Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog

Rich Woman Leaves Estate To Her Neighbor

Betty Harris, a wealthy woman from Sydney, Australia, decided to bequeath her entire estate worth $12.5 million to her neighbor, Beatrice Gray. Harris reportedly said that the reason she decided to leave her neighbor her estate was because she trusted her neighbor and because Gray would not expect this to happen. Harris mentioned that Gray would also purchase groceries for Harris and helped her with household chores. This decision, as you can imagine, did not go over well with her living niece. Harris claimed that her niece never visited her and even wanted to place her in a nursing home and that's why Harris wrote her out of the will. Harris reportedly said, "'I am determined that my relatives after what they have put me through will not get one cent.'" Gray recently won the legal battle against Harris' niece after Justice Richard White determined that Harris' 2005 will was valid.

See Rich, Lonely Woman Leaves $12.5 Million Estate to Neighbour After Death, Daily News & Analysis, Nov. 28, 2012.

Special thanks to Brian Cohan (Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Brian J. Cohan, P.C.) for bringing this article to my attention.

Article on Elderly Citizens and Voting

Wesley E. Wright (Partner, Texas) and Molly Dear Abshire (Partner, Texas) recently published an article entitled, Voting for Texans 65 and Better, Senior Living Section, Houston Chronicle. Provided below is the introduction to their article:

In this presidential election year, older voters are expected to be the decisive segment of voters, and therefore their votes are highly prized. Of all eligible voters, nearly a quarter are aged 60 plus. 

Elder voters understand that issues such as Social Security and Medicare reform directly affect them and are concerned about the issues of health care and economy.  

There are still numerous challenges for eligible older voters and voters with disabilities, including difficulty moving or driving, inability to sign one’s name or to read a ballot. These issues have always presented problems for the exercise of their civil right to vote.

Dispute Over Painting and Capital Gain Taxes

A dispute over a £9.4 million painting from Castle Howard is before the Royal Courts of Justice in London.  The painting is a Sir Joshua Reynolds painting known as Omai and it is viewed as possibly the artist's finest work.  For centuries, it graced the walls of Castle Howard.  It was sold at Sotheby's in 2001 to fund Simon Howard's divorce from his wife Annette.  Omai was part of George Howard's estate and his executors have been righting with tax authorities ever since he died in 1984 over whether the £9.4 million should be subject to capital gains tax.  

The executors argue that the painting should be viewed as a "plant" used in running the house as a business because it was essential in bringing visitors to the Castle Howard.  Last year, a tax tribunal dismissed those arguments after pointing out that the painting's sale did not lead to any falling off in visitor numbers.  In fact, visitor numbers have increased by ten percent in subsequent years. The executors are now asking the Upper Tribunal to overturn the tax tribunal's decision. 

See Mike Laycock, Tax Battle Over Castle Howard £9.4 million Painting, The Press, Nov. 30, 2012. 

Special thanks to Brian Cohan (Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Brian J. Cohan, P.C.) for bringing this article to my attention.

Litigators Consider Estate Tax Cost of Premature Death

Estate planning practitioners have long been focused on the estate tax cost of a premature death, but now litigators are considering it too.  Recently, in Beim v. Hulfish, a New Jersey court allowed plaintiffs to assert additional estate tax cost as an additional measure of damages in a wrongful death claim.  

John Kellogg was a 97 year old passenger killed in an auto accident in 2008, and his family brought a wrongful death action.  In 2008, the estate tax exemption was $2 million and the Kellogg estate was required to pay almost $1.2 million in estate tax.  If Mr. Kellogg had died in 2009, hi sestate would only pay half of that because the estate tax exemption was increased to $3.5 million.  And if he had died in 2010, when the estate tax was increased to $5 million, his estate wouldn't have needed to pay anything.  

Plaintiffs presented evidence of his life expectancy and left it up to the jury to determine which year Kellogg would have died in were it not for the car crash.  Even though the court found that Kellogg could have died in any year prior to 2013, and the estate tax applicable in 2011 and 2012 was not determined until after the wrongful death action was filed, the Court ruled that the estate tax differential was not too speculative for the necessary standard to determine damages in a wrongful death action in New Jersey.  

This case may only be applicable in New Jersey where the courts have a rather expansive view of the pecuniary liability under its wrongful death statute. 

See Kathy Sherby and Stephanie Moll, Claim For Payment of Estate Taxes in Wrongful Death Case, Bryan Cave Life, Death and Taxes, Nov. 12, 2012. 

 

Teaching T&E Using Outcomes-Based Techniques

Carolyn Grose (Professor of Law, William Mitchell College of Law) has recently published her article entitled Outcomes-Based Education One Course at a Time: My Experiment with Estates and Trusts, 62 J. Legal Educ. 336 (2012).

Here is the abstract from the SSRN version of her article:

Over the past three or four years, the legal academy has been under pressure to reform, driven by the critique that legal education does not adequately prepare law students to be lawyers.

The Carnegie Report, Best Practices for Legal Education, and even publications by the American Bar Association challenge law schools to radically rethink the delivery of legal education by starting at the end and working backwards. The current buzzword for this kind of education is “outcomes-based” education. The reports encourage law schools to focus on demonstrated student learning (outcomes) rather than what students are taught (input). In fact a report by the ABA Outcome Measures Committee recommends that output measures substantially replace input measures for the purpose of law school accreditation, and the ABA is currently considering amendments to its Accreditation Standards that would incorporate parts of that proposal

When presented with the opportunity to teach a new course, I decided to put some of these ideas to the test. Thus, in planning and ultimately delivering my Estates and Trusts course for the first time, I started at the end: by identifying my desired outcomes. What did I want students who completed my course to be able to do? In Stage II, I identified what evidence I would need to determine whether students had achieved these stated goals. What would student proficiency look like, in my course? Having identified such evidence, I designed assessment tools and activities that would measure such evidence and help me determine the level of proficiency. Stage III involved designing my instruction tools and teaching activities geared toward helping students gather the evidence necessary to allow me to assess whether they were achieving the stated outcomes. I planned to teach toward my goals. And finally, in Stage IV, I reviewed the whole process – one goal at a time, one class at a time, one assessment tool at a time – to figure out how I as an instructor had succeeded, or not, at designing and delivering the course from the end to the beginning.

In this article, I explore and demonstrate the effectiveness of outcomes-based education in the context of the planning and delivery of this one course. After giving a general overview of outcomes-based education, each section of the article will first describe the particular stage of outcomes-based education (i.e. outcomes, assessment, delivery, evaluation), drawing from non-legal and legal education resources on the topic; and then will describe my process of implementing these ideas, with some evaluation of their usefulness both for me as a teacher, and for my students.

I do not think I am ruining the story by giving away the ending: Requiring clarity and transparency about my goals for this course, and gearing the entire course toward helping students meet those goals resulted in a course that felt more intentional, contextual, and capable of reproduction than any course I had taught before. I believe the students benefited from my planning and teaching, by gaining more understanding both of the material itself, and also of the process of learning the material. Their ability to self-assess throughout the semester improved measurably, allowing me to refine and adjust the materials as needed much more than I had done in previous courses. In short, this way of designing and implementing a course worked beautifully for me, and I believe it worked for my students.

AALS Section on Trusts & Estates Fall 2012 Newsletter

The AALS Section on Trusts & Estates has just released its Fall 2012 Newsletter with information about conferences, programs, scholarship, and other professional news of interest to the membership.

You may read this exciting Newsletter by following this link.

Guardianship in Virginia

In Virginia, judges usually appoint a law firm when it places an elderly or incapacitated person in a guardianship and that person has no one else to take care of them. This happened to Samuel and Jeanne Drakulich, who were placed in the guardianship of Needham, Mitnick and Pollack (NMP). The major problem with this model is that it can be quite expensive. So much so, that the Drakulich's and NMP are in a dispute turned lawsuit over "tens of thousands of dollars in billing" that NMP charged the couple to take care of them. According to the Washington Post, "NMP billed the Drakuliches $6,300 to prepare $1,800 worth of household items for auction, another ward $2,300 to sell a $4,000 car and a third person in their care $4,200 to recover $5,300 worth of investments." For daily expenses, NMP charged between $85 to $125 an hour. The Drakulichs argue that the amount of money that they are being charged is too much. NMP, however, asserts that the amount that the couple is being charged is their normal professional rate.

The problem for the Drakulichs stems from the fact that there is no cap or guidelines on the amount that NMP can charge. The only guideline is that fiduciaries are entitled to receive "reasonable" compensation. What makes matters more troubling is that professional guardians are not required to have any formal training, and the State of Virginia lacks of unified system to keep oversight over the firms it places in guardianship positions.

Recently the county's commissioner of accounts, the fiduciary watchdog that approves billings, told NMP to refund about $229,000 for expenses in seven different cases, including the Drakulich's case. In the case of Drakulichs, NMP argues that the fees they charged the Drakulichs was reasonable because of "the amount of work needed on cases with complicated family dynamics." Now, the Supreme Court of Virginia will hear this precedent setting case on how much a private firm can charge for guardianship duties. What shocked the family members of the different wards was that the firm was charging them $165,000 legal tab to defend itself. 

See Justin Jouvenal, Guardianship Case in McLean Illustrates Lack of Regulation For Those Caring For The Elderly, The Washington Post, Nov. 29, 2012. 

Special thanks to Lewis J. Saret (Attorney at Law, Washington D.C.) and Jim Hillhouse (Professional Legal Marketing (PLM, Inc.)) for bringing this article to my attention.

In response to this posting, the law firm of Needham Mitnick & Pollack submitted the following response:

Our firm, Needham Mitnick & Pollack, has served as guardian and conservator in numerous cases over the last 20 years, including many pro bono cases. We take our responsibilities seriously, as evidenced by our reputation in the community. We also take seriously the misleading reporting by The Post in this article.

What was not stated in the article is that both an independent court investigator and the judge reviewed all of our bills for seven years of work and concluded that all of our time was reasonable and that the services performed were necessary, appropriate, proper and of value to the wards. 

To illustrate just one problem with the story, the article’s closing implied that our goal was to deplete the Drakuliches’ estates of all assets. However, when Jeanne Drakulich died in December 2010, there was more than $379,000 in her estate and all four Drakulich children asked our firm to serve as administrator of her estate. 

By not providing a balanced story, The Post has done a disservice to the valuable work performed by the elder law community.

Man Tries To Dodge Estate Tax By Establishing a Foundation

The Education Assistance Foundation for The Descendants of Hungarian Immigrants in The Performing Arts (EAFDHIPA) was established as education foundation designed to provide scholarships to junior or senior college students of hungarian of eastern european descent that have a descendant who took part in the performing arts. The foundation was established in 2005, has received more than $2 Million in donations, and have only given $200,000 in only a few scholarships. To make matters more interesting, when the IRS conducted an audit of the foundation, they discovered that one of few scholarships awarded were given to someone with the same last name and address as the President of the organization. If this seems like something gone awry then you are not alone because the IRS felt the same way too.

After conducting the audit of their 2005 tax return, the IRS concluded "that the Foundation was created in order to avoid paying estate and generation-skipping taxes on the estate of one individual, Julius Schaller, and to finance the education of Mr. Schaller's relatives." The estate has challenged the conclusion in tax court pending the appeal of a district court's decision this month. That case dealt with the tax exemption status of the organization. The IRS is claiming that Mr. Schaller's estate has committed fraud and tried to place a tax penalty on the organization.

See Peter J. Reilly, Education Foundation Or Estate Tax Dodge - Remains To Be Seen, Forbes, Nov. 28, 2012.

Special thanks to Bruce J. Gary (Price, Crooke, Gary and Hammers, Inc.) and Brian Cohan (Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Brian J. Cohan, P.C.) for bringing this article to my attention.

CLE on Estate Planning 101

The ABA Section of Real Property, Trust & Estate Law and ABA Standing Committee on Paralegals will host a 60 minute session entitled, Estate Planning 101: The Basics. The session will be led by two members of the Real Property, Trust & Estate Law, Hugh Drake (Brown, Hay & Stephens LLP) and Tye Klooster (Katten, Muchin Rosenman LLP). The session include discussions of the following:

1. Defining the need and objectives for clients.
2. Determining intestacy.
3. Wills and revocable trusts.
4. Steps of probate and probate avoidance.
5. Taxes and asset protection.

Article on Medicare Open Enrollment

Wesley E. Wright (Partner, Texas) and Molly Dear Abshire (Partner, Texas) recently published an article entitled, Medicaid Open Enrollment: Opportunity for Beneficial Changes, Senior Living Section, Houston Chronicle. Provided below is the introduction of their article:

During this time of year, as you begin holiday shopping for your friends and loved ones, do not forget to do some shopping around for yourself or your elderly parents. 

October 15 through December 7, Medicare allows beneficiaries a chance to review and make changes to their healthcare and prescription drug plan benefits, and there are multiple reasons for doing so.

Individual needs can change on an annual basis, so it’s wise to use the open enrollment period to compare your options and get the right fit. Have you changed any medications that you take? Have you been diagnosed with a new medical condition? If you answered yes to either of these questions, it would behoove you to shop around for another provider. 

Helpful Chart To Explain the Fiscal Cliff

The fiscal cliff involves the expiration of the current tax rates, along with the deep spending cuts that will be required in defense and domestic programs by the federal government.  As the end of the year nears, Washington continues to grow more concerned with this fiscal cliff.  Financial advisor Leo LaBrecque* and his team at LJPR LLC have created a chart to help people understand this fiscal cliff that has Washington all in a flurry.

Please click here to see the chart. 

*Leo LaBrecque is a CPA, CFP and CFA as well as managing partner and chief strategist at LJPR, which manages over $470 million in assets.  

See Michael Cohn, Charting the FIscal Cliff, Accounting Today, Nov. 28, 2012. 

Special thanks to Jim Hillhouse (Professional Legal Marketing (PLM, Inc.)) for bringing this article to my attention.

Collaborative Process: What is it and How Does It Work?

A collaborative process can be used in place of probate court proceedings to address issues in the disposition of an estate.  The collaborative process is less time-consuming, less expensive and less confrontational than a traditional adversarial case.  It is especially effective in disputes where monty is not the sole issue.  Akron.com explains what collaborative probate law is and how it works.  

1. What is collaborative probate law? This is a process that can be used to settle disputes over an estate in place of probate proceedings. Each collaboration participant is represented by his or her own attorney and all parties and their attorneys work in face-to-face meetings to resolve probate issues.  All interested parties get a spot at the table, and these kinds of settlements tend to be more satisfactory to the parties, and therefore more enduring.  

2. How does it work? All parties and their attorneys first get permission from the court to put the case on hold while a collaborative settlement is attempted.  All parties then sign a collaborative law participation agreement saying that they will all take a reasoned approach to the issues.  After the agreement is signed, each party meets with his or her attorney, and then the first collaborative meeting is held.  The attorneys agree that, if the collaborative process does not work, they will withdraw and not represent a party in any court proceeding substantially related to the dispute's subject matter. The five steps of the collaborative process are as follows: (1) determine goals, interests, and concerns; (2) gather relevant information; (3) develop options; (4) evaluate options; and (5) negotiate a settlement.  

See Collaborative Process Used to Settle Probate Disputes, Akron.com, Nov. 29, 2012. 

Special thanks to Brian Cohan (Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Brian J. Cohan, P.C.) for bringing this article to my attention.

Article on Potential Danger of Maximizing Taxable Gifts in 2012

Jerome M. Hesch (Of Counsel, Carlton Fields) recently published his article entitled The Financial Danger of Maximizing Taxable Gifts in 2012.  The article points out that maximizing taxable gifts before year's end can cause financial hardships if the gifts are made to grantor trusts.  The introductory paragraphs to the article are below;

At present, clients and their estate planning advisors are contemplating making $5,120,000 taxable gifts (or twice that amount using the split gift election) before year-end because the gift tax exemption may revert to $1,000,000 (FN2) starting in 2013.   Before making the maximum taxable gifts for the remainder of the 2012 year, clients need to be made aware of the possibility that maximizing their taxable gifts can cause a financial hardship if the gifts are made to grantor trusts.  Before making such gifts, clients and their advisors need to take into account the financial impact caused by the grantor having to pay the income taxes on the grantor trust's taxable income and take precautionary steps if those projections show that the income tax treatment will not leave the grantor with sufficient assets for support in their later years.  

This article is designed to show that for individuals with a life expectancy of over 20 years, making the maximum taxable gifts may not be the optimal strategy.  In evaluating whether to take advantage of the $5,120,000 gift tax exemption for the rest of the 2012 year, one needs to take into account the ages of the clients, their living expenses and the amount of their income-producing assets.  The situation illustrated below shows that for a couple ages 62 and 59 with $46,000,000 of investment assets, they should not make the maximum $10,240,000 in taxable gifts to a grantor trust. 

Please click here to see the illustration referenced above.

Advice To Powerball Lottery Winners

While the odds were astronomical that a person would actually win the Powerball lottery prize of $550 Million, there were several winners in last night's lottery. So, if you were one of these extraordinarily lucky individuals it is important to get a clear grasp of the fortune that you were just bestowed with and the knowledge that you now need to manage the million dollar windfall. Many people have different opinions of what a person should do to manage the lottery prize. 

At least, most (if not all) professionals believe that a winner should seek the counsel of a CPA, a CFP, an estate planning attorney, and a tax attorney to help the winner manage the winnings. On this tangent, some argue the winner should seek the advice of brokerage-house/steward that can handle investing the winning, such as Fidelity Investments. Others disagree and argue that a person should act conservatively with the winnings. One argued that a person should put 100% of the winnings in U.S. Treasury Bonds. That person concluded that a person could simply live off the interest; there was no need to risk the winnings especially if the winner could live comfortably for the rest of their lives. Regardless, of the winner's personal decision, all professionals urge the winner to think financially smart and not to squander the winnings. The last thing most people want to hear is how the lottery ruined another life.

See TheStreet Staff, What To Do If You Win the $550 Million Powerball Jackpot, The Street, Nov. 28, 2012

Special thanks to Brian Cohan (Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Brian J. Cohan, P.C.) for bringing this article to my attention.

Dealing with suspected financial abuse

The January 2013 issue of Consumer Reports contains an outstanding article entitled Protecting Mom & Dad's Money: What to do when you suspect financial abuse.

Here is a list of warning signs from the article:

• Unpaid bills when someone else has been designated to make payments.

• Missing property, large or unexplained withdrawals from bank accounts, or transfers between accounts.

• Excessively large reimbursements or “gifts” to caregivers or friends.

• New authorized signers on a person’s bank account.

• Changes in banks or attorneys.

• Bank statements and canceled checks no longer coming to the person’s home.

• Unfamiliar signatures on checks and other documents.

• Changes in spending patterns, such as purchases of items the senior doesn’t need.

• Lack of personal amenities such as clean clothes and grooming items.

• Changes in documents such as a will or power of attorney, or a change in beneficiaries that the senior can’t completely explain or comprehend.

• Excessive interest in the senior’s finances by a caregiver, friend, or relative.

Private Letter Ruling on 663(b) Election

In PLR 201245008, the representative of a taxpayer's trust asked for an extension of time to make an election under § 663(b) of the IRC. That section of the IRC allows a taxpayer to an election that would treat the amount "paid or credited within 65 days of any taxable year to be treated as paid or credited on the last day of the preceding year." The PLR held that even though the taxpayer missed the deadline, "the IRS has discretion to permit extensions of up to six months where the taxpayer acted reasonably and in good faith." Here, the IRS concluded that the taxpayer did act reasonably and in good faith and that the failure to file timely was only an inadvertence. 

See Conan Yuzna, PLR 201245008: Trust Granted 120-day Extension to Make 663(b) Election, Wealth Strategies Journal, Nov. 27, 2012.

Special thanks to Jim Hillhouse (Professional Legal Marketing (PLM, Inc.)) for bringing this article to my attention.

CLE on Trust Selection

The Illinois State Bar Association is offering a 1 MCLE Hour teleseminar entitled, Picking the Right Trust - A National Perspective, on December 19, 2012. The keynote speaker at the event is Blanche Lark Christerson. Below is a description and highlights of the event as provided by the Illinois State Bar Association: 

Choosing the right trust for a client’s needs is a balance of finding the right vehicle for the client’s specific goals, obtaining maximum tax efficiency and yet maintaining as much flexibility as possible over time.  It can be a daunting process, including working through a wide variety of sophisticated trust planning techniques and their tradeoffs under federal and state law. The process has grown even more complicated as the estate and gift tax law has shifted widely in the last several years, putting a premium on flexibility. This program will provide you with a framework for assessing the different alternatives and decision-tree for determining which is best for your client’s specific circumstances.

Highlights:

• Practical decision-tree for finding the best trust alterative for your clients
• Revocable v. irrevocable trusts – balancing flexibility against tax benefits
• Trusts alternatives for passing and preserving value of family businesses or property
• Special purpose trusts – special needs trusts, exclusion trusts, life insurance trusts
• Charitable trusts – options for separating and allocating income and principal for benefit of charity and benefactor
• Limits of trust planning and integration into larger estate plans

Dispute Over Oklahoma City Bombing Funds

The Oklahoma City Community Foundation is an organization that charged with overseeing the distributions of the donations that were made in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City Bombing. The fund was established to provide benefits, both medical and educational, to survivors of the bombings. Now, a dispute has arisen over whether the $10 Million in the remaining funds should be distributed. 

Many survivors believe that the organization has done a marvelous job in managing the funds; therefore, the remaining funds should remain with the foundation. Of these survivors, many have noted that they received the funds that they needed when they qualified to receive some of the funds. The foundation agrees that this is probably the best course of action. On the other hand, there are some survivors that are upset with how the foundation has managed the funds. They claim that the foundation has not made distributions when they have needed and qualified for the funds. Others are angry because a portion of the funds might not even go the survivors at all, but to training future disaster responders and to the national memorial. They believe that the best course of action is to distribute the remaining funds to the survivors.  Unfortunately, even if the foundation agreed with the dissenters that the money should be distributed, there are numerous problems with this scenario. The main problem is determining just how much each survivor should receive from the funds.

In response to this dissent, the officers from the Oklahoma City Community Foundation stated that they will have the fund audited in effort to relieve "any concerns about the way the fund was administered." Other officers from the fund have argued that there are misconceptions and inaccuracies when it comes to how the funds have been distributed. Steven Mason, one of the funds trustee's, stated that he personally thinks that the foundation has made "'100 percent of the eligible expenses for people under that were put in place in 1995.'"

See Randy Ellis, Oklahoma City Bombing Fund Official Say Criticism Unjust, NewsOK, Nov. 12, 2012.

Special thanks to Trey Mims (Texas Tech University School of Law, J.D. Candidate 2012) for bringing this article to my attention.

Former Judge Resigns And Is Sentenced to Two Plus Years in Jail

As I previously blogged, Former Judge Heather Perrin was found guilty of deceiving an elderly client out of half of his 1M Euro estate.  Perrin has since resigned from her position as judge and received a two-and-a-half year jail sentence.  Perrin maintained her innocence throughout the eight day trial, but the jury unanimously voted her guilty and she now accepts that decision as "'right and proper.'"

The breach of trust was one of the most serious ones to come before the court and the former district court judge is the first member of the judiciary to be sent to jail.  After the verdict came in, Perrin offered her immediate resignation to the court. 

See Dearbhail McDonald, Video: Judge Heather Perrin Gets Two-and-a-half Years Jail For Deception Over Client's Will, Independent.ie, Nov. 29, 2012. 

Special thanks to Brian Cohan (Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Brian J. Cohan, P.C.) for bringing this article to my attention.

Guidance on De-Identification Methods for Protected Health Information

On November 26, 2012, the Office for Civil Rights Division of the Department of Health and Human Services announced that a guide has been released regarding methods for the de-identification of protected health information in accordance with the Privacy Rule of HIPAA.  The privacy rule sets forth the standard for de-identification of protected health information as follows: health information is not individually identifiable if it does not identify an individual and there is no reasonable basis to believe that the information can be used to identify an individual. The Privacy rule goes on to state the two methods that can be used to satisfy the afore-mentioned standard: expert determination and a safe harbor.  

Expert Determination: 

Under the expert determination method of de-identification, "a person with appropriate knowledge and experience with generally acceptable statistical and scientific principles and methods for rendering information not individually identifiable" has to determine that the risk is small that the anticipated recipient could use the information to identify the individual and then documents the methods and results of the analysis he/she used to make that determination.

Safe Harbor: 

The safe harbor method requires that a covered entity removes all 18 enumerated identifiers from the data to be disclosed, and must not have actually knowledge that the information could be used to identify an individual who is the subject of the information. Once the data is de-identified in accordance with this method, a covered entity does not have to enter into a data use agreement with the recipient. 

See HiPAA De-Identification Guidance Published, McGuire Woods, Nov. 28, 2012. 

Special thanks to Brian Cohan (Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Brian J. Cohan, P.C.) for bringing this article to my attention.