The Estate Planner - Thomson Reuters



| [pic] |

|February 2011 | | |

|IN THIS ISSUE: | |The Estate Planner Archive |

| | | |

|News, Articles, and Updates for the Estate Planner | |Cowles Resources |

|See updates and article references involving charitable trusts and donations;| |Order Cowles and Supplies |

|elder law, estate and gift taxes, estate and trust administration/probate; | |Cowles Members Only |

|estate planning; health care; retirement; same-sex marriage/civil | |Westlaw |

|unions/domestic partnerships; small and mid-size law firm practice; special | | |

|needs trusts/ guardianships, and trusts. | |Contact Us |

| | |E-Mail the Editor |

|Cowles Tech Tip | | |

|The Witness option in Trust Plus allows you to set your default witnesses for| |Other Resources |

|the documents that you will generate, eliminating redundant entry of witness | |Other Reference Material |

|information. These witnesses will be brought into the Trust/Will Information | |Other Newsletters |

|area for each session where they may be changed if necessary for that | | |

|specific session. There are other options to you as well--and this Tech Tip | | |

|shows you how to use those options. | | |

|See all articles in this issue |

| |

| |

|NEWS, ARTICLES, AND UPDATES |

|For The Estate Planner |

| |

|Charitable Trusts and Donations |

| |

|OTHER |

|CRS. CRS Issues Fact Sheet on Qualified Charitable Distributions from Individual Retirement Accounts. The Congressional Research |

|Service recently issued a fact sheet describing the IRA Qualified Charitable Distribution provision of the Pension Protection Act|

|of 2006 (P.L. 109-280), which was extended by the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of |

|2010 (PL 111-312). The provision allows taxpayers age 70 1/2 and older to exclude distributions from individual retirement |

|accounts from their gross income if the distributions are transferred directly to a qualified charity on or before Dec. 31, 2011.|

|The maximum QCD is $100,000, which does not apply to the overall charitable deduction limit, with the spouse also allowed a |

|$100,000 QCD if the couple files a joint income tax return. [Congressional Research Service reports are not directly available to|

|the public. The reports are made public through requests to Members of Congress. Secondary sources include online legal services,|

|like BNA's Taxcore documents available on Westlaw (this report is 11 No. 001 BNA Taxcore 004 (January 3, 2010)). Incomplete |

|collections also exist on the web, often collected by subject. See ]. |

| |

|Elder Law |

| |

|ARTICLES |

|Aegrescit Medendo: Addressing Barriers to Medical Malpractice Litigation Faced by the Elderly. Ryan McCarthy. (Elder Law Journal,|

|2011). Westlaw: 18 Elder L.J. 391. |

|Analyzing the Impact of the New Health Care Reform Legislation on Older Americans. Richard L. Kaplan. (Elder Law Journal, 2011). |

|Westlaw: 18 Elder L.J. 213. |

|Elderly Sex Offenders: What Should Be Done? Elizabeth Taylor. (Elder Law Journal, 2011). Westlaw: 18 Elder L.J. 419. |

|Incomplete Protection: the Inadequacy of Current Penalty Enhancement Provisions in Deterring Fraud Schemes Targeting the Elderly.|

|Dylan Fallik. (Elder Law Journal, 2011). Westlaw: 18 Elder L.J. 335. |

|Physician-Assisted Suicide: a Recipe for Elder Abuse and the Illusion of Personal Choice. Margaret K. Dore, Esq.. (Vermont Bar |

|Journal, Winter, 2011). Westlaw: 36-WTR Vt. B.J. 53; Web: Vermont Bar Journal. |

|Wisconsin's Individual-at-Risk Restraining Order: An Analysis of the First Thirty Months. Betsy J. Abramson, Marsha M. Mansfield,|

|and Jane A. Raymond. (Elder Law Journal, 2011). Westlaw: 18 Elder L.J. 247. |

| |

|BLOGS AND WEBSITES |

|AoA ENews. The Administration on Aging, in the federal Department of Health and Human Services, issues a monthly newsletter. |

|Among the stories included in the latest edition are articles on a new web page providing resources for aging professionals and |

|others on older adults living with HIV; AoA’s presence on Facebook; AoA’s “Care Transitions” webinars, which are focused on the |

|Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010; the 2011 Poverty Guidelines; and AoA’s February widget featuring population |

|data on older African Americans. Web: Administration on Aging: News from AoA February 2011, Press Room (February 2011). |

|NCEA e-news. The National Center on Elder Abuse, in the U.S. Administration on Aging, issues a periodic newsletter. Among the |

|stories included in the latest edition are articles on a criminologist’s perspective on elder abuse; the Annual New York City |

|Elder Abuse Conference scheduled for Wednesday, June 22, 2011; an opportunity to submit research on violence against women, |

|particularly the elderly, to WHO Bulletin; a comprehensive legal reference book dealing with elder financial abuse recently |

|published by The Civic Research Institute; and state news on San Louis Obispo County California's Elder Abuse Outreach and |

|Advocacy Project, Nebraska’s recent training session (available online) on elder rights featuring information on guardianships |

|and conservatorships, advance directives, representative payees, ethical issues in health care decisions and case studies, and |

|New York’s launch of a state information line for seniors. Web: National Center on Elder Abuse: NCEA e-news January/ February, |

|2011, Resources (January/February 2011). |

| |

|LEGISLATION |

|South Dakota. Mandatory Reporting Of Abuse Or Neglect Of Elderly Or Disabled Adults. South Dakota has passed legislation that |

|require the mandatory reporting of abuse or neglect of elderly or disabled adults.The reporting is required of a number of social|

|workers, all health care professionals, long-term care ombudsmans, psychologists, licensed mental health professionals, or |

|counselors engaged in professional counseling, and state, county, or municipal law enforcement officers, who know or has |

|reasonable cause to suspect the abuse is taking place. The report is to be made within 24 hours to the local state attorney's |

|general's office. Knowing failure to report is a Class 1 misdemeanor. In addition, there are similar reporting requirements for |

|staff members of a nursing facility, assisted living facility, adult day care center, or community support provider, or any |

|residential care giver, individual providing homemaker services, victim advocate, or hospital personnel engaged in the admission,|

|examination, care, or treatment of elderly or disabled adults. In this case, the institution needs to be notified in the 24-hour |

|period, and the person in charge is required to do the reporting. Any person who knows or has reason to suspect suspect that an |

|elderly or disabled adult has been abused or neglected under the Act may report this information. (2011 South Dakota Senate Bill |

|No. 14, South Dakota Eighty-Sixth Legislative Assembly, 2011; Title: Require The Mandatory Reporting Of Abuse Or Neglect Of |

|Elderly Or Disabled Adults., VERSION: Enrolled). Westlaw: 2011 SD S.B. 14 (NS); Web: South Dakota Legislature. |

|Virginia. Real Estate Tax Relief For The Elderly And Permanently And Totally Disabled. Virginia has passed legislation affecting|

|real estate tax relief for the elderly and permanently and totally disabled. The act authorizes local governments to establish |

|annual income or financial worth limitations as a condition of eligibility for real property tax relief for the elderly and |

|permanently and totally disabled. The bill implements the amendment to Article X, Section 6 (b) of the Constitution of Virginia |

|that limits the General Assembly's ability to establish the limitations and allows the General Assembly to authorize local |

|governments to establish the limitations. (2010 Virginia Senate Bill No. 1073, Virginia 2011 Regular Session; Title: Real Estate |

|Tax Relief; For The Elderly And Permanently And Totally Disabled., VERSION: Enrolled). Westlaw: 2010 VA S.B. 1073 (NS); Web: |

|Virginia Legislature. |

| |

|Estate and Gift Taxes |

| |

|ARTICLES |

|Consider Premium Financing in Life Insurance Evaluations. Andre S. Blaze and Julian Movsesian. (Estate Planning, March, 2011). |

|Westlaw: 38 ESTPLN 30. |

|Observations on Estate Planning Provisions of the 2010 Tax Act. Howard M. Zaritsky. (Estate Planning, March, 2011). Westlaw: 38 |

|ESTPLN 48. |

|Provisions of the 2010 Tax Relief Act. Richard H. Stieglitz and Zachary H. Zimmet. (Law Firm Partnership and Benefits Report, |

|February, 2011). Westlaw: 16 No. 12 Law Firm Partnership & Benefits Rep. 3; Web: Law Firm Partnership and Benefits Report |

|(subscribers only). |

|Tax Compliance Tips for Integrated Estate Planning Trusts. Barry S. Engel, John R. Garland, and Edward D. Brown. (Estate |

|Planning, March, 2011). Westlaw: 38 ESTPLN 19 |

| |

|IRS DECISIONS, REGULATIONS, AND GUIDANCE |

|IRS. Section 2032 - Alternate Valuation. The IRS granted executrix a 120-day extension for making the alternate valuation |

|election under I.R.C. § 2032 after the CPA who completed the Form 706 failed to consider the alternate valuation election. |

|Westlaw: PLR 201103003, 2011 WL 192089 (January 21, 2011); Web: PLR 201103003, IRS Written Determinations (January 21, 2011). |

|IRS. Section 2032 - Alternate Valuation. The IRS concluded that the automatic 6-month extension under Reg 301.9100-2(b) applies |

|with respect to the alternate valuation election under I.R.C. 2032(d) and the QDOT election under I.R.C. 2056A(d), if the |

|taxpayer timely filed the Form 706, failed to make the election on that return, and took the corrective action described in Reg |

|301.9100-2(c). Westlaw: IRS CCA 201052007 (December 30, 2010); Web: CCA 201052007, IRS Written Determinations (December 30, |

|2010). |

|IRS. Section 2056 - Bequests, etc., to Surviving Spouse (Marital Deduction v. No Marital Deduction). The IRS granted the estate a|

|120-day extension to make a QDOT election with respect to a trust created under decedent’s will for the benefit of the |

|non-citizen surviving spouse and funded with a portion of the residue of decedent's estate after the accountant who prepared the |

|Form 706 failed to make the election to treat the trust as a QDOT. Westlaw: PLR 201103004, 2011 WL 192090 (January 21, 2011); PLR|

|201103004, IRS Written Determinations (January 21, 2011) |

| |

|OTHER |

|U.S. Tax Court. Court Includes Value of House in Decedent’s Estate Despite Lifetime Transfer to Issue. On January 27, the U.S. |

|Tax Court agreed with the IRS that the decedent’s residence was includible in her estate under I.R.C. § 2036, despite her having |

|gratuitously transferred title of the house in 1999 to her daughter and three granddaughters. After the transfer Adelina Cheng |

|Van continued to live in the house rent-free until her death in 2000. The court noted that to avoid the reach of IRC § 2036, a |

|transfer must be made so that the decedent is "left with…no right to possess or to enjoy the property then or thereafter" and |

|concluded that decedent had a beneficial interest in the house and displayed a sufficient degree of "possession or enjoyment" |

|under IRC § 2036, for it to be included in her taxable estate. Westlaw: Van v. Commissioner, T.C. No. 5456-04, T.C. Memo. |

|2011-22 (January 27, 2011); Web: Van v. Commissioner, T.C., No. 5456-04, T.C. Memo. 2011-22 (January 27, 2011). |

|U.S. Tax Court. Court Upholds Estate Tax Levy, Says IRS Did Not Abuse Discretion. On January 27, the U.S. Tax Court sustained the|

|IRS’s proposed collection actions against the Estate of Joseph L. Mangiardi, after determining that the Service did not abused |

|its discretion in proceeding with a proposed levy for collection of unpaid estate tax liability exceeding $2.4 million. After |

|allowing the estate several extensions of time to pay, the IRS gave final notice of intent to levy to collect the unpaid tax, to |

|which the estate responded by offering remaining assets of approximately $700,000 as an offer-in-compromise. The court found that|

|the estate did not offer an acceptable amount and that the Service had reasonably determined the collection potential of at least|

|$3 million given that the beneficiaries received over $3.4 million in IRA distributions. Westlaw: Estate of Mangiardi v. |

|Commissioner, T.C., No. 3958-08L, T.C. Memo. 2011-24 (January 27, 2011); Web: Estate of Mangiardi v. Commissioner, T.C., No. |

|3958-08L, T.C. Memo. 2011-24 (January 27, 2011) |

|CRS. CRS Report Examines Distribution of Assets Included on 2009 Estate Tax Returns. On January 21, the Congressional Research |

|Service issued a report “Asset Distribution of Taxable Estates: An Analysis” examining the distribution of assets in estates as |

|reported on estate tax returns filed in 2009. The report found that farm and business assets represented only 3.25% and 13.86%, |

|respectively, of the total value of taxable estates filing returns during the year. According to the report, of the approximately|

|2.43 million deaths in 2008 of people age 25 and over, 0.6% incurred estate and gift tax liability, and only 1,846 decedents with|

|taxable estates included farm assets (0.08% of all deaths), and 8,055 taxable estates listed business-type assets (0.34% of all |

|deaths). [Congressional Research Service reports are not directly available to the public. The reports are made public through |

|requests to Members of Congress. Secondary sources include online legal services, like BNA's Taxcore documents available on |

|Westlaw (this report is 11 No. 016 BNA Taxcore 016 (January 25, 2010)). Incomplete collections also exist on the web, often |

|collected by subject. See ]. |

|Congress. Bill to Exclude Farmlands from Gross Estate Introduced in House. On January 20, Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) |

|introduced the Family Farm Preservation and Conservation Estate Tax Act (H.R. 390) that would exclude from the gross estate of |

|U.S. citizens or residents qualified farmland passing to qualified heirs, so long as use as farmland continues. To qualify, the |

|decedent or a member of his or her family must have owned the land for periods totaling at least 5 years during the 8-year period|

|ending on date of death and must have materially participated (within the meaning of I.R.C. § 2032A(e)(6)) in the operation of |

|the farm. The bill also provides for an election to exclude value of land subject to a qualified conservation easement included |

|in the estate. Both exclusions are subject to recapture tax for dispositions or failure to use the land as intended. Westlaw: |

|2011 CONG US HR 390 (January 20, 2011); Web: H.R. 390, 112th Congress, 1st session (January 20, 2011) |

|U.S. Court of Appeals. Court Reverses Government’s Summary Judgment in Step Transaction Theory Involving Gifts. On January 21, |

|the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington’s grant |

|of summary judgment in favor of the government after it determined that William and Stacy Linton’s gifts to their children's |

|trusts would be valued as though the gifts were indirect gifts of particular assets and not gifts of LLC interests, stating that |

|“[g]enuine issues of material fact exist as to the sequence of transactions by which the gifts were made.” The court also |

|reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the government as to the application of the step transaction |

|doctrine and affirmed its denial of summary judgment to the Lintons based on their argument that if the order of transactions |

|occurred as the government contends (i.e., LLC interests transferred to the trusts, and then assets transferred to the LLC), then|

|no gift to the trusts occurred at all and therefore there is no gift tax liability. The case was remanded to the district court |

|to determine “when the four elements of a gift under Washington state law were simultaneously present, and, in particular, to |

|determine when the Lintons first objectively manifested their intent to make the gifts effective.” Westlaw: Linton v. U.S. --- |

|F.3d ----, 2011 WL 182314 C.A.9 (Wash.), 2011 (January 21, 2011); Web: William Linton v. USA, 9th Cir., No. 09- 35681 |

|Japan. Family of Pierre Cardin Japan’s Late CEO Owes $13.4 Million in Inheritance Tax on Assets Hidden in Swiss Bank. Last month |

|the widow of Masahiko Takeda, Pierre Cardin Japan’s late chief executive officer, and his four children were ordered by the Tokyo|

|Regional Tax Bureau to pay 1.1 billion yen ($13.4 million) in inheritance tax on investments in Swiss bank accounts worth about |

|2.5 billion yen ($31 million) at the time of his death in 2007. The article in BNA’s Daily Tax Report stated that Takeda told his|

|children about the accounts, but instructed them to use the money for volunteer activities rather than declaring taxes on the |

|money. According to Japan's estate tax law, inherited assets exceeding 300 million yen ($3.67 million) are subject to a 50 |

|percent inheritance tax after a deduction of 47 million yen ($573,000), with recipients required to file returns within 10 months|

|of the person's death. Westlaw: 013 DTR I-2, 2011, BNA Daily Tax Report (January 20, 2011). |

| |

|Estate and Trust Administration; Probate |

| |

|ARTICLES |

|Recovering Attorney's Fees in Probate Actions. Richard G. Reinis. (Los Angeles Lawyer, February, 2011). Westlaw: 33-FEB L.A. Law.|

|12; Web: Los Angeles Lawyer. |

|Tax Compliance Tips for Integrated Estate Planning Trusts. Barry S. Engel, John R. Garland, and Edward D. Brown. (Estate |

|Planning, March, 2011). Westlaw: 38 ESTPLN 19. |

|LEGISLATION |

|Wyoming. Amendments to Qualifications and Application for Summary Probate. Wyoming has passed legislation relating to probate; |

|amending maximum value of estates that will qualify for summary probate procedures; amending information that is required on an |

|application for summary probate; and providing for an effective date. The act moves the upper value limit for using summary |

|probate procedures to $200,000 (from $150,000);. (2011 Wyoming Senate File No. 68, Wyoming Sixty First Legislature - 2011 General|

|Session; Title: Summary Probate-Amendments., VERSION: Adopted). Westlaw: 2011 WY S.F. 68 (NS); Web: Wyoming Legislature. |

|Virginia. Trusts Made Eligible for Income Tax Credit Under Neighborhood Assistance Act.. Virginia has passed legislation that |

|permits trusts to be eligible for income tax credit under the Neighborhood Assistance Act. (2010 Virginia House Bill No. 2231, |

|Virginia 2011 Regular Session; Title: Neighborhood Assistance Act; Permits Trusts To Be Eligible For Income Tax Credit., VERSION:|

|Enrolled). Westlaw: 2010 VA H.B. 2231 (NS); Web: Virginia Legislature. |

| |

|Estate Planning (Generally) |

| |

|ARTICLES |

|'Because I Said So!': Preserving the Client's Intent for a Trust. (Estate Planning, March, 2011). Westlaw: 38 ESTPLN 3. |

|Consider Premium Financing in Life Insurance Evaluations. Andre S. Blaze and Julian Movsesian. (Estate Planning, March, 2011). |

|Westlaw: 38 ESTPLN 30. |

|Designated Beneficiary Agreements: a Step in the Right Direction for Unmarried Couples. Nicole C. Berg. (University of Illinois |

|Law Review, 2011). Westlaw: 2011 U. Ill. L. Rev. 267. |

|New Florida Homestead Laws Add Flexibility in Estate Planning. Jeffrey A. Baskie. (Estate Planning, March, 2011). Westlaw: 38 |

|ESTPLN 13. |

|Valuing Private Equity Interests in Estate Planning. Bruce Richman and Michael D. Whitty (Practical Tax Strategies, January, |

|2011) Westlaw: 86 PRACTXST 25 |

| |

|Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax |

| |

|ARTICLES |

|Observations on Estate Planning Provisions of the 2010 Tax Act. Howard M. Zaritsky. (Estate Planning, March, 2011). Westlaw: 38 |

|ESTPLN 48. |

|Provisions of the 2010 Tax Relief Act. Richard H. Stieglitz and Zachary H. Zimmet. (Law Firm Partnership and Benefits Report, |

|February, 2011). Westlaw: 16 No. 12 Law Firm Partnership & Benefits Rep. 3; Web: Law Firm Partnership and Benefits Report |

|(subscribers only). |

| |

|IRS DECISIONS, REGULATIONS, AND GUIDANCE |

|IRS. Section 2601 - Tax on Generation Skipping Transfers. The IRS determined that a proposed agreement entered into by decedent’s|

|great-grandchildren to settle litigation among them resulting from terms of a trust created by decedents will that could have |

|violated the rule against perpetuities and a subsequent agreement among decedent’s children shortly after decedent’s death |

|revising the time when the great-grandchildren's remainders would vest and revising distribution of the trust will not cause |

|distributions from the trust or the resulting settlement trusts to be subject to generation-skipping transfer tax. Additionally, |

|no party to the agreement will be treated as making a gift to another party, be required to include trust assets in his or her |

|gross estate unless they are distributable or have been distributed to him or her prior to death, or realize income from the sale|

|or exchange of trust assets or interests. Westlaw: PLR 201104001, 2011 WL 267752 (January 28, 2011): Web: PLR 201104001, IRS |

|Written Determinations (January 28, 2011) |

|IRS. Section 2601 - Tax on Generation Skipping Transfers. The IRS determined that the conversion of the income interest in an |

|exempt generation skipping trust created by decedent’s will for the benefit of grantor’s spouse (now deceased), child and child’s|

|issue into a unitrust with a 5 % payout and the creation of two new trusts intended to receive income distributions for each |

|respective grandchild’s descendents and any distributions to the new trusts will not cause the original trust or the new trusts |

|to lose their status as exempt from the GST tax. Westlaw: PLR 201104003, 2011 WL 267759 (January 28, 2011): Web: PLR 201104003, |

|IRS Written Determinations (January 28, 2011). |

|IRS. Section 2601 - Tax on Generation Skipping Transfers. The IRS granted donor a 120 day extension to elect out of the automatic|

|allocation of the GST exemption under I.R.C. § 2632(c)(5)(A)(i) for transfers over seven years to an irrevocable trust, created |

|for the benefit of donor's spouse, children and children’s issue, after donor’s accountant failed to elect out of the automatic |

|allocation on the Form 709 filed for the 1st year’s transfers and donor’s law firm failed to notify accountant of the transfers |

|to the trust in years two through seven, resulting in accountant failing to file returns for those years. Westlaw: PLR 201104012,|

|2011 WL 267788 (January 28, 2011); Web: PLR 201104012, IRS Written Determinations (January 28, 2011). |

|IRS. Section 2601 - Tax on Generation Skipping Transfers. The IRS granted donor a 120 extension to allocate donor's available GST|

|exemption to transfers to five substantially identical irrevocable trusts, created before December 31, 2000 with each for the |

|benefit of one of donor's five children and the descendents of the respective child, after donor’s accountant failed to allocate |

|donor's available GST exemption to the transfers on the Form 709. Westlaw: PLR 201104022, 2011 WL 267820 (January 28, 2011); Web:|

|PLR 201104022, IRS Written Determinations (January 28, 2011). |

|IRS. Section 2632 - Special Rules for Allocation of GST Exemption. The IRS granted donor and spouse a 120-day extension to make |

|formula allocations of his GST exemption and her GST exemption to transfers to an irrevocable trust created for the benefit of |

|donor’s issue after the couple elected to split the gifts, but the CPA firm that prepared the Form 709 failed to allocate each |

|spouse’s available GST exemption to the transfers. Westlaw: PLR 201103016, 2011 WL 192102 (January 21, 2011); Web: PLR 201103016,|

|IRS Written Determinations (January 21, 2011). |

|IRS. Section 2632 - Special Rules for Allocation of GST Exemption. The IRS granted husband and wife a 120-day extension to |

|allocate each of their GST exemptions to transfers of community property an irrevocable trust created for the benefit of their |

|daughter and her issue after the tax professional retained to prepare and file the Form 709 failed to do so. Westlaw: PLR |

|201103023, 2011 WL 192108 and PLR 201103024, 2011 WL 192109 (January 21, 2011); Web: PLR 201103023 and PLR 201103024, IRS Written|

|Determinations (January 21, 2011). |

|IRS. Section 2632 - Special Rules for Allocation of GST Exemption. The IRS granted donor and spouse a 120-day extension to make |

|formula allocations of his GST exemption and her GST exemption to transfers to transfers to three trusts, each benefiting one of |

|the couple’s children and her issue after the accountant who prepared the Form 709 failed to allocate the exemptions to the |

|transfers. Westlaw: PLR 201103039, 2011 WL 192124 (January 21, 2011); Web: PLR 201103039, IRS Written Determinations (January 21,|

|2011). |

| |

| |

|Health Care |

| |

|ARTICLES |

|A New Deal in a World of Old Ones. Theodore W. Ruger. (Arizona State Law Journal, Winter 2010-2011). Westlaw: 42 Ariz. St. L.J. |

|1297. |

|Aegrescit Medendo: Addressing Barriers to Medical Malpractice Litigation Faced by the Elderly. Ryan McCarthy. (Elder Law Journal,|

|2011). Westlaw: 18 Elder L.J. 391. |

|Analyzing the Impact of the New Health Care Reform Legislation on Older Americans. Richard L. Kaplan. (Elder Law Journal, 2011). |

|Westlaw: 18 Elder L.J. 213. |

|The Crossroad: an Analysis of the Intersection Between Medical Malpractice, Health Care Costs, and Prostate Cancer. Bryan W. |

|Hernandez. (Elder Law Journal, 2011). Westlaw: 18 Elder L.J. 361. |

|Health Reform 2010: Incremental Advance or Radical Transformation? Peter D. Jacobson and Johanna R. Lauer. (Arizona State Law |

|Journal, Winter 2010-2011). Westlaw: 42 Ariz. St. L.J. 1277. |

|The Independent Medicare Advisory Board. Timothy Stoltzfus Jost. (Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law & Ethics, Winter 2011). |

|Westlaw: 11 Yale J. Health Pol'y, L. & Ethics 21. |

|Living Wills: is It Time to Pull the Plug? Dorothy D. Nachman. (Elder Law Journal, 2011). Westlaw: 18 Elder L.J. 289. |

|Nationalizing Health Care Reform in a Federalist System.. James G. Hodge, Jalayne Arias, and Ron Ordell. (Arizona State Law |

|Journal, Winter 2010-2011). Westlaw: 42 Ariz. St. L.J. 1245. |

| |

|LEGISLATION |

|North Carolina. Protection Of The Freedom To Choose Health Care And Health Insurance. North Carolina has passed legislation |

|concerning the protection of the freedom to choose health care and health insurance. Among other things, the legislation |

|prohibits laws or rules compelling a person to provide for health care services or medical treatment for that person; contract |

|with, or enroll in, a public or private health care system or health insurance plan; or interfere with a person's right to pay |

|directly for lawful health care services or medical treatment. It also prohibits imposing a penalty, fee, or fine on a person for|

|failiing to provide for health care or medical services for that person, or enrolling in public or private health care systems or|

|insurance plans. Individuals aggrieved by a violation has standing to bring a private right of action for the violation, and the |

|state Attorney General has the duty and standing to bring or defend a State or federal action or proceeding on behalf of North |

|Carolina residents to enforce the provisions of this section. The provisions are not intended to affect the common law doctrine |

|of necessaries; any law concerning what are lawful medical procedures and who may provide them; the rights and duties of health |

|care agents under a health care power of attorney; parental or guardian rights in determining health care given a minorl the |

|screening of newborns of certain disorders, and of children entering kindergarten in public schools; ordered workman's |

|compensation treatment; treatment under involuntary commitments for mental illness or substance abuse; mental and physical |

|examinations to establish paternity; the taking of DNA or genetic evidence; qny law requiring the provision of health insurance |

|for employees as a condition of receiving State economic incentives; or the examination and testing of persons to determine |

|possible exposure to nuclear, biological, or chemical agents caused by a terrorist incident. (2011 North Carolina House Bill No. |

|2, North Carolina 2011 General Assembly - 2011 Regular Session; Title: Protect Health Care Freedom., VERSION: Enrolled). Westlaw:|

|2011 NC H.B. 2 (NS); Web: North Carolina Legislature. |

|Virginia. Electronic Access to Health Records. Virginia has passed legislation which provides that health records, disclosure of |

|which have been authorized by a patient or as otherwise allowed by state law, are to be made available electronically but only to|

|the extent and in the manner authorized by federal law. An exception is made for health care entities where (1) the electronic |

|format is not reasonably available without additional cost to the health care entity, (2) the records would be subject to |

|modification in the format requested, or (3) the health care entity determines that the integrity of the records could be |

|compromised in the electronic format requested. (2010 Virginia House Bill No. 2292, Virginia 2011 Regular Session; Title: Health |

|Records; Electronic Access., VERSION: Enrolled). Westlaw: 2010 VA H.B. 2292 (NS); Web: Virginia Legislature. |

| |

|Irrevocable Trusts--See Trusts (Generally) |

| |

|Probate--See Estate/Trust Administration and Probate |

| |

|Retirement |

| |

|ARTICLES |

|The Internal Revenue Service Correction Program for Tax-Qualified Retirement Plans. Emily W. Mao, Anna M. Grant. (Practical |

|Lawyer, February 2011). Westlaw: 57 No. 1 Prac. Law. 39; Web: Practical Lawyer. |

| |

|IRS DECISIONS, REGULATIONS, AND GUIDANCE |

|IRS. IRS Issues Announcement Correcting User Fees for Plan Documents. On January 31, the IRS issued Announcement 2011-8 |

|correcting Rev. Proc. 2011-8 by clarifying that the user fee for a basic plan document with one adoption agreement applies to |

|both a mass submitter and a nonmass submitter and that the fee for master or prototype sponsor's nonmass submission applies to |

|each additional adoption agreement. Westlaw: Announcement 2011-8, 2011-5 I.R.B. 446, 2011 WL 281778 (January 31, 2011); Web: |

|Announcement 2011-8, 2011-5 I.R.B. 446 (January 31, 2011). |

|IRS. Section 219 -- Retirement Savings. The IRS determined that the payment of wrap fees by accountholders of the investment |

|advisory accounts described in the ruling will not be deemed contributions to the clients' traditional IRAs or Roth IRAs if paid |

|directly from funds that are not part of the accountholders' respective IRAs or Roth IRAs. Westlaw: PLR 201104061, 2011 WL 267858|

|(January 28, 2011); Web: PLR 201104061, IRS Written Determinations (January 28, 2011) |

|IRS. Section 408 - Individual Retirement Accounts. The IRS waived the 60-day rollover requirement with respect to distributions |

|from taxpayers’ individual retirement accounts after the taxpayer asserted failure to accomplish a timely rollover was due to: |

|failure of the receiving financial institution to follow taxpayer’s instructions to rollover the distribution check into an IRA |

|but rather placed it into a non-IRA Certificate of Deposit. Westlaw: PLR 201104051, 2011 WL 267848 (January 28, 2011); Web: PLR |

|201104051, IRS Written Determinations (January 28, 2011). |

|an error by taxpayers’ investment adviser, after the financial institution failed to assure that the rollover amount was |

|transferred to an IRA with the custodian of the pooled investment fund recommended by the adviser. Westlaw: PLR 201104053, 2011 |

|WL 267850; PLR 201104054, 2011 WL 267851; PLR 201104055, 2011 WL 267852; PLR 201104056, 2011 WL 267853; PLR 201104058, 2011 WL |

|267855; PLR 201104059, 2011 WL 267856; and PLR 201104060, 2011 WL 267857 (January 28, 2011); Web: PLR 201104053, PLR 201104054, |

|PLR 201104055, PLR 201104056 , PLR 201104058, PLR 201104059, and PLR 201104060, IRS Written Determinations (January 28, 2011). |

|failure of taxpayer’s financial institution's representative to follow taxpayer’s instructions on changing investment vehicles |

|for the IRA resulting in the amount being withdrawn from the IRA and placed in a non-IRA savings account rather than moving to |

|another IRA account within the financial institution. Westlaw: PLR 201104057, 2011 WL 267854 (January 28, 2011); Web: PLR |

|201104057, IRS Written Determinations (January 28, 2011). |

|an error by taxpayer’s financial advisor after he admitted that he unintentionally failed to follow taxpayer's request to |

|transfer an amount, which had been withdrawn from taxpayer’s IRA and deposited into another account, from the account back into |

|the IRA to complete a rollover before the expiration of the 60-day period. Westlaw: PLR 201103058, 2011 WL 192126 (January 21, |

|2011); Web: PLR 201103058, IRS Written Determinations (January 21, 2011). |

| |

|LEGISLATION |

|Illinois. Changes to Retirement Systems and Pension Funds; Indemnification of Trustees and Certain Asset Management Goals. |

|Illinois has passed legislation amending the Illinois Pension Code. The law requires that every retirement system, pension fund, |

|or other system or fund established under the Code indemnify and protect the trustees, staff, and consultants against all damage |

|claims and suits when damages are sought for negligent or wrongful acts alleged to have been committed in the scope of employment|

|or under the direction of the trustees (indemnification was discretionary). It also provides that a retirement system's, pension |

|fund's, or investment board's goals for the management of assets in specific asset classes by emerging investment managers are to|

|be based on the percentage of total dollar amount of assets to be managed for investment service contracts (rather than the |

|percentage of total dollar amount of investment service contracts) let to minority owned businesses, female owned businesses, and|

|businesses owned by a person with a disability. The solicitation or acceptance of costs associated with educational purposes is |

|not prohibited in provisions that prohibit gifts. (2009 Illinois Senate Bill No. 2525, Illinois Ninety-Sixth General Assembly - |

|Second Regular Session; VERSION: Enrolled. Adopted 2/4/2011). Westlaw: 2009 IL S.B. 2525 (NS); Web: Illinois Legislature. |

| |

|Same Sex Marriages; Civil Unions; Domestic Partnerships |

| |

|LEGISLATION |

|Hawaii. Rights of Persons in Civil Unions. Hawaii has passed legislation that extends the same rights, benefits, protections, and|

|responsibilities of spouses in a marriage to partners in a civil union. The act takes effect 1/1/2012. (2011 Hawaii Senate Bill |

|No. 232, Hawaii Twenty-Sixth Legislature - Regular Session of 2011; Title: Relating To Civil Unions., VERSION: Adopted). Westlaw:|

|2011 HI S.B. 232 (NS); Web: Hawaii Legislature. |

| |

|OTHER |

|U.S. District Court. Court Denies Attempt to Stop Challenge by Same-Sex Couples of Provisions Interfering with Access to LTC |

|Insurance. On January 18, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the government’s motion to |

|dismiss a suit brought by California public employees and their same-sex spouses against the federal and state government |

|challenging the constitutionality of section three in the Defense of Marriage Act, and I.R.C. § 7702B(f) which interferes with |

|their ability to participate in a state-maintained plan providing long-term care insurance. Federal defendants had filed motion |

|to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. However, the court held that the plaintiffs |

|had satisfied injury in fact requirement for standing and had sufficiently stated claims for equal protection and due process. |

|Westlaw: Dragovich v. U.S. Department of the Treasury --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2011 WL 175502 N.D.Cal., 2011 (January 18, 2011); Web: |

|U.S. District Court – N.D. CA Dragovich v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, N.D. Cal., No. 10-01564 CW (January 18, 2011) |

|(Information about this case is available on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.) |

|CRS. CRS Issues Report Examining Effect of Government’s Failure to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages on Retirement Benefits. On |

|January 7, the Congressional Research Service issued a report “The Effect of State-Legalized Same-Sex Marriage on Social Security|

|Benefits, Pensions, and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs)” examining how the federal government’s failure to recognize |

|same-sex marriages potentially affects the retirement income security of these couples. Under current law, same-sex spouses are |

|not eligible for Social Security benefits, pension benefits regulated by ERISA, or IRA benefits available to spouses because they|

|are unable to meet the gender-based definitions in various federal acts. However, the legalization by five states and Washington |

|D.C. of same-sex marriages creates questions as to how the legalization of these marriages at the state level affects same-sex |

|spouses’ eligibility for and payment of these benefits. [Congressional Research Service reports are not directly available to the|

|public. The reports are made public through requests to Members of Congress. Secondary sources include online legal services, |

|like BNA's Taxcore documents available on Westlaw (this report is 11 No. 006 BNA Taxcore 053 (January 7, 2010)). Incomplete |

|collections also exist on the web, often collected by subject. See ]. |

| |

|Small and Mid-Size Law Firm Practice |

| |

|ARTICLES |

|Can Hiring a Coach Enhance Your Practice and Your Life? Andrea Goldman, Stephen E. Seckler. (GPSolo, January/February, 2011). |

|Westlaw: 28 No. 1 GPSolo 16. |

|Cleaning Solutions for the Toxic Workplace. Rodney S. Dowell, Jeff Fortgang. (GPSolo, January/February, 2011). Westlaw: 28 No. 1 |

|GPSolo 26. |

|Cultivating Relationships Using Linkedin. Nancy Roberts Linder. (Marketing the Law Firm, February, 2011). Westlaw: 26 No. 10 |

|Marketing L. Firm 5.Web: Marketing the Law Firm (subscribers only). |

|Estate Planning for Lawyers. Patti S. Spencer. (GPSolo, January/February, 2011). Westlaw: 28 No. 1 GPSolo 38. |

|Life Can Be Difficult, Misery is Optiona; Taking Responsibility and Finding the Solution Within. Rick B. Allan. (GPSolo, |

|January/February, 2011). Westlaw: 28 No. 1 GPSolo 48. |

|Lunch with Ami: Helping Lawyers Overcome Stress. Kenneth J. Hagreen. (GPSolo, January/February, 2011). Westlaw: 28 No. 1 GPSolo |

|42. |

|The 15-minute Sabbatical. Greg Zbylut. (GPSolo, January/February, 2011). Westlaw: 28 No. 1 GPSolo 8. |

|Get the Balance Right! Joseph A. DeWoskin. (GPSolo, January/February, 2011). Westlaw: 28 No. 1 GPSolo 5. |

|Insurance and Retirement Planning for Solos and Small Firms. Michael Broad. (GPSolo, January/February, 2011). Westlaw: 28 No. 1 |

|GPSolo 34. |

|It's All About You. Jennifer J. Rose. (GPSolo, January/February, 2011). Westlaw: 28 No. 1 GPSolo 4. |

|Make Your Office Bearable. Joan M. Burda. (GPSolo, January/February, 2011). Westlaw: 28 No. 1 GPSolo 30. |

|Practicing Law in a Precarious World. Seth Rosner. (GPSolo, January/February, 2011). Westlaw: 28 No. 1 GPSolo 22. |

|Reach Out to a Multicultural Clientele. Joshua Daley Paulin. (GPSolo, January/February, 2011). Westlaw: 28 No. 1 GPSolo 64. |

|Ride the Wave, Balance Your Practice. Gregory J. Lawless. (GPSolo, January/February, 2011). Westlaw: 28 No. 1 GPSolo 12. |

|Starting Your Own Support Group. Tim Gebhart. (GPSolo, January/February, 2011). Westlaw: 28 No. 1 GPSolo 62. |

|Surviving Your First Ten Years as a Lawyer; Find Your Passion...and Four Other Stepping Stones. Matthew DeVries. (Practical |

|Lawyer, February 2011). Westlaw: 57 No. 1 Prac. Law. 33; Web: Practical Lawyer. |

|“The First Thing We Do ...” Identifying Violent Clients and Defusing Dangerous Situations. Todd C. Scott. (GPSolo, |

|January/February, 2011). Westlaw: 28 No. 1 GPSolo 52. |

|Time-Saving Tips for Using Social Media. Timothy B. Corcoran. (Marketing the Law Firm, February, 2011). Westlaw: 26 No. 10 |

|Marketing L. Firm 2; Web: Marketing the Law Firm (subscribers only). |

|Using Videos in Your Marketing Mix. New Ways to Leverage an Old Family Friend. (Marketing the Law Firm, February, 2011). Westlaw:|

|26 No. 10 Marketing L. Firm 3; Web: Marketing the Law Firm (subscribers only). |

|WP & Other Office Suites: You Don't Need Ms Office to Be Office-Compatible. (Lawyer's PC, March 1, 2011). Westlaw: 28 No. 11 Law.|

|PC 1. |

|Yes, What About Me? David Leffler. (GPSolo, January/February, 2011). Westlaw: 28 No. 1 GPSolo 60. |

|Your Logo is Not Your Brand. Jeremy Hoders. (Marketing the Law Firm, February, 2011). Westlaw: 26 No. 10 Marketing L. Firm 1; |

|Web: Marketing the Law Firm. |

| |

|IRS DECISIONS, REGULATIONS, AND GUIDANCE |

|IRS. IRS Issues Announcement Correcting User Fees for PLRs. On January 31, the IRS issued Announcement 2011-7 correcting two |

|references to user fees in Rev. Proc. 2011-1. The first correction addressed fees for requesting substantially identical letter |

|rulings for multiple entities, such as for two or more identical trusts; the second pertains to identical changes in methods of |

|accounting requested on a single Form 3115. Westlaw: Announcement 2011-7, 2011-5 I.R.B. 446, 2011 WL 281777 (January 31, 2011): |

|Web: Announcement 2011-7, 2011-5 I.R.B. 446 (January 31, 2011). |

| |

|OTHER |

|NAEA. NAEA Urges House to Repeal Burdensome Form 1099 Reporting Requirements. On January 25, the National Association of Enrolled|

|Agents sent a letter to Chairman Dave Camp and Ranking Member Sander Levin of the House Ways and Means Committee urging |

|representatives to take action on H.R. 4, the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011, which repeals Section |

|9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) that mandates some of the more burdensome Form 1099 |

|reporting requirements on small businesses. Section 9006 requires businesses, beginning in 2012, to issue Forms 1099 to |

|corporations for purchases of $600 or more for goods and services with copies submitted to the IRS. The letter also expressed |

|concern over the requirement imposed by the Small Business Jobs Act (P.L. 111-240) that persons receiving rental income from real|

|property file information returns for payments of $600 or more during the year for rental property expenses. Web: Letter to |

|Representatives Camp and Levin Regarding Form 1099 Reporting, NAELA (January 25, 2011). |

|CRS. CRS Report Examines New 1099 Reporting Requirements. On January 28, the Congressional Research Service issued a report, |

|"1099 Information Reporting Requirements and Penalties as Modified by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the |

|Small Business Jobs Act of 2010" examining the amendments to I.R.C. § 6041 made by these two acts, objections to the amendments, |

|and proposed legislation to modify or repeal the new reporting requirements. It also discusses enforcement of the requirements, |

|and outlines penalties for failure to comply with them. Opponents of the recent expansions argue that the changes impose too |

|great a burden, mainly on small businesses. [Congressional Research Service reports are not directly available to the public. The|

|reports are made public through requests to Members of Congress. Secondary sources include online legal services, like BNA's |

|Taxcore documents available on Westlaw (this report is 11 No. 020 BNA Taxcore 079 (January 31, 2010)). Incomplete collections |

|also exist on the web, often collected by subject. See ]. |

|Senate. New Bill Aims to Stop Patenting of Tax Strategies. On January 25, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) |

|introduced the Equal Access to Tax Planning Act of 2011 (S. 139) aimed at preventing the patenting of tax strategies. The bill |

|provides that “[f]or purposes of evaluating an invention under section 102 or 103 of title 35, United States Code, any strategy |

|for reducing, avoiding, or deferring tax liability, whether known or unknown at the time of the invention or application for |

|patent, shall be deemed insufficient to differentiate a claimed invention from the prior art.” The controversy over whether tax |

|strategies should be patentable has been ongoing ever since the courts ruled in favor of patenting business methods in 1998. |

|Westlaw: 2011 CONG US S 139, 112th Congress, 1st Session (January 25, 2011); Web: S. 139, 112th Congress, 1st Session (January |

|25, 2011). |

|Senate. Bill to Repeal Expanded 1099 Reporting Reintroduced in Senate. On January 25, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max |

|Baucus (D-Mont.) reintroduce S. 72 that would repeal Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. |

|111-148) mandating expanded Form 1099 information reporting. No offset for the cost of the reform is proposed. Westlaw: 2011 CONG|

|US S 72, 112th Congress, 1st Session (January 25, 2011); Web: S. 72, 112th Congress, 1st Session (January 25, 2011). |

|CRS. CRS Report Analyzes Impact of New Form 1099 Reporting Requirements. On January 21, the Congressional Research Service issued|

|a report “Economic Analysis of the Enhanced Form 1099 Information Reporting Requirements” examining the impact of the new |

|reporting requirements enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) in an attempt to increase tax |

|payment compliance and reduce the net tax gap. While opponents argue that the new requirements will be too burdensome to small |

|businesses, it is suggested that these taxpayers are the largest single contributor to the tax gap and also have one of the |

|highest rates of noncompliance. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that $17.1 billion in new revenues are expected to be |

|raised, but the report points out that there are no reliable estimates of the compliance costs imposed on small businesses or the|

|IRS, even though the analysis suggests that "costs to businesses may be lower than many argue.” [Congressional Research Service |

|reports are not directly available to the public. The reports are made public through requests to Members of Congress. Secondary |

|sources include online legal services, like BNA's Taxcore documents available on Westlaw (this report is 11 No. 016 BNA Taxcore |

|012 (January 21, 2010)). Incomplete collections also exist on the web, often collected by subject. See ]. |

|Senate. Senators Urge House to Pass Legislation Repealing New 1099 Reporting Requirements. In a letter to House Speaker Boehner |

|on January 20, three Democratic Senators urged the House to to pass legislation (H.R. 4) striking the more stringent Form 1099 |

|reporting requirements enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. No. 111-148), Beginning in |

|2012, the new provision requires all businesses to file a 1099 form with the IRS each payee for whom they have paid a cumulative |

|of $600 or more in a calendar year. The letter noted that the Senators were confident that the Senate would act quickly on H.R. 4|

|once passed by the House. Westlaw: 014 DTR G-3, 2011, BNA, Inc. (January 21, 2011); 2011 CONG US HR 4. |

| |

|Special Needs Trusts; Guardianships |

| |

|ARTICLES |

|Wisconsin's Individual-at-Risk Restraining Order: An Analysis of the First Thirty Months. Betsy J. Abramson, Marsha M. Mansfield,|

|and Jane A. Raymond. (Elder Law Journal, 2011). Westlaw: 18 Elder L.J. 247. |

| |

|LEGISLATION |

|Nebraska. Duties of Guardians and Conservators; new Nebraska Uniform Adult Guardianship And Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction |

|Act. Nebraska has passed legislation that changes the duties of guardians and conservators. The changes include requiring a |

|guardian or conservator tol file a copy of his or her letters with the register of deeds in every county in which the ward has |

|real property or an interest in real property; allowing contested guardianship and contested conservatorship proceedings to be |

|resolved by alternative dispute resolution; and adding the Nebraska Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings |

|Jurisdiction Act. (2011 Nebraska Legislative Bill No. 157, Nebraska One Hundred Second Legislature - First Regular Session; |

|Title: Statutory Effects, VERSION: Adopted). Westlaw: 2011 NE L.B. 157 (NS); Web: Nebraska Legislature. |

| |

|Trusts (Generally) |

| |

|IRS DECISIONS, REGULATIONS, AND GUIDANCE |

|IRS. Section 1362 - Election by Small Business Corporation. The IRS concluded that a corporation’s S election was inadvertently |

|terminated when an LLC, which was an ineligible S corporation shareholder, acquired the stock and subsequently distributed it to |

|LLC members some of which were trusts, who failed to make the required election under I.R.C. § 1361(e)(3). Trusts were granted |

|120-day extension to file ESBT elections. Westlaw: PLR 201103015, 2011 WL 192101 (January 21, 2011), PLR 201103015, 2011 WL |

|192113 (IRS PLR) |

| |

|LEGISLATION |

|Virginia. Conveyances To Family Members Of Land Held In Trust. Virginia has passed legislation regarding conveyances to family |

|members of land held in trust. The act authorizes localities to provide for the subdivision of a lot for conveyance to a family |

|member if the land is held in trust where (1) all trust beneficiaries are immediate family members who agree that the property |

|should be subdivided; (2) all beneficiaries agree to place a restrictive covenant on the subdivided property that would prohibit |

|the transfer of the property to a nonmember of the immediate family for a period of 15 years. A locality may provide exceptions |

|to this 15-year time period but must execute a writing reflecting such modification. (2010 Virginia Senate Bill No. 873, Virginia|

|2011 Regular Session; Title: Subdivision Of Lot; Localities To Provide For Conveyance To Family Member If Land Is Held In Trust.,|

|VERSION: Enrolled). Westlaw: 2010 VA S.B. 873 (NS); Web: Virginia Legislature. |

|Wyoming. Uniform Trust Code Amendments; Creditors rights and other changes. Wyoming has passed legislation relating to the |

|Uniform Trust Code. The act provides for attachment of property in a trust by creditors or assignees of a holder of a power of |

|appointment as specified; amends when a creditor or assignee of a trust beneficiary may reach or attach the interest of the |

|beneficiary in a trust; provides that a married person who created a trust for his spouse is not to be treated as a settlor of |

|the trust upon the death of his or her spouse; and provides a trust instrument may not be deemed revocable because of the |

|settlor's receipt each year of income or principal from a grantor retained annuity trust or grantor retained unitrust as |

|specified. (2011 Wyoming House Bill No. 159, Wyoming Sixty First Legislature - 2011 General Session; Title: Uniform Trust Code |

|Amendments., VERSION: Enrolled). Westlaw: 2011 WY H.B. 159 (NS); Web: Wyoming Legislature. |

| |

|OTHER |

|BNA. “Sham Trusts” Set as Priority Tax Target for 2011. On January 25, Sandra R. Brown, chief of the U.S. Attorney's Office Tax |

|Division in Los Angeles, said the Department of Justice's Tax Division will focus on combating legal-source income tax fraud as |

|its top priority in 2011. Another priority tax target will be “sham trusts,” which aim to reduce or eliminate taxpayers’ tax |

|liabilities through the use of various types of fraud schemes. Westlaw: 016 DTR G-8, 2011, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. |

|(January 25 2011); Web: DOJ Tax Division to Target Legal-Source Income Fraud in 2011, BNA Tax & Accounting (January 25, 2011) |

| |

| |

|See all articles in this issue |

| |

|[pic] |

|The Witness option in Trust Plus allows you to set your default witnesses for the documents that you will generate eliminating |

|redundant entry of witness information. These witnesses will be brought into the Trust/Will Information area for each session |

|where they may be changed if necessary for that specific session. For more information on entering witnesses, see the Witness |

|Lines article within Members Only. |

|Not everyone however wants to have witnesses on their documents. To make this easier for law offices, the witness functionality |

|was enhanced in a recent software release. A new option labeled “Witnesses required” is now included on the Documents/Common tab |

|located under System/Preferences. |

|[pic] |

|For those who do not want to use the witnesses functionality, this new preference may be de-selected, and witness signature lines|

|will no longer appear in trust agreements, asset assignment documents, property agreements, the HIPAA form and the generic living|

|will. Statutory documents with required witness lines are not affected by this option. |

|Members Only |

|The Members Only website is updated on a regular basis with new pages, articles, and tools designed for the estate planning |

|practice. Recent additions and changes include: |

|2011 Tax and Social Security update information |

|A client letter discussing the 2011 Estate Tax Update |

|Estate Planning in the news – articles and up-to-date information |

|Software FAQs for Trust Plus and TrusTerminator |

|Call us today at (800) 366-1730, or email us at west.appsupport@ |

|if you have any questions or would like more information on |

|the Cowles system. |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

|Start of Tech Tip Article |

|See all articles in this issue |

| |

................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download