Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Remove all Doubt
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Estate Planning Tips That Prevent Family Feuds
Friday, August 17, 2012
Contemplating your own mortality or incapacitation
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
The Dilemma of Disinheritance
The motives for cutting a relative out of an estate range from the most primal — hate, abandonment, regret — to the most rational.
Planning what to leave behind to loved ones can be a difficult matter since, even with taxes out of the picture, it means explaining your choices and your hopes. On the other hand, planning to specifically disinherit someone can be even more difficult.
Inheritance and disinheritance are emotionally charged concepts. The motivations that go into disinheritance are especially complex, as discussed in a recent article in The Trust Advisor titled Why Are Family Members Disinherited?.
Teaching point: If you are considering disinheritance, then it also is important to think about what that means, both for yourself and the excluded heir. There are many reasons to disinherit, some more reasonable than others and some worth abandoning upon meditative reflection.
Still, if you must disinherit, then consider explaining your basis for that decision. While it is your choice and right, your legal documents must be clear and withstand (oftentimes) inevitable legal challenge by the affected heir.
If you want to talk in more detail about a disinheritance issue, please contact me. I’m available to answer questions and to meet with you.
Reference: The Trust Advisor (April 15, 2012) “Why Are Family Members Disinherited?”
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Good Preparations create a Graceful Exit
The wealth of many boomers is tied up in businesses they own. And that can be a problem when it comes time to retire. The Wall Street Journal published a very good article on this topic, and my WealthCounsel colleague, Lizette Sundvick, added the below commentary.
If you’re a small business owner, then you probably speak of your business and your life in the same breath. There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, you are in good company.
All told, your business is one of the biggest challenges and accomplishments in your life. That said, it’s rare that the business is the only fulfilling thing in your life. In addition, do you really want to continue working in and on your business until the day you die, with no retirement or with old-age eventually getting in the way?
With your life and your business so intertwined, it makes it all the more necessary to plan properly.
The Wall Street Journal took up this matter in a recent article titled Preparing to Leave. I recommend this article to your reading list because it both warns of mistakes and offers solutions.
To whet your appetite, here are the “mistakes” identified:
- Creating a business that’s too dependent on the owner.
- Ignoring the tax benefits of planning ahead.
- Incorrectly valuing the business.
- Rushing to accept a rich number.
- Hiring your brother-in-law to do the deal.
- Underestimating the emotional impact of selling a business.
Like those old movie matinees, I am going to leave you pondering the solutions to these “cliffhangers.”
In the end, only you know when to hold’em and ergo when to fold’em when it comes to the continuation of your business. However, don’t delay. You, your loved ones and others dependent on the business will be glad you didn’t.
Any one of these issues is well worth meeting and talking about, so I invite you to call me to set up a meeting. Let’s make sure you’re prepared to “Exit Gracefully”.
Reference: The Wall Street Journal (April 29, 2012) “Preparing to Leave”
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Tax Court Rules for Taxpayer in Transfer of Closely-Held Business Interests
The Tax Court has just passed a new technique that closely-held businesses owners —and wealthy families — can use to pass assets to heirs with a minimal amount of taxes and complications. The ruling in the case, Wandry v. Commissioner, is stirring up excitement among experts. The below commentary was written by a WealthCounsel associate, Lizette Sundvick, who practices throughout southern Nevada.
Just between us, isn’t it nice when the IRS loses a case to a taxpayer? For example, the little-guy victory in the landmark case of Wandry v. Commissioner affirms and simplifies a very powerful tool for passing on wealth, especially for the business owner.
While the case and the estate planning tool in the crosshairs have been the subject of previous articles, The Wall Street Journal provided a new explanation of the two in an article appropriately titled “Shielding the Family Business.”
The basic plan for wealth transfer when there is a business involved is to give it in pieces, and that’s precisely the plan that benefits from Wandry v. Commissioner. Giving away the entire business outright is a good way to take a tax hit, since it will invoke a gift tax when you cross certain thresholds during the year and in your lifetime.
There’s currently a lifetime exemption of $5.12 million and an annual exclusion of $13,000. Nevertheless, it’s easy for a business to be worth more than $5.12 M, and using that exclusion in full will drain what you have available against the estate tax later at death. However, by their very nature and structure, business interests are especially amenable to piecemeal ownership transfer. This is because ownership of the business, and therefore the underlying assets owned by the business, is an abstraction, and you can simply gift your interests in the business without a tax hit. For example, you can chip away by giving a usefully small amount, say, $13,000 per year per individual (or whatever number Congress and the IRS set for that year), without gift taxes.
Of course, gifting business ownership is not entirely ideal. Fortunately, that’s what the Wandry v. Commissioner case tries to fix. Gifting exactly $13,000 is pretty easy by simply writing out the figures and name on a check. On the other hand, with an abstraction like business ownership, the gift depends on the value of the business and, more to the point, on the value that you and the IRS agree or disagree about.
If you give $13,000 of ownership on the basis of your valuation, but the IRS adds up $15,000 based on its own valuation, then the IRS might also think you owe a tax (or, alternatively, that your gift/estate tax exemption should erode by that much). As you might have guessed, that’s exactly what happened in the Wandry case. Unfortunately for the IRS, the court held that the Wandrys had clearly intended to give their annual exemption amount and, if there is a new appraisal and higher valuation of the gift, then the excess wasn’t intended to be gifted in the first place.
As is always the case with the law, there is much more to this case and more guidance to be gleaned for the business owner. I would recommend reading the original article if you are or will be transferring interests in your business. As always, make sure you engage qualified legal counsel before taking action. I am available to talk on the phone or meet in person.
Reference: The Wall Street Journal (April 30, 2012) “Shielding the Family Business”
Monday, May 14, 2012
Separation of Church...and Estate
For many people, estate planning isn't just about financial assets and other practical concerns. It's also about honoring their religious beliefs and passing those values on to family members. That can be very tricky ground. My legal colleague, Lizette Sundvick, has offered the below commentary in reference to a good Wall Street Journal article on this topic.
Planning your estate may seem like a simple matter of deciding who gets your stuff when you’re gone. What if you are a person of great faith and religious conviction? How does a person of faith plan for his or her estate when life (and especially life beyond) is so much more than mere “stuff”?
The problem of mixing religion and estate planning – that is, the problem of doing it well – is taken up by the Wall Street Journal in an article titled Joining Church and Estate.
If your decisions during life are guided by your faith, then likely your estate decisions will be too. For example, end-of-life, disposition of remains and even charitable giving decisions are oftentimes determined by one’s religious beliefs. These are personal decisions that directly impact you and collaterally impact others.
However, it is an entirely different matter to make religiously-motivated decisions for others. Given the numerous alternative planning strategies and tools available to plan your estate, it is possible to make (or attempt to make) religious decisions for your heirs. This is where problems can arise.
In the extreme, you can move beyond encouraging to requiring the observance of certain religious principles, rituals, or lifelong membership in the given religion to secure any inheritance. As the Wall Street Journal article illustrates, this is where problems can arise. In short, requiring heirs to uphold religious principles they do not share can work to undermine them.
The article discusses some particularly poignant examples and real life court battles. It’s worth a read and serious consideration when trying to strike that delicate balance of encouraging without alienating those whose beliefs may differ from your own.
I stand ready to assist you in striking the delicate balance between church and estate. Please call me or email, and we’ll find a time to meet.
Reference: The Wall Street Journal (April 30, 2012) “Joining Church and Estate”





