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.

Probate Battle Involving Heirs Of Book Author And Undue Influence Allegations Settles After Two Years And On Eve Of Trial

A notable probate battle in Vermont has settled just before trial was to start after a 2½-year-old fight among the heirs of children's book author and illustrator Tasha Tudor. The estate was worth $2 million. Ms. Tudor, 92, died in 2008 of complications from a series of strokes. The settlement agreement was confidential and not filed with the court.
The fight was over the legitimacy of the will and the key issue was whether Ms. Tudor was unduly influenced when she rewrote it to give nearly everything to her oldest son.
Although this case is not in California, it highlights trends we see in cases here in California. First, given the cost of probate litigation and the risks involved, most cases settle before trial. With a $2 million estate, a significant amount of the estate can be consumed in legal fees over a two-year period. It is important to analyze legal expenses and costs as part of the business side of evaluating whether it makes economic sense to proceed to trial.

Second, there is an increase in probate litigation given the economic and housing crisis with some heirs not willing to settle for less and with real estate prices being depressed. Third, when wills or trusts are changed to leave out other children -- it increases the likelihood of probate litigation unless the changes are well documented and planned.

Ms. Tudor, who quit school after the eighth grade, won a worldwide following with her whimsical watercolors and drawings in "Pumpkin Moonshine," ''Corgiville Fair," and "Little Women," among nearly 100 children's books she illustrated or wrote. Ms. Tudor celebrated old-fashioned family life at home, becoming known for her anachronistic lifestyle — often going barefoot, wearing vintage dresses or making linen for her own clothing and living in a replica of an 18th-century New England farmhouse built by her sons, in Marlboro, Vt.

Her 2001 will requested that her cremated remains be buried with her beloved predeceased Corgis and the ashes of her pet rooster. It left her copyrights and most of her assets to sons Seth Tudor and Thomas Tudor and Seth's son, Winslow Tudor, giving only $1,000 each to daughters Bethany Tudor and Efner Tudor Holmes.

But an amended 2002 version cut out Thomas, save for an antique highboy, because of his "estrangement" from his mother. Thomas contended his brother wielded undue influence over their mother and that there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the changes in the will.

Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga and 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.

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

With respect to probate, Hank Moravec has over 20 years' experience as a probate and probate litigation attorney practicing in Los Angeles and is available should you need legal advice regarding your own or a family member's situation.

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

NYT Article On Competency: "Money Woes Can Be Early To Alzheimers" And How This Effects Deciding When A Client Lacks Capacity

The New York Times recently had an article entitled "Money Woes Can Be Early Clue To Alzheimers" which is a case study on why early estate planning and having powers of attorney in place before there are competency issues is important -- especially to avoid later charges of undue influence and competency. It also raises the issue, however, of “What do we mean when we say someone has enough decision-making capacity to be ‘competent’?" The issue promises to become even more complicated as researchers and doctors diagnose Alzheimer’s earlier and earlier.

The article notes that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the largest nongovernmental regulator for securities firms doing business in the United States, recently met with individual financial services companies and the Alzheimer's Association to formulate guidelines on how to deal with clients who have trouble remembering and reasoning, a problem that is not new but is increasing as the population ages.

On one hand, it is generally agreed that decisions by a competent adult should be respected. On the other hand, if new brain scans and other methods show signs that a person is developing dementia, does that mean the patient should be watched, or that there should be limits on his or her abilities to make financial or legal decisions?

The article cites experts who say confusion over money and finances is perhaps the most important and most predictable early functional change as people descend into dementia. For lawyers, the main question is at what point a client lacks the capacity to execute a will, trust or other document, and who decides when that point has been reached. And if a lawyer lets a client go ahead, will the document be challenged?

The American Bar Association's Commission on Law and Aging created guidelines on this issue in 2005 entitled "Assessment of Older Adults With Diminished Capacity." The guidelines that include warning signs of diminished capacity, like memory loss and problems communicating and doing calculations. The guidelines instruct lawyers to look at the legal requirements for capacity in specific situations, like making a gift. Courts are always struggling to come up with principles and definitions of capacity and definitions of capacity vary among the states.

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 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.

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.

Recent California Decision On Breach Of Trust & Trustee Fiduciary Duties - Uzyel v. Kadisha

A recent decision from the California Court of Appeal (10 S.O.S. 5529) serves as an incredible reminder about the duties of a trustee not to engage in self-dealing even if the trustee believes he or she is also acting in the best interest of the trust and beneficiaries.

It also demonstrates how long these cases can take to run through the courts. The lower court trial lasted for almost four years before it went to the appellate courts.

In this case, the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment against trustee Neil Kadisha, a venture capitalist and philanthropist who is reportedly one of Los Angeles’ wealthiest residents, for actions arising from two trusts he was administering for a young widow. The lower court found that Neil Kadisha used the trusts for his own benefit. Neil Kadisha served as the trustee of two trusts.

The beneficiaries, Dafna Uzyel and her children Izzet and Joelle Uzyel (collectively the Uzyels), filed petitions for breach of trust against Kadisha and terminated the trusts. After a nonjury trial, the trial court awarded the Uzyels over $59 million in compensatory damages and disgorgement of profits, plus $5 million in punitive damages and over $13 million in attorney fees. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's findings and also added about $20 million in prejudgment interest to the judgment.

Justice Walter Croskey, writing for the Court of Appeal, cited numerous instances of self-dealing by Mr. Kadisha, who agreed to assist then-28-year-old Dafna Uzyel, who had a 10th grade education and spoke little English, after her 40-year-old husband died unexpectedly. Rafael Uzyel had emigrated from Israel with his wife and two children and had a successful export-import business.

Mr. Kadisha appealed the judgment, challenging the awards on several claims, the punitive damages, and the attorney fee award. The Uzyels also appealed, challenging the denial of relief on some of their claims, the denial of prejudgment interest on some claims, the punitive damages, and the costs award.

This case raised several questions concerning a trustee’s liability for breach of trust under Probate Code Section 16440(a). With respect to these questions, the Court of Appeal concluded:

(1) tracing is not required for the disgorgement of profits made by the trustee “through the breach of trust” under section 16440(a)(2);

(2) the fact that an act is consistent with or even compelled by the duty of prudent investing does not excuse a trustee from liability for breach of the duty of loyalty, including liability for appreciation damages as lost profits under section 16440(a)(3);

(3) the determination as to which of the statutory measures of liability “is appropriate under the circumstances” under section 16440(a) is reviewed for abuse of discretion;

(4) an investment loss resulting from a breach of trust should be offset against a profit resulting from a breach of trust only if the breaches were not separate and distinct;

(5) prejudgment interest is mandatory on an award of damages under section 16440(a)(1); and

(6) the absence of an express provision for prejudgment interest under section 16440, subdivision (a)(3) does not preclude an award of prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a) on damages awarded under that provision.

Citing legal treatises and the 3d Restatement of Trusts, Justice Croskey wrote: “A trustee is strictly prohibited from administering the trust with the motive or purpose of serving interests other than those of the beneficiaries....A trustee also is strictly prohibited from engaging in transactions in which the trustee’s personal interests may conflict with those of the beneficiaries without the express authorization of either the trust instrument, the court, or the beneficiaries...."

"It is no defense that the trustee acted in good faith, that the terms of the transaction were fair, or that the trust suffered no loss or the trustee received no profit. This is known as the no further inquiry rule...Such a transaction is voidable at the election of the beneficiaries, and other remedies may be available, including an award of profits that the trust would have made if not for the breach of trust.”

Mr. Kadisha argued, among other things, that many of the challenged transactions, such as a sale of Qualcomm stock in 1992 at the time the investment was properly classified as risky, were in the trusts’ best interests. But a trustee cannot enter into a transaction solely for his personal benefit, even if it makes economic sense from the trust’s point of view, Croskey wrote.

Croskey said the additional prejudgment interest, which the trial judge denied as a matter of equity, had to be added to the award under Probate Code provisions setting forth remedies for breach of trust.

Attorney Comments: Where there is a conflict of interest or possible conflict of interest, obtaining written consent or legal advice is important at the outset. The fiduciary duties a trustee holds to the trust and beneficiaries impose serious legal duties that sometimes get overlooked especially where the trustee is also a beneficiary (which was not the case in Mr. Kadisha's case). Trustees should seek legal advice before making decisions that could cause them potential liability and exposure. In Mr. Kadisha's case, it seems he obtained legal advice and then ignored some of it to his later detriment.

Mr. Moravec is a very experienced estate planning, trust administration and probate litigation attorney. He has more than 20 years' experience in probate 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/. His email is hm@moravecslaw.com

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

Financial Planning's Fraternal Twin Is Estate Planning. New York Times' Article "Estate Planning Step 1: Recognize You Are Going To Die"

Estate planning has been called “the fraternal twin of financial planning.” A financial plan devises a strategy of accumulating wealth and preparing for retirement, long life, ill health, college educations for children, and so on. An estate plan determines the best means of disposing of the accumulated wealth and for supporting loved ones after you die.

A recent New York Times article entitled: “Estate Planning Step 1: Recognize You Are Going To Die” is a useful reminder of why an estate plan is part of sound financial planning. The article confirms that the first step in working on an estate plan is to accept that you are going to die at some point. The article is excellent in explaining how estate planning is a process since you can only plan with what you have at the moment or for the children or grandchildren or wife/husband you have at the moment. You need to keep things under periodic review.

You also need to ask yourself some questions: Will a trust help you ensure that your children do not inherit money in one lump sum or avoid tax liability? Do you want to leave more to one adult child than another? Do you want there to be asset protection for your spouse? Are you an American residing overseas or with property overseas? Do those countries have forced-heirship laws? What are the advantages to avoiding probate? There are a lot of questions that an estate planner can help you assess as part of your financial and estate planning and these are just the tip of an iceberg. It is also important to assess each family's unique circumstances and financial situation.

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.

N.Y. Times Article On Family Limited Partnerships In Estate Planning - 5 Basic Issues To Avoid I.R.S. Scrutiny

The New York Times recent article "Partnerships May Aid Your Estate, But The I.R.S. Is Watching" is a short but interesting read for those interested in how family limited partnerships are used to reduce the size of an estate for tax purposes and how the I.R.S treats them.

Family limited partnerships can help keep family interests in sync after death and protect their estate from a high tax bill, but the government wants to make sure they operate as true businesses, not solely to avoid estate taxes.

Apart from other business reasons, family limited partnerships are often used to reduce the size of an estate for tax purposes. What makes them attractive is that the value of whatever is in the partnership — buildings, a business, publicly traded stock — can be discounted because selling shares in a partnership to outsiders is difficult since all the partners are related.

The article addresses whether or not a family limited partnership stand up to the I.R.S. test. The article is a basic summary of a complex area of law. The article suggests discussing five basic issues.

1. WHY DID YOU SET IT UP? Do you have a legitimate business interest beyond lowering estate taxes because you can discount the value of the assets in them? If it is solely estate tax discount driven, there could be a problem with the I.R.S. Examples of legitimate business interests are (a) jointly managing the collective wealth of a family to gain access to better managers, and (b) operating an illiquid asset like a family business or a portfolio of buildings. The article notes that a "family can also use a partnership as a stealth prenuptial agreement since all the assets are wrapped up in the partnership and not easily dividable."

2. DID YOU DISCOUNT THE PARTNERSHIP TOO DRASTICALLY?

If you discounted the value of the partnership too drastically, the I.R.S. may not agree. The article quoted one expert that "the I.R.S. had seemed to settle on a discount of 25 percent in cases it had litigated." One problem noted in the article is that the I.R.S. has not given strict guidance on what you can and cannot do.

3. WHEN DID YOU SET IT UP? Was the partnership set up on a parent's deathbed? This could draw scrutiny. The Times cited one case involving the $10 million estate of Albert Strangi, a Texan who made his money in manufacturing and was in declining health when his son-in-law moved nearly all his assets into a family limited partnership. After seven years of litigation, the federal courts ruled that the partnership had been set up solely to avoid estate taxes. With such an I.R.S. ruling, the whole amount could be deemed a taxable gift. This Texas case is an extreme example, but it helps point out that timing as well as intent count.

4. HOW DO YOU MAINTAIN IT? For a family limited partnership to seen as legitimate, it needs to be run as a true business. This means regular meetings and audits as well as professional distributions. If you fail to do this, it can invite I.R.S. attention.

5. WHAT DO YOU DO WITH IT? Beyond tax reasons, many partnerships are set up out of a legitimate interest to keep families together after the parents die. But this is not always what the heirs want, particularly when they do not like one another. A partnership can be unwound, but how easily depends on how it was set up and cared for.

Many of the problems described above could be avoided by talking to lawyers at the formation and over regularly time periods to see if the partnership is being run properly. For example, during the formation stage it would be a good idea to address the issue of succession. Partnerships can be a useful estate planning tool but clients need to be very careful about how they’re setting up partnerships. The devil is really in the details.”

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 tax 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.

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.

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.

FAQ: Do I Need To Hire A Probate Lawyer? What Is Probate Court Litigation?

Do I Need To Hire A Probate Litigation Lawyer?

If you think you need a probate lawyer, it's probably because a relative or someone close to you has passed away (called the "decedent"). This is not an easy time to try to find a lawyer, but it must be done.

If you're involved in a lawsuit over an estate -- or if you think you may end up in a lawsuit -- look for a probate attorney who also handles litigation. There are basically three types of probate lawyers:
(1) those who only handle the administrative side of probates and drafting of will, trust and estate documents (who can loosely be called transactional lawyers);
(2) those who only represent clients in fights over who gets the estate (called probate litigators); and
(3) those estate and trust firms which do both.

Our firm, for example, does both. If you anticipate litigation, it is not a good idea to hire only a transactional attorney since at some point you will need to bring in another attorney who will need to get up to speed and this can increase your or the estate's legal fees. A probate litigation attorney may also be better at positioning you or the estate for the anticipated lawsuit.

A related question is what is probate court litigation?

What Is Probate Court Litigation?

Probate Court is the court that handles matters concerning wills and estates, such as the distribution of property or money to those named in a will. In California, the Probate Court also handles guardianships and conservatorships.

The terms “contested matters” and “litigation” are often used interchangeably. Both refer to situations that may require the Probate Court's action to resolve a dispute or fix a problem. Some contested matters do not involve animosity between the parties, while others do. If the matter surfaces because of a person's death or mental incapacity, then any necessary court proceeding will usually be filed in a court that has “probate jurisdiction.” Most of the matters handled by probate courts, such as admitting wills to probate and appointing executors, are routine and not contested.

Routine probate matters can be handled very efficiently. “Contested matters” handled by probate courts (also known as “probate court litigation”) is a broad term that includes a variety of situations, including, but not limited to:
■ Will contests (a challenge to the validity of a will);
■ Will and trust construction suits (a request that the Probate Court make a determination regarding the legal meaning or effect of particular wording used in a will or trust);
■ Guardianship contests. An example includes a fight over:
(1) whether a guardian should be appointed for a particular individual who allegedly has lost his mental capacity (and did not do any advance planning, such as executing powers of attorney), and (2) if so, who should be appointed as the guardian to make medical decisions and handle financial matters for that mentally incapacitated person);
■ Trust modification and trust reformation suits. This is a proceeding that requests the Probate Court to change (or "fix") the terms of a trust because something is wrong with the way the trust is worded);
■ Trust termination suits. This is a legal action brought to terminate a trust because the purpose of the trust has been fulfilled or can no longer be fulfilled; and
■ Breach of fiduciary duty actions. These are lawsuits by beneficiaries against an executor, trustee, guardian, or agent alleging that the fiduciary failed to act in accordance with the law and/or the instrument appointing her and thereby caused damage to the beneficiaries).

Needless to say, the best way to prevent most probate litigation is by good planning. Good planning is what estate planning is all about. We will address ways to prevent probate litigation in other articles in this blog. The old statement "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is especially true in estate planning and probate litigation. All litigation, however, cannot be prevented even with excellent planning. In those circumstances, you need a probation litigation attorney.

Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravec, Varga and 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.

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, Santa Barbara, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

With respect to probate, Hank Moravec has over 20 years' experience in Los Angeles and is available should you need legal advice regarding your own or a family member's situation.

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

Can My 401(k) Or IRA Be Part Of My Estate Plan? Can I Designate My Trust As A Beneficiary?

No longer are traditional pensions the norm. Today is the age of the 401(k), Roth 401(k), 403(b), 412(i), the SIMPLE, the SEP, the IRA, and the Roth IRA, among others. In our practice, we help our clients incorporate their varying investment vehicles into their estate plan and understand how to designate and change beneficiaries to be consistent with their estate and trust plans.

Common Question: Can I designate my trust, multiple individuals or favorite charity as a beneficiary in my 401(k) or IRA?

Answer: Yes, but each designation comes with separate issues which are discussed below. In addition, designations set forth in a will or trust are generally ineffective unless the proper designation forms have been completed with and submitted to the investment company.

What Do I Need To Bring To My Estate Planning Session Regarding 401(k), IRA And Similar Plans?

1. Bring copies of current 401(k), IRA and related investment plan statements. All the information you provide to us is confidential and attorney-client privileged. We need the statements so we can obtain:

(1) the present value of 401(k) or similar assets;

(2) the name of their managing institution;

(3) the name of the investment representative, if any; and

(4) respective contact information.

In addition, this helps us educate our clients about the true nature of their investment vehicle. Sometimes a client may believe they have a 401(k) but it is really an annuity, IRA or other investment vehicle, and possibly subject to different rules.

2. Contact your plan manager prior to our planning session and determine the current primary and alternate beneficiary of record. The proper contact is usually found in the upper right or left portion of the 401(k) statement.

3. Begin the process of determining the percentage of assets you want to allot to each beneficiary. This information will be finalized and provided before the estate plan is finalized.

Beneficiary Designation Form

If you recall, as a participant in a 401(k) or other plan, you probably designated a beneficiary using a "beneficiary designation form." Forms typically require the name, relationship and date of birth of the beneficiaries. Designating individuals, estates, trusts and charities is permissible.

And married participants designating someone other than their spouse will require spouse approval. However, each designation comes with separate issues, some of which are discussed below. Additionally, designations set forth in a will or trust are usually ineffective. Investment companies require original signatures and often signature guarantees from a financial institution (i.e., bank or brokerage); notarization may not be acceptable.

If you "never" received a beneficiary designation form should contact your investment representative for assistance. Beneficiary designation forms are often available online. However, execution in the presence of a professional (or review by a professional) prior to submission is highly recommended to ensure proper execution.

What Are The Default Rules In Your 401(k), IRA Or Other Plan?

Sometimes clients have simply not completed a designation form and relied upon the plans' default rules that are in place in each plan. General rules place the spouse first, children second and the estate third. Still, each client should research his or her plan's hierarchy before relying upon defaults. An uninformed decision could wreak havoc upon the estate and estate plan.

When relying on default provisions, we educate our clients so they understand both the legal and practical effects. For example, the definition of "spouse" affects plan participants differently. Someone in a long-term relationship or same-sex relationship (or marriage) may not benefit from a default definition, unless it specifically encompasses his or her set of circumstances.

Likewise, a perceived husband in a "common law marriage" might not receive his wife's assets if the default definition does not consider him a spouse. In either event, plan assets could pass from the deceased owner to someone other than the "intended" beneficiary. Thus, we help our clients understand default provisions before using them.

Multiple Beneficiaries, Allocations And Contingent Beneficiaries

One thing that can happen is that clients have designated less or even more than 100% of their IRA or 401(k) plan's assets. Active designation of beneficiaries requires disposition of 100% of the assets. Allotment in excess of 100% often results in the payment of proceeds in proportion to the proposed allocations.

For example, when two primary beneficiaries are named and each is supposed to receive 100% of the assets, each ultimately receives 50%. Also, when two or more primary beneficiaries are named and one predeceases the plan owner, all assets should pass to the survivor beneficiary.

Clients often do not know, or understand, this possibility. Therefore, clients looking for relief from the contractual standards should consider the use of estate-planning instruments.

In addition, failure to name contingent beneficiaries results in distribution pursuant to default provisions. Without designations, assets are paid to the deceased participant's estate unless otherwise determined by law. Allocations up to 100% are required. Also, the death of one of the two or more contingent beneficiaries leaves the survivor receiving all assets.

Designating Your Trust As A Beneficiary

Participants with a trust, of any kind, can designate it as the beneficiary by inserting the trust name in the form. Designating a trust allows the plan participant to:

(1) avoid probate or administration delays and expenses;

(2) possibly enjoy creditor protection of assets; and

(3) further the trust's stated purpose using additional funds.

Depending on the terms of the trust a lump sum distribution may be required, causing a taxable event. Each situation differs.

A trust holding net, lump sum proceeds will have flexibility in management and investment. Alternatively, a trust that is eligible to continue the plan or roll it over may defer taxable gains, albeit while investing in the respective plan's products.

Conclusion

Clients participating in 401(k), IRA and other plans must make informed decisions when designating their trust, estate, charities or individuals as beneficiaries. At our firm, we take the time to review the effect of beneficiary designations with our clients.

We inform them of the positives and negatives of defaults, specific designations or using a combination of both. We discuss what happens, for example, if beneficiaries predecease the plan owner, under certain default situations, or if specifically named. We review distribution under those circumstances. We remind our clients of the ability to name trusts and charities as beneficiaries.

We handle the technical and legal aspects. Our clients do not need to become expert in these issues or feel bogged down in them since we are the experts. Instead, we focus our clients on their intent and provide them with the methods of achieving their goal.

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 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.

Health Care Directives - Recommended New Yorker Article On Hospice Care: "Letting Go: What Should Medicine Do When It Can't Save Your Life?

One of my favorite physician writers is Atul Gatwande, a practicing physician in Boston. He recently wrote a 15-page article in the New Yorker titled titled "Letting Go: What Should Medicine Do When It Can't Save Your Life?" which focuses on the use and application of hospice care in terminal patients regardless of disease and/or condition.

In creating trusts, drafting estate plans and health care directives, we encourage our clients to think about these end-of-life issues. What would you do if you are hit with news of a terminal illness? How do you think you and your family will react as treatment choices are made or when non-treatment is chosen? How should hospice/palliative care be defined? Do you want to incorporate your wishes on these subjects into your health care directive or estate planning?

If you are given fewer than 90 days to live, do you want to "fight death" as long as possible? It may be impossible to know how you really feel about these issues unless you or another family member have gone through it. This article addresses the fact that medical insurance (including Medicare) does not pay for doctors to have extensive conversations with the family about the options and whether "fighting death" at all costs for a month or longer is worth it and how such a fight could affect the quality of life in those last months.

In our practice, we see that in our society we are often not good at helping people sort out what is most important to them when they are facing a terminal illness and helping them achieve it. This is why advance health care directives have become popular in estate planning.

In our practice, the Advance Health Care Directive identifies the individuals that you desire to act for you if you become unable to make medical decisions for yourself. The most common decision involves when, and under what circumstances, extraordinary measures should be used to prolong life. There are also sections of the Advanced Health Care Directive which deal with whether or not you desire to be an organ donor. This is part of our basic estate plan package.

It is an excellent article and it will help you think about these issues,

Hospice medical care for dying patients: newyorker.com

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.

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, Santa Barbara, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

With respect to estate planning and probate, Hank Moravec has over 20 years' experience as one of the best Los Angeles estate attorneys and Los Angeles probate 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.