Leimberg Information Services



49th Heckerling Institute on Estate PlanningCurrent DevelopmentsBy: Martin M. Shenkman, CPA, MBA, PFS, AEP, JDCurrent Developments.Practice has changed.Tax law changes are not driving clients to practitioners. The future is different. Practitioners will have to be more proactive. Estate planning services will still be needed.The top 2/10ths of 1% of the wealthiest taxpayers will require extensive work. Consider the run-up in the stock market and the impact of that one change on wealthiest clients.The old days of focusing planning on moving assets via gift/transfer to irrevocable trusts to remove appreciation from an estate are no longer sufficient. Basis step-up is too important and must be considered in all gift planning.For a zero basis asset it must appreciate more than 250% before the estate tax savings will offset the income tax result. Clients will often say that an asset won’t be sold. Some clients might even say they want to leave/create an income tax burden to make it harder for the client’s heirs to sell. If a client takes that perspective practitioners should confirm that decision it in writing. The reality is, contrary to what many/most clients say, most assets will be sold.Rule against perpetuities New York Times article illustrates how significant state law has become to practice.Federal tax legislation.ATRA is like any other legislation, some items were permanent but many were temporary and subject to extenders.Important extender provisions, including qualified charitable contributions of IRAs, expanded contributions of qualified conservation real property, etc.There could be new legislation, maybe. While the risk is not significant there is a more likely chance then in the past to have estate tax repeal, etc.HEET Trusts.Health Education Exclusion Trust use the gift tax exclusion 2503(e) and the GST exclusion 2611(b)(1).President Obama wishes to modify HEETs since he views them as abusive.Currently distributions for the benefit of skip persons are not subject to GST tax if direct payments for tuition or medical. IRC says GST transfer does not include these types of payments excluded under IRC Sec. 2503(e).Are these trusts worth funding? If you create a trust for only grandchildren the trust will be a skip person triggering GST tax. Merely adding children to the trust in addition to grandchildren, may not suffice to avoid this. IRS can take position the interests of older children in such a trust are nominal and the transfer to the trust would trigger a GST. Crummey powers.Proposals may limit to $50,000.Can you gift daughter interest in LLC not transferable and this may be OK under proposal.New York.Estate Tax.Gifts within 3 years of death will increase estate by amount of gifts.Significant trap.New Yorker is generally not taxable on real estate and tangible property located outside New York but if the client gifts these within three years of death it will become subject to New York tax.Joan Rivers.Said resident in New York but domiciled in California to save New York estate tax. New York Income Tax.NY takes the position that all trust created by a NY resident is forever a NY resident trust. It can escape NY taxation if it doesn’t have NY assets, no NY Trustee, etc. NY viewed this as a means of permitting avoiding NY tax. Throw back tax was enacted in 2014. There is a tax on accumulated income. If a NY resident receives a distribution will have to pay tax in NY on that distribution.This won’t stop the export of trusts outside NY because tax is deferred, if beneficiary leaves NY it will be avoided, and tax on accumulated income doesn’t pick up capital gains since they are not part of DNI and do not produce an accumulation distribution.Portability.Rev. Proc. 2001-38 concerning a disregarded QTIP election.The Rev. Proc. was intended to provide relief if an unnecessary QTIP election was made.What happened was that an executor inadvertently made a QTIP election on a bypass trust. IRS said we would disregard it as a leniency to the taxpayer.Now a QTIP trust is desirable to get a step up in basis. If left all in a bypass trust there is no step up but IRC Sec. 2044 requires step up and it is treated as property passing from the decedent under IRC Sec. 1014(b).An issue was raised by some practitioners that the QTIP election if there is no estate tax due (e.g., on a portability return) the QTIP election was not necessary so IRS could ignore the QTIP election and the basis step up might be lost. This was not the intent.There should be no issue of this with creating a trap for the pleted gift and GRAT.Scrivener error.Reformation in local court. Reformation relates back to date of creation of the document.PA has UTC and under Sec. 415 you can establish by clear and convincing evidence that it was an error.Reformation should be contrasted with modification.UTC Sec. 415 modification does not require clear and convincing evidence but modification is prospective only.General power of appointment.PLRs 201444002-201444006.Issue is that the grantor created a trust for grandchild and permit the grandchild to appoint to grantor’s issue which means the grandchild could exercise in favor of the grandchild. Since the grandchild is included in grantor’s issue was this a general power of appointment causing trust property to be included in the grandchild’s estate? The IRS held that since it was a testamentary power the grandchild could not appoint to himself/herself during lifetime or to his/her creditors so it was not a general power.Business Opportunity.It is common to plan for goodwill in corporate transactions that are not estate planning motivated. Sellers want to allocate some consideration to personal goodwill rather than corporate goodwill. This will create only one layer of tax, a capital gains tax, since the proceeds will be received directly by the shareholder not by the corporation. If in contrast it is the corporation’s goodwill being sold you have two layers of taxation. Allocation of goodwill as between personal and corporate goodwill has long been an issue.These issues can be relevant to the business succession and estate planning areas.Boss Trucking Inc. v. Commr. TC Memo 2014-17. Dad had trucking company. Regulatory issues arose. Three sons started their own business and used some of equipment used in Dad’s business and some of the same suppliers and customers. [Comment: was it Steve Douglas?] Dad was not involved in the new business started by the sons. IRS said the creation of the new business by the sons was a distribution of goodwill by Boss Trucking to Dad, and then followed by a gift of that goodwill by dad to the 3 son. The Tax Court said that the IRS was not correct only because the goodwill belonged to the Dad as a shareholder, not the corporation. There was never an employment agreement or non-compete agreement that would have formalized this. Does this suggest not having those documents in place? Tax Court also held that there was no gift by Dad to sons (or sons’ business) because the new company had a different name, etc. Planning ideas – if transition business to younger generation have them form their own business and build their relationships. As long as senior generation is not involved there may be no gift transfer. This might provide a gift tax free succession strategy.Estate of Adell v. Commr. TC memo 2014-155.C Corporation was engaged in uplink broadcasting business.The only customer was a charity formed by decedent and son. The decedent’s son who had created all the relationships and created goodwill. On decedent’s death what was the value of the stock if the goodwill belonged to the son and not to the company?IRS appraised company and came up with a value that was ten times greater than the taxpayer. Tax Court held that the value of the company should not reflect the son’s goodwill.Note that on son’s death goodwill would die with him and not be included in the estate.Cavallaro v. Comr. TC Memo 2014-189Case held the opposite as the Adell and Boss cases finding that a merger transaction was a gift.General planning ideas.Have new ventures started in an irrevocable trust so outside the estates.If the company would have a claim against the child for taking the corporate opportunity then it would be a taxable gift. So be careful with employment agreements and shareholders agreements not to provide for such a ment: Employment and other agreements may be useful to support compensation etc. but perhaps provide the opposite of a typical corporate opportunity clause by stating that there will be no such restrictions. Consider the impact on other siblings. This was discussed by another speaker in a different context at this year’s Institute who pointed out the intra-family issue of a child in the business secures an incredible investment opportunity and does not share it with other siblings. In that context a seemingly opposite recommendation was made. So caution is in order.Valuation cases.Richmond v. Commr. TC Memo 2014-26.In one case the appraisal was not completed which worked to the taxpayer’s detriment.Built in capital gain. Two circuits give dollar for dollar deduction. IRS expert gave nominal expert. Judge used about ? of net asset value with a discount for built in capital gain. Used time value of money and assumed gain would be realized over time.Gustina.12-717-47 December 5, 2014.Appeal from Tax Court decision.41% LP interest in timber.Taxpayer did not have ability to liquidate or remove GP. Tax Court judge said there as a 25% chance LP could find another LP to join him and liquidate. 9th Circuit said that was contrary to evidence and hypothetical buyer would have to get GP approval, etc. Viewed it as clear error to assign the 25% probability.This is analogous to Simplot case.Elkins Case.Elkins When James Elkin died he owned fractional interests in 64 works of art comprising a $35M art collection. The value of the art was agreed to.Issue was discount.IRS position was no discount should be permitted.Testimony of art appraiser testified no market for partial interests in art. Estate argued for 70-80% discounts. Tax Court limited discount to 10% (better than 5% in Stone case). Tax Court reasoned that potential buyer would be able to convince other owners to buy the minority interest. Tax Court agreed that there should be some discount and that IRS was wrong. Tax Court agreed with estate’s discounts. Burden of proof is not always on the taxpayer. IRC 7491 provides that if the taxpayer can present credible evidence as to evidence the burden shifts to the IRS. In this case the Elkins estate produced three expert witnesses whose testimony supported the discounts. The IRS testimony was week. The Court felt that if the IRS position was correct that there was no market that would support discounts taxpayers wanted. The cotenant agreement used may not provide a great benefit if used in future planning/cases. IRC Sec. 2703.Alternate Valuation Date.PLR 201431017. AVD must be elected within one year window (i.e., within one year of the return due date) to obtain Sec. 9100 relief.PLR 201441001. AVD could not be elected as the return was filed more than one year after the deadline.Same Sex Marriages.Florida August 21, 2014 become the 35th state to recognize same-sex marriages. Court held the ban against it was unconstitutional. Stay expired in January 2015.DeBoer v. Snyder 6th Circuit has overturned decisions in four states that allowed same-sex marriages. 6th Circuit says that it is determined by the states. Premarital Agreement.PLR 201410011 spouse’s right to elect under a revocable trust did not disqualify it for the marital deduction.The Code gives preferential treatment to certain payments made pursuant to divorce. If a premarital agreement requires alimony treatment for future post-divorce payments that may not be the result if only a premarital agreement requires this. Consider including a provision in the premarital agreement requiring parties to incorporate the provisions into a marital settlement agreement or divorce decree. FATCA.Applies to foreign trust unless an exemption applies.Beginning in 2014 payments of dividends, etc. withholding will apply to gross proceeds. This withholding is independent of other withholding provisions under the Code.A foreign entity must comply with requirements that different depending on the entity’s status.2701 Gift.Donor/mother funded an LLC and gave gifts to two children. Operating agreement provided for distributions of all profits to the A 201442053.Happens only if senior family member has received an applicable retained interest. This includes a distribution right or an extraordinary payment right.DINGs and NINGs.Delaware [Nevada] Incomplete Gift Trust (DING [NING]).Grantor retains a limited power of appointment so there is no completed gift into the trust so no gift tax exemption is used. If the estate is under the exemption then all assets in trust will be treated as in estate and obtain a basis step up.Do NINGs and DINGS work as a state income tax plan? PLRs 201410001-201410010 say yes in form and substance the trusts work from the IRS purposes.New York no longer permits this technique for a New York resident. NY will treat the trust as a grantor trust for NY income tax purposes even though it will continue to be treated as a non-grantor trust for federal purposes. Does not apply to trusts established and funded before client became a NY resident. These rulings illustrate the trend of the increased importance of state income tax planning in the overall planning process.Disclaimer.Taxpayer disclaimed within 9 months of attaining the age of majority. PLR 201403005.QTIP Division/Disclaimer.PLR 201426016.Surviving spouse was beneficiary of single QTIP. Plan outlined in ruling is QTIP to be divided into three trusts. Trust 1 same terms, Trust 2 unitrust of 3-5% in lieu of income payment and, Trust 3 same terms but it would be ended after division and distributed. Division was required because IRC Sec. 2519 provide if any portion of QTIP transferred during lifetime it is treated as a gift of entire interest.Must do a severance. See what state law provides for.Estate of Sanders v. Commr TC memo 2014-100.Adequate disclosure case.Decedent filed Forms 709 reporting gifts of closely held stock. In 2012 IRS challenged valuations on Forms 709. IRS claim value was almost double the amounts on Forms 709. Taxpayer claimed gifts were disclosed and more than 3 years had passed. IRS said that returns did not meet adequate disclosure rules. The business involved had interests in a related entity none of which was disclosed.Tax Court said that since there was a material issue as to whether there was adequate disclosure so no summary judgment.Detailed description, all financial data, etc. is all required.There are two types of adequate disclosure. A gift that is potentially within Chapter 14 has additional disclosure requirements.Estate of Donald Woelbing and Marion Woelbing Estate.Note sale to grantor trust being challenged by IRS.Profitable company sells lip balm. Founder’s son sold $60M interest for a note to a grantor trust. Trust has assets in excess of 10% of the value of the note. There was also a guarantee. Parents elected to split gifts. Donald died in 2009 and the note was still outstanding and the gift tax audit was still outstanding. IRS held that the value of the shares transferred was $116M not $60M. Claimed it was not a sale but a transfer to a trust with a retained interest and that it did not qualify for a retained interest so it was deemed a transfer of the entire interest. The value definition clause should be disregarded. IRS asserted valuation penalties. The shares were also include in gross estate since if caught by 2702 should be caught by 2036. If IRS prevails on 2036 it will be a double tax. Counsel for the estate indicated that the Chapter 14 issue is not likely to be an issue.What can be done with similar transactions? You should inform clients that IRS may attack such transactions. You could use GRATs instead of note sales until the issue is resolved but many commentators do not believe that is necessary and the loss of GST benefits is significant. While GRATs are safer sales to a grantor trust can be more effective.You could use a note sale but structure the payments to conform to GRAT annuity payments.Perpetuities and GST Planning.Three recent articles have taken different sides on this issue. The first, was a law review article by Sitkoff and Horowitz highlighted an issue concerning state perpetuity laws. Blattmachr then wrote an article addressing this and noting that Alaska should not be subject to the issue. Steve Oshins wrote an article providing a rebuttal and defending Nevada law.A NY Times article picked up on Sitkoff’s article as the professor making the case that perpetual trusts are not constitutional.28 states and Wash. DC have abolished by statute the rule against perpetuities that states that a trust cannot last forever. In these states you can have perpetual trust or one that lasts for many centuries e.g. 360 in Nevada or a 1,000 years in other states. This is a clear growing trend.States with restrictions.9 states have constitutional provision against perpetuities: Montana, Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas restrictions.Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee and Wyoming. They have constitutional provisions prohibiting perpetuities but statutes permitting them. Are these viable or do they violate their state’s constitutions.In a state with a constitutional provision against perpetuities, but not statute for it, e.g. Texas, would it honor a Delaware trust? Under conflict of laws it may be that the Texas court could choose not to respect the perpetual aspect of that trust in Delaware.What do you do now?You can draft a savings clause to address this.“Sit tight” with existing trusts.Don’t form new trusts in those states, like Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, Tennessee and Wyoming, until the issue is resolved. Use instead Alaska and South Dakota. Alternatively, you can discuss the possibility of the risk involved with a client considering such a trust.State courts will almost assuredly protect their laws and trust companies Comment: The “feel” of comments seems to be that speakers seemed to believe that this matter will resolve.Issue what if a beneficiary of a Nevada trust goes bankrupt. Will a federal court address this and hold the trust invalid so that the interest can be reached?Summary of the above discussion provided by Steve Oshins, Esq.28 states & DC have abolished RAP. You can have a perpetual or near perpetual trust in those jurisdictions (e.g., Florida, 360 years). There has been a growing trend that states have been lining up to attract capital. In meantime, you have 9 states that constitutionally have in some form or another prohibited perpetuities. In 4 of those 9 states, MT, OK, TX, AK, they have a RAP. Article focuses on the other 5. AZ NV NC TN WY. Those 5 states have constitutional provisions saying no perpetuities, but statutes saying that it is permissible to form long term trusts. The constitution references "perpetuities" so applies to RAP, definition of perpetuities at time the constitution went in, discussed entails that is different than RAP which says interest in property can't vest for life plus 21 years that is a vesting prohibition, not an entail prohibition. Does perpetuities mean RAP and entail?Second issue, go to states that have a constitutional prohibition against perpetuities but not RAP, would TX recognize DE perpetual trust that was set up by Texan in DE? TX probably would not recognize that trust say authors. When law review article that questions constitutionality of state statutes in NV and other jurisdictions that promote perpetuity, creates conflict. Is this unconstitutional? Some commentators are saying this. A spendthrift trust in the Caribbean is recognized. Another speaker disagreed with the commentators stating that this was that against public policy. NV and another state that are of most interest. Estate planning attorneys in NV have rushed to defend the NV statute. Steve Oshins who had a hand in drafting the statute published a rebuttal in Leimberg Services (LISI) on December 22, 2014 makes an argument that the meaning of perpetuities is undefined. Vesting is not prohibited. Up to courts or legislature to define what perpetuities means, and NV says it is 365 years by legislative action. A court could conclude that it only applies to real estate. In fact, NC has a constitutional provision much like NV, and has decided it much like this. Sitkoff disagrees. Second, could decide that prohibition against perpetuities could say just that. If 90 years is perfectly okay (life plus 21), then why not 360? If Cromwell wanted to establish a trust that is still valid today, why not? Several NV estate planning attorneys are looking to NV legislature to resolve this in favor of statute. Don't panic, let's see what they can accomplish. If you are planning to use NV, include savings clause from Jonathan's Blattmachr’s article. Sitkoff's article is well reasoned and has merit, and I would not set up a trust in these five states until the issue is resolved. NV and WY have been attractive because of favorable law dealing with private trust companies. Some states require capital/employees. NV/WY are very favorable. Not often that RAP and law review article gets in NY Times. Donaldson. Those who have NV/WY trust, do you need to anything? No. Those who are considering NV/WY trust, would you do it? One of two things will happen. Voters will shut down constitutional change for this. Alternatively, state courts pushed to change this, will they do it? Probably yes assuming judge understands it. Or, alternatively, do nothing. Since when does an academic who writes an article mean anything? Be careful, because beneficiary of long term trust under NV law goes bankrupt, and bankruptcy court goes after it, can they get it? Donaldson. Courts might need to look at this quickly. Bring up to client potential risk which is minimal compared to positives, and let client know it as an item to consider but not a big item, we all agree.Portability.Extension of time to file for portability. Rev. Proc. 2014-18. PLR 201406004, 201410013, etc. Leniency was afforded for portability but do not expect that again in the future.If late, try for IRC Sec. 9100 relief if reasonable cause.Portability election is easy and inexpensive and should be used.McNeely v. US 2014 WL 2617418 case.Note on extension request expect to make an IRC Sec. 6166 election to defer estate tax.$1M tax and 800,000 of that deferred. If you pay more than the non-deferred portion you do not get a refund. The over payment is applied against the deferred portion.Instead, pay the tax that will be non-deferred and request an extension. The IRS is lenient in granting extensions to pay and file if done on a timely basis.3.8% Surtax.Passive loss rules had not had great impact on trusts until recently since clients generally did not generate net losses inside a trust.Now we are concerned about passive income in a trust because of the 3.8% surcharge as this includes passive activity gross income. This is an activity in which the taxpayer does not materially participate.This test is easy to understand on an individual level, but how can a trust materially participate. 1.469-5T(g) entitled “Material participation of trusts and estates” – “Reserved.” Since 1980 no guidance has been provided.The IRS has taken a consistent position that a trust is only a material participant if trustee participates. IRS says time spent as an officer, director or employee will not count as that person is not taking those actions wearing a fiduciary hat. That position is incorrect and inconsistent with the concepts as applied to say an S corporation employee/shareholder. A fiduciary cannot remove that “fiduciary hat” and act in a non-fiduciary capacity as an employee.Frank Aragona Trust v. Commr., 142 TC No. 9 Case.Trust was sole owner of LLC a disregarded entity that operated real estate so effectively the trust was conducting the real estate activity.The trust had six trustees. Three trustees were full time employees of the LLC owned by the trust.The trust took the position that since 3 trustees materially participated in the business that the trust was a material participant. IRS said you cannot count those hours done in employee capacity. Tax Court said IRS is wrong and activities of trustees who are employees and who materially participate in business interest owned by trust that is a materially participating activity and the Surtax should not apply.Courts will have to give deference to Regulations when issued.Issue that concerns IRS is ability to use trusts as a tax shelter. It may be several years before we see guidance in this area.Reg. Sec. 1.67-4 TD 9664 Regarding IRC Sec. 67(e) Regulations.Regulations issued in response to Knight decision.Expenses are protected if not have been incurred if the property were not held in the trust or estate.67(e) was not read literally but was meant to exclude expense for properties typically held by individuals, like investment advisory fees.Conclusion from Knight case is that investment fees are subject to the 2% floor under 67(e), but not all expenses are included. If a flat fee is charged for bundled services, how do we allocate bundled fee as between good and bad expenses? The general rule is that an allocation must be made between 67(e) expense and all other expenses. First type of fee is a flat fee charged for other than number of hours working on the matter. An executor’s fee is based on a percentage and not hourly basis must be allocated as between investment and other. Any reasonable method may be used. You might consider what an investment adviser were charged if it were not a trustee.Not only financial institutions, but attorneys and CPAs as well, must address these as well. Legal and accounting fees should generally be deductible on Form 706, but on a Form 1041 (where you will claim since estate may not pay an estate tax) transmission and estate expenses should not be subject to 2% floor. Work cleaning up LLC and other matters would be subject to 2% floor. Bigger issue is in trust administration. If lawyer sits in an investment review meeting, or reviews an agency agreement, that is clearly subject to 2% floor. You might consider flat fee billing then as long as it is not investment advise it should be all deductible.Not all Sec. 67(e) expense are subject to 2% haircut. The greater the 67(e) expenses that can reduce gross income by avoiding the limitation, make more likely to benefit from a deduction. Also, impacts trusts AMT.Final regulations apply for all years beginning after May 9, 2014. Investment advisory fees incurred for an investment objective unique to a trust may be protected. Fiduciary costs, such as probate and accountings, are not commonly incurred by individuals.Regulations don’t address how ordinary estate transmission expenses should be treated for IRC Sec. 67(e) purposes. How do you handle costs of deeds and assignment documents? What about sales expenses if a sale is made to pay taxes that would not have to be paid if we were not dealing with an estate? There may be future guidance to address this.SEC vs. Wyly.This was not a tax case but rather an SEC Disgorgement case.In 1990s two brothers created an Isle of Mann trust and intended the trusts to be non-grantor trusts. They took this position and did not report income on US tax returns. Advisers recommended not to make required SEC disclosures. They didn’t.The SEC eventually considered these provisions and won a civil enforcement action against the brothers.The problem the SEC faced was that there were no investment profits so how could they punish the brothers? The court decided if the brothers had filed as required with the SEC and the tax savings would not have occurred had they reported properly. So the amount of tax savings was determined to be the amount of profits to be reached as a result of the SEC violation, and the amount to be disgorged.If similar facts came before the court in a tax case, as to whether a trust is a grantor trust or whether trust property should be included in the grantor’s estate, it could be problematic.The basis for concluding that the trust was a grantor trust was based on the degree of control the grantors exercised over the trust decisions even though they had no legal right to do so. The trustees were required to take direction from trust protectors (the brother’s attorney and 2 employees). The court viewed these protectors as agents and that there was defacto control and therefore it was a grantor trust under IRC Sec. 674. All investment decisions were made by the brothers. This rationale might yield the same result under IRC Sec. 2036 as to control. In past we did not have to worry about the grantor’s power in this type of instance based on the Byrum case. But the Wyly case casts doubt on this. Should be sure that clients are careful in how they make decisions.Sam Wyly has filed for bankruptcy. The broker followed brother’s directions directly instead of going through the trustee. More formality should be respected. $200M debt to SEC how will they get the assets out of Isle of Mann?Conservation Easements.Scheidelman v. Comr, 755 F.3d 148 and other cases.Must tie up/restrict use of property to qualify for income tax deduction.In 2006 this technique became more popular. Could deduct up to 30% of AGI and only a 5 year carryover. This made it difficult to get benefit. Pension Protection Act gave 15 year carryover and 50% of AGI limit and for farmers and ranchers the limit was increased to 100% in AGI.The IRS examines conservation easement deductions carefully. You have to be able to substantiate the numbers. If you ignore the formalities, or do not have adequate valuations, it will be a problem.Marco Zarlengo case must record deed for it to be effective. Since deed was not recorded the deduction in that year was disallowed.Seventeen Seventy Sherman St., LLC in Colorado. In exchange for a conservation easement on the Mosque the city of Denver gave them a zoning variance. This was not a charitable donation but rather a quid-pro-quo and no deduction could be allowed to the extent value was received in exchange for this.Mountanos case. Donated 882 acres of raw land that was used for recreational deer hunting. Conservation easement donated in perpetuity that can only be used for deer hunting. The taxpayer claimed for purposes of their valuation analysis that the highest and best use would be a winery. But there was no road access or water on the property. IRS pointed out that it was not feasible to grow wine so that could not set the value. A second expert provided that the property could be subdivided but CA state law prevents that scope of development so that appraisal was also not respected. The lesson is that highest and best use must be a reasonable best use.Promissory Note to Private Foundation.PLR 201446024.Note has to be issued in transaction after death.Put note in LLC and interests in the LLC were given to the private foundation.This avoided the promissory note issue. Clark v. Rameker, 134 S. Ct 2242.Non-spouse holder of inherited IRA are not exempt from claims of a bankruptcy trustee.Ordinary meaning of retirement funds.CITE AS:?LISI?Estate Planning Newsletter #2271?(January 15, 2015) at 2015 Leimberg Information Services, Inc. (LISI).?Reproduction in Any Form or Forwarding to Any Person Prohibited – Without Express Permission.? ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download