You are currently browsing the archives for the Living Trust category.
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jul | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
January 16, 2009 by admin.
It’s a new year, and with a new year can come new developments.
Many new developments may have happened in your life in the past year or so; I know that that is true for me.
One of these events is my having gained about 9 pounds and a couple of inches on my waistline. This has led me to one my New Year’s Resolutions: Be Healthier. To accomplish this, I have joined an affordable gym, am working out more often, and am at least trying to eat less junk food (the soda I am drinking right now notwithstanding).
Many other significant things and events (more significant than gaining 9 pounds, even) have happened in my life within the past year or two. Because of this, another one of my New Year’s Resolutions is to write a new will for myself.
Why am I writing a new will for myself? After all, I am currently young, unmarried, childless, relatively healthy, and lacking in substantial wealth.
The fact of the matter is that most everybody probably *should* have a will. As I mentioned in a blog post earlier this month, when a person dies without a will, that is known as intestacy. Generally, intestacy is not a particularly good thing because it means the following:
For my own part, I am writing my will:
It is a good idea to have an attorney review your estate plan whenever you have new developments in your life, such as:
The above is not an exhaustive list, but should give you some clue as to when an estate plan is due for a review. Additionally, anyone with a net worth in excess of $2 million has no excuse to not have an updated estate plan in place.
Additionally, it is a good idea to have an attorney review your estate plan about every two to five years. If it has been more than two years since your most recent estate plan review, strongly consider contacting an attorney who can meet your estate planning needs today.
Now that we’re well into 2009, it’s important for clients and potential clients to realize how new tax laws impact their estate plans.
For starters, the annual gift tax exclusion has been increased to $13,000. The obvious implication of this is that an individual can now give up to $13,000 per donee per year tax-free. Additonally, these gifts can be split with one’s spouse – with the spouse’s consent – for a maximum of $26,000. Indeed, some married couples make their annual gifts as early in the calendar year as possible – to ensure that both spouses are alive at the time of the gifts (after all, a deceased spouse cannot consent).
Because of this, 2009 is a great time to review your trust plan and/or giving program (especially if it has been more than two years since your most recent estate plan review), so as to continue to maximize the use of lifetime gifting strategies. Additionally, all good trust plans, giving programs, and estate plans afford some degree of flexibility – not only to account for a client’s changing plans, priorities, and life developments, but also changes to applicable laws. Contact an attorney for your estate planning needs today.
- Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
Posted in Children, Gifts, Grandchildren, Gift Taxes, Probate, Wills, Living Trust, LinkedIn, pets, Intestacy, Divorce, Marriage, estate planning | Print | No Comments »
January 13, 2009 by admin.
A drop of water landed directly in my eye yesterday.
I was walking down School Street in Boston when it happened. It must have dripped off a building ledge. It was pretty gross.It reminded me that I need more eye drops, so I went to CVS. While shopping, I flipped through a copy of Suze Orman’s new book, Suze Orman’s 2009 Action Plan (you can download a free PDF version of the book until January 19, 2009, online here courtesy of Oprah.com).
(Suze Orman, for those of you who live under a rock, is the woman on TV who yells at people for spending too much money.)
I saw, as I flipped through the book near the pharmacist’s counter, that Suze Orman recommends to her readers that, in almost all cases, they opt for term life insurance over any other kind of life insurance.
To me, this is pretty ridiculous.
When I think of a life insurance agent, I think of Ned Ryerson, the ineffectual insurance salesman from the movie Groundhog Day. As grating as old “Ned the Head” may be, however, non-term life insurance is often a key component of a good estate plan.
Obviously, a young, healthy, single person with no dependents most likely has little need for any kind of life insurance. Indeed, because of the very nature of life insurance, the longer you can wait to get it, the better.
Nonetheless, the unexpected does happen; that is why people have estate plans.
One obvious benefit of whole, universal or a similar life insurance plan is to maximize the transfer of wealth tax-free. Life insurance is usually not subject to estate taxes when it pays out. Thus, a substantial policy is often a great way to transfer wealth.
Additionally, estate liquidity can be a major issue in estates – especially those that are just barely large enough to be subject to estate tax. Estate representatives sometimes have to sell the family home, the family business, and other valuable and/or sentimental assets to pay estate taxes that are due. With a sufficient life insurance policy in place, the problem is easily solved; the taxes can be paid with the life insurance money without having to sell the estate’s major assets.
Life insurance is also commonly used in business succession plans, wherein the business partners are designated the beneficiaries, and then use that money to buy the decedent’s share of the business back from the spouse, children, or whomever received the business in the will.
Life insurance is not for everybody, and there are many different types of life insurance that can be used for many different things. Life insurance has a great many uses for estate planning (but term life insurance – while it has its uses – can tend to be of limited utility for estate planning needs). For more information on this topic, you should contact a competent attorney, CPA, CFP, or similar, neutral professional who won’t be compensated when you purchase a life insurance policy (unlike an insurance agent).
But not Suze Orman. At least, not on this issue.
(In all seriousness, I admire Suze Orman. She started off as a waitress living in a van and is now a multimillion-dollar success. To me, she is a living Horatio Alger story and an embodiment of the American Dream, and has earned my respect.)
Speaking of Suze Orman, apparently her own financial concerns could in fact be solved with life insurance and other estate planning mechanisms.
According to an interview with The New York Times, Suze Orman is concerned about losing lots of money to estate taxes. More specifically, according to the interview, she is in a committed same-sex relationship with another wealthy individual (her producer). She is concerned that, because she and her partner cannot legally be married, they cannot make use of the marital deduction – and therefore a substantial portion of their substantial estates will be lost to estate taxes.
This presents an important, burgeoning issue in the estate planning field: GLBT planning. Neither the federal government nor any other jurisdiction in the United States (save Massachusetts) recognizes same-sex marriages (although some states have other, similar mechanisms, such as civil unions). This presents an additional challenge when it comes to estate planning for people in committed same-sex relationships. Typically, because of the marital deduction (i.e., the mechanism by which you can give things to your spouse tax-free), one common goal of estate planning is to reduce or eliminate estate taxes at the second death – because upon the first death between the married couple, the decedent spouse has presumably left everything (save for their initial $2,000,000 estate tax exemption) or most everything to their surviving spouse, tax-free. For couples who cannot enter into a marriage recognized by current federal law, like Suze Orman and her female producer, this is not an option.
First and foremost, Suze and her partner could each benefit from substantial life insurance policies, respectively (and it’s not like they can’t afford it, either; according to the same interview, Suze Orman’s liquid net worth is in the $25,000,000 neighborhood). This policy easily turns a few million dollars into several million dollars once it pays out. Furthermore, the life insurance payouts would be tax-free. This could easily make up for the loss to estate taxes.
Furthermore, Suze and her partner would each benefit from irrevocable living trusts set up for their partner’s benefit, set up to not pay out until the first death between them. This is especially ironic because Suze recommends to her readers in her 2009 Action Plan that they set up revocable living trusts. The problem with revocable living trusts is they are still subject to taxation as part of the grantor’s estate; because of their revocability, the grantor is still deemed to “control them,” and therefore own them as part of her estate.
Because Suze Orman is a good sport (I am assuming), I am going to give her some fun, free “legal advice” (I put “legal advice” in quotation marks so nobody can sue me later; this is all rhetorical and hypothetical, and not intended or presented as actual advice forming an attorney-client relationship. Please see the Notices Page for more information). Based upon the limited information I have, with all other things being equal, I would advise Suze to and her partner to each do the following:
And Suze, if you’re reading this and this information helps, feel free to mention my blog on your show.
- Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
Posted in Estate Taxation, Marital Deduction, Charitable Giving, Unified Credit Trust, Living Trust, Life Insurance, LinkedIn, Marriage, LGBT, estate planning | Print | No Comments »