Schedule an in-office, Zoom or phone consultation Here.

Timing is of critical importance with estate planning matters. Obviously, a plan must be in place early enough to be of use before one falls ill or suffers from mental issues. For example, creating a will or trust may be impossible after one suffers a stroke or succumbs to serious effects of Alzheimers. This is why we continue to encourage residents to make plans early and consistently update them.

Time also factors into matters after a death. Many beneficiaries may face hardship if they are forced to wait months (or even years) to have an estate settled. One of the key benefits of an inheritance plan is to minimize the risk of a long delay between the actual passing on of assets, often focused on avoiding probate and preventing feuding.

Celebrity Example

Chances are you have already heard that a bipartisan agreement was reached on New Years Day which averts the significant tax increases and spending cuts demanded by the so-called “fiscal cliff.” The agreement certainly went down to the wire, with the Senate passing a bill on the last day of the year and the House passing the same bill the following day. Up until the end it was unclear if a compromise could be reached, as House leaders initially claimed that they would amend the Senate bill and send it back to that chamber. In the end, however, a vote was taken on the Senate bill without any changes, passing with support from members of both parties.

The compromise legislation does not resolve all of the issues in disagreement between the parties. More negotiation and legislation will be needed in the coming months to settle those other matters.

The Basics of the Deal

One of the many goals of proper estate planning is to prevent family feuding. This is obviously to ensure that the worry, stress, and cost of these legal battles is avoided. But on top of that, done right, avoiding costly disputes saves an immense amount of time. It is well known that the legal system often does not act swiftly. It is important not to underestimate the simple benefit of having property matter resolved right away after a passing, instead of making surviving loved ones wait months or even years–preventing them from obtaining necessary funds and moving on with their lives.

The prolonged nature of the resolution exists anytime there is no estate planning (probate takes time). But the delay is especially pronounced where there is feuding and legal battles are fought.

For example, the Patch recently reported on a delay in a hearing for one high-profile estate fight over the property of painter Thomas Kinkade. We have previously blogged about the legal fight between Kinkade’s estranged wife, four children, and live-in girlfriend. The girlfriend has produced two handwritten wills which seem to leave Kinkade’s house to her while establishing a museum. The wife and children contest the wills.

Only a few days remain in the year, and most financial activity for 2012 has come to a close. However, the end of year action has already brought one of the most active seasons ever. Financial advisors, estate planning attorneys, and others have all seen community members of all different income brackets seek out help understanding how possible legal changes in the new year might affect their own financial health and long-term prospects.

A Forbes story last week explored one of the main reasons for confusion and the seeking out of help: the “give now or pay later” problem. This is an issue that mostly affects those with significant assets who may be affected by gift and estate tax changes. As has been documented exhaustively, Congress is considered what to do with the gift and estate tax. Over the past ten years the tax rate has steadily fallen and the exemption level has risen. In 2010, the estate tax was eliminated altogether. However, what will happen in the new year remains to be seen.

Many different options are on the table–from a permanent elimination of tax (unlikely) to a return to pre-2001 rates. A table from the Tax Policy Center (viewed here) offers a helpful snapshot of the options and how many people would be affected by each. One comparison offers the range of possibilities. If the current rate continues, about 3,800 estates will be affected next year. Those estates would bring in about $12 billion in taxes. Conversely, if the 2001 rates returned then 47,000 estates would be affected and over 300% more tax revenue would be generated.

The political wrangling to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” continued this week. Many different issues are all tied up in the negotiations, including income tax rates, defense spending, entitlement spending, and control of the debt limit. However, various reports suggest that the both sides in the political battle–primarily the Obama White House and U.S. House Republican leaders–are now trying to work out some agreement on estate taxes.

Still Wide Disagreement

Most discussion of tax issues and the fiscal cliff affecting upper income Americans revolved around the income tax. There is disagreement about whether current income tax rates for those in the highest bracket should increase slightly or stay the same. Both sides publicly believe that current rate should be extended for middle tax brackets. Because of the focus on income taxes, real negotiation of estate taxes has been pushed to the side. That appears to be changing.

The holiday season is a popular time for charitable giving. It is helpful for those considering gifts–particular sizeable donations–to properly think through all of the tax and legal implications. There are smart ways to make contributions and clumsy ways. As always, an estate planning lawyer or similar professional can explain how any such decision is best carried out.

For example, the Wall Street Journal reported recently on the rise of “donor-advised” funds. The use of these tools is likely spurred by two tax uncertainties in the upcoming year. Will charitable deductions on taxes be limited in the future, counseling toward a large gift this year? Will income tax rates increase next year, counseling toward using the deduction next year instead of this year? It is a somewhat tricky problem, as no one knows for sure what lawmakers might decide.

That is where these donor-advised funds come into play. They are accounts managed by national charities and foundations. The basic idea is that a donor can give the gift this year–locking in a tax deduction–while waiting to actual disperse the funds to the charities as they see fit over time. The funds grow tax-free throughout this period.

Virtually everyone agrees that it is important to invest for retirement, take care of inheritance details, prepare for long-term care, and otherwise plan for the future. But there is a big difference between understanding the value of these tasks and actually taking the time to do it. Considering the financial and political stresses that come with caring for an aging population, figuring out how to motivate community members to do what is necessary to plan for the future is drawing more and more attention.

One new tactic stems from unique psychological research on financial motivation. In previous studies out of Stanford, experts found that one way to spur real action on long-term planning was getting individuals to visualize their future, elderly selves. Interestingly the researchers found the most benefit not when people just imagined themselves in old age but actually saw digitally enhanced images of themselves when they were older. The surprise of seeing their own face in old age was a real spur to stop putting off the necessary planning.

The lead researcher in the Stanford experiment summarized that, “People who see an age-progressed rendering of themselves are more likely to allocate resources to the future.”

The U.S. Supreme Court made headlines on Friday when it agreed to hear two cases which may have significant implications on the rights for same-sex couples in New York and throughout the country. The stage is now set for a few months of speculation and commentary on possible outcomes before the Court finally hears the cases. It is important for same-sex couples to understand the implications of each case, as the legal issues in each are different.

DOMA & State Bans on Marriage

One of the cases which the Court will hear is United States v. Windsor. As we have often discussed, at the center of the Windsor case is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Several appellate courts have now found that parts of DOMA violate the U.S. Constitution in that they deny federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. In granting the petition of those appealing the lower court rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court will likely settle the matter once and for all.

The heirs of art dealer Illena Sonnabend faced a very unique problem after the woman’s death in 2007. One the most valuable pieces of her estate was a work by Robert Rauschenbeg known as “Canyon.” The 1959 piece of art is a collage that include various three dimensional materials, including a stuffed bald eagle. Canyon would prove to be a sticking point in the heir’s attempt to settle the estate–a process which ultimately dragged on for five years.

Taxes Always Due

For estate tax purposes, the value of artwork in an estate is appraised and the tax is owed based on the total appraisal value. Sonnabend’s estate had a significant number of pieces and the artwork taken together was valued at over $1 billion. According to a Wall Street Journal story on the case, this led to an estate tax bill of about $471 million. The two heirs to the estate sold about $600 million of the artwork to pay for that bill.

You cannot turn on the TV, flip open a newspaper, or pull up a news website this month without seeing the words “fiscal cliff.” As many are aware, this refers to sweeping, mandatory federal tax and budgetary changes that are set to take effect January 1st unless the Congress and White House pass legislation with an alternative plan. Essentially the “cliff” is about $7 trillion worth of tax increases combined with significant spending cuts across the board–including everything from Medicare and Medicaid to the military.

What is interesting about the cliff is that virtually no one on either side of the aisle actually wants it to take effect. Instead, it was only put into place as a compromise over a previous debt ceiling legislative fight. The idea was that that the cliff would be so abhorant to both sides that its impending appearance would force a compromise. However, as the end of the year gets closer, more and more observers are worrying that even with the serious consequences of the cliff, no compromise is in sight.

Currently, the Obama Administration and Congressional leaders (most notably, the Republican House leaders) are trying to reach agreement on an alterantive to prevent the mandataory changes. As part of that effort, President Obama recently released his “first offer.” As summarized in a recent article, the offer is far from what the Republican leaders have proposed, so it is unlikely that it will be taken seriously. Essentially, it calls for around $1.6 trillion in tax increases over a ten year period–mostly related to expiration of the so-called “Bush tax cuts.” In addition, it calls for modest stimulus spending. The proposal would also permanently eliminate Congressional control over the debt ceiling level (which caused the current crisis to begin with).

Contact Information