Written by Robert Nickerson
In February of 2019, there was a lot of speculation regarding the $150 million dollar estate of Karl Lagerfeld in France. It had nothing to do with his financial assets or property. It had to do with his cat Choupette. Yes, his pet housecat. But this was more then a pet; Choupette was Karl's companion who was loved and had even appeared in many of his published photos, even in luxury fashion magazines. It was assumed that the cat would be well off thanks to his owners wealth who would have set something up in an estate plan to make sure it was cared for. But in a bizarre twist, a year after Karl had passed away, the administrator of the estate had "disappeared". This has created some odd legal questions relating to the cat and his inheritance.
Because there have been cases of fiduciaries being questioned for how their handling the administration of an estate, the courts have had to step in to litigate these actions. While I'm not that well read on estate laws in France, in the state of California, having a lot of time passed between a death and a fiduciary managing an estate would have open the door to a lot of questions.
In state of California, Karl's estate would have taken a couple of steps. Had he had a will, an executor of the will would have needed to submit an original to the superior court of the county of where it was written. A probate court would have found a personal representative to which then a hearing would finally determine a personal representative of Karl.
Regardless of what happens to the estate and the cat, beneficiaries need to understand their rights and to have the right attorney to inform them on what steps need to be taken as to not see a delay in their inheritance.
We can make sure all of our clients are properly informed for whatever estate plan their a part of or even in charge of. Contact us for more information.
Written by Robert Nickerson
Have you found yourself in a position where your not sure what to do when a love one has passed away? We've all been in that boat. It something that's never easy to talk about, but there are things you can do to make it easier. I've experienced a lot of people who want the right instructions on what happens when the loved one they've been caring for has finally passed. As I work with each family on their estate plans, I try to lay out exactly what needs to be done, who they need to talk to, which government agency or court to inform. To give you a little more information on what that all means, I've compiled a list of ten things one should at least be doing once someone has passed.
Editor's note: I thought I would take some time to share this article about a racer who had been struck with Covid-19 and his experience with it. Bob Tasca, driver of the Motorcraft/Quick Lane Ford Mustang Funny Car in the NHRA Mello Yello Drag Racing Series was recently diagnosed with COVID-19 and will miss this weekend's E3 Spark Plugs Nationals at Indianapolis Raceway Park. Tasca, 44, offered the following blog for his fans ahead of this weekend's event:
I want to thank everyone for all the well-wishes and prayers. I am truly blessed to have so many people praying for me. It has been an incredibly challenging time for me and my family. I hope my experience can help others get through this difficult time.
I was exposed to the virus on Father’s Day at a small gathering of family only at my Dad’s home. Even though we were all being cautious, at some point within an hour span eight members of my family contracted the virus. Within days, we tested positive. What was real scary, had I not been tested I would have exposed many other people to the virus because I had no real symptoms for seven days. The second week was far different.
As a driver, I live a healthy life. I eat well and exercise and was in very good health before I got COVID, but over the next seven days I was brought to my knees with symptoms.
What makes this virus so deadly is it attacks your whole body. I had body aches so bad I could hardly move, fever that lasted days, a resting heart rate that ping-ponged wildly for four straight days. However, what really took me down was my breathing. I ended up developing pneumonia in both of my lungs from the virus.
I had a dry cough that was uncontrollable. One morning my oxygen level dropped to a point where I knew I needed help. After spending a few days in the hospital they were able to help control my cough and get my lungs stronger. I can’t thank the staff of nurses and doctors at Kent County Hospital (Warwick, Rhode Island) enough. They are truly on the front lines of this fight!
Over the last few days I have definitely turned the corner. Now I need to focus on building myself back up. I’ve lost over 11 pounds.
My message to everyone that reads this is simple: First, do everything you can not to catch or spread the virus. Wear masks, respect social distancing guidelines, wash your hands (I believe I contracted the virus by touching something) and if you have any symptoms at all, get tested! Most people that get it will have mild symptoms, but you can spread it to people who could die if they get it.
Second, if you have any underlying conditions at all you need to take extra precautions. I was the healthiest person I knew and it took everything I had to pull through this. This isn’t a five-day bout with the flu. This is a 14-day-plus bout that attacks your nervous system, lungs and heart all at the same time. Don’t underestimate this virus—it can be deadly!
As for racing, I’m brokenhearted I will not be with my team this weekend. This will be the first time in my career I’ll miss a race, but nothing is more important to me than the safety of my team, fans and competitors. Trust me, I’ll be back soon. I want to thank Jonnie Lindberg for stepping in for me. I know he will do great. He is a great driver and a first-class guy!
Last, I want to thank my “head nurse,” my wife. She has been amazing helping me through this. I couldn’t imagine going through this without her by my side.
I’ll be back!
From the taxation of trust income in California to landmark civil rights decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, we have recently seen some significant developments in estate planning and business law. To ensure that you stay abreast of these legal changes, we’ve highlighted a few noteworthy developments and analyzed how they may impact your estate planning and business law practice.
All Trust Income Derived from California Sources Is Taxable, Regardless of Residence of Fiduciaries
Steuer v. Franchise Tax Board, ___ Cal. Rptr. 3d ___, 2020 WL 3496779 (Cal. Ct. App., June 29, 2020)
Raymond Syufy established the Paula Trust for the sole benefit of his daughter, Paula Syufy Medeiros. The trustees were authorized, but not required, to make distributions to her. Paula Trust had two co-trustees, one a resident of California and the other a Maryland resident. In 2007, Paula Trust, which held a limited partnership interest in Syufy Enterprises LP, sold stock to several companies. Some of the capital gain income from the sale was allocated to Paula Trust, which reported gross income of $2,965,099 on its 2007 tax return, with $2,831,336 of capital gain, including the sale of stock, all derived from California sources. The trust paid $223,425 in income tax to the state of California.
The trustees filed an amended 2007 fiduciary income tax return in 2012 requesting a refund of $150,655 for an overpayment of income taxes. Paula Trust asserted that the capital gain had been incorrectly reported as California source income. Paula Trust relied on Cal. Rev. & Tax Code section 17743, which states: “Where the taxability of income under this chapter depends on the residence of the fiduciary and there are two or more fiduciaries for the trust, the income taxable … shall be apportioned according to the number of fiduciaries resident in this state….” The trustees claimed that only one-half of the capital gain—the half apportioned to the California trustee—was taxable income, and that the amount apportioned to the Maryland trustee was not taxable.
After its administrative appeal was rejected, Paula Trust filed a tax refund suit in 2016. The trial court ruled in favor of Paula Trust, holding that Paula Trust’s California taxable income should be determined by apportioning its income based upon trust fiduciaries’ residence, regardless of whether the income was from a California source. According to the trial court’s judgment, Paula Trust was to receive a refund of the $150,655 it had claimed as an overpayment as well as $68,955.70 in interest.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeals held that pursuant to Cal. Rev. & Tax Code section 17041, personal income tax can be imposed on two bases: (1) residents are taxed on all income, regardless of whether it is from a California or non-California source; and (2) nonresidents are taxed on California-source income.
Under Cal. Rev. & Tax Code section 17742(a), 100 percent of a trust’s income is subject to California income tax if all trustees or all non-contingent beneficiaries are California residents. Rejecting Paula Trust’s argument that the statutory definition of “resident” is limited to “individuals” or “natural persons,” the court held that trusts are taxed on the same basis as individuals. Section 17041(e) states that the taxable income of trusts is subject to “taxes equal to the amount computed under subdivision (a) for an individual having the same amount of taxable income.” The court found that Section 17041(e), read together with section 17041(i), which states that the taxable income of any nonresident must include income from a California source, requires that trusts must be taxed on all California-source income, regardless of the residence of the trust fiduciaries. Moreover, the court held that the plain language of section 17743, the regulations expressly incorporated into that statute, and legislative history require the taxation of all of a trust’s California-source income—and only income derived outside of California should be apportioned according to the number of resident fiduciaries.
The court also upheld the trial court’s ruling that the sole beneficiary had only a contingent interest in the trust income, precluding the application of section 17742(a) to impose a tax on trust income based on residency, without regard to source, if there is a noncontingent beneficiary.
Takeaways: Tax is imposed on the entire amount of trust income derived from California sources, regardless of the residence of the trustees. The residence of a California trust’s fiduciaries is only relevant when a trust’s income is derived from sources outside of California, in which case it is apportioned according to the number of fiduciaries resident in California.
Tax Court Finds that “Loan” Is Actually a Gift
Estate of Bolles v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-71, 119 T.C.M. (CCH) 1502 (June 1, 2020)
Mary Bolles made numerous transfers of money to each of her children from the Bolles Trust, keeping a personal record of her advances and repayments from each child, treating the advances as loans, but forgiving up to the annual gift tax exclusion each year. Mary made numerous advances amounting to $1.06 million to her son Peter, an architect, between 1985 and 2007. Peter’s architecture career initially seemed promising, and during his early career, it seemed that Peter would be able to repay the amounts advanced to him by Mary. However, his architecture firm, which had begun to have financial difficulties by the early 1980s, eventually closed. Although Peter continued to be gainfully employed, he did not repay Mary after 1988. By 1989, it was clear that Peter would not be able to repay the advancements.
Although Mary was aware of Peter’s financial troubles, she continued to advance him money, recording the sums as loans and keeping track of the interest. However, she did not require Peter to repay the money and continued to provide financial help to him despite her awareness of his difficulties. Although Mary created a revocable trust in 1989 excluding Peter from any distribution of her estate upon her death, she later amended the trust, including a formula to account for the loans made to him rather than excluding him. Peter signed an acknowledgment in 1995 that he was unable to repay any of the amounts Mary had previously loaned to him. He further agreed that the loans and the interest thereon would be taken into account when distributions were made from the trust.
Upon Mary’s death in 2010, the IRS assessed the estate with a deficiency of $1.15 million on the basis that Mary’s advances to Peter were gifts. Mary’s estate asserted that the advances were loans. Both parties relied upon Miller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1996-3, aff’d, 113 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 1997), which spells out the traditional factors that should be considered in determining whether an advance of money is a loan or gift. To establish that an advance is a loan, the court should consider whether:
(1) there was a promissory note or other evidence of indebtedness, (2) interest was charged, (3) there was security or collateral, (4) there was a fixed maturity date, (5) a demand for repayment was made, (6) actual repayment was made, (7) the transferee had the ability to repay, (8) records maintained by the transferor and/or the transferee reflect the transaction as a loan, and (9) the manner in which the transaction was reported for Federal tax purposes is consistent with a loan.
In addition, the court recognized that where a family loan is involved, an actual expectation of repayment and an intent to enforce the debt are crucial for a transaction to be considered a loan.
The court found that the evidence showed that although Mary recorded the advances to Peter as loans and kept records of the interest, there were no loan agreements, no attempts to force repayment, and no security. Because it was clear that Mary realized by 1989 that Peter would not be able to repay the advances, the court held that although the advances to Peter could be characterized as loans through 1989, beginning in 1990, the advances must be considered gifts. In addition, the court found that Mary did not forgive any of the loans in 1989, but merely accepted that they could not be repaid. Thus, whether an advance is a loan or a gift depends not only upon the documentation maintained by the parties, but also upon their intent or expectations.
Takeaways: Given the current low interest rate environment, intra-family loans are now an advantageous estate planning tool, and wealthier family members can make low-interest loans to younger, less affluent family members, providing them with liquidity and allowing them to benefit from appreciation on the borrowed amount that is greater than the interest rate. To avoid a loan being treated as a transfer subject to gift tax, it is crucial in those situations not only to consistently treat such advances as loans, for example, through the execution of a promissory note, charging interest, providing security, and complying with other factors set forth in the Miller decision, but also for lending parties to steadfastly demonstrate their intentions by documenting their expectation of repayment and by enforcing the terms of the loan.
Iowa Supreme Court Overrules Prior Decisions to Bar a Tortious Interference with Inheritance Claim Not Joined with a Timely Will Contest
Youngblut v. Youngblut, ___N.W.2d___, 2020 WL 3107690 (Iowa S. Ct. June 12, 2020)
Brothers Harold and Leonard Youngblut were the beneficiaries of their parents’ mirror wills. Upon their parents’ death in 2014, a dispute arose regarding their 2014 mirror wills. Those mirror wills provided that Harold would receive his parents’ share in Youngblut Farmland Ltd., their successful farming business. Another property owned by the parents in their own names, South Farm, was bequeathed to Leonard, provided that he tendered his stock in Youngblut Farmland to Harold for one dollar. However, under earlier 2011 mirror wills, the Youngblut Farmland shares and South Farm passed to Harold, with the rest and residue of the estate divided among Leonard and the other children.
Harold believed that Leonard and his other siblings had improperly influenced their parents, but decided not to contest the will because of a concern that he could be disinherited pursuant to a no-contest clause if the contest failed. Although Harold did not contest the will before the expiration of the statutory deadline, he soon filed suit against Leonard and several other siblings for tortious interference with an inheritance. The other siblings reached settlements with Harold and were dismissed from the suit. Although Leonard sought summary judgment in his favor on the basis that Harold had failed to file a timely will contest, the case against Leonard proceeded to a jury trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Harold, ordering Leonard to pay $396,086.88 plus $200,000 in punitive damages. Leonard appealed.
The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision, providing a lengthy review of its contrary precedent and recent legal developments. Although it disagreed with courts and commentators seeing no role for the tort of intentional interference with an inheritance, it ruled that it must not be used as a de facto substitute for a will contest. Rather, overturning its prior contrary decisions, the court held that such a claim must be joined together with a timely will contest.
Takeaways: Although the Iowa Supreme Court will not preclude parties from bringing an action for tortious interference with an inheritance for inducing a decedent to execute a will through wrongful means, such a claim must be joined with a timely will contest brought pursuant to Iowa law.
Probate Court Orders Must Include Findings of Fact in Contested Trust Cases
In re Elaine Emma Short Revocable Living Trust Agreement, ___P.3d ___, 2020 WL 3288079 (Haw. Sup. Ct. July 18, 2020)
Elaine created the Elaine Emma Short Trust Agreement (the Trust). Although the Trust was amended several times, at the time of Elaine’s death in 2012, its terms provided that the successor trustee could only distribute trust income, not its principal, from David and William’s subtrusts as necessary to meet their needs for “health, education, support, and maintenance.” Further, because William had a drug-related disability, income distributions were required to be only for vital necessities until he had been drug-free for at least a year. The Trust did not provide for the distribution of principal to David and William after Elaine’s death or for the termination of their subtrusts. Further, it provided that if Elaine’s husband and descendants did not survive her, the Trust was to be distributed to her heirs-at-law upon her death. Elaine’s husband and William predeceased her, but David survived her.
The trustee, First Hawaiian Bank (FHB), filed a petition for instructions regarding distribution and termination and for modification of the Trust in August 2015. Among other things, FHB asked the probate court to instruct the trustee that discretionary distributions of principal may be made from David’s subtrust. FHB listed the Cooks, that is, Elaine’s brother Leroy and his family, as contingent beneficiaries under her Trust. The Cooks opposed FHB’s modification that would allow the distribution of principal to David.
The probate court granted FHB’s petition, modifying the Trust to allow the distribution of principal to David, but its order did not contain any findings of fact as to whether the Trust contained ambiguity regarding the distribution of principal. The probate court’s order was affirmed by the Intermediate Court of Appeal.
On appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the probate court should include findings of fact in orders in contested trust cases to avoid abuses of discretion and to enable meaningful appellate review. The probate court is not specially excepted under the Hawaii Probate Rules from having to make findings of fact in contested matters and should do so except when its refusal to do may be justified as a sound exercise of its discretion or when the parties agree to a resolution without an articulation of its basis.
Takeaways: In a contested matter, orders of the probate court must include findings of fact in contested trust cases with limited exceptions. Failure to do so impedes appellate review and necessitates remand of the case so the probate court can make the necessary findings of fact.
U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Prohibits Employers from Discriminating Against Homosexual and Transgender Employees
Bostock v. Clayton County, 560 U.S. ___ (June 15, 2020)
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. 2000e–2(a)(1). In Bostock, the Supreme Court considered whether the termination of three long-term employees for being homosexual or transgender was a violation of Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination.
The Court held that an employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an employee based in part on sex. It is irrelevant if other factors such as the plaintiff’s attraction to the same sex or presentation as a different sex from that at birth contributed to the decision. In addition, it makes no difference that the employer would treat women as a group the same as men as a group, that is, that the employer is willing to subject all male and female homosexual or transgender employees to the same rule.
The Court found that it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex. For example, if an employer has two employees, both of whom are attracted to men and are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other is a woman, the employer discriminates against the male employee if it fires him for no reason other than the fact that he is attracted to men. In this situation, the employer is discriminating against him for traits or actions it tolerates in the female employee. That is, the employer is intentionally singling out an employee to fire based in part on the employee’s sex, and the employee’s sex is a “but-for” cause of his discharge.
Takeaways: Under Title VII, the term “employer” means “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person,” although the law provides certain exceptions. Many employees in the United States are employed by employers that have fewer than 15 employees and are thus not covered by Title VII. Employers within the scope of Title VII should review their employee benefits packages, policies, and handbooks in light of Bostock to ensure they are in compliance with Title VII.
Paycheck Protection Program Loan Application Deadline Extended and New Legislation in the Works
On Saturday, July 4, President Trump signed a bill extending the deadline to apply for a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan from June 30 until August 8. In addition, on June 18, 2020, Democrat Senators Ben Cardin, Chris Coons, and Jeanne Shaheen introduced the “Prioritized Paycheck Protection Program (P4) Act,” which would extend the June 30 deadline to December 30 or longer to apply for a forgivable PPP loan, while creating a new option for a second loan for borrowers with 100 employees or fewer that have lost at least half of their revenue due to the pandemic. A companion bill was introduced by House Democrat Representatives Angie Craig and Antonio Delgado. The bill, in its current form, includes the following provisions:
Estate planning is widely recognized as a means of transferring wealth from one generation to the next while minimizing both taxes and the risk of loss to creditors. A comprehensive estate plan not only transfers cash, investments, real estate, and vehicles, but also less commonly considered assets, such as intellectual property. While clients in certain professions—for example, authors, artists, small business owners, and inventors—often recognize the need to protect their valuable intellectual property, every client potentially has intellectual property that could provide a stream of income for family members or loved ones after the client passes away.
Intellectual property refers to works or inventions that are the result of human creativity and intellect and can be legally protected, e.g., by copyrights, patents, trademarks, or trade secrets. Such works and inventions are protected by federal (and sometimes state) law and can have great commercial value. Accordingly, clients should include intellectual property among the assets they share with their estate planning attorney at the outset of an engagement. In addition to the intellectual property itself, clients should disclose any related agreements, assignments, or licenses. Varying steps are necessary to legally protect different types of intellectual property, and the estate planning considerations for each can also vary in some respects. The four primary types of intellectual property are discussed below, along with key planning considerations for each.
Protection is available for “original works of authorship”1 such as books, movies, songs, computer software, photographs, and architectural works. These works do not have to be published to be protected, but they generally have more commercial value after publication. A copyright exists from the moment an original work is created and “fixed in any tangible medium of expression,”2 but in order to enforce it in a lawsuit for infringement, it must be registered with the United States Copyright Office. In addition, the copyright symbol (©) should be used to provide public notice that the copyright is protected. In general, copyright protection lasts for seventy years following the author’s death. Works created by employees within the scope of their employment, known as works made for hire, expire the sooner of 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation. Works published prior to 1978 are subject to more complex expiration terms.
If a client owns a copyright, both the original work, i.e., the book, painting, etc., and the copyright should be included in the client’s will or trust. If the copyright is not specifically mentioned in the will or trust, it will be transferred to the client’s heirs by a residuary clause, which disposes of all property not specifically dealt with elsewhere in the will. As a result, one person could end up with the book or painting and another with the copyright. In addition, depending on how valuable the copyright is, the heirs who inherit it could unintentionally have a heavier tax burden than heirs receiving other property.
Because the future value of a copyright is impossible for the author of a work to know, copyright law gives the author the right to terminate most transfers or licenses of the copyright at a future date, providing the author with an opportunity to market the work once its fair value is known. This termination right, which passes to the author’s surviving spouse and children when the author dies, cannot be waived or transferred to anyone else during the author’s life. If the author were to transfer the copyright to a trust, for example, the statutory heirs could undo the author’s intent. The only exception is a transfer of the copyright by will, which cannot be terminated by the statutory heirs. Although establishing a trust is preferable for many other types of property to avoid probate proceedings, a will should typically be used to transfer copyrights to the beneficiaries to avoid possible termination of the transfer by the statutory heirs.
In addition to transferring a copyright by will or trust, a client should also consider transferring a copyright by lifetime gift. Although a transfer by lifetime gift is the simplest of the copyright transfer strategies, estate planners should caution clients that a lifetime gift may fail to exclude substantial appreciation in the value of the copyright from the author’s taxable estate due to potential estate inclusion issues connected to the author’s termination right. In addition, a copyright is not eligible for capital asset treatment when it is owned by a taxpayer whose basis is determined at least in part by the copyright author’s basis. A gift of a copyright will therefore prevent the copyright from qualifying as a capital asset because the recipient adopts the transferor’s basis for income tax purposes. On the other hand, if the author dies with the copyright in the author's taxable estate, the copyright receives a stepped-up basis equal to the fair market value at the author’s death or alternate valuation date, and it automatically qualifies as a capital asset that has been held for over a year.
Any lifetime gift or bequest of a copyright should provide explicit instructions to the estate's executor or trustee. Authors may appoint a special literary executor to properly administer the intellectual property rights associated with their works. Estate executors should consider recording an author’s death in the United States Copyright Office to cause the copyright to extend for 70 years; otherwise, the work will be presumed to be in the public domain upon the earlier of 95 years from the date of first publication or 120 years from the creation of the work.
Protection is available to any person who invents or discovers “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”4 or makes any improvement of them. There are three types of patents available for different types of inventions: utility patents, design patents, and plant patents. A utility patent protects a new and useful process, machine, manufactured item, composition of matter, or an improvement to any of them. A design patent protects a new, original, and ornamental design of a manufactured item. A plant patent protects a distinct and new variety of plant. To be eligible for patent protection, an invention must not have been previously publicly disclosed. Before filing an application for a patent, a comprehensive patent search should be done. Performing a patent search can be an involved process, and it is advisable to obtain the help of a patent attorney or agent to conduct the search. An attorney can also help with the preparation and filing of a patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to ensure that the patent obtained will provide sufficient protection for the invention. Once the patent is granted, it lasts fourteen to twenty years (depending on the type of patent) from the date the application is filed. Periodic fees are required to maintain it.
Unlike copyrights, there is no termination right for patents, which can be freely transferred by a will or to a trust for the benefit of selected loved ones. Transferring ownership to a trust is often a good choice to avoid the expense, time, and lack of privacy of the probate proceedings required for transfers via a will. Patents should be clearly identified in estate planning documents, which should state the owner of the patent, the patent number, those who have the right to license the patent, and the parties who are responsible for paying the fees required to maintain the patent. In addition, the transfer to the new owner should be recorded with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. If an inventor dies before filing a patent application or during the application review process, the executor may apply for the patent and be issued the patent if "proper intervention" is performed. Executors should be aware of their obligations with respect to inventions and patents as early as possible, and ideally, during the inventor’s lifetime.
Due to the short lifespan of patents, estate planners may want to help their clients weigh the option of a lifetime transfer of a patent to reduce the client’s potential estate tax liability on the patent’s appreciated value against the income tax benefit of keeping the patent as part of the client’s taxable estate, thereby receiving a step up in basis at the client’s death.
Protection is available for brand names and logos used to identify and distinguish the goods and services of one source from those of another. Although merely using a trademark (without obtaining a trademark registration) protects it under common law, this legal protection only extends to the geographic region in which the trademark is used. A state trademark registration provides protection throughout the state of registration. However, if the trademark holder eventually wants to expand its business beyond that state, it is important to register the trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to obtain the benefit of nationwide protection. Before registering the trademark, it is best practice to perform a comprehensive trademark search to ensure that the desired trademark—or one that could be confusingly similar—is not already in use. Using the trademark symbol (®) puts the public on notice that a brand name or logo is federally registered and protected. The initial term of a federal trademark registration is ten years; a registration can be renewed indefinitely for additional ten-year terms for a fee, provided that the trademark owner can prove continued use of the trademark in the United States. A federally registered trademark is enforceable as long as the trademark is used in commerce and defended against infringement.
Similar to a patent, a registered trademark can be transferred by either a will or by establishing a trust to benefit selected beneficiaries. As is the case with patents, a trust is often the better choice. Documentation should be filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to record the assignment of the trademark registration to the new owner. In order to maintain the legal protection provided under trademark law, it is important that the executor, the trustee, or any individual who inherits a registered trademark continue to use the trademark and defend it against infringement. In addition, the executor, trustee, or new owner should continue to renew the trademark registration and pay the required fees.
A trade secret is information that is (a) not generally known outside of the owner's organization and control, (b) has independent economic value as a result of not being generally known, and (c) is subject to reasonable measures to maintain its secrecy. Trade secrets are often comprised of formulas, compilations, programs, patterns, devices, methods, techniques, or processes. The recipe for Coca-Cola is one of the most well-known examples, but businesses of any size can own valuable trade secrets. Trade secret protection aims to prevent wrongful access to confidential information. It is available under both state and federal law, and it generally continues until the information becomes publicly available or the owner no longer derives economic value from its secrecy. Since the value of a trade secret lies in its confidentiality, and trade secrets are associated with businesses, individual estate plans are not typically used to transfer trade secrets. Moreover, the risk of a trade secret being exposed through such a transfer is often not worth the potential tax benefits.
A Note about Royalties
Intellectual property that has been transferred or licensed to another party often generates royalties or other income that becomes part of a decedent’s estate. Alternatively, those payments could be directed to a living trust or a trust established at the decedent’s death. At the time of the decedent’s death, any publishers or other agencies should be notified to direct the payments to the trust or to the loved ones who have inherited the right to receive those royalties. It may also be helpful to name an executor or trustee with expertise in managing intellectual property and the income it generates to ensure its value is maximized.
The transfer and continued protection of intellectual property requires careful consideration of transfer requirements, fees, and ongoing use or filing obligations. Clients and estate planning counsel should discuss whether the intended recipient of a transfer of intellectual property has the necessary funds—and desire—to maintain the asset, as intellectual property can diminish in value if the owner is unable to maintain the asset. If intellectual property is generating a royalty stream, those funds may be sufficient to pay the continued costs of ownership or insurance premiums for insurance coverage on the intellectual property. Finally, a client should consider additional planning to provide the intellectual property recipient with the necessary funds to properly maintain the asset.
Written by Robert T. Nickerson
With the coronavirus wreaking havoc on the U.S. economy, the federal funds rate has taken a nosedive, dropping from 1.75% in January to 0.25% as of June 10th. With rates projected to hover around 0% for the foreseeable future, now is a great time to leverage low interest rates in your estate planning strategies and help clients to maximize their wealth for themselves and their families even in times that are economically challenging. Below are three wealth transfer strategies to consider.
1. Passing on assets tax-free and locking in low “hurdle rates”
A grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT) is an excellent way to take advantage of the current low interest rates. As an irrevocable trust, a GRAT allows the grantor to transfer property into the trust and receive an annuity payment for a specific length of time. When the grantor passes away, the assets are handed off, tax-free, to the designated beneficiaries.
The Section 7520 interest rate is fixed by the Internal Revenue Code and is set as the “hurdle rate” at the time the GRAT is established. Section 7520 rates are currently low, so any appreciation of the trust’s assets above that hurdle rate gets passed tax-free to the trust beneficiaries at the end of the term specified in the GRAT document. With the interest rates so low, there is greater potential for a tax-free payout down the road. Additionally, because the assets belong to the trust, they will be passed on without triggering gift and estate tax liabilities.
2. Hurdle rates and charitable planning
A charitable lead annuity trust (CLAT) is similar to a GRAT—the only difference being that the fixed annuity payments go to a charity instead of the grantor, making it a great option for charitably inclined individuals. Also like a GRAT, a CLAT’s assets are assumed by the IRS to grow at the hurdle rate that is determined when the trust is created. Any appreciation above the hurdle rate passes tax-free to the beneficiaries at the end of the term set forth in the CLAT document.
3. Selling appreciating assets to a grantor trust
Another way to lessen tax liability and pass on more money to trust beneficiaries is to consider selling appreciating property to an intentionally defective grantor trust (IDGT). IDGTs are effective for estate tax purposes but “defective” for income tax purposes, meaning that the grantor — not the trust — pays tax on income earned in the trust, allowing trust assets to grow. The interest rate that must be charged on the promissory note is the applicable federal rate as of the month of the sale. With interest rates currently so low, property sold to the trust is more likely to earn a higher rate of return than the interest on the loan. Asset appreciation will accrue to the trust rather than the donor. Once sold to the trust, the property is no longer considered to be a part of the grantor’s estate. Assets sold to the IDGT will be excluded from the grantor’s gross estate to the extent the grantor outlives the term of the note.
While we can't offer financial advice, we can still ensure your estate plan and financial future in a legally bound document. Contact our office for more information.
Written by Robert Nickerson
Here's a scenario that a lot of parents of two children will likely debate about; should the distribution of your assets be equal? You might think, "how dare you suggest this concept. Everyone needs to have a fair share". I understand why you'd think two children should probably have assets split down the middle. But let's consider something; let's say one child created a successful business and already has a net worth of multimillions, and your other is an aspiring actor whose currently working a minimum wage to make ends meet. It really makes you wonder what qualifies as "fair"
The real challenge is deciding what you consider fair. Chances are your children aren’t going to like your definition of it. It's going to depend on one's financial situation and what kind of contribution they've made to you. Does having a standard on "fair" make you a bad person? No, not at all. People do this all the time. What matters is how your communicating with them about it.
When estate plans are produced, I've stressed the importance of talking to your family about what you want. While things tend to go smooth, once its time to figure out your assets, it's inevitable that conflicts will arise. You might have a son who feels like their entitled to a larger share because of their financial situation. But's it's possible that the other son might make a justifiable case that they want a larger share because they've been by your side through the worst of times. It can get complicated, though I'll admit that no matter what happens, someone will probably be disappointed.
One of the reasons a lot of people will be quick to split shares of assets, is to prove that as a parent, you have equal unconditional love for both. The truth of the matter is unconditional love is not the same as respect. Do you respect all your children? Do you agree with their choices? This might be a reason you may want to give a little more or a little less. There's a reason you want to give your Nintendo loving son a new Super Mario game while the golf-loving son gets the new driver he wanted.
When clients ask me about dividing assets, I leave it up to them, but I also bring up that it's okay to disagree with other family members; you just need to address it to them and explain why. More often then not, everyone is always willing to sit and listen. They just might agree why one gets more then the other.
We can help guide you towards the right decisions, even if you know tough choices need to be made. Contact our office to know more about how we can help with an estate plan and your children
Trusts are one of the best vehicles to provide flexibility.
The political and tax uncertainty as a result of the November elections, combined with the current health pandemic and economic uncertainty, all require flexible modern estate planning more than ever. Thus, many people are updating their estate plans and using trusts, which in turn will allow a family to navigate an unknown future with flexibility and control intergenerationally. Each presidential candidate’s tax policies will be extremely important as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and everything else going on in the world. Economic recovery, the growing deficit, health care and many other costly programs will all be debated. These programs will need to be paid for, so tax policy will be critical.
With Bernie Sanders out of the race, it appears as though it will be President Donald Trump versus former Vice President Joe Biden. Joe Biden has set forth many of his general tax policy ideas. He has a $4 trillion tax plan to increase both income and death taxes.1 Biden didn’t propose a wealth tax like his Democratic primary opponents Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but he’s in favor of eliminating the step-up in income tax basis from inherited capital assets for individuals earning over $1 million.2 The Biden proposal wouldn’t allow individuals to avoid these taxes by gifting assets to lower income tax bracket family members during their lifetime. The appreciation on these assets would still be subject to taxes on such a transfer under the Biden proposal. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, not taxing capital gains at death results in a loss of approximately $40 billion in tax revenue a year.3 Biden is silent on the estate tax exemption, but most experts believe that he’ll support a return to the $3.5 million estate, gift and generation-skipping tax transfer (GST) exemption. There’s also current legislation pending in the House that supports the $3.5 million exemption amounts.
President Trump’s signature legislation, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), doubled the federal estate tax exemption for estate, gift and GST taxes to $10 million, indexed for inflation (currently $11.58 million).5 This exemption sunsets in 2026, which is a measure included to help reduce the law’s cost as scored by the Congressional Budget Office. The TCJA also called for a step-up in cost basis at death. Even before the TCJA was enacted and doubled the estate tax exemption, so much wealth could be sheltered that the actual rate paid was only about 17%.6 President Trump has continually called for a repeal of the estate tax, and the Senate has introduced bills reflecting such view recently. To date, these bills haven’t moved forward.7 Although frequently discussed, it’s unlikely the estate tax will be repealed anytime soon as a result of the growing deficit. The federal estate tax has been repealed and has returned four times in our history. The most recent repeal occurred in 2010. If it’s repealed again, the likelihood of its return is high. It’s important to note that only two out of every 1,000 Americans pay federal estate taxes, which brought in $23 billion in revenue in 2018.8 The number of individuals paying the estate tax and GST tax is less than 2,000. The repeal of the estate tax would decrease estate tax revenue by an estimated $172 billion over the next decade.9 As such, many advisors believe that estate tax repeal won’t happen in the near future but instead could be leveraged as part of the tax negotiations. It appears as though President Trump would now like to extend the income and estate tax provisions of the TCJA beyond their scheduled expiration date.
Is the Estate Tax Voluntary?
As Professor A. James Casner of Harvard Law School once stated, “In fact, we haven’t got an estate tax, what we have is, you pay an estate tax if you want to; if you don’t want to, you don’t have to.”11 Consequently, despite the estate tax exemption level, estate taxes may be reduced or eliminated with proper planning. This may require the use of a “Kennedy Trust,” that is, a testamentary charitable lead annuity trust (CLAT), combined with other powerful trusts, such as the dynasty trust.12 The CLAT gained popularity after the will of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis became public. When she passed away in 1994, her will devised most of her estate to her children; however, the plan was for her children to disclaim some of their inheritance to a testamentary CLAT that would last 24 years for the benefit of Jackie’s private foundation (PF). At the expiration of the trust term, the remaining trust principal would go to her grandchildren without being subject to any transfer tax, because the estate would generate an estate tax charitable deduction. The Kennedy children never disclaimed a portion of this bequest in favor of the CLAT; therefore, the PF was never funded, and the enormous estate tax savings were never realized. Despite the Kennedy family not using the CLAT, CLATs can provide flexibility regarding funding at death and, if funded, provide enormous tax savings. Consequently, when they’re combined with other trusts and strategies, they can render the estate tax voluntary. Why do people volunteer to pay estate taxes? Four key reasons: (1) they’re not aware of all the planning vehicles available; (2) their tax objectives don’t coordinate with their non-tax objectives; (3) they’re not aware of all the non-tax benefits of modern trusts; or (4) they’re not aware how much control and flexibility that modern trusts provide.
Low or High Exemptions
Despite what happens with the November elections, the current opportunity has never been greater with the current estate, gift and GST tax exemptions at $11.58 million per individual in 2020 ($23.16 million per couple). Families should consider gifts to trusts sooner than later. Additionally, extremely low interest rates also provide a powerful opportunity to further leverage these high exemptions with strategies such as the promissory note sale.13 As mentioned, these historically high exemptions are due to sunset on Dec. 31, 2025 to $5 million, indexed for inflation. It doesn’t really matter whether these increased exemptions are reduced or if the estate tax is repealed altogether, because there are many other important non-tax reasons to pass family wealth intergenerationally with a trust, including:
• family governance/succession/education
• ability to override the Prudent Investor Act, with less liability than with a delegated trust, holding one security (public or private) without diversifying (directed trust)
• diversifying broadly into private equity, alternate investments and commercial and residential real estate, without extensive fiduciary liability (directed trust)
• ability to work with investment advisors and managers of a family’s choice (directed trust)
• ability to appoint a trust protector
• ability to appoint a family advisor
• asset protection/wealth preservation
• divorce protection
• litigation protection
• promotion of social and fiscal responsibility in the family, thus promoting family values (directed trust)
• privacy—court procedures (reformations/
modifications) and litigation
• beneficiary quiet—keeping trust information from one or more beneficiaries until appropriate
• lessening family and family advisor personal liability as fiduciaries (directed trust)
• disability planning
• special needs planning
• preservation of treasured family assets and heirlooms —purpose trust
It’s due to the above-mentioned non-tax reasons that it may not be prudent to automatically pass assets, outright and directly, to one’s children and/or grandchildren even if the federal estate tax is repealed. Additionally, the state tax savings can also be beneficial for state death taxes, state insurance premium taxes and state income and capital gains taxes. Consequently, clients will continue to transfer assets to trusts, most importantly to GST and dynasty trusts. It’s important to note that the gift tax will most likely always remain to limit transfers and income tax shifting. On the other hand, federal death tax savings may be a secondary benefit in most instances with modern trusts.
Structuring Trusts for the Future
It’s very unlikely that estate tax repeal will happen in the near future, but it could down the road. An interesting issue could arise regarding future GST tax planning if repeal were to occur: namely, how would GST tax planning work with trusts established after repeal? Also, in planning for the possibility that the GST tax could return, flexibility and proper drafting would be crucial to take advantage of GST tax repeal but avoid possible issues with any past or future legislation. This issue was also discussed back in 2010. If the estate and GST tax are both repealed, there may be four scenarios for GST issues during the repeal year and beyond:
1. The administration of existing non-exempt GST trusts;
2. GST trusts created in repeal year;
3. Testamentary GST trusts created as a result of death in repeal year; and
4. Outright gifts.
These issues shouldn’t present problems, if properly planned for, but definitely need to be addressed.
Modernize Existing Trusts
Clients with existing trusts may need to modernize these trusts to maximize flexibility and control in uncertain times. This can be accomplished if the client’s resident state has flexible non-judicial or judicial reformation/modification statutes27 as well as decanting statutes.28
Generally, if the client’s state doesn’t provide such statutes, then the family can look to change the situs of a trust to a modern trust jurisdiction with these statutes and then modernize the trust so that the trust can provide flexibility and control to deal with any unanticipated changes as previously discussed.
Step-Up in Cost Basis
Under current law and under the Trump proposal, unrealized capital gains aren’t taxed at death because assets in an estate are generally valued at their fair market value at date of death or one year after (that is, step-up in cost basis). Consequently, when they’re sold at the date-of-death value, there are no income taxes. These assets receive a step-up in income tax basis. The original purpose of these step-up in basis rules was to avoid double taxation, that is, income and estate taxes. Consequently, step-up could also apply during repeal, which would be very important for many families, particularly those in high tax states.
Many people traditionally hold low basis assets until death to obtain a step-up in basis. As previously mentioned, the Biden proposal taxes unrealized capital gains at death, thus preventing the step-up in income tax basis.29 If the Biden proposal were enacted, many of these individuals might then be willing to diversify and sell concentrated positions and restructure their entire portfolios. Deferring taxes as long as possible may also be prudent. Additionally, many individuals may be more inclined to transfer these low basis assets to charity to receive a charitable income tax deduction.
An important option to consider when drafting control and flexibility into an irrevocable trust is a substitution or swap power.30 This wouldn’t work well under the Biden proposals but would under the Trump proposals. The swap power allows the grantor to swap personal non-trust assets with trust assets without any negative income, gift or estate tax consequences. This allows the grantor to swap high income tax basis trust assets to the trust in exchange for low income tax basis assets31 that can then receive a step-up in cost basis at the grantor’s death. Consequently, no income taxes will be owed on the grantor’s death if the asset is sold. This swap power is generally considered a grantor trust power resulting in the trust being taxable to the grantor for income tax purposes but still removed from the estate for estate tax purposes.32 The effectiveness of this power may depend on whether Biden is elected and his tax plan enacted. Either way, this swap is a very useful tool to have down the road, especially with an uncertain tax and economic future.
Because trusts are so important, particularly in extremely uncertain political and economic times, many families need to have control and flexibility over the investment management of the trust. Historically, many events have caused uncertainty to both U.S. and international economies. Events over the last two years, such as the trade tensions between the United States and China, Brexit, continuing Middle East conflicts and the economic shut down and unemployment caused by COVID-19, are all examples of this uncertainty. Each presidential candidate may handle these important matters differently. Both will need to deal with the issue of the estimated $8 trillion dollars (two years of tax revenue) that will be pumped into the U.S. economy for rescue and recovery purposes. The deficit created by this enormous influx of capital is an additional concern to many people particularly when interest rates rise in the future. Many investors have sold securities and bought U.S. government bonds as a result of this current, past and future uncertainty. Many others have transitioned to cash. Some feel safer with direct private equity investments, gold and other alternative investments. Other families desire a well-diversified portfolio of traditional investment assets. Each family has different investment plans to accomplish its desired goal of preserving capital. Consequently, investment management flexibility becomes key. Traditional trust laws (for example, the Uniform Prudent Investor Act (UPIA) and delegated trusts)33 may not provide families with enough flexibility and control to get through these periods of economic uncertainty.
Most jurisdictions have enacted the UPIA,34 which provides for a general duty to diversify trust assets unless the purpose of the trust is better served without diversification. Some of the typical exceptions to this diversification requirement are low cost basis assets (sale would trigger large tax gains) and/or family business interests. Even with these exceptions, it may still be difficult to safely override the diversification requirement of the UPIA.
The best alternative is the directed trust,36 which gives families the option to diversify by overriding the UPIA. Additionally, if they do diversify, they can do so with either traditional or sophisticated investments such as private equity (direct and via a fund), real estate, gold and other alternative investments.37 The liability standard for fiduciary investment decisions with a directed trust is typically limited to gross negligence and/or willful misconduct as compared with the reasonable care standard associated with most traditional delegated (non-directed) trustee statutes. Many family trustees or co-trustees generally don’t have investment management expertise, and they’re forced to delegate investment management. This delegation function requires that they do due diligence on the investment professionals to whom they’re delegating as well as conduct ongoing monitoring of these investment professionals and their investment management. They can delegate the duty, but not the risk. Consequently, the reasonable care liability standard for delegating may present a problem, particularly in times of economic uncertainty, depending on a family’s investment management strategy and the required level of investment sophistication.
Alternatively, the directed trust allows individuals to appoint a trust advisor or investment committee, which in turn can select an outside investment advisor(s) and/or manager(s) to manage the trust’s investments and direct the administrative trustee in a directed trust state. The directed trust allows a family to use and deploy a broad and sophisticated Harvard or Yale endowment-type asset allocation39 with direct private equity and alternative investments or to remain in a concentrated non-diversified position in either cash, government securities or public and/or private securities. Consequently, the directed trust allows for the trust to hold both financial and non-financial assets (for example, offshore companies, business interests, real estate, limited liability companies (LLCs), family limited partnerships, timber land and direct private equity). Many of these types of trust investments might be prohibitive from a liability standpoint as a result of most jurisdictions’ UPIAs and delegated trust statutes. Thus, the directed trust can provide a family with the desired maximum flexibility and control to navigate both political and economic uncertainty intergenerationally.
The modern directed trust also provides a family with the opportunity to participate in many trust decisions involving investments and distributions, which is extremely important in times of uncertainty. Often the grantor, family members and/or close advisors serve as the investment committee. Sometimes, the grantor will serve as a member of the investment committee40 along with his family and other trusted advisors, which alleviates anxiety in this environment as well as provides a great way for the grantor to help educate the children and grandchildren regarding trust investments and asset allocation particularly during difficult and uncertain times.
In addition to flexibility regarding investment management, the directed trust also provides flexibility as to trust distributions. While advisors usually avoid the appointment of the grantor to the distribution committee, family members or close family advisors may be named.42 Sometimes, a non-binding letter of wishes from the grantor may be used as well to provide guidance to the distribution committee. In addition, the trust may be drafted to allow for distributions to both charitable or non-charitable organizations. The flexibility to make distributions from a non-charitable long-term or dynasty trust to charitable organizations may be very important to many families.43 These provisions must be properly drafted and included at trust formation because non-charitable trusts can’t be reformed to allow direct distributions to charity and provide the trust with an unlimited income tax deduction.44 Trusts may generally be modified or decanted to include a power of appointment to charities.45 The grantor and family beneficiaries may also have the power to remove and replace a trustee and/or investment/distribution committee members.
Many families may also want to add a trust protector to their directed trust. A trust protector is generally an individual (or a committee of individuals or an entity) with specified personal and/or fiduciary powers over the trust.46 The trust protector can have powers to veto investment or distribution decisions. The power acts as a checks and balances to such decisions. The trust protector may also have powers to amend the trust, which can be very useful in the future. The trust protector is often an extended family member or a close advisor, providing the family with another trusted individual who has flexibility and control over the family trust. The trust protector’s statutory standard of liability is generally gross negligence and/or willful misconduct. The grantor and family beneficiaries may also have the power to remove the trust protector.
Some jurisdictions also allow for the appointment of a family advisor, which is a non-fiduciary appointment, and authorize such an individual to consult or advise on fiduciary or non-fiduciary matters.47 A family advisor can be very important in times of uncertainty. The standard of liability is generally dishonesty or improper motive, which provides family advisors with the utmost liability protection. Family advisors may have the power to remove and appoint a trustee, fiduciary, trustee advisor, investment committee member, trust protector or distribution committee member. They also have the power to advise the trustee and/or investment and distribution committees regarding beneficiary matters. Typically CPAs, attorneys and advisors are appointed as family advisors, which allow them to play an important role in the family’s trust while limiting their liability exposure during uncertain times.
Despite the gross negligence and/or willful misconduct liability standards for both directed trust investment and distribution committee members as well as trust protectors, many advisors may wish to consider adding a trust protector company (TPC) or special purpose entity (SPE) to the directed trust structure.48 These are typically LLCs or some other form of corporation that houses the trust protector, the investment and/or distribution committees or advisors, which provides direction to a qualified directed trustee in a modern trust state. TPCs and/or SPEs aren’t private trust companies but are popular alternatives. These entities provide a family and its advisors with a great way to obtain director and officers insurance as well as errors and omissions insurance for serving as a fiduciary. This coverage typically isn’t easy to obtain if fiduciaries are serving individually. Additionally, unlike individual fiduciaries, the TPC and/or SPE never dies nor becomes incapacitated. Thus, the TPC or SPE provides an inexpensive and perpetual entity providing additional liability protection, family governance, flexibility and control in uncertain times.
No matter who’s elected in November or what happens to the federal estate tax, whether it remains at historic highs, sunsets back to $5 million or is repealed altogether, trusts still make sense for a multitude of non-tax reasons and state tax reasons. Unprecedented times and an uncertain future call for unprecedented planning. Trusts are one of the best vehicles to provide this flexibility and control intergenerationally. Consequently, the need and desire of the modern directed trust continues to increase. It’s important for advisors to continue to make clients aware of such a powerful trust planning vehicle.
Written by Robert T. Nickerson
There's no doubt that the coronavirus is going to put a lot of things into perspective. Not only about the stores, economy and the job market, but primarily your well-being. This is when I would ask you about your estate plan. A lot of people will admit that they either don't have one or have been putting it off for a while. It's understandable that an estate plan may have the number six spot on your list of priorities, but now is a good time to really think about that. During a pandemic like this, it can really come in handy regarding medical decisions and your family in case the worst-case scenario happens.
Within an estate plan, one of the most important things to get is a healthcare directive. This will allow someone you trust to be appointed to make medical decisions in the event that your not able to. This is something that also needs to be looked at every couple of years; not just the proxy, but the person you have chosen. It could list a parent of yours to make the decisions, but you'll need to see if they can still make a reliable call. What if they too become sick during a pandemic? Then you better consider someone who doesn't live within your household; someone who's able to get to a hospital and make tough decisions.
This is why I'd recommend naming more then one person to be an acting agent, especially if your spouse or child fall ill the same time you do. It might even be helpful if multiple people are about to listen to the doctor to understand what's going on and what the next course of action is. A healthcare proxy will also come in handy if one person isn't available to make a decision, then another person selected can fill in the spot. Considering that travel is affected nationwide, this could be helpful for that reason.
An estate plan should also have a financial power of attorney. Not a lot of people think about this, but if your sick and aren’t able to keep up with your finances, then bill don't get paid and things like real estate or account alterations cannot happen at all…not unless an agent is named. While your free to make your decision on who, the person you've named on your healthcare proxy may not be the right one to handle your finances. Are they good with money? Do they have an understanding of your assents and your responsibilities? This is another reason you may want to have more then one person named. You even have the option to name different people for different parts of your finances.
The law offices of Jeffrey C. Nickerson can help guide your on these decisions. We're not going to let the COVID-19 slow us down from helping you. If you want to learn more about how an estate plan can help you and your family, especially during a crisis like this, click below the button to call us or send us an email.
Do you already have your estate plan created? Well good for you! You've taken an important step to ensure a calm mindset for the rest of your family when something should happen or the inevitability of your death. If you haven't, then I can tell you that it's never too late to make preparations. But either way, once you have those estate plans, where do you keep them?
Regardless if you had them created with me or someone else, any estate plan should have at least two things: a durable power of attorney that allows someone you've appointed to make legal decisions, and a will, which legally divides your assets to your choice. An estate plan size depends on case-by-case basis, but a trust is essential to avoid going through probate and to have a "management style" for how your estate (which includes the durable power of attorney and will). Especially during the time of the Covid-19 or Coronavirus, medical directives will give someone you trust the ability to make any medical decisions in case you cannot, so I recommend this as well. Once you have all the important documents gathered, it's time to put it someplace that’s safe, but also easy for your family to find.
Store the Documents
For your physical estate plan, it needs to be in a secure location that can be accessible for your family or representative. This is when we'd recommend a fireproof safe or a safe deposit box if your okay with someone other then you being able to access it. Whoever is assigned to be your executor should have access via key, code, or even a copy of it. A lot of law firms (including our own!) will not only keep the original documents and estate plans, but can also have a digital version of it (we can even make a digital copy for you!)
Spread the Word
With great power come great responsibilities. This isn't just a quote from Spider-Man, but also a key essential to your executor. They will need to know where your estate plan is, so be sure to let them know where your safe is in your home (or wherever your keep it. If its in a safety deposit box, it may be time to make that a joint account so that they can get into it.
If you have a healthcare proxy, then your physician can usually keep a copy of it to expedite your wishes faster. If you have family members in your estate plan, chances are you've already informed them about it. You may want to consider sending them copies of your estate plan so they too can expedite how the assets are distributed.
If you've created a new estate plan, be sure to destroy the old ones that are now void. This will prevent someone else to try and challenge it. The last thing you'd want is to go through a complicated litigation.
If you want to update those documents, DON'T WRITE ON THE ORIGINALS. This is when you get into contact with your attorney and they'll be able to update whatever you want. Anything that’s handwritten on the documents is always going to be seen by the courts as not valid.
The Law Offices of Jeffrey C. Nickerson can make sure you don't make those mistakes. Nothing has to be your fault! We can make sure your guided though the right steps for an estate plan that'll keep your wishes and have something for your family to turn to should something happen. Click on the button bellow to contact us for more information or a consultation meeting if your ready.
Jeffrey C. Nickerson - Estate Planning Attorney - My Passion is Special Needs Planning!