in 2003 which was not that high considering that most people pay off their mortgage and probably have substantial retirement assets by the time they of retirement age.

For those amongst us who continue to work because that is part of their identity and not out of necessity, the $1 million threshold could easily be met. With the much larger $5.45 million exemption, less than .3 percent of estates in this country will met that threshold. So for all of those couples and individuals who planned on the much lower threshold your plans were likely well designed, but only under the then lower tax exemption. Now, with the much higher threshold and spousal portability, it is best to reexamine these estate planning documents. If one of the previous tools that you employed to insure lower tax liability was the AB trust also known as a bypass trust or even a family trust, it is likely that this will no longer serve you, your spouse, your estate or your heirs. Very briefly, depending on the size of your estate, it may no longer provide as great of tax relief as it once did and may unduly restrict your spouse by limiting their income, increase accounting costs, impose unneeded legal filing and generally complicate their life with other unforeseen complications that no longer serve their purpose.

GENERATION SKIPPING TRANSFER TAX

Published on: February 24, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

CLOSING PERCEIVED LOOPHOLE

Congress created the generation skipping tax almost 40 years ago in 1976 and ushered in an age of increasing complexity for the tax code, always complicated and cumbersome, to fix a problem perceived at the time (and since) of avoiding taxable events by transferring assets to “several generations while avoiding the Federal Estate Tax” via use of trusts and other transfers of property rights. At the time, Congress saw how wealthy families were creating life estates in their kids, followed by a life estate in their grandkids and followed by a life estate of their great grandkids.

Life estates are not subject to federal estate tax. This meant that wealthy families who had the inclination to create these arrangements and the money to pay an attorney to do so avoided paying large amounts of taxes and smaller families and estates were paying more in taxes than wealthier ones. As such, Congress decided to tax any transfer of property or assets from an individual to another individual that is more than one generation away from the grantor, in the case of family members, or from one person to another who is at least 37 1/2 years younger than the grantor, in the case of nonfamily members. The tax applies even if the transfer is via a trust

UNDERSTANDING CELEBRITY BONDS

Published on: February 11, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

DAVID BOWIE BONDS

As the world learned, David Bowie passed away on January 10, 2016. Mr. Bowie was always on the leading edge of creativity, an advocate for meaningful social change and a musical genius to boot. He started his musical career at the same time as the Beatles, Rolling Stones and the Who and remained just as socially relevant, if not more so, compared to his contemporaries. As well as being a singer and songwriter, Mr. Bowie was also an accomplished actor and painter. More pertinent to the topic of estate planning, Mr. Bowie was a trailblazer in financial or investment products. In 1997, Mr. Bowie issued Bowie bonds, the first of any celebrity bonds. Since their initial offering, many credit agencies downgraded Bowie bonds status to just one level above junk bond status. True to form, Mr. Bowie was a first, with many other talented artists following suit.

BACKGROUND TO MR. BOWIE’S FORTUNE

ARBITRATION CLAUSES IN WILL OR TRUST

Published on: February 3, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

NEW YORK RULE ON ARBITRATION FOR PROBATE DISPUTES

The idea of using quasijudicial means to settle disputes is as old as the country itself. More specifically arbitration is a method that parties utilize that is usually cheaper, quicker and often with much less formality, yet still adheres to principles of fundamental fairness. George Washington famously included a proviso in his will that outlined a method to arbitrate certain disputes in the execution of his will. Certainly this was no minor matter, as President Washington was perhaps the wealthiest landowner in Virginia and by extension maybe the wealthiest American at the time.

In today’s dollars, President Washington would be worth an estimated half a billion dollars, succeeded by perhaps only President John F. Kennedy’s wealth. By the time of President Washington’s passing in 1799, arbitration was already well established in the United States. New York no longer permits arbitration in the context of a dispute over a last will and testament, as it would unconstitutionally interfere with the power of the Surrogate’s Court to adjudicate disputes involving the disposition and transfer of property of decedents, the administration of estates and probate of wills. Matter of Jacobovitz, 58 Misc. 2d 330 (Nassau County, 1968). The same cannot be said of arbitration clauses in trust documents. There is much diversity of treatment of arbitration clauses found in trust documents, with New York taking a middle of the road approach to interpretation and enforcement of arbitration clauses in trust documents. That principle, however, only applies to the application of the transfer of property via an individual’s last will and testament. It does not apply to the mediation and adjudication of disputes in trust documents controlled by New York law.

LET GO OF MY INHERITANCE – INTERFERENCE WITH AN EXPECTANCY

Published on: January 6, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

WRONGFUL INTERFERENCE WITH WILL

It is known by many different names, depending on the state and the era. Most recently it made its appearance in news headlines with the name – intentional interference with expected inheritance, sometimes even shortened it IIEI. The United States Supreme Court referred to it as “a widely recognized” cause of action and as the “tort of interference with a gift or inheritance” in the Anna Nicole Smith case. Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 296 (2006). The matter has surfaced in the news over at least the last century, most famously (perhaps infamously) in the Father Divine case in New York, in 1949. Latham v. Father Divine, 299 N.Y. 22 (1949).

The American Law Institute published the The Restatement of Torts (Second) of Torts in 1979. That was the first time that the tort, known by many names, was formally recognized as such. Prior to this, the principal and concept was recognized but only in the most egregious of circumstances. There are several seminal cases that speak to the larger concept, one of which was the New York case dealing with Father Divine case noted above.

INHERITANCE RIGHTS OF POSTHUMOUSLY CONCEIVED CHILDREN

Published on: December 5, 2015 | by Ettinger Law Firm

GROWING LEGAL ISSUE

The federal Department of Health and Human Services estimates that there are currently approximately 600,000 frozen embryos in the United States and the number continues to grow each year. Of these, it is estimated that approximately 60,000 could be implanted for full term pregnancy. In still other cases, a father or mother may freeze and store some sperm or eggs for future family planning purposes. In either event, a mother must have artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization or the embryo implanted. It is possible, even likely, that some of these embryos may be implanted and born after the passing of the father or mother with the use of a surrogate mother. The legal rights of these posthumously conceived children are still being fleshed out in legislatures and courtrooms throughout the country. In 2012, the United State Supreme Court dealt with rights of a posthumously conceived child to the Social Security survivor’s benefits of the deceased parent in Astrue v. Capato.

FEDERAL AND NEW YORK LAW

DISCRETIONARY TRUSTS

Published on: November 24, 2015 | by Ettinger Law Firm

PROTECT ASSETS FROM CREDITORS

The Domestic Asset Protection Trust is becoming more and more popular lately in various jurisdictions. Alaska created the first such law, effective April 2, 1997, with Delaware’s law going into effect on July 9, 1997. Since that time, 13 additional states adopted some form of an asset protection trust scheme. At least one of them, Hawaii, openly states in the very language of the law itself, that it seeks to create favorable laws to attract foreign capital and entice wealthy individuals across the United States and world to deposit a portion of their net worth in Hawaii for asset and trust protection and management. It is designed to increase the assets within Hawaii’s financial sector, increase tax revenues and position itself as a leading jurisdiction in financial management. There is little uniformity across the jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions, such as Delaware, carve out an exception for child support and separate maintenance of a separated or ex-spouse, while others, such as Nevada, has no exception for child support or separate maintenance creditors.

NEW YORK LONG ESTABLISHED PROTECTIONS AGAINST CREDITORS

FINE ART, ANTIQUES AND OTHER COLLECTIBLES IN ESTATE PLANNING

Published on: November 14, 2015 | by Ettinger Law Firm

SELL NOW OR PASS ON

The issue of how to deal with the collection of fine art that you amassed over the years should be dealt with now rather than allowing your heirs decide for you. Perhaps your heirs do not have any appreciation for your original Ansel Adams or Edward Curtis photo collections. If you view it as an investment, then timing your sale to maximize profit should be the most important criteria. Timing may not be right for several years or it may be right now. If you are looking to maximize profit which will only go to to your estate, you may consider waiting to pass it on. If, you happen to value your art collection because of its intrinsic artistic value, you have another set of criteria by which to make your decision. Perhaps you have a family member you know would appreciate it more than say your son or daughter. Perhaps you should sell it to insure that the artistic value continues to be appreciated. Country Living spotlighted an artistic marble collector who decided to sell his collection to insure that it would continue to be appreciated. In any event, Capital gains tax on collectibles, gift tax and estate tax, both state and federal, must all be considered.

ESTATE TAX