5 Ways to Protect 4 Critical Relationships
As mentioned in a previous post, once an adult starts working and accumulating assets, even if they’re simply a car and nice living room furniture, he or she also needs to start protecting their livelihood. The same holds twice as true for young couples.* Couples sometimes erroneously believe that they don’t need to protect themselves or their relationship until they get married, enter into a Civil Union, or have children. However, just like working single adults need protection, so do “young” couples. Therefore, once a decision to reside in one household as a loving and committed couple is made, the documents previously discussed – powers of attorney and life insurance – should be revisited to reflect this relationship. Moreover, depending on the legal status of the relationship, or the lack thereof, legally documenting your agreement about your assets is very important. For example, in Illinois, if you’re cohabiting, your relationship lacks legal recognition except by contract. Therefore, an agreement to share expenses and property is the bare minimum of what is required to at least document your relationship and its affect on your assets. Additionally, ensuring your testamentary documents – a valid will and trust – reflect your intentions toward your partner and the rest of your family is equally important. If a cohabiting partner dies intestate (without a will), unlike the surviving partner in a Civil Union or legally married couple, the surviving cohabiting partner will have no rights under Illinois laws. However, the next of kin to the deceased will have rights. Therefore, unless a document, such a shared expense and property agreement, is in place with mounds of receipts and statements providing supporting evidence of the agreement, the surviving partner will have no way of retaining assets that were obtained as a couple. Still, even with this agreement in place, the decedent’s relatives may still challenge by asserting their rights to inheritance under Illinois’ intestacy laws. Thus, to prevent a possible brouhaha, it’s advisable to have at least a valid will prepared, designating your partner as a beneficiary. But remember, because a will is public – see Whitney Houston’s will – your family gets to see who gets what. And if you have an evil twin who doesn’t like what he or she sees, the brouhaha will not be averted. So then what? You might have a revocable living trust prepared. Trusts are private – you can’t see what Michael Jackson left – and become irrevocable upon the grantor’s (trust maker’s) death. Civil Union and legally married couples are more fortunate than cohabiting couples with a caveat for Civil Union couples. The right to inherit and renounce bequests are generally universal rights for spouses through the U.S. and Civil Union couples typically have all the rights of spouses. However, Civil Union couples are not recognized in all states, so spousal rights are not available, placing them in the same position as cohabiting partners in unfriendly states. So for couples without children and without consideration for probate proceedings, the most basic ways to protect your relationships may resemble this:
7 Money-Savers before Googling, Binging, or Yahoo!ing \’Wills\’
This sucks as a topic sentence but the truth isn’t always tasty, so here goes: Contemplating death is not something most folks like to think about. Yet, if you want your transition to be as smooth as possible for your loved ones, recognizing the emotional turmoil they will undoubtedly be experiencing, having your affairs in order is a loving and thoughtful way that can prevent further turmoil. However, before you Google “wills,” take the time to consider what you want for your family in the event of an unexpected tragedy or the inevitable. Taking sufficient time to thoughtfully deliberate about your intentions before you meet with an attorney will also save you money on attorneys’ fees, and who doesn’t want to save money these days? Your considerations should probably start with your loved ones: If you have minor children or dependents, then they will need a guardian. If you have a pet or pets, then you should consider who would be best and willing to care for your cockatoo or kitty. If you own a home, then who should pay the mortgage? Are the beneficiary designations on your retirement accounts accurate? What should happen if 1 of your 2 children becomes disabled? Should the distributions still be absolutely equal? What type of gift should you consider for your niece or best friend’s daughter who’s also like a daughter to you but you have 2 other children? Who gets your favorite blue sweater? Many questions that we need to have answers for to get our affairs properly situated, don’t involve money. Still, the sooner we can answer, “What if?” and “Who?” the sooner we can create a sustainable peace of mind over both our financial and personal affairs.
Love & the Law: The IRS v. NY
Edie and Thea had been together for more than 44 years; they became one of the first registered domestic partners of New York; and as Thea\’s health began failing dramatically, the couple legally married each other in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. When Thea died a few years after their lifelong relationship and marriage, the federal government refused to recognize their marriage and taxed Edie\’s inheritance from Thea as though they were strangers. Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave her assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes. Ordinarily, whether a couple is married for federal purposes depends on whether they are considered married in their state. New York recognized Edie and Thea\’s marriage, but because of the so-called the \”Defense of Marriage Act,\” or DOMA, the federal government refuses to treat married same-sex couples, like Edie and Thea, the same way as other married couples. After spending decades together, including many years during which Edie helped Thea through her long battle with multiple sclerosis, it was devastating to Edie that the federal government refused to recognize their marriage, their loving and solemnized dedication to each other. With representation by the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Edie challenged the constitutionality of DOMA and seeking a refund of the estate tax she was unfairly forced to pay. Edie alleged that DOMA violates the Equal Protection principles of the U.S. Constitution because it recognizes existing marriages of heterosexual couples, but not of same-sex couples, despite the fact that New York State treats all marriages the same. On June 6, 2012, Judge Barbara Jones ruled for Edie and against the IRS, stating that Section 3 of DOMA as it applies to legally married same-sex couples for purposes of estate taxation is unconstitutional. Though this isn\’t a Supreme Court ruling and, therefore only persuasive outside of NY, it is a large and critical step in the undoing of DOMA. The Love & the Law Episodes: Brief Case History | Contraceptives | The Color of Love | The IRS v. NY | Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep. Pt 1 | Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep. Pt 2
3 Lessons from Summer Disaster Flicks
One hallmark of summertime in the U.S. is the onslaught of disaster movies. For me, there’s nothing like a great “the-world-is-under-attack-so-blow-‘em-up-real-good!” movie. So when temperatures crept into the 80s and trailers for “world under attack” started showing on TV, I couldn’t help but think about the “disaster” provisions in estate planning documents, aka “contingent beneficiary” provisions. Also, while reading a couple of cases and thinking about questions frequently asked by clients, I knew I had a winning screenplay, or a half-way decent blog post. So grab your popcorn and enjoy the move…I mean post. Ornery old Great-Grandma Cornelia Stamper decides to write her will and leaves one of her oil wells to her son, Harry. She names it “Harry Stamper’s Well.” Before she dies, though, Harry marries Anna and he and Anna have a daughter, Grace. Cornelia isn’t so keen on Anna, so she draws up a trust leaving income from the “Family Stamper’s Well” to Harry for his life and upon Harry’s death, the income from the well should be distributed equally among Cornelia’s heirs. Cornelia dies at the grand old age of 98 and Harry then draws up a trust leaving Harry Stamper’s Well to Grace and continues his life’s work – drilling in Alaska. Suddenly one day, Harry learns from his buddies at NASA that an asteroid is headed for Earth. Harry then changes his trust and adds a charitable contribution provision, giving part of the income from Family Stamper’s Well to the Red Cross and Medicins Sans Fronteirs and the rest to his descendants. Also, Grace has a trust created and leaves the income from Family Stamper’s Well to the same 2 charities. Fortunately, Harry’s NASA buddies blow the asteroid up real good and none of the particles cause any damage to Earth. A year later, while drilling near Russia, Harry is told that aliens attacked Earth and wiped out all his relatives including, Grace. Harry’s heart can’t take it and he dies. However, Grace actually escaped the attack but is the only Stamper left. Grace’s friends, David and Steven, however, blow up the alien ship real good and things return to normal – kinda. Half the world’s population is gone, so the Red Cross and Medicins Sans Frontiers have a lot of work to do. They are counting on Harry’s gift and know that the funds are available because the banks were saved. Go figure. Accordingly, they hire a lawyer; lots of us survived. But their meeting with the lawyer didn’t go well. My clients know why because these were their questions: 1. Can income from a life estate be given away by the owner of the life estate? In other words, could Harry bequeath income from Family Stamper’s Well? No. Cornelia left the income to Harry for his life only and then to Cornelia’s heirs. So unless Grace is feeling charitable during her lifetime, the nonprofits are out of luck until Grace dies. 2. What would have happened if Grace died in the alien attack but Family Stamper’s Well had dried up? In other words, what happens when the “gift” is no longer in the estate? If Grace knew the well was drying up and didn’t change her trust to provide for this event, then the gift would be considered “revoked,” or \”adeemed\” in legalese, and the charities out of luck. If Grace didn’t know and say the well was destroyed by the aliens, then the gift is still considered revoked unless she provided in the trust that the loss should be covered by insurance. 3. What would have happened if Grace died and she didn’t name anyone to take the income? That’s the real disaster. With all of the Stamper beneficiaries dead and no charity named, the income and well would probably go to the remaining population – bankers and lawyers.
Debunking Estate Planning Myths & Developing Weath, pt 5
Finally finishing the “Debunking Estate Planning Myths” series, as discussed in part 4, revocable living trusts let individuals place more than land into a trust. Doing so typically prevents beneficiaries from going through probate, allows other vehicles to grow tax free, and keeps the terms of the estate distribution private. Also, not only do trusts save beneficiaries the time and expense of opening a probate estate, but trusts also minimize estate tax exposure for beneficiaries. Tax minimization relates directly to another intermediate but classic estate planning tool and technique – an irrevocable life insurance trust (ILIT). ILITs are a combination of 2 estate planning tools, a trust and life insurance, used to minimize estate tax burdens for beneficiaries. Life insurance proceeds that would be considered part of the estate are used to fund a trust and deemed removed from the estate altogether. A number of criteria have to be met, such as using a policy that the insured has no interest in the policy, e.g., does not withdraw the cash from a cash value policy. However, if we think about it, typically we don’t buy life insurance for investment purposes but only for income replacement purposes. So if we’re not planning to use the life insurance, then why not let it benefit our loved ones in more than one way and place it in an ILIT? Using particular language in children’s trust provisions is another way to provide beneficiaries with the time needed to mature before having substantial means placed into their hands. Provisions with this language are called “staggered mentoring” provisions, which instruct the trustee to distribute certain percentages of the total trust funds to the children at ages 25, 30, and 35 years, for example. Parents also can place conditions on distributions so that a child doesn’t receive a distribution unless he or she performs on at least an average academic level in college and becomes a productive member of society. Mentioning this tends to result in a few “likes” by parents on my Facebook page. Trusts are also used to provide enhanced tax minimization for the surviving spouse. By using the federal marital deduction and other available elections, families can defer the payment of estate tax payments of the first spouse until the second spouse’s death. Another way that trusts are used is to provide for surviving spouses, partners, and children using retirement proceeds. Typically, beneficiaries should be named directly on retirement accounts. Under certain situations, the retirement account should be maintained as an “inherited” account, and occasionally a trust should be named beneficiary where the individual beneficiary is dependent on a trustee. The trustee then pays out the proceeds over the lifespan of the beneficiary as opposed to the original account owner. Because trustees are the actual legal owners of the trust property, beneficiaries may be protected from creditors because trustees can be given sole discretion to distribute funds, and may pay institutions, such as colleges and hospitals directly. Part 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
Blood or Money? Making Fiduciary Designations that Maintain Family Harmony
Tons of articles have been published advising individuals and couples about what to bring to or how to prepare for a meeting with your estate planning attorney. Most of these articles provide the typical list: financial statements, copies of tax returns, mortgage statements, retirement information, and so forth. Not surprisingly, few articles discuss the “hard list”: names of successor guardians for the children, names of successor trustees – particularly if the children have trusts, how special gifts will be distributed, and who should hold title to the home for asset protection purposes. A previous post discussed guardians but another issue that couples may want to consider is how to maintain family accord for the children’s benefit when a member from one spouse’s side of the family may be emotionally closer to the children than a member from the other spouse’s side, but both families want to be involved in the event of an emergency. Under those circumstances, the harmonious decision to name Uncle Louie Guardian and Uncle Gus as Trustee, for example, may be not-so-harmonious. Baby Gina’s and Big Brother Brett’s Uncle Louie on Mama’s side and Uncle Gus on Papa’s side may in fact have a great relationship. However, designating one guardian and the other trustee may place a strain on the relationship that would cause Robin to reconsider his relationship with Batman. Consequently, designating one person as both guardian and trustee would probably be more prudent. Plus, Uncle Gus might even appreciate it once you shared with him the critical and long list of duties a trustee must agree to undertake. Still, what if Uncle Gus is a control freak and would wreak havoc on the rest of you and your spouse’s living days if some authority wasn’t given to him? In that case, you could make Uncle Gus the Executor of the estate. But what if that wasn’t enough? Perhaps he would be satisfied with being the successor trustee of the family trust funds that remained after the children’s trust was fully funded. And if Uncle Gus wasn’t satisfied with that and Uncle Louie refused to switch places? Then consider the following 2 options: Creating a solid co-trustee agreement between the 2 uncles; or Designate a corporate trustee to manage the children’s trust. Sometimes to maintain family accord, retaining a reasonable corporate trustee is the only option. Yes, money leaves the estate but at least it\’s money and not blood.
A Fiduciary\’s Lesson on IRS Pre-emption
On April 11, 2012, the Second District Appellate Court of Illinois filed an Opinion emphasizing the importance of a fiduciary’s role in trust and estate planning. As a fiduciary, an executor or trustee typically has the responsibility to ensure items such as the estate’s value and the relevant taxes are calculated correctly and, subsequently, paid. Accordingly, it is important for individuals to select appropriate fiduciaries. It is equally important for those approached to be fiduciaries to understand the scope of duties involved and the consequences if those duties are not performed properly. Case on point: People of Illinois v. Kole, No. 09-L-892. The Lay of the Land In 1993, Anthony F. Crespo named Julius Kole as executor and successor trustee of the Anthony F. Crespo Living Trust. Crespo died in 2002 and Kole paid $127,000 in Illinois estate taxes. Kole also filed a request for an extension to file the Illinois estate tax return, which was granted. Six months later, he filed the Illinois return reporting an approximate $81,000 estate tax liability. The Illinois Attorney General’s office received the return and issued a “Certificate of Discharge and Determination of Tax,” stating that, based on the information provided, the estate taxes were fully paid and, therefore, the estate was clear of any liens from the State. The Certificate of Discharge also relieved Kole from any personal estate tax liability for the Crespo estate. However, an IRS audit of the federal estate tax return reported in 2006 a revised value of the estate, increasing the value from more than $2.1M to $4.4M. This, of course, increased the Illinois state tax liability. Consequently, Illinois sued Kole, personally, seeking the additional estate tax owed plus penalties and interest, amounting to more than $300,000. The Arguments Kole first argued that the plain language of the Certificate of Discharge had relieved him of the obligation to pay additional taxes. The State replied that the Certificate of Discharge was routinely issued upon initial filings, which were based on the information provided at the time. So the initial issuance did not negate the need for supplemental filings if new information resulted in additional taxes owed. Kole’s response to the State, however, was enough to cause this reader to question her eyesight: “[Kole] admitted that the estate never paid any additional tax to Illinois or filed a supplemental return, but he then objected on hearsay grounds to the contents of the IRS Report.” Commentary and Conclusion To use the common vernacular, “Hearsay? Really?” Kole’s argument about the Certificate of Discharge’s plain language meaning at least had some merit, but arguing that an IRS Audit Report is hearsay was quite colorable. Even non-lawyers have watched enough Law & Order to learn the public records and business records hearsay exceptions. The trial court, however, agreed with Kole’s plain language argument. The Illinois AG appealed and the Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision (see Lesson #2, infra). Lessons Choose a fiduciary who will obtain a correct valuation and pay the appropriate taxes due – whenever they\’re due; A Certificate of Discharge isn\’t really final until the IRS says so; and Take great care in accepting a fiduciary role.
Debunking Estate Planning Myths & Developing Wealth, Pt 4
To navigate around and through some of the disadvantages to basic estate planning I talked about previously and to provide a client and his or her family with more protection, estate planners typically use intermediate tools and techniques. The most basic intermediate tool is a trust, but before getting too far ahead, let me point out the difference between a land trust and a living trust. Illinois is one of a handful of states that allows a party to place primary residential property in a land trust. An Illinois Land Trust is an agreement entered into by the owner of a property and an institutional trustee. The trustee becomes the legal and equitable owner of the property and the former owner, becomes the owner of a beneficial interest in the property. The property essence also changes from real property to personal property for the sake of this agreement, which means the property is easier to dispose of. So, if a person is aging and has relatively few assets, say less than $50,000, a land trust may be a viable option for avoiding probate. However, if the person has other significant assets or is younger and will be accumulating more assets, it is probably more advisable for that person to gift the property to their spouse or other beneficiaries using a revocable living trust. The reason for this is that a land trust can only hold primary residential property; while a revocable living trust can hold almost anything that is allocated to it. Therefore, if a person owns a home, has retirement proceeds, and investment accounts, those can be assembled under one umbrella revocable living trust, but not so for a land trust. Often, the creator (aka \”grantor\” or \”settlor\”) of the trust is also the trustee and trust beneficiary and can, like a land trust, make changes to the trust during his or her lifetime, ergo, \”revocable.\” All revocable trusts become irrevocable on the creator\’s death. Individuals typically place property in a land trust to avoid creditors or probate. Avoiding probate is a valid reason; however, MYTH BUSTER: creditors can typically reach into a land trust with the appropriate court order and have a judgment lien placed on the property. As mentioned, revocable living trusts allow individuals to place more than land into a trust for their beneficiaries. Placing assets in a valid revocable or irrevocable trust, also similar to a land trust, prevents beneficiaries from going to probate court and keeps the terms of the estate distribution private. However, unlike a land trust, real property in a revocable or irrevocable trust retains its essence as real property and the owner, as trustee, retains legal and equitable ownership. Not only do revocable and irrevocable trusts save beneficiaries the time and money required to open a probate estate, but trusts may also provides estate tax and income tax minimization for beneficiaries and sometimes for grantors, which isn\’t the case with land trusts. Part 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
Ruby v. Ruby: Joint Tenancy Does Not Mean Joint Trust
In Ruby v. Ruby, the First District Appellate Court ruled that the doctrine of ademption, which previously had only applied to wills, applied to trusts. The court additionally continued to strictly construe in terrorem clauses similar to most courts and, finally, continued to follow the pro \”freedom to contract” position Illinois courts take. Ademption means that the person making the gift – testator or grantor – does something during his or her lifetime to make giving the gift impossible, such as destroying it or selling it. An in terrorem clause is the “contest this will or trust and you lose your bequest” provision. The facts of Ruby are interesting but the way the court reached its conclusion is even more interesting. It got it right, but using a quirky, off-the-mark analysis. A brother and sister – Irwin and Bernice – owned a condo together and a brokerage account at David A. Noyes & Company in joint tenancy. Exactly how they owned the condo together is not provided in the facts. In 2002, when Noyes changed clearing houses, Irwin and Bernice executed a medallion agreement for their brokerage account. In 2004, the 2 hired one attorney to do their estate planning. The attorney created a revocable living trust for Irwin naming Bernice as successor trustee. According to the terms of the trust, 100% of the contents of the brokerage account were to be distributed among 3 couples and 1 person (25% each); another provision provided for specific bequests totaling $255,000; and another provision provided that the residue of Irwin’s estate was to go to Bernice. So we can see where there could already be a little hiccup if the brokerage account and other assets in Irwin’s estate were insufficient to fulfill the specific bequests. Moving right along, in July 2004, Irwin transfers the assets from the brokerage account into another account. The following month, Irwin also transferred the condo to the trust account with Bernice’s consent and signature. However, Bernice later stated she didn’t understand what she was doing. Irwin passed away in 2006 and Bernice paid out the specific bequests, withdrew funds from the account for attorneys’ fees and funeral expenses, and then told the 3 couples and the individual that the gift had adeemed and there wasn’t enough in the original account to pay them all, but she kindly sent them, via her attorney, a check for $30,000. At that time, the size of the second account that the assets from the original account were transferred was about $1.4 million. So the beneficiaries sued for an accounting. Ya think? Bernice countered using the theory of ademption, the in terrorem clause, and joint tenancy. The lower court ruled in favor of Bernice on the theory of ademption but ruled the in terrorem clause inapplicable. The First District Appellate Court determined that the term “contents” was ambiguous because it didn’t foresee any additions or deductions from the assets in the trust, and so looked to extrinsic evidence to clear the ambiguity. Well, that’s a tad quirky because Irwin’s provision named the account and defined the account’s contents as “including cash and securities.” A few lines later, the court agreed with yours truly but continued analyzing extrinsic evidence for the meaning of “contents”; the court reversed the lower court’s ruling on ademption. Courts don’t like in terrorem clauses unless there’s a good reason, and this court found no good reason to change the lower court’s ruling. The beneficiaries were named as such in the trust and had a right to question Bernice\’s actions. Finally, joint tenancy was implicitly severed when Bernice signed the medallion agreement titling the assets to the trust. The lesson learned is found in the second paragraph: Even if a party owns something in joint tenancy, their interest should be secured in a trust of their own and not the other co-tenant’s trust.
Debunking Estate Planning Myths & Developing Wealth, Pt 1
Recently, I spoke at Chicago State University and this is the first of 3 key points I made during our lively and enjoyable discussion. Let\’s start with some MYTH BUSTING! Estate planning isn\’t just about planning for death; it is also about planning for today and retirement. Estate planning isn’t just for the uber rich; it’s about protecting your personal and financial interests, whatever it is you value personally above money and however much money you have. So how exactly does basic estate planning protect you and your loved ones today and in the future? Basic estate planning tools are powers of attorney, wills, and life insurance. A power of attorney is a legal document that authorizes you (the \”agent\”) to step into the shoes of someone else (the \”principal\”) and make decisions on their behalf. These authorizations typically last until the principal\’s death, but can be used temporarily, for example, if the principal is going on a lengthy sabbatical. Illinois provides two types of statutory powers of attorney: property power of attorney and healthcare power of attorney. A property power of attorney provides the agent with the necessary authority to make financial decisions on the principal\’s behalf and, similarly, a healthcare power of attorney provides the agent with the necessary authority to make healthcare decisions on the principal\’s behalf. You should also know that the principal can design these powers to be as broad or as narrow as possible. For example, an agent with a property power of attorney may have authority to pay the mortgage but not to sell the house. Powers of attorney are critical documents for single and retiring individuals, especially healthcare powers of attorney because normally doctors assume the spouse has a power of attorney. However, if you have no spouse and you have not delegated anyone with the authority to make healthcare decisions for you whether the decisions involve the need for life-threatening or routine procedures, you will have to make the decision while in the medical treatment facility or hospital or, if you are incapacitated, a family member or hospital staff member will make the decision for you, and that’s not the time for one to be making such decisions! We’ve all heard the stories about fights between family members at the bank or in the intensive care unit when their loved one hasn’t made arrangements for illnesses and hospital stays, however temporary or long-term. By simply by taking the time to think of a few trusted people, you can create a sense of family accord in your family and allow you and them to focus on well-being and not who’s in charge of what. And remember, powers of attorney only last until death, which means they protect you and yours today. Question: My wife and I are legally separated. Should I wait until the divorce is finalized before I change my healthcare power of attorney? Answer: Do you want your soon to be ex-spouse making healthcare decisions on your behalf before your divorce is final? Part 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5