Love & the Law: What Is Animus Anyway?
Animus (a-ni-mus) n. hostility or ill feeling. Animus malus n. evil motive. Animus was the central rationale for ‘Amendment 2’, a Colorado referendum proposing to change the state’s constitution, and the animus was targeted at Colorado’s LGBT community. However, the Supreme Court has long disliked the blatant taste of animus and so killed Amendment 2 in the Court’s hallowed courtroom at 1 First Street in 1996, with its ruling in Romer v. Evans. As the nails were firmly pounded into Amendment 2’s coffin, the right of LGBT persons to be protected from discrimination was placed squarely on the law books. The Facts. In the early ‘90’s, several Colorado municipalities passed ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The ordinances applied to sectors such as housing, employment, education, and public accommodations. Sounds reasonable, right? Well, the Colorado legislature, speaking for the people of Colorado, thought otherwise and proposed Amendment 2, a referendum that would have changed Colorado’s constitution and repeal the ordinances. In essence, Amendment 2, after it was voted in, prohibited the protections the ordinances provided. Gay and lesbian Colorado citizens who were also employed by the state along with 3 of the municipalities sued on the grounds that enforcing Amendment 2 would cause the State of Colorado to discriminate against its LGBT citizens. The trial court and the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado agreed with the plaintiffs. Yet, the state persisted, arguing all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, that Amendment 2 treats LGBT persons just like everyone else, only denying them “special rights.” Reading the Court’s Opinion, one could almost feel the Court’s bristling at the State’s audacity. The Court stated that Amendment 2 DOES NOT DENY special rights but WITHDRAWS rights from LGBT persons that all other Colorado citizens have with respect to not being discriminated against. The Court explained that the ordinances in question weren’t providing special rights but exemplifying the growing number of municipalities across the country that was codifying the DUTY NOT TO DISCRIMINATE. As a result, Amendment 2, as the plaintiffs argued, “imposes a special disability on [LGBT] persons alone.\” Continuing its admonition to the State’s defense team, the Court said that Amendment 2 not only deprived LGBT persons of protections afforded by the laws designed to eradicate particular discrimination but the referendum also removed protections of general laws that prohibited arbitrary discrimination. What does this have to do with love, one may be wondering. Well, if discrimination is prohibited on the basis of sexual orientation or gender, then one cannot discriminate against one woman because she loves another woman or one man because he loves another man (ala Lawrence) if the basis of your argument is that laws relating to love (read the right to marry – ala Loving) should be based on heterosexuality. In the beginning of Romer, Justice Kennedy read from Justice Harlan’s dissent of the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson, stating “the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”” Justice Kennedy anchored Romer stating emphatically that the only reason for the referendum and any law like it would be one based upon animus, and that this type of malicious motive could not be grounds for a legitimate government interest needed to uphold a law under the U.S. Constitution. Case closed. Coffin shut. Rights protected. 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 p.s. I went a little out of order here. Bowers v. Hardwick was decided before Romer, but Bowers is more closely related to Lawrence, so please excuse the reasonable digression.
Love & the Law: The Color of Love, So Sayeth the Law
In the first part of this series, \”Love & the Law,\” I discussed the undergirding of the marital relationship – privacy. This second part of the series examines a case that challenged the legal definition involving what parties to a marriage should look like, literally. Loving v. Virginia, which was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court a little more than 45 years ago to this day, banned laws prohibiting blacks and whites to marry. The facts of the case are fairly straightforward: In 1958, Mildred, who was African American, and Richard (Loving), who was white, lived in Virginia and were married in Washington D.C. They returned to Virginia to live and were charged and found guilty of violating Virginia state laws. The first law the Lovings violated was leaving the state to get married with the intent of returning to live as spouses when such a marriage was prohibited by Virginia state law, and theirs was such a marriage. In Virginia, interracial marriage was a felony, ergo, the second Virginia statute they violated, carrying with it prison time of 1 to 5 years. The Virginia court suspended their sentence for 25 years if, however, Mildred and Richard agreed to leave Virginia for the same length of time. The couple agreed and left, but they also appealed. The Supreme Court of the United States found that the State of Virginia had no rational reason for a law prohibiting interracial marriage. The Court stated that it “cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose…which makes the color of a person’s skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense.” Clearly, to be found guilty of a crime for an immutable characteristic was and is ludicrous. The Court further held that the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Accordingly, Loving resulted in the recognition that marriage is a fundamental right to be enjoyed by persons regardless of their racial or ethnic origins as detected by one\’s skin color. 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
Will the U.S. Supreme Court Embrace Love Again?
On May 30, Lambda Legal and the ACLU filed lawsuits against the Illinois Cook County Clerk’s office alleging that the Clerk’s office discriminated against same-sex couples who wanted to get married in Cook County. The Clerk’s office has consistently turned away LGBT couples who requested marriage licenses because though Illinois passed the Illinois Religious Freedom and Civil Union Act (Civil Union Act), the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA) still states that same-sex marriage is against the state’s public policy. Additionally, the Illinois legislature failed to pass the bill proposing same-sex marriage legalization for Illinois. Illinois, similar to the U.S., has a conflicting legal perspective on same-sex marriage. The Civil Union Act states that LGBT couples who enter into Civil Unions have the same obligations, benefits, rights and burdens as married straight couples in Illinois. Yet, the IMDMA states that Illinois citizens are against same-sex marriage. Ironically, high-ranking government and judicial authorities across the nation are not in conflict: President Obama has denounced the so-called Defense of Marriage act (DOMA) as unconstitutional; The First Circuit Court has recently ruled Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional; The Ninth Circuit rejected an appeal for an en banc hearing on its decision that Prop 8, the California law banning same-sex marriage in California, was unconstitutional as applied to California citizens; Illinois Governor Pat Quinn supports same-sex marriage; And more than a dozen states also have laws that either allow same-sex marriage or provide a process where LGBT couples can receive substantially similar legal treatment to heterosexual married couples. However, that is the point – substantially similar is not equal – and all of the United States of America, including Illinois, should provide more. As I explained in an earlier post, the government providing rights to one group and denying those same rights to another group, simply because of an immutable characteristic that certain citizens don\’t like is unconstitutional; it is blatant discrimination. Accordingly, DOMA, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, violates the United States Constitution because it validates harmful and irrational discrimination. Furthermore, DOMA places states that allow for same-sex marriages and civil unions in a legislative quagmire, where the states can provide benefits to LGBT couples as long as those benefits aren’t derived through federal programs. Because of the inherent discord between the individual states, the Legislative Branch, the Executive branch, and the Judicial Branch, increasing speculation is that the issue will reach the U.S. Supreme Court. That may be a good thing or it may be a not-so-good thing. The composition of the Court is conservative, so if it decides to take the case, it may use historical analysis and side with DOMA’s proponents. A number of members of the Court believe that the Constitution should be interpreted using the values and perceptions of the time in which it was written – the 18th century. I care not to argue the ridiculousness of that rationale. The next scenario is that the Court could decide not to hear the case, reasoning that “Congress has spoken” by passing DOMA. So then, Congress would need to speak again to invalidate the law. Given the tumult in Congress and the blockade against getting anything done, it is unlikely that Congress would even put repealing DOMA on its “to get to” list, let alone its “to do” list. The last scenario is that the Court would take the case and rule in favor of DOMA’s opponents and rule Section 3 or all of DOMA is unconstitutional. Hmmm…. Given that 2 out of 3 scenarios point to a no-win situation for LGBT couples, taking the fight to this Supreme Court is an eyebrow-raiser, at the very least. Still, one can hope that the Court would respect the more than 40 years of precedent, ala Loving v. Virginia, and progression, ala Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas. But then, there’s that Citizens United decision, which overturned about 100 years of precedent.
Straight Couples & Civil Unions: Cutting Off Your Nose Off to Spite Your Face?
On March 29, 2012, I was given the honor to speak at the Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago (BWLA) CLE program on LGBT Employment and Relationship Rights Discrimination. My commentary addressed the challenges DOMA creates for members of the LGBT community and those providing them with needed services. If you\’re unfamiliar with the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, the statute’s language states that “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is husband or wife.” DOMA also states that this definition of marriage is the legally recognized definition for any federal or congressional law, “ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States.” Accordingly, if a federal law or regulation concerns married persons, the definition of ‘marriage’ used to determine the applicability of the law or regulation will be DOMA’s definition, despite what state law says. DOMA is the first time since Loving v. Virginia that a branch of our government defined what a marriage can look like, and, although the court in Loving got it right, Congress and President Clinton with DOMA got it wrong. Consequently, because of DOMA, gay or lesbian couples cannot take advantage of the more than 1,000 benefits afforded straight married couples by the federal government, even if the couple resides in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages. This unfair result is the basis of current court challenges: Gill v. OPM, Windsor v. U.S., and Golinski v. OPM. Each case involves the denial of federal benefits, such as retirement, social security, and estate tax refunds, to LGBT couples. Consequently, it should be easy to see how this discriminatory law has caused significant and unnecessary implications for American citizens and the estate planning community. One BWLA program attendee asked if straight couples could benefit from the Illinois Civil Union Act that affords LGBT Civil Union partners all the obligations, benefits, responsibilities, and protections of Illinois married couples. Ironically, a recent article in the Illinois Bar Journal espoused the benefits straight couples could glean from entering into a Civil Union instead of getting married. My colleague used the Alternative Minimum Tax calculation to support her argument, dismissing the marital deduction and portability “issues” because these techniques are applicable to the very wealthy and impliedly are outliers. This is a reasonable argument for lower-income families; however, repeating the response I gave at the program, suggesting heterosexual couples enter into Civil Unions is questionable guidance because of the more than 1,000 federal benefits attached to marriage. Thus, if a heterosexual couple is considering a Civil Union and is not approaching or is not in retirement, a careful balancing of income tax liabilities and other assets and future income should probably be performed before considering a Civil Union. What may be gained in an income tax refund may be lost several times over in employee, health, and other benefits.
Constitutional Discrimination against Love & Marriage
I recently participated in a discussion about Judge Parker, a lesbian judge in Texas who is refusing to marry straight couples because of her allegiance to the belief in marriage equality. The following is my commentary: This discussion is indicative of why [the subject of gay marriage] is so contentious. First, I agree, the judge is not doing her job and others are paying for it. Moreover, because as a judge she is held to a much higher standard of responsibility than most, I am sure she is going to suffer the consequences of her conviction. However, staying true to one’s convictions even when technically “wrong” is one of the historical methods individuals have used to fight discrimination, which brings me to my second point. Gay marriage is a constitutional issue on 2 and possibly 3 separate premises. Marriage in the United States is a religious, financial, and social status. Those who believe in the religious doctrine that marriage should only occur between one man and one woman (or man and woman) have the support of the Constitution with respect to religious freedom in that no one is being or will be forced to participate in the religious ceremony of a gay or lesbian couple. Yet, like a soldier cannot wear his Yarmulke while in uniform and Catholic agencies can\’t sustain contracts with the State of Illinois when they refuse to allow gay couples into their foster care registries, this judge cannot continue refusing to marry heterosexual couples without penalty because our freedoms are not boundless. Those who believe that marriage should occur between sober, consenting adults irrespective of their sexual orientation have the support of the Constitution with respect to the Fifth Amendment because there are approximately 1100 federal benefits given to spouses, which are not given to unmarried individuals despite their gender, e.g., the marital deduction in the federal estate tax system. However, because of DOMA, marriage is now conclusively defined by the federal government as a union between “one man and one woman” and those benefits are absolutely proscribed from gay and lesbian couples, be they married or Civil Union partners. Before Loving v. Virginia, African Americans and white individuals could not marry in Virginia or many other southern states. The issue of gay marriage is no different, unless one believes that individuals choose to be lesbian or gay and that’s another matter entirely. Like it or not, the fact is that DOMA has created a platform by which the federal government is discriminating. Finally, marriage is a social status. When a man and a woman enter a B&B and tell the desk clerk, “We’re married and would like a room for the weekend,\” no one questions them. When they show up at PTA meetings, no one questions them. When they show up in the intensive care unit, no one questions them. Their expressions of their union go without question. Yet, couples who marry in Massachusetts, if they happen to be the same gender, often cannot express the fact of their marriage verbally or on paper without question, without fear of discrimination, or without fear of worse. Consequently, being unable to express the fact that you are in a loving relationship with another consenting adult possibly implicates the other cornerstone of the First Amendment, freedom of speech. As an African American, female, how can I not, irrespective of my liberal ideology, recognize and acknowledge the fact that DOMA is a discriminating piece of legislation that should be repealed, just like that Virginia law was, more than 30 years ago.
5 Tips for Parents Young, Old, or Otherwise
One thing I love about my practice is serving new parents who GET IT. They understand how critical it is to ensure their children are provided for if something happens to one or both of them. They realize that children are vulnerable and depend on Mom & Dad, Mom & Mom, Dad & Dad, Mom, Dad, or Nana to keep them safe, healthy, sheltered, and learned. New parents know that just because they don’t have a lot of material wealth doesn’t mean that they can’t protect their young ones somehow. So hats off to all you parents out there who GET IT. For those of you who are contemplating parenthood, or who just started the voyage of sleepless nights and stinky diapers, or just witnessed the most glorious sparkle that can only be found in your child’s eye when he or she “DID IT!” whatever “IT!” was, I offer 5 tips, particularly from the Land of Lincoln: If you have minor child you need a will. Someone is going to have to step into your shoes and take care of your child if you and/or your spouse or partner dies. With a will, you can designate a person who will be recognized by the State of Illinois as a legal guardian, as long as they meet the criteria. Illinois has 2 types of guardianship because the state recognizes that caring for children requires more than one skill set (validating what mothers have been trying to point out for decades). A guardian of the person makes the value-driven decisions that affect the child, e.g., education, healthcare, and shelter. A guardian of the estate makes the financial decisions for the child and is critical when a minor inherits a rather large sum of money, such as life insurance. Speaking of life insurance, let’s separate fact from fiction. The notion that life insurance isn’t taxed isn’t accurate. Life insurance isn’t typically taxed as income. BUT life insurance is included within your estate for estate tax purposes. So make sure you have good counsel when staring at the twinkle in the broker’s eye as you think about buying that million-dollar policy. Also, while we’re on the topic of life, you don’t have to die to begin protecting your family. I wrote about this in an earlier piece and I speak about it often. Powers of attorney allow individuals you trust to step into your shoes and manage your financial affairs and make healthcare decisions for you when you are temporarily unable to. These powers are typically shared between spouses and understood to be held by each spouse in a reciprocal manner, but what if you are Civil Union partners or a single parent? What if your spouse is on sabbatical at Machu Picchu? Special needs requires special considerations. If you have a child who is disabled or requires special assistance, you must take care to ensure that the income you provide via your will or trust doesn’t result in your child becoming ineligible for needed government benefits. So, again, seek prudent and experienced counsel. As I said earlier, I adore new parents who GET IT. However, whether you’re a new parent, old parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, or you just love kids, be sure the ones you care about are protected. For LSSG
Heading to the Mall for a Gift and a … Will
An interesting concept that has already been established abroad is the ability to purchase testamentary documents at malls. Capitalizing on the concept and holiday traffic, during this past festive season, a couple of attorneys in Florida set up a legal services kiosk offering various legal services including \”basic estate planning.\” This set up involves dynamics that are both troubling and admirable. Estate planning is a complex practice, especially if you\’re approaching it from the perspective where your main focus is individuals with relatively large estates who want to protect their families but also seek to minimize taxes. Plus, considering the newer comprehensive approach, which incorporates using other financial professionals, estate planning is a relatively complex practice. This approach requires a more than basic familiarity with a number of disciplines because this approach uses a \”team\” of advisors, with the attorney at the top of a pyramid, with a financial planner and an independent CPA at the base. Finally, needless to say but I\’ll say it anyway – the tax laws are always changing. Still, it\’s doubtful that individuals with large estates who are mindful about the fees they pay will consider a kiosk; that\’s just not how they do business. On the other hand, a demographic does exist that needs testamentary documents to just protect family members in the event of a death or incapacity. The \”basic\” will and power of attorney would likely be applicable in this situation. Yet, I am troubled by lawyers who don\’t use these documents regularly and understand how they intersect with other law and regulations, especially powers of attorney and health care directives but offer them with a little counseling as a holiday special. If a gay or cohabiting couple approach these attorneys for wills or estate planning, there\’s no 15 minute answer. Finally, the middle class is struggling as it is; it cannot afford planning mistakes with the small amount of resources it has managed to maintain during the financial crisis. I absolutely agree that trying to help the middle class is admirable, but this setup may cause more harm than good. If the motive is helping the middle class, they could offer documents and a free review without the 15-minute time constraint? But the question then becomes do the attorneys have the requisite experience to know what to look for during the review.
DOMA Forces Same-Sex Couples to Commit Fraud
In June of this year, 2011, Illinois enacted the Civil Union Act, which provides that all the rights, benefits, and obligations of Illinois spouses are also attributed to Illinois Civil Union partners. A little more than a month later, on July 24, New York enacted the New York Marriage Equality Act, legally recognizing same-sex marriages. Other states continue this progressive and important march toward ending love discrimination while other states remain firmly entrenched in their discriminatory public policies against the LGBT community. Differences between states and discriminatory laws and policies will continue and remain in force until DOMA is repealed. So, it’s important that members of the LGBT community who are partnered in civil unions or are same-sex spouses, their loved ones, and professionals servicing them understand the implications of their status, based on DOMA. President Bill Clinton enacted DOMA (the “Defense of Marriage Act”) in the wee hours of one morning in 1996. The law stipulates that the U.S. federal government only recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman as husband and wife and “spouse” means a person of the opposite sex with respect to his or her husband or wife. Consequently, any spousal benefits derived through the federal government, and there are approximately 1,138 of them, are unavailable to civil union partners or same-sex spouses, despite state laws. Yes; Illinois provides that civil union partners are afforded all the rights, benefits, and obligations of spouses but despite that language the federal government, through DOMA, tells same-sex couples “not in my backyard.” Tax benefits are one backyard where same-sex couples experience discrimination because of DOMA. For example, the divorce settlement between heterosexual couples is tax-free. However, for same-sex couples, the payee ex-spouse or ex-partner must generally pay taxes on any divorce settlement received. More importantly, as an annual fiscal household matter, same-sex couples must file income tax forms that are fraudulent on one hand because the forms don’t reflect the true nature of the relationship, requiring individuals to state that they are “single,” when they are legally married or partnered. State income tax in Illinois is coupled with federal income tax, so even if a couple’s union is afforded the same “benefits” per Illinois law, that couple cannot take the marital tax benefit on either the state or the federal income tax form. Finally, if it’s not enough that same-sex couples are discriminated against in tax treatment with respect to income and divorce, same-sex couples also face the insult with respect to death. To illustrate: Debbie and Janet entered into a legal civil union on June 5, 2011. On July 12, Janet passed away, leaving an estate valued at one million dollars to Debbie. If Debbie were married to “John” and not a civil union partner of “Janet,” Debbie would take the estate tax free. However, Debbie was partnered with Janet and, thus, will have to pay approximately $350,000 in estate taxes. A case similar to these facts, Windsor v. United States, is why the current administration stopped defending DOMA. It is a discriminatory law promulgated by a country that is supposed to consider all people equal in the eyes of the law. How can a law that requires individuals to falsely claim who they are be constitutional?
Who Takes the Eggs? ART and Estate Planning Considerations
As technology’s digits crawl through the nooks and crannies of our physical world and cyberspace, the legal consequences and questions emerging keep even us non-IP lawyers quite busy. Considering assisted reproductive technology (\”ART\”), family law was the premier practice area for getting caught in ART\’s web. Few lawyers realized the effects ART would have on estate planning and, even as the effects became clear, only a fraction of states passed laws providing legal guidance. Fortunately, Illinois is a state that considered ART in its laws and included laws for in vitro fertilization in the Parentage Act. Additionally, the Probate Act states that children born after a parent’s death (“posthumous” children) are to be considered having been born during the parent’s lifetime. So, what does all this technolegalese mean? Well, in terms of inheritance and/or estate planning laws, it means conversations should be had between Illinois spouses if conception is a challenge or an impossibility for one or both spouses.* The conversations are necessary because of 2 vital estate planning tools often used by couples, Health Care Powers of Attorney (“HCPOA”) and Property Powers of Attorney (“PPOA”), which can also provide instruction for ART cases. Yes, lawyers love acronyms. In Illinois, a posthumous child born via ART typically emerges in 1 of 3 ways: Use of frozen sperm; Use of a frozen embryo; or Use of a frozen egg. Furthermore, obtaining frozen sperm or eggs may not only occur after incapacity but also may occur after death, which is when estate planning mechanisms are triggered. When creating an estate plan, couples usually consider a bunch of “what ifs,” e.g., “what if I become disabled while we’re still in the “prime” of our lives and haven’t had kids yet?” A HCPOA is a tool that requires making those decisions but, consequently, eases the fears associated with the “what ifs.” Accordingly, when considering ART, a HCPOA could, for example, authorize the implantation of frozen sperm or eggs. Of course, other considerations would naturally follow, such as, how one abled-parent and one disabled parent would raise a child. Still, ART combined with the law creates a reasonable and protected possibility for having a family, when that likelihood, outside of adoption, didn’t exist before. Another equally interesting issue relates to the PPOA. But, you say, “That’s about property.” Yes, it is. In a 1993 California decision, Hecht v. Superior Court, which is used by several states, the Court determined that frozen genetic reproductive material, such as sperm and eggs, is property for the purpose of leaving a gift in a will (aka “devise”). Here, you might think the conversation would be easy – women can leave their eggs to their partners; but, not so fast. What if the eggs are frozen, then the relationship is legally dissolved, the donor spouse remarries, and then passes away? Who gets the eggs if the second spouse doesn’t want any (more) kids? She could disclaim them and pass them to her descendants or siblings; that would be interesting. The future brothers and sisters of the former partner? Should the reproductive material be destroyed? Who do you think should get the eggs? * The term “spouses” and \”partners\” are interchanged in this context because the terms are synonymous in Illinois law.
The 3 Tenancies and Your Planning: It’s Not about Rent
In the legal field, we use and create terms and phrases that sound familiar to non-legal professionals, but are strangers when a legal professional provides the actual definition. Take, for example the term, “tenancy.” It sounds like it’s related to renting property, and it is – sort of, sometimes as when you’re discussing leases. However, when discussing legacy planning, it’s a much larger animal. In legacy planning, lawyers primarily discuss 3 tenancies, most of which involve real property or bank account ownership, not renting. Tenancy in common is the most basic type of tenancy ownership. A tenants in common relationship between 2 people over a house, for example, means that one party controls interest in one half of the house, and the other party controls interest over the other half. Either party can sell, lease, mortgage, or devise their interest in half of the property. However, if the other party passes away, generally the surviving party does not get the other half of the property; the survivor is left with his or her interest alone. The remaining half is either bequeathed or passed to the decedent’s heirs via state law.People are rarely tenants in common with respect to bank accounts; this type of arrangement is usually crafted for prenuptial agreements or settlement agreements and, then, the focus is often the parties’ contribution to the account. Joint tenancy with rights of survivorship, on the other hand, allows the surviving party in the above example with the house to own the whole house. Joint accounts are also very common with respect to bank accounts, checking or saving. So, if Grandpa has a bank account and you are on the account as a joint holder, when Grandpa passes away, all of the funds in that account become yours, under most circumstances.However, joint tenancy is the animal that can become a beast for parents trying to leave property for children. Placing a house in joint tenancy with right of survivorship to a child could trigger a taxable event for the child. Additionally, suppose you have 2 children, the house, and life insurance. The house is worth $200,000 and the life insurance benefit is $200,000. You might think that leaving the house to one child and designating the other as beneficiary on the life insurance policy would be an even split. Yet, the child with the house may have to pay estate or gift taxes on the home, leaving the gifts to your children unequal. Tenancy by the entirety is joint tenancy for married couples. This may seem straightforward because most people know that transfers between husband and wife are not taxable events. But, what if the transfer was from husband to husband or wife to wife? Because the IRS doesn’t recognize husband to husband or wife to wife transfers, the survivor of the couple may be facing a taxable event like the child with the house. So when thinking about gifts or transfers of property, careful planning is needed to avoid these non-rental sticky wickets.