nyc estate planning

WHY IT MATTERS FOR ESTATE PLANNING

Every year the Federal Department of Treasury publishes the greenbook which outlines the then current presidential administration’s revenue proposals, tax policies, job creation issues that relate to the Department of Treasury and other related fiscal and policy issues. The greenbook is scrutinized by tax pundits, politicians and others for what it contains, but what it does not contain is also important. Within the 2013 greenbook, there was an obvious lack of discussion of 26 U.S.C. § 2704, which mandates how the law measures the value of certain family controlled entities for estate and gift tax purposes. Some observers took that to indicate that the IRS plans on amending the regulations pursuant to this statute. This suspicion was validated when an official from the Department of Treasury spoke at an American Bar Association, tax section meeting in May, 2015. She indicated that a proposed regulation may be released as early as September, 2015. As of mid-November 2015 such regulations have yet to be published. This issue is of substantial import for estate planning throughout the nation. If and when a family business is transferred via an estate or even to a trust created by an owner of the business, it is likely be a taxable event, depending on the specifics of the transaction.

PASSING A FAMILY BUSINESS ON TO NEXT GENERATION

WITNESS ADVOCATE RULE

In New York, as well as perhaps every other jurisdiction, an attorney may not serve as an attorney as well as a witness in the same case. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.7 is mandatory and not permissive. It does not matter if it is a bench trial, jury trial, traffic court case or surrogate’s court case. In fact, the rule is so important to judicial administration that even partners and members of the same firm cannot act as a witnesses. Courts refer to the issue as the lawyer-witness rule and it comes up often enough in surrogate court cases. The June 2, 2015 case of Will of Lublin, 2015 NY Slip Op 31038(U) is a good example of how estate lawyers face these issues. While the lawyer in Lublin avoided the issue of Rule 3.7, a small change could have made it not so. Very briefly, the decedent, Mr. Irving Lublin, executed a will in 1997 and passed away in 2010. Someone objected, claiming that the decedent did not have sufficient mental capacity to create such a will, the will was not properly executed and that the will was the result of fraud and undue influence. The lawyer who drafted the will was deposed during the discovery phase. If, perhaps, the attorney who created the will also represented the executor, an entirely plausible and even relatively normal scenario, the attorney would be disqualified, as he/she would be a material witness.

UNIQUE POSITION IN THE CASE

Articles Tagged with nyc estate planning

ANTICIPATED CHANGES IN IRS RULES REGARDING FAMILY BUSINESS VALUATIONS

WHEN YOUR ATTORNEY IS A POTENTIAL WITNESS IN SURROGATE COURT