Archive for the ‘Elderlaw/Law For Life’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Resolving Conflicts Between Co-Agents on a Power of Attorney

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

Having power of attorney over a family member is a big responsibility and sometimes it makes sense to share that responsibility with someone else. But when two people are named co-agents under a power of attorney, conflicts can arise. Unfortunately, if the conflict can’t be resolved, it may be necessary to get a court involved.

A power of attorney allows a person to appoint someone called an “agent or “attorney-in-fact” — to act in his or her place for financial purposes when and if the person ever becomes incapacitated. A power of attorney can name one agent or it can require two or more agents to act together.

If you are acting as a co-agent under a power of attorney, but you and your fellow agent disagree on a course of action or one party has stopped participating in decision making, what can you do? The first thing is to check the wording of the power of attorney document to see if it sets up a procedure for resolving disputes. If the power of attorney itself doesn’t help, you should contact an elder law attorney. The attorney can tell you if your state’s power of attorney laws offer any guidance. There may be a state statute that deals with disputes.

If the dispute still cannot be resolved, the final step may be to file a petition in probate court to let the court decide it. Or if the court finds that one of the agents is not acting according to the incapacitated person’s best interests, it can revoke the agent’s authority. Unfortunately, taking the matter to court takes time and money.

If you are creating a power of attorney and want more than one agent to share responsibility, but want to minimize conflict, you can name two agents and let the agents act separately. Naming more than two agents can get cumbersome and make communication difficult. An alternative to naming co-agents is for the power of attorney document to name agents in sequence. The first-named agent acts alone, but if she cannot serve for some reason, the next person on the list will serve.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax planning

Dealing with the Credit Card Debt of Seniors

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

The number of seniors facing credit card debt has been growing. The average credit-card debt for consumers over 65 more than doubled from 1992 to 2004, to $4,907. Credit card debt can be especially problematic for seniors, who typically have a fixed income. If you or someone you love is having trouble making credit card payments, there are several options:

  • Try negotiating. A credit counseling agency or attorney may be able to negotiate with the credit card company for lower fees or interest rates. If the debtor is relying solely on Social Security for income, it may even be possible to have the debt forgiven. Note, however, that if the debt is forgiven it can count as income, which may create tax consequences or affect Social Security payments.
  • Reverse mortgage. If the debtor owns a house and is over 62 years old, a reverse mortgage may provide enough money to pay off debt. With a reverse mortgage, instead of paying the bank money to build up equity, homeowners use the equity in their homes to take out loans. The loan does not have to be paid back until the house is sold or the homeowner dies. While reverse mortgages may look like no-lose propositions on the surface, they also have some significant downsides.
  • Tap into life insurance. Permanent life insurance policies build a cash value, which can be used as collateral for a loan or withdrawn from the account. This money can be used for any purpose, including paying down credit card debt. Keep in mind, however, that loans or withdrawals will reduce the death benefit.
  • Bankruptcy. Filing for bankruptcy is not an easy solution. In 2005, a tough bankruptcy law went in to effect, making it much more difficult to get bankruptcy protection. For example, bankruptcy is available only to individuals whose income is below a certain level, and the homestead exemption, which allows you to protect all or some of the equity in your home, is stricter. Before filing for bankruptcy be sure to discuss your options with an attorney.
  • Do nothing. It may sound crazy, but one option is to do nothing and let the credit card companies sue the debtor. If the debtor owns a house, the court may put a lien on it. If not, the debt may be written off or reduced. An attorney can tell you if this is the right step for you take.

Regardless of what steps the debtor takes, debtors have the right not to be harassed by credit card companies. The Fair Debt Collection Act prohibits certain conduct by credit agencies attempting to collect debts. For example, creditors may contact debtors only between the hours of 8am and 9pm, may not use abusive or profane language, and must stop contacting debtors if the debtors request it in writing.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Bankruptcy, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Financial workout

Responsibility for a Deceased Relative’s Debts

Friday, April 1st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

The loss of a loved one is tough to begin with, but if the loved one left debts behind, it can be even tougher. Family members generally should not have to pay for a decedent’s debts, but it is important to know your rights because collection agencies may target the decedent’s relatives.

Usually the loved one’s estate is responsible for paying any debts. If the estate does not have enough money, the debts will go unpaid. The debt collectors may not collect payment from relatives (unless they were co-signers or guarantors). However, if you are the spouse of the decedent, you may have responsibility for any debts that were jointly held. Depending on state law, some assets — such as a house or car — may be exempt from debt collection. You should talk to an attorney to determine your responsibility, if any.

If a debt collector contacts you, give the collector the contact information for the personal representative (also called the “executor”) who is handling the estate. It is the personal representative’s responsibility to make sure all bills are paid. Whatever you do, do not give any personal information to debt collectors. Scam artists sometimes pose as debt collectors to prey on relatives.

If a debt collector won’t stop contacting you, send a certified letter to the collector saying you do not want to be contacted again. Once the collector receives the letter, the collector can contact you only to tell you that there will be no further contact or to inform you of a lawsuit. Report any problems with debt collectors to your state’s attorney general or to the Federal Trade Commission.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Financial workout, Tax planning

Statutory glitch reduces portable estate tax exclusion for some surviving spouses

Thursday, March 31st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

Effective for estates of decedents dying after 2010 and before 2013, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (2010 Tax Relief Act) allows a deceased spouse’s unused estate tax exclusion to be shifted to the surviving spouse. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) has released an errata sheet pointing out an error in the statutory language defining “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.” As explained below, the current statutory language may result in a lower-than-intended exclusion for the surviving spouse of an individual who was previously married and received a portable estate tax exclusion from his or her former spouse. The JCT says a technical correction may be needed to fix the defect.

Background. A credit (the “unified credit”) is allowed against the estate tax imposed on U.S. citizens and residents. The credit is equal to the tentative tax on the “applicable exclusion amount,” determined under the estate tax rate schedule.

Pre-2010 Tax Relief Act law did not allow for any unused portion of a decedent’s applicable exclusion amount to be used by the estate of the decedent’s surviving spouse.

Portable exclusion. Under the 2010 Tax Relief Act, for estates of decedents dying after 2010 and before 2013, the applicable exclusion amount is the sum of (1) the “basic exclusion amount” and (2) in the case of a surviving spouse, the “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.”

The basic exclusion amount is $5 million with an adjustment for inflation after 2011.

The “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount” is the lesser of:

(1) the basic exclusion amount, or

(2) the excess of the basic exclusion amount of the last deceased spouse dying after December 31, 2010, of the surviving spouse, over the amount on which the tentative tax on the estate of the deceased spouse is determined.

A deceased spousal unused exclusion amount may not be taken into account by a surviving spouse unless the executor of the estate of the deceased spouse files an estate tax return on which the amount is computed, and makes an election on the return that the amount may be taken into account by the surviving spouse. The election, once made, is irrevocable. No election may be made if the estate tax return of the deceased spouse is filed after the due date (including extensions) for filing the return.

A surviving spouse may use the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount in addition to his or her own $5 million exclusion for taxable transfers made during life or at death.

Illustration 1: Husband 1 dies in 2011, having made taxable transfers of $3 million and having no taxable estate. An election is made on his estate tax return to permit Wife to use his deceased spousal unused exclusion amount. As of his death, Wife has made no taxable gifts. Thereafter, Wife’s applicable exclusion amount is $7 million (her $5 million basic exclusion amount plus $2 million deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 1), which she may use for lifetime gifts or for transfers at death. (Committee Report)

If a surviving spouse is predeceased by more than one spouse, the amount of unused exclusion that is available for use by the surviving spouse is limited to the lesser of $5 million or the unused exclusion of the last deceased spouse.  This so-called “last deceased spouse” limitation applies whether or not the last deceased spouse has any unused exclusion, and whether or the estate of the last deceased spouse makes a timely election to allow the surviving spouse to use the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.

Illustration 2: Assume the same facts as in illustration (1), except that Wife subsequently marries Husband 2. He predeceases Wife, having made $4 million in taxable transfers and having no taxable estate. An election is made on his estate tax return to permit Wife to use his deceased spousal unused exclusion amount. Although the combined amount of unused exclusion of Husband 1 and Husband 2 is $3 million ($2 million for Husband 1 and $1 million for Husband 2), only Husband 2′s $1 million unused exclusion is available for use by Wife because the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount is limited to the lesser of the basic exclusion amount ($5 million) or the unused exclusion of the last deceased spouse of the surviving spouse. Thereafter, Wife’s applicable exclusion amount is $6 million (her $5 million basic exclusion amount plus $1 million deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 2), which she may use for lifetime gifts or for transfers at death. (Committee Report)

Remarried surviving spouses who predecease new spouse. The following illustration, based on an example in the Committee Report, says that if a surviving spouse remarries, and then dies survived by a new spouse, the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount included for the surviving spouse’s estate is determined by taking into account the deceased spouse’s applicable exclusion amount and not just the basic exclusion amount.

Illustration 3: Assume the same facts as in Illustrations 1 and 2, except that Wife predeceases Husband 2. Following Husband 1′s death, Wife’s applicable exclusion amount is $7 million (her $5 million basic exclusion amount plus $2 million deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 1). Wife made no taxable transfers and has a taxable estate of $3 million. An election is made on Wife’s estate tax return to permit Husband 2 to use Wife’s deceased spousal unused exclusion amount, which is $4 million (Wife’s $7 million applicable exclusion amount less her $3 million taxable estate). Under the provision, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount is increased by $4 million, i.e., the amount of Wife’s deceased spousal unused exclusion amount. (Committee Report)

This view does not seem to reflect Code Sec. 2010(c)(4), which states that the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount equals the lesser of the basic exclusion amount (i.e., $5 million), or the excess of the basic exclusion amount of the last deceased spouse of such surviving spouse over the amount on which the tentative estate tax is determined under Code Sec. 2001(b)(1) on the estate of such deceased spouse. Rather, under the current statutory language, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would seem to be increased by only $2 million.

The JCT Errata sheet confirms that the current statutory language does not support the conclusion in Illustration 3. It does so by adding a footnote to the example in the Committee Report on the 2010 Tax Relief Act. The footnote states that a technical correction may be necessary to replace the reference to the basic exclusion amount of the last deceased spouse of the surviving spouse with a reference to the applicable exclusion amount of such last deceased spouse, so that the statute reflects Congressional intent.

Under the technical correction, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would be increased by $4 million.

Under the technical correction, it would be possible for the new spouse’s applicable exclusion amount to exceed $10 million, the combined amount of the basic exclusion amount of the surviving spouse and the new spouse. For example, if, in Illustration 3, the Wife’s taxable estate were only $1 million, then Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would be increased by $6 million (Wife’s applicable exclusion amount of $7 million less $1 million of taxable transfers). Thus, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would be $11 million (Wife’s spousal unused exclusion amount of $6 million, plus Husband 2′s basic exclusion amount of $5 million).

Allowing a surviving spouse to wind up with a more than $10 million applicable exclusion amount is somewhat inconsistent with the last spouse limitation. That’s because the last spouse limitation prevents a spouse who survived two or more deceased spouses from getting an applicable exclusion amount that exceeds the combined basic exclusion amounts of a husband and wife. This combined figure presently is $10 million, but could exceed $10 million with inflation adjustments after 2011.

There is no word on when this or any other technical corrections may be forthcoming. Hopefully, IRS will address the matter when it provides guidance on the new portable exclusion.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

A Trip to the Hospital May Put Assisted Living Residents on Medicaid at Risk of Eviction

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

Elderlaw Attorney Jill E. Sugarman tells us that assisted living facility residents covered by Medicaid are at risk of being evicted if they leave the facility, even for a temporary hospitalization.  The National Senior Citizen’s Law Center (NSCLC) warns of this problems in a recently released White Paper. Ironically, Medicaid officials in most states have the power to prevent these evictions but in most cases are not exercising it.

Most state Medicaid programs pay for services not just in nursing homes but in assisted living facilities, which are meant to provide a home-like alternative to nursing homes. But there is a crucial difference between nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The Nursing Home Reform Law authorizes Medicaid to pay a nursing home to hold a room for a Medicaid recipient who is temporarily absent due to hospitalization and entitles the resident to return to the first-available room.

In contrast, Medicaid does not make similar payments on behalf of residents of assisted living facilities and the facilities are not required to give admission priority to returning residents. This difference in treatment, the NSCLC asserts in its report, “Medicaid Payment for Assisted Living: Residents Have a Right to Return After Hospitalization,” diminishes the value of assisted living facilities as a community-based alternative to nursing home care. If assisted living facilities truly seek to offer “home or community-based” services, says the advocacy group, residents should have the peace of mind of knowing that they won’t be evicted if they are absent for a few days or weeks.

The NSCLC points out that in most cases states could remedy the situation. Most states pay for assisted living care though a Medicaid waiver program. In 2000, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) advised states that it would authorize the issuance of “retainer payments” to Medicaid waiver home and community based service providers during a Medicaid recipient’s temporary absence, such as for hospitalization. The guidance described the retainer payments as being comparable to room-hold payments for nursing home residents. However, it appears that most of the states either do not understand the federal guidance or have not implemented it. Exceptions include Georgia, Illinois, Montana and Washington, all of which make retainer payments to assisted living facilities on behalf of residents who are temporarily absent.

The NSCLC makes a number of recommendations:

  • CMS should clarify that Medicaid-funded retainer payments are available for temporary absences from an assisted living facility;
  • State governments should authorize retainer payments up to the federally allowed maximum;
  • Federal Medicaid law should be changed to entitle residents of assisted living facilities to room holds, room-hold payments and readmission to the next available room after temporary absences;
  • Room holds should apply regardless of the reason for an absence.

To view NSCLC’s White Paper and other materials on the issue, including a News Release and a Policy Brief, click here.

For more information regarding Medicaid planning, contact Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. at jsugarman@mclaughlinquinn.com or by phone at 401-421-5115 ext. 215.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning

2011 Tax Law Signed

Sunday, December 19th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

At about 3:50 p.m. on Friday, December 17, 2010, President Obama signed into law the “Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.” This new law is a sweeping tax package that includes, among many other items, an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for two years, estate tax relief, a two-year “patch” of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), a two-percentage-point cut in employee-paid payroll taxes and in self-employment tax for 2011, new incentives to invest in machinery and equipment, and a host of retroactively resuscitated and extended tax breaks for individuals and businesses. Here’s a look at the key elements of the package:

  • The current income tax rates will be retained for two years (2011 and 2012), with a top rate of 35% on ordinary income and 15% on qualified dividends and long-term capital gains.
  • Employees and self-employed workers will receive a reduction of two percentage points in Social Security payroll tax in 2011, bringing the rate down from 6.2% to 4.2% for employees, and from 12.4% to 10.4% for the self-employed.
  • A two-year AMT “patch” for 2010 and 2011 will keep the AMT exemption near current levels and allow personal credits to offset AMT. Without the patch, an estimated 21 million additional taxpayers would have owed AMT for 2010.
  • Key tax credits for working families that were enacted or expanded in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will be retained. Specifically, the new law extends the $1,000 child tax credit and maintains its expanded refundability for two years, extends rules expanding the earned income credit for larger families and married couples, and extends the higher education tax credit (the American Opportunity tax credit) and its partial refundability for two years.
  • Businesses can write off 100% of their equipment and machinery purchases, effective for property placed in service after September 8, 2010 and through December 31, 2011. For property placed in service in 2012, the new law provides for 50% additional first-year depreciation.
  • Many of the “traditional” tax extenders are extended for two years, retroactively to 2010 and through the end of 2011. Among many others, the extended provisions include the election to take an itemized deduction for state and local general sales taxes in lieu of the itemized deduction for state and local income taxes; the $250 above-the-line deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers; and the research credit.
  • After a one-year hiatus, the estate tax will be reinstated for 2011 and 2012, with a top rate of 35%. The exemption amount will be $5 million per individual in 2011 and will be indexed to inflation in following years. Estates of people who died in 2010 can choose to follow either 2010′s or 2011′s rules.
  • Omitted from the new law: Repeal of a controversial expansion of Form 1099 reporting requirements.
  • Also not included: Extension of the Build America Bonds program, which permits state and localities to issue federally-subsidized municipal bonds.

Watch for upcoming posts containing more detail on this new law.  In the meantime, feel free to contact us with any questions you may have.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in 1031 Exchanges, Asset Protection Planning, Bankruptcy, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Financial workout, IRS and state tax collections, Self-directed IRAs, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

McLaughlin & Quinn Partners Release New Whitepaper – 9 Secrets to Success When You Owe the IRS

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

Tax relief comes in many forms, whether it means eliminating penalties, settling your debt, or ensuring that the IRS does not seize your bank accounts or garnish your wages. If you owe money on your taxes, your plan for resolving this debt should include addressing all possible angles: Protection from IRS actions, determining ways to reduce the amount owed, and putting a plan into place that will permanently make worrying about taxes a thing of the past.

McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC has published “9 Secrets to Success When You Owe the IRS”  This list has been developed by the attorneys at McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC over the course of dozens of years in private practice and dozens more working for the IRS. Avoiding these landmines will significantly increase the odds of getting one’s tax life in order and moving on. Failure to know these secrets, and use them to your advantage can turn a potentially minor problem into a federal case.

This is the most straight-forward guide you will find anywhere on resolving taxes. In it you will learn:

  • 9 Different Ways to Keep the IRS from Taking Action Against You
  • How not to be afraid of the IRS
  • How to avoid common mistakes
  • Simple steps to keep you out of trouble

Downloading this guide is absolutely free.

Click here to download this Free guide.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Bankruptcy, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Financial workout, IRS and state tax collections, McLaughlin & Quinn News, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Protecting Your House After You Move Into a Nursing Home

Sunday, October 24th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

While you generally do not have to sell your home in order to qualify for Medicaid coverage of nursing home care, it is possible the state can file a claim against your house after you die. If you get help from Medicaid to pay for the nursing home, the state must attempt to recoup from your estate whatever benefits it paid for your care. This is called “estate recovery,” and given the rules for Medicaid eligibility, the only property of substantial value that a Medicaid recipient is likely to own at death is his or her home. If possible, you should consult with an attorney before entering a nursing home, or as soon as possible afterwards, in order to discuss ways to protect your home.

In those states that have implemented the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, the home is not counted as an asset for Medicaid eligibility purposes if the equity is less than $500,000 ($750,000 in some states). In all states, you may keep your house with no equity limit if your spouse or another dependent relative lives there.

Transferring a Home
In most states, transferring your house to your children (or someone else) may lead to a Medicaid penalty period, which would make you ineligible for Medicaid for a period of time. There are circumstances in which it is legal to transfer a house, however, so consult an attorney before making any transfers. You may freely transfer your home to the following individuals without incurring a transfer penalty:

  • Your spouse
  • A child who is under age 21 or who is blind or disabled
  • Into a trust for the sole benefit of a disabled individual under age 65 (even if the trust is for the benefit of the Medicaid applicant, under certain circumstances)
  • A sibling who has lived in the home during the year preceding the applicant’s institutionalization and who already holds an equity interest in the home
  • A “caretaker child,” who is defined as a child of the applicant who lived in the house for at least two years prior to the applicant’s institutionalization and who during that period provided care that allowed the applicant to avoid a nursing home stay.

While you can sell your house for fair market value, it may make you ineligible for Medicaid and you may have to apply the proceeds of the sale to your nursing home bills.

Lien on Home
Except in certain circumstances, Medicaid may put a lien on your house for the amount of money spent on your care. If the property is sold while you are still living, you would have to satisfy the lien by paying back the state. The exceptions to this rule are cases where a spouse, a disabled or blind child, a child under age 21, or a sibling with an equity interest in the house is living there.

Estate Recovery
If your spouse, a disabled or blind child, a child under age 21, or a sibling with an equity interest in the house, lives in the house, the state cannot file a claim against the house for reimbursement of Medicaid nursing home expenses. However, once your spouse or dependent relative dies or moves out, the state can try to collect.

But there are some circumstances under which the value of a house can be protected from Medicaid recovery. The state cannot recover if you and your spouse owned the home as tenants by the entireties or if the house is in your spouse’s name and you have relinquished your interest. If the house is in an irrevocable trust, the state cannot recover from it.

In addition, some children or relatives may be able to protect a nursing home resident’s house if they qualify for an undue hardship waiver. For example, if your daughter took care of you before you entered the nursing home and has no other permanent residence, she may be able to avoid a claim against your house after you die. Consult with an attorney to find out if the undue hardship waiver may be applicable.

For more information on Medicaid planning, please contact Elderlaw Attorney Jill E. Sugarman at 401-421-5115 or by e-mail at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning

10 Reasons to Create an Estate Plan Now

Sunday, October 24th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

Many people think that estate plans are for someone else, not them. They may rationalize that they are too young or don’t have enough money to reap the tax benefits of a plan. But as the following list makes clear, estate planning is for everyone, regardless of age or net worth.

1. Loss of capacity. What if you become incompetent and unable to manage your own affairs? Without a plan the courts will select the person to manage your affairs. With a plan, you pick that person (through a power of attorney).

2. Minor children. Who will raise your children if you die? Without a plan, a court will make that decision. With a plan, you are able to nominate the guardian of your choice.

3. Dying without a will. Who will inherit your assets? Without a plan, your assets pass to your heirs according to your state’s laws of intestacy (dying without a will). Your family members (and perhaps not the ones you would choose) will receive your assets without benefit of your direction or of trust protection. With a plan, you decide who gets your assets, and when and how they receive them.

4. Blended families. What if your family is the result of multiple marriages? Without a plan, children from different marriages may not be treated as you would wish. With a plan, you determine what goes to your current spouse and to the children from a prior marriage or marriages.

5. Children with special needs. Without a plan, a child with special needs risks being disqualified from receiving Medicaid or SSI benefits, and may have to use his or her inheritance to pay for care. With a plan, you can set up a Supplemental Needs Trust that will allow the child to remain eligible for government benefits while using the trust assets to pay for non-covered expenses.

6. Keeping assets in the family. Would you prefer that your assets stay in your own family? Without a plan, your child’s spouse may wind up with your money if your child passes away prematurely. If your child divorces his or her current spouse, half of your assets could go to the spouse. With a plan, you can set up a trust that ensures that your assets will stay in your family and, for example, pass to your grandchildren.

7. Financial security. Will your spouse and children be able to survive financially? Without a plan and the income replacement provided by life insurance, your family may be unable to maintain its current living standard. With a plan, life insurance can mean that your family will enjoy financial security.

8. Retirement accounts. Do you have an IRA or similar retirement account? Without a plan, your designated beneficiary for the retirement account funds may not reflect your current wishes and may result in burdensome tax consequences for your heirs (although the rules regarding the designation of a beneficiary have been eased considerably). With a plan, you can choose the optimal beneficiary.

9. Business ownership. Do you own a business? Without a plan, you don’t name a successor, thus risking that your family could lose control of the business. With a plan, you choose who will own and control the business after you are gone.

10. Avoiding probate. Without a plan, your estate may be subject to delays and excess fees (depending on the state), and your assets will be a matter of public record. With a plan, you can structure things so that probate can be avoided entirely.

For more information on getting started with your estate plan, contact Estate Planning Attorney Jill E. Sugarman at 401-421-5115 or by e-mail at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax planning

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »