Tuesday, December 1, 2020
Man who became a millionaire after living on $200 a month says these are the downsides of a windfall
Prior to selling the blanket, Loren was unemployed and survived off of motherly disability checks. Loren lost his leg in a terrible car accident that was nearly fatal. It is safe to say that the sale of the blanket saved Loren's life has he want from a little shack in California to a $250,000 home.
However, Loren made it clear that windfalls do come with unexpected challenges like "tax hurdles and family drama."
Loren stated that he is losing close to $10,000 a year in insurance and property taxes. Also, Loren's disability checks were cut off and with no source of income, he will have to move somewhere with a lower cost of living.
Loren stated that him and his wife are planning on selling their house and moving to Idaho, where taxes are lower and living is more affordable.
On top of the taxes, Loren stated that as soon as his family members found out about the windfall, they began asking for a cut of the money, creating a lot of anxiety for Loren. Loren's sister even threatened to sue him.
Seems that Loren's family does not understand that even with the windfall, he is not rich and cannot just blow the money and buy his children whatever they want.
Apart from buying a Dodge Challenger SRT8 from West Coast Customs and a new home, Loren said that he spent wisely and even invested part of the money.
Loren says that although his life became easier after getting the money, he has not changed.
“I firmly believe I’m here because years ago I turned my life around,” he says. “The things I’ve been through, I tell people it’s a strong faith and a strong mind. Without those things you’re not going to make it.”
See Zack Guzman, Man who became a millionaire after living on $200 a month says these are the downsides of a windfall, CNBC, November 30, 2020.
Special thanks to David S. Luber (Florida Probate Attorney) for bringing this article to my attention.
The presidential election has passed and individual tax planning remains a touchy subject as there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding the topic. As of now, it is unclear what the remainder of this year holds, much less what the beginning of 2021 has in store.
As of now, it appears that the Democrats will control the House of Representatives, it is unclear which party will control the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, the uncertainty regarding the Senate will remain until the run-off for the two U.S. Senate seats in Georgia occurs in January 5, 2021.
There has been a lot of talk about potential changes to tax policy under a Joe Biden presidency and if the Democrats end up in control of the House and the Senate, the changes are more than likely to occur.
With this in mind, individuals are taking advantage of the current tax exemptions just in case they are gone in 2021.
The potential changes would have an effect on taxes on Income, Capital Gains, and Estate taxes.
If these changes worry you or you will simply just miss the current tax exemptions you have available to you, now is the time to get your affairs in order and take the necessary steps to utilize the exemptions.
For strategies and tips to use to take advantage of tax exemptions, see the article cited below.
See Mark J. Andres, Individual Tax Planning Following the November 2020 Elections, National Law Review, November 25, 2020.
Special thanks to Jim Hillhouse (Professional Legal Marketing (PLM, Inc.)) for bringing this article to my attention.
Monday, November 30, 2020
Of interest to international tax and estate planning practitioners are the following:
- Estate and Gift Tax Basic Exclusion Amount: $11,700,000
- Gift Tax Annual Exclusion Amount: $15,000
- Increased Annual Exclusion for Gifts to Non-U.S. Citizen Spouses: $159,000
- Tax Liability Threshold for Covered Expatriate Status: $172,000
- Gain Exclusion Amount for Covered Expatriates: $744,000
- Foreign Earned Income Exclusion Amount: $108,700
"Practitioners should note that the estate and gift tax basic exclusion amount is only available to U.S. citizens and U.S. domiciliaries. Foreign individuals do not receive any exclusion amount for U.S. gift tax purposes (other than the annual exclusion amounts) and only receive a $60,000 exemption for U.S. estate tax purposes."
Edward Troup, previously first permanent secretary at HMRC, suggested that MPs tackle the already existing defects of the wealth tax system before any further steps are taken.
“We have a lot of taxes on various aspects of capital . . . none of them work properly,” said Sir Edward on Wednesday, citing capital gains, inheritance and council taxes as examples. “It’s always better to try and fix what you’ve got than to pile something else on top of it.”
Sir Edward suggested that politicians shift their focus to considering whether the current wealth taxing system is working correctly.
Sir Edward also stated, “There is a real risk that we are looking at putting something new and difficult and probably pretty inefficient [a wealth tax] on top of some already non-working taxes.”
It appears that the debate surrounding new wealth taxes continues to intensify during the pandemic pushing the government to consider how to repair the damage.
See Emma Agyemang, ‘Wealth tax risks worsening defective CGT system’, Financial Times (UK), November 19, 2020.
Special thanks to Joel C. Dobris (Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law) for bringing this article to my attention.
Sunday, November 29, 2020
One way donors can take advantage of these is to include a provision in your will or trust, which will provide a part of your estate to a charitable organization. Providing a gift to a charitable organization may allow your estate to receive an estate tax deduction.
You can also gift securities through lifetime gifts. This method will allow the chosen charitable organization to receive the full value of stock and will allow you to take an income tax charitable deduction.
You can also gift your IRA to a designated organization upon your death. This strategy requires you to file a beneficiary designation form with the IRA administrator. You can either gift the entire IRA or you can set a specific percentage for the organization to receive. The organization will not have to pay income taxes for withdrawals and will receive the full value of the gift. There is also another tax break for older donors that gift out of their IRA.
See Eileen Y. Lee Berger, Maximizing End-of-Year Charitable Giving, Bowditch & Dewey, November 25, 2020.
Special thanks to Jim Hillhouse (Professional Legal Marketing (PLM, Inc.)) for bringing this article to my attention.
Saturday, November 28, 2020
Allison Anna Tait recently published an article entitled, The Law of High-Wealth Exceptionalism , Alabama Law Review (2020). Provided below is the abstract to the Article.
No family is an island.But some families would like to be--at least when it comes to wealth preservation and they depend on what this Article calls the law of high-wealth exceptionalism to facilitate their success. The law of high-wealth exceptionalism has been forged over the years from the twinned scripts of wealth management and family wealth law, both of which constitute high-wealth families as sovereign entities capable of self-regulation and deserving of exemption from the rules that govern ordinary wealth families. Consequently, high-wealth families take advantage of complicated estate planning techniques and highly favorable wealth rules in order to build walls around their family fortunes and construct bespoke governance systems. Hiding in plain sight, the law of high-wealth exceptionalism protects, privileges, and enables high-wealth families in their own particular form of organizational sovereignty. The fact that high-wealth families operate according to their own rules might seem totally unconnected to the political lives and financial health of original wealth families. However, high-wealth exceptionalism intensifies old harms and creates new ones within the larger policy. To begin, the law of high-wealth exceptionalism increases systemic risk in financial Markets, shifts tax burdens from high-wealth to lower wealth families, and widens the wealth gap. Compounding these problems, high-wealth family exceptionalism facilitates the growth of plutarchic and patrimonial system of government in which power is based on family wealth and privilege flows in a circuit between a small number of already exceptionally resourced families. Understanding how the lax of high-wealth exceptionalism functions is, consequently, an important step in identifying hidden levers of wealth inequality, and addressing the resulting democratic deficit.
Friday, November 27, 2020
Kelly Purser, Tina Cockburn, and Bridget J. Crawford recently published an article entitled, Wills Formalities Beyond COVID-19: An Australian-United States Perspective, Wills, Trusts, & Estates Law ejournal (2020). Provided below is the abstract to the Article.
Executing a valid will during the COVID-19 pandemic can be difficult, given various economic and public health restrictions, including social distancing and lockdowns. For that reason, many states in Australia and the United States have implemented emergency measures to facilitate valid will-making during the pandemic. When societies can begin to look forward, the question is whether these temporary measures, which permit remote witnessing of wills, should become the "new normal." Examination of these matters through the lenses of law in Australia and the U.S. raises associated concerns about reliance upon real-time audiovisual technologies to satisfactorily assess testamentary capacity, as well as the importance of incorporating safeguards to adequately identify and prevent undue influence, the perpetration of fraud and/or elder abuse.
Andrew S. Gold recently published an article entitled, Introduction to The Right of Redress, Wills, Trusts, & Estates Law ejournal (2020). Provided below is the abstract to the Article.
This is a draft of the Introduction chapter from my new book, The Right of Redress (Oxford University Press, 2020). As the book argues, the law enables private parties to engage in redress by undoing the wrongs committed against them. Moreover, a distinctive kind of justice governs our legal rights of redress, different from the kind described in leading corrective justice approaches. Through analysis of these key ideas, The Right of Redress helps to make sense of tort law, contract law, fiduciary law, unjust enrichment doctrine, and equity.
Thursday, November 26, 2020
Evan J. Criddle recently published an article entitled, Stakeholder Fiduciaries, Wills, Trusts, & Estates Law ejournal (2020). Provided below is the abstract to the Article.
Legal scholars and judges often assert that fiduciaries bear a duty of “undivided loyalty” that precludes concern for self-interest. This chapter explores the limits of selfless loyalty in American fiduciary law by showing that the law often permits parties to serve as fiduciaries while also maintaining a beneficial interest in their own exercise of fiduciary power. I coin the term “stakeholder fiduciary” to describe these fiduciaries who are formal beneficiaries of their own exercise of fiduciary power. I argue that stakeholder fiduciaries are genuine fiduciaries despite the fact that they claim a beneficial interest in their own performance. But I also make the case that fiduciary law does (and should) treat stakeholder fiduciary relationships differently than non-stakeholder fiduciary relationships.
Stakeholder fiduciary law departs from non-stakeholder fiduciary law in two important respects. First, the fiduciary duty of loyalty applies differently to stakeholder fiduciaries, requiring not complete self-abnegation, but rather solidarity with other beneficiaries. This means that a stakeholder fiduciary may retain an equitable share of the profits she generates through her position—even when those profits are the product of conflicted transactions or misappropriated opportunities. More striking still, when a stakeholder fiduciary exercises voting rights in collective governance, she may vote solely in her own interests as long as she does not misuse her voting power to undermine the purposes of the fiduciary relationship or dominate other beneficiaries.
Second, courts repose a different kind of trust in stakeholder fiduciaries. When a non-stakeholder fiduciary is alleged to have violated her duty of care, courts do not ordinarily accord any deference to the fiduciary’s judgment. The same cannot be said of stakeholder fiduciaries: as long as a stakeholder fiduciary’s interests are plausibly aligned with the interests of other beneficiaries, courts allow the fiduciary to decide for herself how much time and energy she should devote to a particular decision. Taking into account the stakeholder character of certain fiduciary relationships therefore clarifies why courts apply a highly deferential standard of review to the decisions of some fiduciaries (e.g., business partners) but not others (e.g., investment managers). The best explanation, I argue, is that courts trust stakeholder fiduciaries to exercise reasonable care without intrusive judicial oversight precisely because these fiduciaries have a direct personal stake in their own performance.
Jeffrey A. Cooper, John R. Ivimey, & Katherine Mulry recently published an article entitled, 2019 Developments in Connecticut Estate and Probate Law, Wills, Trusts, & Estates Law ejournal (2020). Provided below is the abstract to the Article.
This Article provides a summary of recent developments affecting Connecticut estate planning and probate practice. Part I discusses 2019 legislative developments. Part II surveys selected 2019 case law relevant to the field.