New York Estate Planning Lawyer Blog

April 24, 2013

Retirement Planning & The President’s Proposed Budget

One of the challenges of estate planning is that some of the rules are constantly subject to change. A few of the principles are seemingly timeless, like deciding inheritances and determining alternative decision-makers in the event of disability. But the more sophisticated matters, usually involving minimizing tax liability, are frequently open to modification, providing complexity to the task of putting future plans into place.

For example, the tax benefits of certain trusts or the eligibility rules for New York Medicaid can all be altered by lawmakers on yearly basis. As a practical matter, those changes are most common in times like these–when budgets are stretched to the max and lawmakers are looking for ways to avoid cuts to programs without passing obvious tax increases. Often, when policymakers refer to closing “loopholes,” they are referring to various tax savings strategies or other aspects included in sophisticated estate planning. Local residents should look closely at the specifics of these “closing loophole” proposals when they are offered to determine if it may impact their own situation.

Retirement “Loopholes”

April 22, 2013

New Study: Marriage Boosts Retirement Security

by Ettinger Law Firm

Do I have enough to retire? Countless New Yorkers ask their financial advisers, estate planning attorneys, and other professionals that very question each and every day. There is no one-size-fits-all response, as retirement is a personal matter based on individual expectations, goals, and perspective.

Mountains of pages have been written about how much money you should have before retiring and what you should do with it. Perspectives abound.

Interestingly, there is less disagreement about general characteristics that make one more or less likely to be financially secure enough to retire. For example, the Wall Street Journal pointed to a new study last week which found that married couples are far better positioned to make the leap and officially enter retirement.

April 19, 2013

New Steps By Google Allowing Users to Name “Heirs”

by Ettinger Law Firm

Digital estate planning has attracted more and more attention in recent years as online assets become more central to our lives. On a legal front, the rules regarding inheritance destruction, and/or preservation of these online accounts remains unclear. That is because most rules are based on the terms and conditions of each individual social network or online program. For example, the process of taking down a Facebook page of someone who has passed away is not the same as taking down a Twitter account. There is little uniformity.

However, as the issues related to passing on access to these accounts grows, more social networking companies are working to enact different procedures and protocols to make the transition easier.

Passing on Google Account Data at Death

April 17, 2013

New Case: Inheritance Rights of “Adopted Out” Children in New York

by Ettinger Law Firm

A case recently came before a New York court that delved into a very unique inheritance issue. The case, Matter of Svenningsen involved the inheritance rights of “rejected” adopted children. “Rejected” is a harsh word, but refers to children who were adopted and whose adopted parents terminate parental rights. It is a rare occurrence, but various health issues or circumstantial factors may make such change in parental rights necessary in some cases.

The circumstances in the Svenningsen case are somewhat complex. Essentially, a New York family adopted a child, Emily, from China in 1996. The family had executed a trust in 1995 the had specifically included adopted children. A second trust was executed in 1996 that specifically named Emily. Sadly, the patriarch of the family died the following year, in 1997.

Eventually, Emily began attending a boarding school for children with special needs. Apparently Emily developed a close bond with those working at the school. As such, several years later, in 2003, Emily’s adopted mother agreed to terminate her parental rights under the assumption that Emily would be adopted by one of the director’s of her boarding school. No mention of Emily’s trust was provided during that second adoption hearing.

April 15, 2013

Obama Budget Proposal Calls for Changing Charitable Deduction Details

by Ettinger Law Firm

Last week we discussed the release of President Obama’s proposed budget. For estate planning purposes, one of the most obvious red flags in that proposal was a call for yet another edit to the federal estate tax. The President wants to raise the tax rate and lower the exemption level again, altering what was some thought was a more permanent fix agreed upon in the law passed in January.

But the estate tax is not the only aspect of the budget proposal which might affect long-term planning for New York residents. For example, the President is also calling for changes to how charitable contributions implicate tax matters. The possible change is being suggested in an attempt to increase tax revenues to plug budget holes.

The Future of Charitable Deductions

April 12, 2013

Federal Estate Tax — Back on the Agenda?

by Ettinger Law Firm

Earlier this week we touched on the fact that estate tax issues need to be on all New Yorkers’ radar, because the state tax kicks in at a far lower level than the federal tax. The federal rate was seemingly fixed as part of the compromise legislation that averted the “fiscal cliff” earlier this year. While any law can be changed, the passage of this legislation was assumed by most to signal some level of finality on the matter. Debate had raged for months (even years) about the exemption level and rate. The uncertainty was a challenge for estate planners, because it is more difficult to craft complex protection plans when the tax rules are a moving target

In that vein, regardless of one’s own opinion of the estate tax, passage of the compromise bill was a welcome relief–offering stability. But that stability may be short lived, as proposals about changing the federal estate tax have are already making their way back into national political discussions.

Here We Go Again

April 10, 2013

Don’t Forget: There is a New York Estate Tax on Top of Federal Tax

by Ettinger Law Firm

Much discussion at the end of last year dealt with the estate tax. As federal officials groped for a compromise to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff,” details about the federal estate tax were one part of the negotiations. Democrats wanted it returned to levels during the Clinton Administration while Republicans wanted it eliminated altogether.

Just before the deadline, a law was passed which apparently settled some of the matters of contention. In so doing, it seemed to finally provide some permanence to the federal estate tax. The tax rate now tops off at 40% (a jump from the previous 35%) and begins on parts of the estate over $5.25 million. The exemption level is pegged to inflation, and so it will rise slightly each year.

With news of this new estate tax compromise (and its relatively high exemption level), many have pointed out that the federal tax is now only a concern to a small slice of the population. After all, the majority of residents will not die with assets over $5.25 million, and so estate planning to avoid that federal tax is unwarranted.

April 8, 2013

Wide Ranging Impact of Fiscal Cliff Deal on Estate Planning

by Ettinger Law Firm

Earlier this year we touched on the possible estate planning implications of the compromise law that averted the so-called “fiscal cliff” in early January. As with many of these issues, the full implications are hard to evaluate immediately, only playing out as planners get to work crafting options for clients. In the first few months of the year, many estate planning attorneys and financial advisers have done just that, getting a better understanding of how the altered legal landscape will affect common techniques to pass on assets securely and with minimal tax implications.

For example, an “On Wall Street” article last week explored a few of these issues, noting how the fiscal cliff deal actually has widespread implications. The main issue, claims the article, is that the apparent permanent federal estate tax will limit the need for many families to engage in complex maneuvers to avoid the significant tax bite. Bypass trusts are pointed to as a tool which may be less necessary because many families will fall well below the federal estate tax exemption level ($5.25 million, pegged to inflation). Yet, one must not forget that this permanently high estate tax level has no impact on estate taxes levied by the state. New Yorkers must still pay that state rate, and it hits far lower than the federal level. In addition, these sorts of trusts are often crucial in addressing other risks, like divorce, remarriage, etc.

The article also touches on potential effects on charitable giving. The fiscal cliff law also calls for a phase out of itemized deductions and personal exemptions for all income over $250,000 annually ($300,000 for couples). This may alter some previously common charitable planning. Though the article points out that it may make charitable remainder trusts more common. These trusts are particularly useful for gifting assets which will appreciate, allowing the defference of capital gains taxes.

April 5, 2013

Washington Post Article on Family Struggles in Dividing Up Assets

by Ettinger Law Firm

A recent Washington Post article discussed the lethal combination of family and finances. The author recounts how even the most close-knit families can be torn apart by disagreements about money matters. The article included one reader to wrote a letter offering an example of how his parent’s will is causing tension and turmoil.

The letter was written by an adult son who was asked by his parents to assist with their estate planning. He was named executor and helped with locating financial documents. The son saw a copy of the will after it was completed, noting that it left assets to a few charities and then split the remaining estate between himself and his one sibling–a sister. This represents a pretty common situation, with families assuming that such a simple estate plan and division will not come with any disagreement.

But then a few years later the parents updated their will. Instead of splitting the assets between their two children, they decided to split it in thirds. Their two teenage grandchildren (from their daughter) will receive a third, and the two adult children will each receive a third. The son noted with shock that his share suddenly went from one half to one third.

April 3, 2013

U.S Supreme Court Hears NY Estate Tax Case for Gay Couples — Decision in June

by Ettinger Law Firm

Last week is already being referred to as one of the most important in the history of the equality movement for gay and lesbian couples. That is because, as all news outlets reported on significantly, the U.S. Supreme Court heard two cases related to marriage rights for same sex couples. We have discussed these cases frequently over the last few months, one of them deals with the federal law known as the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) and the other involves a state referendum in California known as Proposition 8.

For New York estate planning purposes, the DOMA case has very obvious ramifications. The very plaintiff in the case is a New York resident (Edith Windsor) who is suing in her capacity as executor of her later partner’s estate (Thea Spyer). Windsor and Spyer were married in Canada and that relationship was legally recognized in New York. However, because of DOMA, the federal government did not recognize the marriage. The divergent recognition of the couple’s relationship was not merely a symbolic difference, it had very real legal impacts. Specifically, Ms. Windsor was forced to pay over $360,000 in estate taxes to the federal government that she otherwise would not have paid if her relationship to Spyer was recognized. It is a pretty cut-and-dry demonstration of how same sex couples are impacted because of a lack of federal recognition of their marriage.

Obviously, the Supreme Court’s ultimate determination of the constitutionality of the challenged portion of DOMA will affect the planning of same sex couples.