Prince May Have Died Intestate and Estate Estimated Worth Is $300 Million

Los Angeles City Hall Turns Purple In Honor of Prince

The untimely passing of music superstar Prince even gets to estate and probate attorneys who grew up on his music. One of the first questions estate and probate geeks ask is about his estate planning since he owned copyrights to his music, has a valuable public brand and name, and had an estate large enough to be subject to estate tax. 

The Los Angeles Times reported that Prince's estate is rumored to be worth over $300 million and that he may have died intestate (without a will or trust). While hard to imagine, it is not unusual. This would mean his sister would inherit everything as his closest heir regardless of whether he had a live-in companion or other people he wanted to provide for. 

If you have not done your estate planning, you're not alone. It is natural to put it off. Being in Los Angeles, we have had celebrity clients and Us Magazine is right in that celebrities are "like you and me." This is easy to put off since it involves planning and preparing for a time when we will not be with our loved ones. One meeting I had with a celebrity for estate planning, required me to not mention the word "death" in the meeting. Of course, I complied. Why? The important thing is helping clients have peace of mind and having the satisfied feeling that one's affairs are in order. 

Posted by Henry (Hank) Moravec III
Email: hm@moravecslaw.com
Office: 626-793-3210
Moravec, Varga and Mooney

IRS May Seek Gift Tax Returns from Donors to GOP Leaning 501(c)(4)s

The IRS confirmed May 13 that it is examining donations to one or more Section 501(c)(4) organizations to determine whether the donors should have paid the federal gift tax on the donations.

The development has shocked some tax lawyers, who have been advising clients for decades that donations to 501(c)(4) "social welfare" groups—including those that get involved in political and issue-advocacy campaigns—routinely are not subject to the gift tax.

Stay tuned. If the IRS takes the position that the donations are taxable gifts, there will surely be a battle that will spill into the Federal courts. Donations to 501(c)(4)s are not characterized by the "disinterested generosity" that is required of a gift for transfer tax (estate and gift tax) purposes.

Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4) exempts from tax "civic leagues...operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare...."

It will probably be high profile Section 501(c)(4) groups that will be targeted for audit. High profile Section 501(c)(4)s include Crossroads GPS, an organization that opposes President Obama's agenda and became a force as a fundraising juggernaut in the 2010 elections. Others include Priorities USA; Americans For Tax Reform; and Americans For Prosperity, a group fronting special interests started by oil billionaire David Koch. People For The American Way is a prominent left wing 501(c)(4).

Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga & Mooney, A Partnership. For a free 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 or (818) 769-4221.

With respect to tax and estate law issues, Hank Moravec has over 20 years' experience as one of the best Los Angeles estate and trust tax attorneys and Los Angeles probate litigation attorneys and is available should you need legal advice regarding your own or a family member's situation. For a consultation, You can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 or (818) 769-4221 to request a consultation.

The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm has two offices and consultations and meetings can be held at either office.

The San Gabriel Valley office is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108. There is ample free parking adjacent to the firm's office.

The San Fernando Valley office is located at 4605 Lankershim Boulevard, Suite 718, North Hollywood, California 91602-1878.

Cyberspace When You're Dead - Interesting New York Times Article Addresses Our Digital Afterlives

There is an interesting article in the New York Times entitled "Cyberspace When You're Dead" that addresses the fact that estate law has only begun to consider the topic of what happens to our digital afterlives.

Considering that only about a third of Americans even have a will, how many people write down all the passwords and screen names for digital photograph servers like Flickr, email, social networks and leave them in a place where their family or heirs could find them? Facebook now has an option that allows a profile to be switched to "Memorial" mode when an individual dies.

For some family-owned businesses that rely on the Internet for sales and marketing, the digital rights and passwords may be very important for running a business. For many of our older clients, this has not been much of an issue but this is something for each person to consider.

Years ago, you could find a person's address book and contact their friends and family to tell them of their passing. Now much of that information is kept in Outlook Contacts or on an iPhone. Another thought is that some people are creating online memorials with photographs or video and allow friends and family to share memories. This is obviously a personal preference but is something that can be addressed at the planning stage.

Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga & Mooney. For a complimentary 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 or (818) 769-4221.

Tax Relief Act of 2010: It Finally Happened

Well, no one would have predicted this!

Essentially, Congress had ten years to provide some certainty to the U.S. Federal Estate and Gift tax system. Incredibly, with the Democratic Party in control of both houses of Congress and the White House, the Estate tax was allowed to lapse completely in 2010. As 2010 wore on, there were periodic statements of what should happen to the law, should there be a retroactive bill? Would the law really be allowed to return to the 2001 standard, with high rates and only a $1,000,000 exemption?

Then, the mid-term elections occur and we have divided government again. Yet now, with a technical "lame duck" congress, incredibly, a new tax bill emerges!

And what a bill! In addition to extending the Bush tax cuts on the income tax side (along with some very interesting temporary adjustments to the Social Security withholding tax), the Tax Relief Act signed into law on December 17, 2010, lowers estate, gift and generation-skipping transfer (GST) taxes for a two-year period.

Here are some of the estate and gift highlights of the Act:

■ The estate tax will be reinstated for 2011 and 2012 with a top rate of 35 percent. The exemption amount will be $5 million per individual in 2011 and will be indexed to inflation in following years.

■ Estates of people who died in 2010 can choose to follow either 2011 or 2011's rules. The estate may choose between an estate tax based on the $5 million exemption and a step up in basis of the estates assets, or no estate tax and a modified carryover basis in the estates assets.

■ For gifts made after December 31, 2010, the Act reunifies the gift tax with the estate tax, allowing for an exclusion of $5 million and the 35% tax rate. For gifts made during 2010, the exclusion amount is $1 million and the maximum tax rate is 35%.

■ The generation skipping transfer tax exemption for gifts made or decedents dying after December 31, 2009 will be equal to the applicable exemption for estate tax purposes. Transfers made during 2010 subject to the generation skipping transfer tax are subject to a tax rate of 0%, and will be subject to a rate of 35% for transfers in 2011 and 2012.

■ In addition, the TRA allows for the estates of decedents dying after December 31, 2010 to elect to transfer the unused portion of the $5 million exclusion to a surviving spouse.

Aside from the fact that a $5 million estate tax exemption per person, or $10 million per couple, is good news, there are many other planning opportunities raised by this new bill, many of which are caused by the fact that the gift tax exemption will now also be $5 million per person. This is the huge difference between the law since 2001 and now. Under prior law, with the gift tax exemption at $1 million, many clients who could otherwise afford to do so (from a financial perspective) could not make gifts to children or grandchildren. Now, there are many gifts which can be made, in trust or otherwise, and the parent/donor will not owe tax.

Perhaps the most surprising part of the Act is that estates of people who died in 2010 can elect to use either the new rules or the "old" rules. This addresses the situation in which an estate may owe significant capital gains tax even though no estate tax is owed. This is a surprising change because many times such inconsistencies are allowed to remain in the tax code because there is not much in the way of political capital to simply fixing an inconsistency. We have several estate matters which will be affected by this part of the Act.

The fact that the Act is in place for only two years is interesting. Perhaps Congress has realized that having these "deadlines" in place actually helps when it comes to compromise. We will see in two years' time.

Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga & Mooney. For a complimentary 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 or (818) 769-4221.

He focuses his practice on Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Administration, Beneficiary and Trustee Representation, Probate Litigation, Tax Law, and Nonprofit Law. He represents clients throughout Southern California and his offices are conveniently located for clients in the Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm has two offices and consultations and meetings can be held at either office. The San Gabriel Valley office is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108. Telephone: (626) 793-3210.

The San Fernando Valley office is located at 4605 Lankershim Boulevard, Suite 718, North Hollywood, California 91602-1878. Telephone: (818) 769-4221.

Proposed Estate Tax Deal for Two Years: 35% Tax Rate And $5 Million Exemption. Bigger Question For Most Americans: Do You Have An Estate Plan?

On December 6, 2010, President Obama announced that he has reached a deal with Republicans regarding the estate tax and other Bush Tax Cuts. Under the deal, the repeal of the estate tax in 2010 would not be extended. The estate tax would be revived, but not as it is scheduled.

Under current law, if Congress reaches no agreement, the estate tax is scheduled to come back in 2011 at a top rate of 55% (60% in some cases) and an exemption of a mere $1 million for individuals.

Under the Obama-Republican deal, the estate tax would come back at a rate of 35% and with an exemption of $5 million for individuals -- for two years. However, it is unknown whether the lame duck House would pass an estate tax exemption this high. This proposal may also not be popular among the Democrats.

From a planning perspective, the question is what should we advise our clients? Our approach is simple. Plan with the current law and not based upon any politicians' proposal.

One problem with this current proposal is that it's not a permanent solution. Under the deal the 55% tax rate and $1 million exemption would return in 2013. Married taxpayers will still need to utilize highly flexible planning that will allow the surviving spouse to adjust the planning after the first spouse’s death. This can be done by utilizing a “wait-and-see” trust that can adjust for different Federal and State exemptions and can be adjusted for up to 15 months after the date of the first spouse’s death if congress changes the law.

Get an estate plan. According to a Lawyer.com survey in early 2010, many Americans do not have proper estate plans. Only 35% of Americans now report having a will and only 21% have a trust. Thus, while a great deal attention is focused on the proposed legal changes, it is important to focus on yourself and your family and get an estate plan in place and not wait for Congress to act.

Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga & Mooney. For a complimentary 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 or (818) 769-4221.

He focuses his practice on Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Administration, Beneficiary and Trustee Representation, Probate Litigation, Tax Law, and Nonprofit Law. He represents clients throughout Southern California and his offices are conveniently located for clients in the Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm has two offices and consultations and meetings can be held at either office. The San Gabriel Valley office is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108. Telephone: (626) 793-3210.

The San Fernando Valley office is located at 4605 Lankershim Boulevard, Suite 718, North Hollywood, California 91602-1878. Telephone: (818) 769-4221.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE -- Odds On No Action On Estate Tax This Year Just Went Through The Roof

Its October 1, and there is still no action pending on Federal Estate Tax this year. Based upon several well publicized remarks, including a speech by Charles Grassley on the floor of the Senate and an op-ed piece by Robert Rubin in the Wall Street Journal ("Bring Back The Estate Tax Now"), it is fair to say that, with one quarter left in 2010, policymakers have finally noticed that the tax is coming back at only a $1 Million exemption and a 55% rate next year.

With an election looming in a month, there is basically no chance of action prior to Mid-November, I think that any retroactive application is now over.

I also think that a return to the $3.5 Million exemption and 45% rate is now the most likely scenario, because the government needs the money and has to get it from somewhere.

In an October 2, 2010 New York Times article entitled "TARP Bailout to Cost Less Than Once Anticipated" there is a good opportunity to imagine, as a legislator, (or even a top aide, like all those guys and gals in "The West Wing") how you would (a) address this issue and more importantly (b) explain it to your constituents.

It is no easy task. The New York Times article mentioned above, for example, points out that, according to one poll, 3 out of 10 voters are against the"bailout" even though the bailout is not going to cost $700 billion and may actually make money for the government. In another New York Times article "In Tax Cut Plan, Debate Over the Definition of 'Rich'" (Sept. 30, 2010) is a very thorough dissertation on one of the major issues in tax policy -- who, exactly, are "the rich?"

The only thing missing is the one fact which is rarely discussed, tax policy must address distribution of whatever it is that is being taxed. (It is rarely discussed because it is not entertaining enough, that is for sure!) For example, imagine an economic system with one peasant who is only paid in food, who works for the farm owner. The farm owner, who is "only 50% of the population" pays "100% of the taxes." He pays 100% of the taxes because he makes 100% of the income. The U.S. economy is more complex than that, but the principal is the same, in order to raise money you have to levy taxes on actual streams of income or assets -- you cannot just tax "in theory."

So, now read the two articles and figure out the best solution. (I know I don't know the best solution, that is for sure!) Remember, these are the guidelines:

(i) if you actually apply the taxation to those who have the money, you are vulnerable to the argument that "so and so voted to have 5% of the population pay 37% of the tax";

(ii) you know the average voter basically does not like rich people, since a program to essentially stabilize one of the worst recessions in memory is thoroughly demonized even though it may actually be profitable for the taxpayers, basically on the grounds that people don't like banks; and

(iii) no one agrees on who the "rich" are -- at least no one agrees based on any logic.

Good luck. And if you ever wonder why the Internal Revenue Code is complicated, or why politicians only speak in sound bits with no substance, imagine trying to explain these considerations in 30 seconds.

Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga & Mooney. For a complimentary 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 or (818) 769-4221.

He focuses his practice on Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Administration, Beneficiary and Trustee Representation, Probate Litigation, Tax Law, and Nonprofit Law. He represents clients throughout Southern California and his offices are conveniently located for clients in the Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm has two offices and consultations and meetings can be held at either office. The San Gabriel Valley office is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108. Telephone: (626) 793-3210.

The San Fernando Valley office is located at 4605 Lankershim Boulevard, Suite 718, North Hollywood, California 91602-1878. Telephone: (818) 769-4221.

Court Upholds Medicaid-Planning Annuity Purchase -- Income Stream From An Annuity Is Not An Asset For Medicaid Eligibility

An interesting and useful case was decided in Connecticut federal court last month regarding whether the income stream from an annuity can be treated as an "asset" for Medicaid (or here in California Medi-Cal) eligibility. The decision was in favor of the annuity owner whose husband was in a nursing home.

On August 30, 2010, a federal court in Connecticut ordered the state Medicaid agency to determine the eligibility of an institutionalized applicant without regard to his wife’s purchase of a single-premium annuity, which converted assets to income. It rejected the agency’s attempt to treat the annuity as an asset, which would have put the applicant over the resource limit until the couple spent down about $180,000. The agency’s denial of assistance was based on the wife’s failure to cooperate, specifically, her refusal to sell her interest in the annuity as it directed. The case is Lopes v. Starkowski (U.S.D.C. Conn., No. 3:10-CV-307, August 10, 2010).

The Annuity

The terms of the annuity provided that no interest in it could be sold or transferred, including the right to payment of the income. The spouse named the state agency as remainder beneficiary up to the amount expended for her husband’s care as required under the Deficit Reduction Act (P.L. 109-171) and state regulations. Payment of the premium depleted the couple’s assets by about half, and the amount remaining was close to the resource allowance allowed to a community spouse under Soc. Sec. Act §1924.

Court Holding

The federal court found that the Medicaid agency violated federal law when it demanded that the wife sell the annuity. Soc. Sec. Act §1902(a)(10)(C)(i) requires that the agency’s methodology for determining financial eligibility for Medicaid for institutional care be no more restrictive than the methodology used for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. The SSI program treated annuities with similar terms as income, not an asset that the spouse could be required to sell. The applicant and spouse were granted judgment as a matter of law.

Attorney Commentary

Estate planning with respect to Medi-Cal eligibility has become a more important consideration given the costs of health care, long-term care and longer life spans. One of our partners Bentley Mooney was at the forefront of this issue in California and continues to write and speak about it. Thus, our firm is uniquely situated to address these issues for our clients where it could be an issue.

Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga & Mooney. For a complimentary 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 or (818) 769-4221.

Mr. Moravec is a very experienced Los Angeles estate planning attorney, Los Angeles trust attorney and Los Angeles probate attorney. He has more than 20 years' experience in estate planning and is extremely dedicated to his clients and helping them create a plan that is tailored to their wishes, finances, helps avoid probate and taxes, and takes into account their families' unique situation.

The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm has two offices and consultations and meetings can be held at either office.

The San Gabriel Valley office is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108. Telephone: (626) 793-3210.

The San Fernando Valley office is located at 4605 Lankershim Boulevard, Suite 718, North Hollywood, California 91602-1878. Telephone: (818) 769-4221.

Tax Season Is Here: Estate Planning And Tax Issues

As we head into the fall, Tax Lawyers and Accountants know that this time of the year, more so than the spring April 15 deadline, is really Tax Season -- the time when Congress typically passes new law to be effective the following year.

This "Tax Season" is especially interesting (well, it's "interesting" if you follow tax laws for a living) since (i) many general provisions of the pre-9/11 2001 Tax Act are set to expire at year end, and (ii) among those provisions is the Federal Estate Tax, currently repealed but set to return at a very low exemption amount $1,000,000 per person. Throw in a weak recovery from a recession and a fairly serious Federal Deficit (and, for us in California, what can only be described as a continuing budget crisis), and there is a lot of potential for laws which could effect large swaths of taxpayers in a material way.

Of course, its also a mid-term Congressional election year, which means both parties will be due to issue "highly tactical" if not always "technically accurate" statements about tax law.

Here is a short list of what might make the front page of the papers this fall:

1. At what rate will the Estate Tax return? With so much of the year gone by, the odds of any sort of retroactive tax appear to drop by the day. However, Congress may be tempted to simply let the law switch back on January 1st, and if that happens a $1,000,000 exemption will mean that many taxpayers who did not have to concern themselves with Estate Taxes at all will need to do so.

2. Will income tax rates return to something approaching Clinton-era rates? For taxpayers in the top bracket, this means about a 4 to 5 percent increase. The debate about whether that should or will happen would require quite a bit of space (maybe a couple of blogs?) but what it may well mean is that if there is an opportunity to take income this year as opposed to next year or later, the savings could be material.

3. Will the Social Security and Medicare tax rates change? There is no area of tax more misunderstood than this one, mainly because neither political party has any interest in boring taxpayers with the actual details when so many votes can be had by getting everyone fired up with policy debate.

The fundamentals are:
(i) Both programs are more than 70 years old,
(ii) for the first 40 or so years, they were "pay as you go" the rates of tax were based on the payouts of the programs on an annual basis,
(iii) in the mid 1980's it was decided that workers should be, essentially "over charged" to build up a "reserve" for the baby boom generation bulge.

I put "over charged" and "reserve" in quotes because both terms are highly subjective, the reality is that if Social Security paid out $X since 1985 all of the taxpayers were charged about $2X during that time. Why? Well, this excess did not technically go into a big mattress, but went to basically reduce overall Federal Government borrowing (i.e., we own less to China and more to "ourselves").

So, when anyone says "the Social Security Trust fund will run out" it actually means that general tax revenue will need to start paying back the excess revenue borrowed since 1985. This is sometimes portrayed as a disaster, but in actuality its about what the Iraq occupation has cost. This will not happen in the short term (i.e., this fall), but there are going to have to be some adjustments somewhere in the system, and the information given to taxpayers is going to be far from the basic facts needed to make an informed decision -- it's just too easy to demagogue this issue.

4. Will California adjust its own taxes at some point? We don't talk about State taxes much, especially since California does not have a separate Estate Tax. However, with the state budget crisis seeming to persist year after year, how long will it be before California considers it?

Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga & Mooney. For a complimentary 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 or (818) 769-4221.

He focuses his practice on Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Administration, Beneficiary and Trustee Representation, Probate Litigation, Tax Law, and Nonprofit Law. He represents clients throughout Southern California and his offices are conveniently located for clients in the Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm has two offices and consultations and meetings can be held at either office.

The San Gabriel Valley office is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108. Telephone: (626) 793-3210.

The San Fernando Valley office is located at 4605 Lankershim Boulevard, Suite 718, North Hollywood, California 91602-1878. Telephone: (818) 769-4221.

Announcing Merger And Second Office in North Hollywood, California To Better Serve Our Clients

Moravecs, A Professional Corporation, and F. Bentley Mooney, Law Corporation announce their merger. The new law firm will become Moravec, Varga & Mooney, a Partnership, maintaining the strong reputation each firm has established in Los Angeles and Southern California.

The decision to merge is about the firm's commitment to our clients’ needs, not about numbers. “This is a strategic merger designed to increase the depth of the legal service we provide to clients,” said Henry ("Hank") Moravec.

“The Mooney firm shares our core values and commitment to unparalleled client service. Combining these two great small estate, tax and probate law firms in Los Angeles will benefit each firm and our clients as we expand the reach and depth of our practice areas." Moravec says that the Mooney firm has an excellent reputation among the courts, clients and other lawyers.

“This is a great pairing of two Los Angeles-founded estate planning and probate law firms,” said Linda M. Varga, one of the Moravec firm’s original co-founders. Varga added: “We also complement our geographic footprints. We had long considered expanding our practice west into the San Fernando Valley where the Mooney firm has an established office. Los Angeles is geographically large and we needed a second office to better serve our clients. ”

The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm has two offices and consultations and meetings can be held at either office.

The San Gabriel Valley office is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108. Telephone: (626) 793-3210.

The San Fernando Valley office is located at 4605 Lankershim Boulevard, Suite 718, North Hollywood, California 91602-1878. Telephone: (818) 769-4221.

The firm focuses its practice on Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Administration, Beneficiary and Trustee Representation, Probate Litigation, Tax Law, and Nonprofit Law. They represent clients throughout Southern California and their offices are conveniently located for clients in the Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga & Mooney. For a complimentary 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 or (818) 769-4221.

L.A. Times Opinion Article Favors Congress Passing Estate Tax This Year

The estate tax is controversial and the fact that it is not settled is making it to the opinion page of the nation's leading newspapers including the Los Angeles Times. This article by Boston law professor Ray Madoff entitled "Inherited Wealth Shouldn't Get A Free Pass On Taxes" argues that the wealthy should pay estate taxes. As estate lawyers, we seek to minimize all taxes to our clients and plan for the avoidance of taxes.

Nevertheless, it is important to keep up with the issues even when we may disagree with the views expressed in this article. Professor Madoff does not address the fact that taxes have already been paid on the income earned by the wealthy but this is his opinion on inherited wealth passing to the next generation. The article addresses the amount of money generated by the estate tax. Opinions such as this one and the current federal budget crisis are some of the reasons why we believe that Congress will act and pass an estate tax within the next year.

Inherited wealth shouldn't get a free pass on taxes - latimes.com

Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Morevec III. With respect to tax and estate planning, Hank Moravec has over 20 years' experience as one of the best Los Angeles estate and trust attorneys and is available should you need legal advice regarding your own or a family member's situation.

For a free 30 minute consultation, you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 to request a consultation. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108. There is ample free parking adjacent to the firm's office.

Florida Heiress Leaves Bulk Of Estate To Caretakers And Dogs & Leaves Son A Fraction. Result? Probate Litigation & Undue Influence Allegations.

When Gail Posner of Miami, a daughter of the corporate takeover businessman Victor Posner, died in March 2010 at age 67 from cancer, a cute Chihuahua named Conchita and two other dogs inherited the right to live in her Miami Beach mansion and have a $3 million trust fund. Ms. Posner's caretakers and staff (7 bodyguards, housekeepers and other personal aides) were left a total of $26 million under her will, and some also were allowed to live, rent-free, in the mansion to care for the dogs.

Ms. Posner's only surviving adult son Brent Carr was left $1 million. He filed a lawsuit in probate court last week in Miami-Dade County seeking damages and a petition to revoke probate of will. A copy of the lawsuit has been posted by the Wall Street Journal.

The lawsuit names the trustee Mellon Private Trust and the caretakers and staff as defendants. Mr. Carr alleges among other things that there was undue influence by her caretakers. It makes for a sad story of what can happen after someone passes away. The Wall Street Journal's article on this lawsuit points out that Mr. Carr had his share of problems in the past.

For those that are interested in what a trust document looks like for a large estate, the Wall Street Journal also posted online a copy of Gail Posner's Revocable Trust. This trust was from 2008 almost two years before she died. The son's lawsuit contends that the changes to a trust from 1965 were the result of undue influence.

In order to prove undue influence, a person must show that there is a vulnerability to undue influence, the opportunity to influence, and the likelihood of the influencer to commit the act. Ms. Posner was only 67 and died of cancer. There are allegations of mental illness and prescription drug abuse in the son's lawsuit. The cost of defending this lawsuit could certainly cost the estate more than the $1 million left to Mr. Carr and obtaining a settlement when everyone knows the cost of litigation may be the goal of Mr. Carr and his attorneys.

It will be up to the courts to decide if Gail Posner knew what she was doing when she signed that will and no one who stood to gain from the will exerted "undue influence" on her. This will be a factual determination and good estate planning can help avoid subsequent charges of undue influence. Large and small estates alike need to be aware of this possibility and do their best to minimize probate litigation.

In a prior post, I wrote an article about six methods to reduce estate and probate litigation. For example, it would not be surprising if the attorneys had a video made of Gail Posner signing the new will or independent third-party witnesses on the issue of why the son was left $1 million and Ms. Posner's intent in amending her trust and will.

It will probably take a year or more for this case to be resolved. Further, since 98 percent of probate litigation cases settle, I would predict an out-of-court settlement in this matter unless Mr. Carr is deemed to be unreasonable or his settlement demands are considered to be much greater than his ability to recover at trial.

Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Morevec III. With respect to probate, Hank Moravec has over 20 years' experience as one of the best Los Angeles probate attorneys and Los Angeles probate litigation attorneys and is available should you need legal advice regarding your own or a family member's situation. For a consultation, You can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 to request a consultation.

The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108. There is ample free parking adjacent to the firm's office.

The office is located in San Marino, California, a suburb of Los Angeles in the San Gabriel area located 20 minutes from downtown Los Angeles. The firm represents clients throughout California and its attorneys appears in probate court throughout Southern California (Pasadena probate attorney, Los Angeles probate attorney, Santa Monica probate attorney, Pomona probate attorney, Torrance probate attorney, Long Beach probate attorney, Van Nuys probate attorney, Santa Barbara probate attorney, Orange County probate attorney, Riverside probate attorney, San Bernardino probate attorney).

Planning For Dormant Estate Tax In 2010. What Happens In 2011? Why You Need To Seek Advice And Have Estate Plan Updated.

One reason I like to refer to articles in newspapers is that it helps explain to non-lawyers what is happening in estate and tax law. It also helps remind people when they need to engage in estate planning. The New York Times' article on June 12, 2010 is informative and is entitled "Confusion Over The Dormant Estate Tax Keeps Advisers Busy."

Why might you need to consult an experienced California estate planning attorney?

1. If Congress fails to act again this year, the estate tax laws next year will revert to their levels before 2001 which is $1 million.

This means that if you set up your estate prior to 2010 on the assumption that estates worth more than $1 million but less than $3.5 million or more would not be subject to estates taxes upon death will need to revisit their estate plan.

If the law stays the same and Congress does not act, the heirs of a single person who dies next year with more than $1 million would be subject to a 55 percent tax. (For couples, it is $2 million.) Heirs of that same person, with a $3.5 million estate, would have paid nothing in 2009 but could pay as much as $1.375 million in 2011, depending on the level of planning. The numbers speak for themselves.

2. How Can My Estate Be Worth Over $1 Million?

In California and the Northeast, the value of a home combined with retirement accounts means that a large percentage of the upper-middle class can have estates worth over $1 million (or $2 million for couples).

Estate planning can save a great deal of money and the cost of planning (flat fees in our office ranging from $3,500 to $5,000 for most estates) is minor compared to the savings in estate tax. See our prior article about "What Does Estate Planning Cost?"

3. Some wealthier clients are interested in creating grantor retained annuity trusts (GRATs) which is a short-term trust that allows people to pass money to heirs tax-free. There is a concern that the federal government could change the terms of these trusts. See our prior article about GRATs and other ways of transferring wealth.

4. For 2010, elimination of automatic step-up in basis requires determining the original purchase price and waiting for IRS to issue documents on how to apply artificial step-up in basis.

As discussed in other articles, in 2010 the automatic "step-up" in basis for capital gains tax purposes was also repealed. Here is a brief explanation of how this works. Prior to 2010, the assets of people who died under the old estate tax law were valued at the date of their death for tax purposes. For example, any capital gains on stocks purchased 20 years' earlier — which would have been subject to tax if sold — were erased. In 2010 that is no longer the case, and figuring out what is owed requires determining the original purchase price — however long ago that was.

Without an estate tax this year, the Internal Revenue Code grants an artificial step-up in basis, as it is called, of $1.3 million to be used at the executor’s discretion and $3 million on assets passed to a spouse. The problem is that the IRS has yet to issue documents or forms to record how this exemption has been applied.

For an estate where the deceased passed away in 2010, the tax would not be due until April 15, 2011. However, a problem could arise, for example, if the heirs need to sell stock for cash or to diversity holdings. The sale can be made but the heirs would incur a 15 percent capital gains tax on the appreciated amount.

The New York Times article gave one example showing how not having an automatic step-up in basis could affect property. For example, if an heir inherited a property worth less than $3.5 million (the 2009 exemption) but worth more than the $1.3 million (with a basis near zero) that the IRS step-up in basis would exempt -- there is a large difference between the taxes owed in 2009 and 2010. For a 2009 sale, there would have been no estate tax or capital gains tax owed. But if the property is sold in 2010, capital gains tax would be owed.

5. What do estate planning attorneys want to happen?

I cannot speak for others, but I (and most others I believe) want predictability and certainty in what the tax laws are going to be in 2010 and afterwards. Previously, it was predicted that the estate tax would be enacted retroactively but that has not occurred and may not. Given that the first billionaire has passed away in 2010 and has saved his estate an enormous amount of money, the IRS may not want to litigate against his estate which could easily outspend the IRS.

For the heirs middle-upper class who are moderately wealthy due to property and retirement plans, they will pay significantly more unless Congress acts to change the law. People who would not have had to worry about estate tax will need to plan if Congress changes the law or if Congress allows the tax to revert to 2001 rates.

6. What should I do if my estate is worth more than $1 million (or $2 million for couples)?

You can do a couple of things. First, have your estate plan updated before the end of 2010. There may be gifts and other estate planning vehicles available to you this year.

Second, watch what Congress does and plan to have your estate plan reviewed again in 2011. Depending on your net worth, the types of assets you own and your intended beneficiaries, it might turn out that you will not need the 2011 return visit — but we won't know until Congress acts or fails to act.

Posted by Henry J. Moravec, III. Henry (Hank) Moravec is a partner at Moravecs, A Professional Law Corporation. He has over 20 years' experience as one of the best Los Angeles estate planning attorneys and one of the best Los Angeles probate attorneys with an excellent tax law background and is available should you need legal advice regarding your own situation.

You can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 to request a consultation. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108.

First Billionaire Dies in 2010 While Estate Tax Is Dormant. Don't Forget About Elimination Of Automatic Step-Up In Basis For Capital Gains Tax.

When America's first billionaire John D. Rockefeller (pictured at right) died in 1937, his estate paid tax at a 70% rate. In contrast, the estate tax rate on Houston billionaire Dan L. Duncan's estate, unless Congress passes a retroactive Estate Tax, is 0%. Last week the New York Times weighed in concerning Duncan's death in an article entitled "Legacy for One Billionaire: Death, But No Taxes."

The issue that was not addressed, however, was whether or not there was any tax due to the fact that in 2010 the automatic "step-up" in basis for capital gains tax purposes was also repealed.

Mr. Duncan’s worth was estimated by Forbes magazine at $9 billion, making him as the 74th wealthiest in the world. If Mr. Duncan's life had ended three months earlier, his estate would have been subject to a federal tax of at least 45 percent. If he had lived past Jan. 1, 2011, the rate would be even higher — 55 percent.

Instead, because Congress allowed the tax to lapse for one year and gave all estates a free pass in 2010, Mr. Duncan’s four children and four grandchildren stand to collect billions that in any other year would have gone to the Treasury.

As is typical with New York Times articles, the most interesting analysis is in the "comments" to the article. Both sides of the Estate Tax argument are well represented, and make for good reading. Well, good reading if you like to read about estate and tax policy, at least.

However, do not forget that 2010 was a year in which there was an "estate tax capital gains tax" swap. At least 20 New York Times commentators were unaware that in 2010 the estate tax was repealed, but so was the automatic "step-up" in basis for capital gains tax purposes. In 2009, for example, the law provided that for estates which did not contain retirement plan assets (which are taxed as income to the heirs as such funds were never taxed at all to the decedent) there would be no tax at all for estates up to $7 million in value per couple.

Depending on the composition of the estate, and the state in which the decedent lived, in 2010 a $7 million estate could pay as much as $1 million or so in capital gains when assets are sold.

Capital gains vs. Estate tax is not quite an "apples to apples" comparison, as the taxes are imposed at different rates, and of course at different times (for example, if Duncan's company is not sold by his heirs, capital gains will not be due) but 2010 was definitely not a "totally tax free year" in the case of inherited assets.

Posted by Henry J. Moravec, III. Henry (Hank) Moravec is a partner at Moravecs, A Professional Law Corporation. The firm is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108. He is a very experienced Los Angeles estate planning attorney and is available should you need legal advice regarding your own situation.

You can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 to request a consultation. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/

How Should You Plan Your Estate In This Time Of Federal Estate Tax Uncertainty?

Now let's move on to a more practical topic. I keep writing about the uncertainty with the federal estate tax. A more pertinent question that applies to everyone is: With this uncertainty in the law, what should and can I do about it?

How Do We Plan In This Time Of Flux?
3 Key Things To Remember.

First, do an estate plan. If you fail to plan -- you are planning to fail. Also, keep your plan updated. Make an annual checkup with your estate planning attorney (even if for 15 minutes) to let him or her know if there are any changes in your circumstances or to see if the changes in the law effect you.

Second, it's all about your loved ones! If estate taxes would not affect you, don't think there is no need for an estate plan. The reality is that estate taxes currently affect less than one percent of people. So why do you need an estate plan or trust? Your family, your loved ones or your charities. That's why.

Third, don't procrastinate on this issue. We all procrastinate on some tasks but put this one at the top of your "to do" list as what I call a "most important task"! And don't even think about using this estate tax uncertainty as another excuse to procrastinate. (Please excuse my lame procrastination joke :)

An experienced estate attorney can help break all this down into very manageable tasks for a reasonable fixed fee and will do almost all the work for you in tax planning and helping you carry out your wishes. You just have to make the major decisions such as who will be your child's guardian and who will receive your assets.

Without a current estate plan, you could be harming the futures of those people who are the most important to you. Ask yourself: Do I want confusion and turmoil to be what I leave to my heirs and family? We all know the answer to that question is a resounding "no."

But go ahead and ask yourself:

How would I want my assets to be managed if I became incapacitated with early dementia or passed away?

Who would care for my minor children if something happens to me or my spouse?

Do I want my family in litigation over my estate? How do I avoid probate litigation?

Do I want piece of mind on a day-to-day basis that my estate plan is in place?

These are questions we all have to ask ourselves. And the answers remind us why we all have to plan regardless of whether or not we are subject to the federal estate tax.

Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga & Mooney. For a complimentary 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 or (818) 769-4221.

Mr. Moravec is a very experienced Los Angeles estate planning attorney, Los Angeles trust attorney and Los Angeles probate attorney. He has more than 20 years' experience in avoiding taxes with estate planning and is extremely dedicated to his clients and helping them create a plan that is tailored to their wishes, finances, helps avoid probate and taxes, and takes into account their families' unique situation.

He focuses his practice on Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Administration, Beneficiary and Trustee Representation, Probate Litigation, Tax Law, and Nonprofit Law. He represents clients throughout Southern California and his offices are conveniently located for clients in the Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm has two offices and consultations and meetings can be held at either office.

The San Gabriel Valley office is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108. Telephone: (626) 793-3210.

The San Fernando Valley office is located at 4605 Lankershim Boulevard, Suite 718, North Hollywood, California 91602-1878. Telephone: (818) 769-4221.

Some States Race To Clean Up Congress' Estate Tax Mess:

With the federal estate tax law having lapsed — a growing number of states are taking matters into their own hands.

"Investment News" has an article on this topic which I have linked this post to and it can be found here:

Dead Federal Estate Tax Rises From The Ashes - Investment News

The article discusses how lawmakers and estate attorneys in the District of Columbia and at least 13 states, including Florida, Georgia, New York and Virginia, are drafting or have introduced legislation aimed at clarifying estate tax law in the absence of a federal statute. Specifically, they hope to avoid a wave of lawsuits that will likely arise from ambiguities in wills and trusts filed this year.

For example, here's the way it would work. On Jan. 12, Virginia introduced a bill that would require all estates and trusts to be treated as though they were governed by 2009 federal tax law. I have not seen any proposed California legislation yet.

For those who want more related information on this issue, you can read a February 3 Forbes Magazine article entitled "States Race To Clean Up Congress' Estate Tax Mess."

Posted by Henry J. Moravec, III. Henry (Hank) Moravec is a partner at Moravecs, A Professional Law Corporation in San Marino, California, a suburb of Los Angeles. He focuses his practice on Estate Planning, Probate Litigation, Trust Administration, Beneficiary Representation, Trustee Representation, Tax Law, and Nonprofit Law.

Should you have any questions regarding your own situation, you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/

Potential Estate Tax Implications Of J.D. Salinger's Death

"If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth."

"Catcher In The Rye" by J.D. Salinger (who passed away on January 28, 2010 at age 91 when there is no federal estate tax under current law)
Famously reclusive, Salinger withdrew from public life, refusing interviews for many decades. Although he was understood to have continued to write in his isolation, those manuscripts have remained private. From a federal estate tax perspective, what are those manuscripts worth?
I have written previously about the potential estate tax implications of someone's death during this time period when there's no current federal estate tax. Let me use Salinger as an example.

What happens if Congress reinstates the federal estate tax later this year and makes it retroactive to Jan. 1, 2010? Some estate tax attorneys have predicted that the representatives of the estate of someone who dies during this window of time (such as Salinger) would mount a constitutional challenge to the retroactivity of the law that would go all the way to the Supreme Court.

I am not saying it would be Salinger but it would be quite ironic if the estate of the notoriously private Salinger filed a public lawsuit challenging this law. I suspect that Salinger's estate representative and attorneys -- like the rest of us -- are waiting for what Congress is going to do.

Posted by Henry J. Moravec, III. Henry (Hank) Moravec is a partner at Moravecs, A Professional Law Corporation in San Marino, California, a suburb of Los Angeles. He focuses his practice on Estate Planning, Probate Litigation, Trust Administration, Beneficiary Representation, Trustee Representation, Tax Law, and Nonprofit Law.

Should you have any questions regarding your own situation, you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/

Tip Of The Week: You May Need To Alter Will

The Wall Street Journal's article on January 17, 2010 is entitled "You May Need To Update Your Will." The article relates to what I have written about this month - the recent repeal of the federal estate tax for 2010 and the uncertainty of when, how and whether Congress will pass a retroactive law.

The article is educating its readers on how the recent repeal of the federal estate tax could have one consequence families may not be aware of: some people who do not update their wills could end up leaving nothing to their spouses.

The reason this could happen is as follows. It is a common practice for people to use formulas in their wills designed to send the maximum amount of assets not subject to the estate tax into a trust, often for their children. The remaining assets are usually left to the surviving spouse.

But at this moment in 2010, there is no limit on the assets people can pass to their heirs without being subject to federal estate tax. So there are some wills and trusts where all of the assets could go into a trust and the surviving spouse would get nothing.

There is some relief for these spouses if wills are not updated since most states allow a surviving spouse to claim part of the estate even if he or she has been disinherited. However, this can be an expensive court process.

To avoid potential problems, people should review their wills with their estate planning attorney and determine if they need to revise their wills. For those people who left all assets to the trust without any to the spouse, it may be appropriate to remove the formulas and use dollar amounts instead to designate where assets should go. Another idea to consider is whether to transfer some assets to a spouse now, so he or she has sufficient funds directly in his or her name.

There are numerous planning tools - and each individual situation is different. Once the law is passed and retroactive -- as is predicted by me and most estate planning experts -- the will will need to be revisited once again. Remember to set up everything as if you would die tomorrow. Procrastination in this area can lead to many unintended consequences.

Posted by Henry Moravec, III. Henry (Hank) Moravec is a partner at Moravecs, A Professional Law Corporation in San Marino, California, a suburb of Los Angeles. He focuses his practice on Estate Planning, Probate, Trust Administration, Beneficiary and Trustee Representation, Tax Law, and Nonprofit Law.

Should you have any questions regarding your own situation, you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/

NYT Article: "A Bizarre Year For The Estate Tax Will Require Extra Planning"

Given the uncertainty in the estate tax this year which I have written about previously, estate planning may require new strategies for various wealth levels.

Paul Sullivan has authored an article in the January 8, 2010 New York Times entitled "A Bizarre Year For The Estate Tax Will Require Extra Planning." This article is a good summary of current thinking on this issue and includes some common sense advice such as having one's will and estate plan reviewed in these uncertain times.

The consensus among estate planners is that Congress will revive the estate tax and make it retroactive to Jan. 1, 2010. As the New York Times article noted having an expired estate tax is unsettling since "[t]he situation has thrown a wrench into the core tenet of estate planning: set up everything as if you would die tomorrow. What happens if the law changes by then?" This is the question all of us should ask ourselves.

The article gives one excellent example using the gift tax. Presently, the gift tax is down to 35 percent, from 45 percent, and the generation-skipping tax on assets passed to grandchildren is gone. In 2009, if a wealthy businessman wanted to give his granddaughter a gift above the exemption, he would have paid an effective tax of 74 percent on that amount. This year, the grandparent would pay only the 35 percent gift tax.

No one wants to be a test case and this uncertainty can be used as a reminder for all of us to take a look at our estate plan and wills and pay attention to the anticipated legal changes.

Posted by Henry Moravec, III. Henry (Hank) Moravec is a partner at Moravecs, A Professional Law Corporation in San Marino, California, a suburb of Los Angeles. He focuses his practice on Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Administration, Beneficiary and Trustee Representation, Tax Law, and Nonprofit Law.

Should you have any questions regarding your own situation, you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/

Congress Has Adjourned Without Making Changes In Estate Tax Law: Evaluating Your Estate Plan

Congress has adjourned for the year without making any changes in that tax law. Statements have been issued to the effect that the Senate will take up Estate Tax reform in early January, so the issue is still up in the air.

It seemed incredible that Congress would allow some unknown number of days to elapse in January of 2010 during which there would be "no estate tax" yet pass a retroactive bill later.

The concept of "retroactive tax law" is not a strange one, it actually happens almost every year. Most of the time, though the "retroactive" laws apply to the income tax, and such bills benefit taxpayers. This year, there are a significant number of deductions which expire on December 31, 2009 and have not been extended to 2010. Most are expected to be extended "retroactively" sometime in the first quarter of 2010, but most people will pay no attention.

Similarly, at the level of tax regulations (one step below actual statutes or, to put it another way, at the level of "interpretation" of existing statutes) it is common for the Treasury Department or the IRS to issue a formal Notice which states, for example that the tax consequences of a certain type of transaction are under review. Later, often several months to more than half a year later, actual regulations are issued which apply to transactions which occur after the date of the formal Notice.

But the Federal Estate Tax is not a regulation, it's an actual statute, and to politicians on both sides as a concept it appears to draw a strange mix of importance and casual disregard. For example, in early December, the House of Representatives passed an Estate Tax Bill which provides that the current law would remain in effect. The House could have included this bill as part of a mandatory Defense Funding Bill (which I understand had to be passed in 2009) but, apparently because the House figured that the Senate was busy with Health Care, decided not to do so. So it's important enough to pass a bill, but not important enough to actually get it done before the end of 2009.

If it's considered funny, at some level, to make fun of heirs who are greedily waiting for an inheritance, the concept of no estate tax for a defined period of time takes this area of "humor" to a whole new level. The jokes are already starting to flow, at the Huffington Post, Steven Clifford weighs in with a list of things that parents ought to take a second look for now that there is no estate tax in a couple of days, including children removing the steering wheels on their cars or sending texts to parents while the parents are driving.

So as of now, the law remains that the tax will disappear in 2010 before reverting in 2011 to the old rate of 55 percent for estates worth more than $1 million. Thus, if Congress does not act, the repeal is only for 2010. After that, the tax is to be reinstated at pre-2001 levels.

Today, the estate tax applies to estates that are worth more than $7 million (for couples), or $3.5 million (for individuals). More than 99 percent of all estates are exempt. In addition, under today’s law, when heirs sell inherited property, no capital gains tax is due on the increase in value that occurred during the lifetime of the original owner. (If your parents pass on stock worth $2 million that they bought for $200,000, and you sell it for $2 million, you owe no tax on the $1.8 million gain.)

But the big issue today is not the status quo, its retroactivity, what it means, and how it would work. An estate does not have to file an Estate Tax Return and pay the estate tax until nine months after a person’s death. The Senate could wait, then, until the summer to decide on the estate tax and make it retroactive to the beginning of the year.

This does not mean retroactivity will be easy to navigate. Many estate plans name individual relatives (i.e., non-accountants, non-tax lawyers, and certainly "non" Trust Companies) as the executors of Estates or the Trustees of Trusts. Most, if not effectively all, of these individuals are unaware of their personal liability for estate taxes owed. It's almost a statistical certainty that some individual trustee will try to distribute all assets to "beat" the enactment of any law, only to discover that when the law is passed later that they have liability.

It will be an interesting January.

Posted by Henry Moravec, III. Should you have any questions regarding your own situation, you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/