2010 has been anything but ordinary as far as the estate tax is concerned. First there was the unexpected repeal of the estate tax (unexpected not because the repeal was unplanned, but because nobody expected it to actually happen), then the idea that congress could reinstate the estate tax and make it effective retroactively, and now there are rumblings that certain Senators are considering a prepaid estate tax!

According to this article in the Christian Science Monitor, “News reports suggest that the Senate may soon consider restoring the estate tax with an option allowing people to prepay their tax before they die. Details are apparently still in flux as senators negotiate. We—and maybe they—don’t know yet what they’ll propose for the basic estate tax but it’s unlikely to be harsher than the 2009 version.”

If something like this gets passed, a visit to your estate planning attorney will be more important than ever, especially if you have the wealth to protect and the means to spend some money now to save a lot of money later.

Of course, this is all just speculation right now, but even the idea of prepaid estate taxes tells us just how much the government is counting on that revenue—one way or another. If you were under any illusions that the repeal of the estate tax might turn into a permanent thing this should be more than enough to convince you that the estate tax is here to stay.

www.blogprofs.com

There was too much confusion to be much rejoicing when the estate tax was repealed for a year on January 1^st, 2010. Although the words “no estate tax” may sound good, nobody really expected the state of affairs would last. Most experts believed that Congress would never actually let it happen in the first place; then when ’09 became ’10 without any action on the estate tax repeal that the George W. Bush administration had put into place experts warned people not to get too comfortable, that a retroactive estate tax would likely be implemented.

Well, we’re 4 months into 2010 and there is still no retroactive estate tax—but there is also still no rejoicing. This is because the lack of estate tax has actually created more problems than it has solved for the wealthy and affluent. According to this article in Financial Advisor Magazine the recent deaths of Texas billionaire Dan Duncan and Taco Bell founder Glen W. Bell, Jr. have only made it clear to tax attorneys that “lawsuits of various kinds will blossom in the estate-tax vacuum. The more money left on the table when the wealthy die, the more likely heirs are to fight for years over who should inherit.”

And you don’t have to be a billionaire to feel the consequences of the lack of tax. This article in Bloomberg Businessweek explains that those who think they’re catching a break on the estate tax could instead “…wind up paying stiff capital-gains taxes on inheritances. That’s because of the disappearance of what’s known as the “step-up” in basis, which allowed assets to be revalued for tax purposes at the time of death.”

But even this is preferable to finding yourself unintentionally disinherited by standard estate tax clauses included in older wills and trusts, a scenario that is more likely to happen than you may think if your spouse or parent hasn’t had their estate plan reviewed yet this year.

What is the bottom line? Every silver lining has a dark cloud, and you want to take every precaution possible to keep your heirs safe from the storm during this “gap year” in the estate tax.

www.blogprofs.com

Could it be that some movement finally happening in the House of Representatives with regards to the estate tax?

It looks like it may be, if we are to believe this recent article in Bloomberg Business Week. According to the article, the House Ways and Means Committee has plans to begin discussions in April (after the spring break) about former President George W. Bush’s tax cuts benefiting the middle class.

Of special interest to our clients is the section about the estate tax, found at the bottom of the article:

“…The committee would begin work to retroactively reinstate a federal tax on multimillion-dollar estates that expired Dec. 31. The legislation would likely seek an extension of a 2009 law, which applied a 45 percent tax rate on the value of estates that exceeded $3.5 million per individual… One possibility being considered… would let heirs choose to pay the capital gains tax that replaced the estate levy if that is more beneficial.”

Just one more reason to be sure you see your estate planner as soon as possible in 2010.

www.blogprofs.com

A month and a half into 2010 and Congress’ failure to stop the lapse in estate tax is still making waves. These two trusted news sources explain why having “no estate tax” this year should worry you.

One of the first reasons you should be worried, as revealed by this article in the Wall Street Journal, is that a larger base of estates will actually end up paying more this year rather than less; “Under last year’s law, estates up to $3.5 million, or $7 million for married couples, were exempt from federal tax. This year that law has been replaced by a fiendishly complex levy raising taxes on the assets of those with little as $1.3 million. It will affect the heirs of at least 50,000 U.S. taxpayers who die this year, whereas the old law affected only about 15,000 estates a year.”

Another main cause of worry, explains the New York Times, is the possible reinstatement of the estate tax by congress, effective retroactively; “The general view is that Congress wants to, and should, re-enact the estate tax retroactive to the beginning of this year,” [says tax specialist Ian Shane] “In January, February or March that’s easy, but as the year goes on it becomes more difficult.”

Of course the biggest worry estate planners have is the effect this year-long lapse will have on existing plans. Couples who already have an existing estate plan are advised to get their documents reviewed—and possibly revised—to prevent “standard clauses” from having unanticipated effects. As Joanne Johnson, head of the American wealth advisory service of J. P. Morgan explained to the NY Times, “It’s common to find language like ‘I hereby fund this trust to the maximum amount I can shelter from federal estate tax.’ The rest can then pass tax-free to the spouse. Such wording is risky as long as the estate tax is off the books… because there is no maximum.” What ends up happening is that everything goes into the trust for the kids, leaving the spouse with nothing.

What is the lesson here? The lapse in the estate tax may not be the boon it first appears to be. Talk with your estate planning attorney to find out how the new laws may affect your family.

www.blogprofs.com

It goes without saying that nobody wants to give up control of their finances and put themselves at the mercy of someone else’s decisions; which is why most people spend hours and hours considering who to name as their agent when they sign a power of attorney. But what happens if you pick the wrong person? This article about an elderly mother and the daughter who stole from her is a sad example of just how important it is not only to choose your agents wisely, but also to relinquish control wisely as well.

It is commonly believed that simply adding your “agent” as a joint owner on your bank accounts is the easiest (or cheapest) way to gradually “hand over the reins”; but giving someone else unfettered access to your bank accounts is a dangerous risk in the best of circumstances—all too often it leads to the tragic exploitation and abuse mentioned in the article above.

he good news is that there are safer ways to give your agents the powers and access they need without completely handing over the keys to your kingdom:

• A Durable Power of Attorney that goes into effect when two doctors have declared you incapacitated
• Naming more than one person as your agent (This can lead to a slower decision-making process, but it does provide you with checks and balances and oversight. If you’re worried about disagreements between agents, name a third party to serve as a mediator or tie-breaker.)
• Naming a financial institution as your financial agent
• Choose a professional advisor or overseer through whom all decisions must be approved. This has the added benefit of giving your agents someone to whom they can go for advice in a tough situation.

Any of these options may be safer than joint ownership of your bank accounts, but every family and financial situation is unique, so ask your trusted attorney about which options may be best for you.

www.blogprofs.com