Tag Archives: alberts law

When is a Power of Attorney in Effect?(Pt 2)

Alberts Law, Estate Planning, Topics of Interest, ,

In the previous post, I took a brief look at various powers of attorney found in Pennsylvania’s laws and discussed how and when they take effect. However, the issue of timing regarding when a financial power of attorney can be used often is something that the principal who would be giving the power wants to address in the document due to concerns such as loss of control and possible abuse. The topic of timing in combination with varied reasons for having a financial power of attorney is the subject of the second part of this discussion of powers of attorney in Pennsylvania.

As your power of attorney is being drafted, you and the attorney should discuss its focus or purpose as well as how to use specific powers to achieve this. There are situations that can be handled by a more limited power of attorney. This limitation may mean that it only can be used by your agent for specific periods of time. If not specified, Pennsylvania law presumes that a power of attorney is durable, however.

The term “durable” means that it is in effect and, technically, could be used by your agent from the moment when it is executed (or, to put it more simply, when it is signed). People often feel that this means that they are giving away the authority to handle financial matters, even though they are capable of doing so, and worry about the power being abused. This, in turn, can spark interest in limiting when the document will be effective. Such restrictions could make sense, depending on the purpose for this document.

A non-durable power of attorney can be used by your agent only when you are not incapacitated. This generally is when you least need to have one. As an instrument of estate planning, this would have little use because you would not need someone handling financial affairs to carry out the objectives of your estate plan while you are capable of doing so.

However, a non-durable power of attorney can be useful to give someone the authority to handle a transaction when you are not able to be present for some reason. The non-durability combined with the limited scope (for example, the authorization for an agent to complete the sale of a vehicle) can make this useful because, in the example, you can sell the vehicle even though you cannot be present and the document only exists until the specific transaction is accomplished.

In other scenarios, a durable power of attorney makes more sense. You might not like the sound of giving your agent the power to handle your banking transactions or to sell your real property (which might mean the house in which you are living). However, if you are handling your affairs, it would not be that easy for someone to take over. If the agent would try to do this, you can put an end to the attempt by revoking the power of attorney, which is easy to do. An agent who misuses this power can be subject to civil and criminal penalties, and you are likely to know if your agent is making such attempts.

For example, to sell your house, the agent would have to record the original of the document in the appropriate office in the county in which the property is located and would have to show the property to prospective buyers. Meanwhile, monthly statements from your financial institution would reveal any problems involving transactions that you did not authorize.

Also, your choice of the agent should reduce the likelihood of abuse of power – you need to trust the person you name as your agent. While this is no guarantee, you should not name someone as your agent if you have doubts about his or her trustworthiness. Instead, this would be a situation in which you might want to wait to get a power of attorney.

Some people prefer to have a “springing” power of attorney, which springs into effect when a specified event occurs. Often, the event involves the person becoming disabled or incapacitated because this is when someone would be needed to handle financial and other affairs. The potential for problems exists because you need a well-defined point at which the power of attorney springs into effect.

Disability and incapacity should be determined by medical professionals. There may not be a doctor available when this occurs so there could be a lag in time before someone can act as your agent. There also could be difficulty in getting a doctor to sign an affidavit acknowledging your condition. Then, if you no longer are disabled or incapacitated, you should get another affidavit stating this and making the springing power ineffective again.

In the end, a durable power of attorney usually is the best choice. The power is least likely to be abused when you can handle your own affairs, and you can easily revoke it during this time. Periods of disability or incapacity are when the power of attorney has the greatest potential for abuse, but the likelihood is limited when you take the time to choose someone you trust to be your agent. Finally, a financial power of attorney must have an acknowledgment signed by your agent detailing the responsibilities of an agent and noting the consequences of ignoring them, which helps to reduce any temptation that might exist.

When Is a Power of Attorney in Effect?(Pt 1)

Alberts Law, Estate Planning, Topics of Interest, ,

A Power of Attorney can be useful for numerous reasons. For instance, the importance of a financial power of attorney often is seen in estate planning but can come into play for other purposes as well. For this reason, it is the prime focus here due to the potential impact of its use, which makes many people reluctant to make this power durable (which will be defined below). Of course, there are reasons beyond financial matters for needing a power of attorney. Pennsylvania has statutes that encompass other types of powers of attorney and that address when these powers are in effect.

For example, under Pennsylvania law, a “mental-health power of attorney” gives you the opportunity to choose someone (known as your “agent”) to make a wide range of treatment decision if you are experiencing a mental-health crisis. However, the same law also limits the lifespan of this document to two years from the date that you sign it into effect (unless you revoke it sooner or it is in effect when the two-year mark is reached). Within this time period, this power of attorney can be used by your agent when an attending physician determines that you are not capable of making decisions regarding mental-health treatment. When the attending physician decides that you can make these decisions once again, then your agent ceases to have authority.

A “health care power of attorney” is more common and often is combined with the financial power of attorney in an estate plan. Pennsylvania has a set of laws focusing solely on this legal tool and defining when it is legally relevant. A health care power of attorney is valid until you revoke it, unless you have specified a time when this document no longer is valid. It should be noted that, while it may be valid, this does not mean that it can be used by your agent named in the power of attorney at all times. Instead, it only becomes effective when the attending physician finds that you lack capacity to make these decisions and ceases to have power when the attending doctor finds that you are able to make health care decisions again.

Meanwhile, powers of attorney that deal with financial matters tend to have more variations and need to be drafted carefully to meet your objectives, leading to careful consideration of how and when they can be used. In the list of statutory powers regarding a power of attorney, you currently will find 22 powers, of which 19 are financial in nature. These range from transactions involving tangible personal property to investments in stocks, bonds, and other securities to disclaiming of an inheritance.

The potential scope and consequences of these powers can cause a principal, who is the person giving authority to her or his agent, to be hesitant to want a power of attorney in the first place. This is when you need to look at the flexibility of this document to see if one can be drafted to meet your needs and protect your peace of mind.  In the next post, a closer look at financial powers of attorney and when you might want them to be in effect for your agent’s potential use will be undertaken.

Responsibilities of the Trustee of a Trust

Alberts Law, Probate & Estate Administration, ,

Depending on the size and the purpose of a trust, the grantor (sometimes called the settlor) who established the trust may decide upon a relative or a close associate to act as the trustee of that trust. If you are chosen to handle this responsibility, you need to understand what you will be required of you before you take on this role.

The basic reason why a trust has to have a trustee is because the document that the grantor used to create the trust will convey that person’s intention(s) regarding how the assets in the trust are to be used on behalf of its beneficiaries. Some trusts are created to minimize taxes and preserves more assets to pass to the ultimate beneficiaries; the so-called “generation-skipping” trust might be used to accomplish this.

Other people may want to take care of needs of a child who has a disability which entitles the child to certain types of government assistance. However, direct payments from the trust could reduce this assistance while payments for financial or health needs might take the place of items that the government, otherwise, would have provided. To prevent these possibilities, the grantor might establish what is known as a “supplemental needs” trust for the child. Whatever the intention stated by the grantor in the trust document, the trustee must understand it, must understand how to manage the trust’s assets to carry it out, and must be willing to do so.

You generally have to follow the directions of the trust’s creator. You only have discretion to make decisions that are permitted in the trust instrument. A supplemental needs trust would give a trustee a certain amount of discretion, but you have to read the document to be sure. Other trust instruments can contain very specific criteria for the manner in which the principal and interest that comprise the trust’s assets are to be distributed. If language regarding discretionary decision making is nowhere to be found, then you have no authority to deviate from the grantor’s instructions.

In addition to the grantor’s intentions, a trustee must remember that the role always carries fiduciary duties. This means that you must act for the benefit of others, who are defined by the grantor’s intent in setting up the trust. Among those duties are good faith, candor, and loyalty.

There also is the duty to treat beneficiaries impartially (unless the trust’s language expresses a different intent), as well as a duty to balance the interests of the lifetime beneficiaries with those of the remainder persons (who would receive what remains in the trust at its termination). You have to keep beneficiaries updated periodically with an accounting of the trust’s performance. Meanwhile, as a fiduciary, you must avoid self-dealing in addition to conflicts of interest that could undermine your ability to act in the best interests of beneficiaries. Trustees can be held liable when fiduciary duties are breached.

For trusts governed by Pennsylvania law, trustees must understand the Prudent Investor Rule, which was enacted in 1999. Its general rule is as follows: “A fiduciary shall invest and manage property held in a trust as a prudent investor would, by considering the purposes, terms and other circumstances of the trust and by pursuing an overall investment strategy reasonably suited to the trust.” The Prudent Investor Rule also defines permissible investments of a trust and considerations when making investment and management decisions.

This law does allow you to delegate investment and management decisions if someone with skills comparable to yours might do so. You will not be responsible for your agent’s investment decisions when you can show that you used reasonable care, skill, and caution in selecting the agent and you have reviewed periodically the agent’s performance and compliance with the terms of the delegated duties. Any trustee without sufficient investment experience would be wise at least to consider seeking professional advice when investing the assets of the trust so that distributions can be made and expenses can be paid while taxation of the trust is minimized to the extent possible. Obviously, the job of a trustee is not an easy one.

As you undertake these and other actions as a trustee, you generally are entitled to some compensation, defined in the trust instrument, as well as reimbursement for legitimate expenses. Again, you are a fiduciary so you must act in good faith and not inflate these expenses, for example. You always face being held accountable for your actions and could end up being ordered by a court to repay improper payments. If you go too far, the court could remove you as the trustee.

While all of these factors may make being a successful trustee an impossible task, you should remember that many trusts exist and each has, at least, one trustee. The vast majority of trustees handle the role without great difficulty. You simply must understand what is expected of you and know how to carry out your obligations. If you have doubts, you should consult with an attorney with experience in this area to discuss what you need to do to be a successful trustee.

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and the Means Test

Alberts Law, Debt Relief & Bankruptcy, , ,

When the Bankruptcy Code is changed in 2005, the idea that this would force people to file under Chapter 13, which requires a plan to repay as much of your debt as possible, instead of using Chapter 7 to get a “fresh start” by discharging most debts and allowing you to keep most (if not all) of your possessions was a commonly held belief. The new law did have a bias against Chapter 7 bankruptcies, but the reality is that most people still can file under the chapter that gives them their best options.

The means test, which can be used to force you pursue a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, has “safe harbors” that protects the average filer’s choice of which bankruptcy to pursue. For this reason, you need some understanding of this test and when the safe harbor based on income will allow you to consider a range of possibilities, including those under the Bankruptcy Code if necessary, to handle your financial struggles.

Due to the formula involved, we will take a greatly simplified journey through the means test. Its starting point is “current monthly income,” which actually looks at the average income from the previous six months to find a monthly average. Also, the focus is on income from all sources used to pay household expenses of the debtor and the debtor’s dependents on a regular basis during this period. The bankruptcy law provides for various deductions from the total and also excludes some sources of funds from being counted. The most prominent of these would be any benefit received under the Social Security Act. However, not everything paid under this Act is not counted necessarily – for example, the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules did not include Unemployment Compensation as being excluded. Also, we will see some other sources that are omitted due to the use of data regarding income from the Census Bureau.

“Current monthly income” must be calculated, after which it is multiplied by 12 to turn it into a yearly amount. The new total then can be compared to the median income in your state; the median income is the amount at which half of the households fall below it while the other half will be above it. As mentioned previously, the source of this data is the Census Bureau. For this reason, we have to be aware of various items that it leaves out of its income calculations, including Food Stamps, public-housing benefits, and lump-sum inheritances, so that the comparison is based on the same information. Meanwhile, in addition to income, your household size is important for establishing the median income level, as reported by the Census Bureau, that you would use for the means test. Unfortunately, this is another case in which the bankruptcy law does not provide clear guidance, which has made the definition of the size of any particular household an issue of contention at times.

However, despite the problems with ambiguity with the additions to the bankruptcy law in 2005, the means test eventually does produce an income figure to be compared to the median income borrowed from the Census Bureau. As of May 1, 2014, in Pennsylvania, the median income for a one-person household has been $47,809 while, for a household of two, this rises to $56,690. It continues to increase as the household size increases. The issue now becomes what all of this means to you.

Essentially, it means that the means test will be meaningless to you as long as your household income falls below the median level for a household of the same size in Pennsylvania (or the level for whatever state you live in). You would be in one of the safe harbors that Congress built into the means test. In turn, this means that the “presumption of abuse” (which focuses on a debtor’s ability to repay creditors) does not apply to you so that, if you decide to file for bankruptcy, you should be able to choose the chapter that would be most beneficial in meeting your goals for filing.

Most people who pursue a bankruptcy tend to be under the median income figure that applies to them, which means that the means test that can seem so intimidating due to its complexities actually has no effect on them. For those above the median income, the test will have implications, which can be explored at another time. What matters here is that you generally will not have to worry about the means test with its presumption of abuse preventing you from considering all of your options, including a possible Chapter 7 bankruptcy as a last resort, as you begin rebuilding your financial world.

Protecting Retirement Funds in Bankruptcy

Alberts Law, Debt Relief & Bankruptcy, ,

When you file for bankruptcy for consumer debt, everything that you own generally becomes part of your bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy trustee in charge of the estate could sell these assets to raise funds to pay debts. However, most debtors will find exemptions under the Bankruptcy Code that will protect all, or at least most, of the property in their estate. Property that could not be exempted may remain in the estate because the trustee will look at the cost of selling it versus the amount that a sale would bring and decide to abandon or sell the property back to the debtor. On the other hand, the status of pensions, retirement funds, and similar accounts still is somewhat ambiguous in bankruptcy law.

Looking at the Bankruptcy Code, Section 541(c)(2) states that restrictions on transferring a debtor’s beneficial interest in a trust which are enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law will remain enforceable in a bankruptcy case. If the law shields a beneficiary’s interest in a trust from creditors, then the same protection applies during a bankruptcy.

In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the language in this  section applied to certain types of pensions. ERISA-qualified pension plans were found to be excluded from the bankruptcy estate because this federal law had an “anti-alienation” provision that protected pensions that are covered by ERISA.

Then, in 2005, the Bankruptcy Code was amended. Section 522 was revised to allow the debtor an exemption, usually without limitation, in most types of retirement funds. With this change, whether or not a pension is part of the bankruptcy estate ceased to be an important issue when attempting to protect such plans after a bankruptcy filing. Congress also added provisions stating that any amount withheld or received by an employee in retirement funds or employee benefit plans are not property of the bankruptcy estate.

This does not protect everything, however. If you file for bankruptcy while you are in the process of rolling over your pension funds into another plan, you leave yourself open to the claim that these funds were not in an ERISA-qualified plan when the bankruptcy was filed. Therefore, as the argument goes, your retirement funds should not be  excluded from your bankruptcy estate. This also shows the importance of timing when you decide to file for bankruptcy. Under this scenario, to avoid a possible problem, you could wait to file your bankruptcy case or undertake the rollover. By doing so, the bankruptcy case will be filed while retirement funds are in a qualified plan.

Non-ERISA plans face other issues. For example, the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision pointed to retirement funds that do not qualify under ERISA, determining that they are not entitled to its protection as a result.

Individual retirement accounts (IRAs) would be an example here. However, IRAs now qualify as exempt under subsections 522(b)(3)(C) and (d)(12) (with a $1,245,475 waivable cap for funds that were never rolled over from another plan) and may also be protected from alienation under state law. In addition, if a debtor cannot reach funds in a plan, the bankruptcy estate has the same limitation – it cannot have greater rights than the debtor. Therefore, with the already existing protections plus the expanded ones for retirement savings, a debtor will rarely lose retirement funds in a bankruptcy case.

Other types of plans may be considered spendthrift trusts, with the beneficiary having no right to access the funds whenever the individual so desires. Under the laws of most states, due to this limitation, the beneficiary’s interest in such a trust is protected from the person’s creditors. These trusts are excluded from the debtor’s estate under Section 541(c)(2). However, it should be noted that not all spendthrift trusts are protected under state laws – an example is the “self-settled” spendthrift trust created by its own beneficiary, which most states do not protect from this person’s creditors.

Finally, when possible, the debtor also must remember to list retirement funds, pensions, and similar trust interests in Schedule B of the bankruptcy schedules, even if they do not come into the estate. Any argument that the interest is outside the estate should be noted on Schedule B with a reference to subsections 541(c)(2) or 541(b)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code. In addition, nothing prevents a debtor from claiming on Schedule B that property is outside the estate but listing an applicable exemption on Schedule C in the alternative as a backup.

Changes in Your Family? Time to Revisit Your Estate Plan

Alberts Law, Estate Planning, , ,

After you get married, you might decide that you need an estate plan. Actually, an estate plan is important even if you aren’t married. Of course, whenever your circumstances change, you should revisit this plan to make sure it fits your current situation. Remember that an estate plan never should be viewed as if it were etched in stone. With major life changes, you must realize that your estate plan reflects a time that no longer exists, potentially making it more a part of your history than your future. We will focus on a Will that was drafted after you got married, only to be followed by a divorce, then remarriage, and additions (by birth or adoption) to your family after the second marriage.

When you have been divorced, you may receive a property distribution of assets that were acquired during the marriage that has ended. If some of the property is in investment funds or insurance policies or similar financial tools, you can name beneficiaries to receive these after your death. They do not go through the probate process (if you have a Will in place when you die) or estate administration (when you die without a Will). Instead, these go directly to the beneficiaries whom you chose. As a result, if you do not change your beneficiaries after you remarry, these assets are seen as separate from the property that would be in your second marital estate. They pass according to your previous designation of beneficiaries — you need to change your estate plan if you want a different result.

However, there are situations in which Pennsylvania law makes changes in your Will, even if you do nothing. For example, after a divorce, any provision regarding your ex-spouse no longer has legal effect so he or she would no longer be in your Will unless your estate plan incorporates language in your Will that divorce won’t alter that Will. Generally, the property that would have gone to the former spouse under the original Will becomes part of your intestate estate, to be distributed to your heirs as if you died without any Will at all. If you reside in Pennsylvania when you die, then Pennsylvania’s laws of intestate succession determine who receives what portions of this property — effectively, this becomes part of your estate plan since you didn’t revisit and revise it while you could.

Of course, you may remarry at some point, and — once again — the Pennsylvania legislature has made some decisions on your behalf, assuming that you have not changed your initial Will. The new spouse is in a position to receive a spouse’s intestate share that applies to your circumstances (such as whether there are stepchildren, for example).

However, if you revised your estate plan after your remarriage and gave a bigger share to your new spouse than she or he would receive under Pennsylvania intestacy law, then the surviving spouse gets the larger share. Some people have a new Will drafted that, through its language and the circumstances at the time that it was created, was made in contemplation of a marriage that actually taken place at that point. Then, the spouse, once the marriage occurs, would receive the share that your estate plan dictated. There is a potential exception  to this because the surviving spouse under Pennsylvania law can elect against the Will, in which case this person might be able to inherit approximately one third of your estate.

Assuming that your new relationship yields new children, whether by birth or adoption, this can impact on your existing estate plan. For example, unless the Will clearly demonstrates that these kids were omitted from your estate plan intentionally, they should receive their intestate share, as defined by Pennsylvania law, of your remaining estate after the surviving spouse’s share is deducted from the estate. The remaining estate would be equal to the shares that the children would have received if you had died unmarried and had no Will.

This can get quite complicated, obviously. In addition, many people have other things on the agenda when they have an estate plan created. People often seek to limit the so-called death taxes owed to state and federal governments. You could take the chance that your original estate plan is good enough and never give it a second thought. If this is your approach, then the intestacy laws are ready to fill any gaps that may have developed during the changes that have occurred. However, situations and the goals of your estate plan can change over the course of a lifetime. While considering your mortality is not the most enjoyable experience, you can take comfort in knowing that you will have an estate plan that meets the needs of those whom you want to take care of even when you no longer are around to do so.

The Impact of Substance Abuse in a Social Security Disability Case

Alberts Law, Social Security Disability, ,

A person cannot be found disabled by the Social Security Administration due to substance abuse, whether it involves drug addiction or alcoholism. However, a person can be disabled despite the use of drugs or alcohol. The key legal issue is if substance abuse is a “contributing factor material to the determination of disability.”

 

Another issue with substance abuse involves the mindset of some Administrative Law Judges, who often do not want to find someone who uses drugs or alcohol disabled. Deciding that a person who has a history of using drugs or alcohol is not disabled regardless of any others facts in a case is a misapplication of the law, but it can occur.


This is a bigger problem when the history of substance abuse is more recent or ongoing. However, even if drug abuse or alcoholism is ongoing, you still could be disabled if you have other impairments that prevent you from working. It is the impact of substance abuse on your other impairments that must be considered under current Social Security law.

 

During a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) goes through five steps in evaluating your disability claim. In most cases, if you are found disabled due to physical or mental impairments resulting in limitations that make full-time work of any kind impossible, then you are entitled to disability payments. However, when alcohol or other drugs enter the picture, you may be found to meet the definition of disability during the five-step sequential evaluation, but you face an additional question that could prevent you from receiving those disability payments: Is substance abuse a contributing factor that is material to the finding that you are disabled? What this really is asking is whether you would be unable to work on a full-time basis if you stopped using drugs or alcohol. As long as your work-related limitations that remain after the impact of any substance abuse is removed make you unable to work, you are disabled.

 

According to the Code of Federal Regulations, when substance abuse is involved, the ALJ at your hearing has to look at your current physical and mental impairments that caused limitations in your ability to function at work and then decide which of them would continue to exist even if you stopped using drugs or alcohol. If at least one impairment remains that causes limitations that are disabling, then you are disabled regardless of the impact of substance abuse on other impairments. If no limitations from any of your impairments remain that would leave you unable to work after the impact of the use of alcohol or other drugs is removed, then substance abuse is a contributing factor material to the determination of disability — this means is that you cannot be found disabled.

 

It is important to note that the cause of any of your impairments does not matter. For example, you could have cirrhosis of the liver due to alcoholism, and the cirrhosis may prevent you from being able to work. If you no longer drink, then there is no need to consider the impact of continued use of alcohol. You could be found disabled by the Social Security Administration despite the fact that substance abuse caused the disabling condition.

 

However, when you have a potentially disabling condition but your substance abuse is ongoing, the situation becomes more complicated. The general belief is that you would bear the burden of proving that, even if you stopped using alcohol or other drugs, you would be disabled. This makes the determination of disability difficult under these circumstances.

 

Ultimately, not using drugs for a period of time is the strongest proof that substance abuse is not the reason that you should be found disabled. There is no “bright line” test for how long would be long enough. Of course, the longer the period involved, the better for your case because there will be more evidence of your actual condition without the effect of any continuing substance abuse. This helps to eliminate speculation and guesswork regarding the impact of alcohol or other drugs. If you remain incapable of working after you have been clean for some period of time, your case becomes much easier to prove. You would be wise to consider this before you apply for disability. Remember, if you really believe that you are disabled and that substance abuse does not contribute to this disability, you do not want to give the Social Security Administration an excuse to deny your claim.

The Need for an Estate Plan

Alberts Law, Estate Planning, ,

Everyone needs an estate plan. Due to the range of decisions and situations that such a plan can cover, you shouldn’t let a lack of property or wealth keep you from addressing this. An estate plan generally includes a number of documents, and only some of these focus on transferring wealth when you die.

 

Of course, one of the essential pieces is a Last Will and Testament. This is important for certain transfers of property but also can deal with other topics, such as burial arrangements. The second essential part of your estate plan is a Durable Power of Attorney, although it basically is effective only while you are living. You could choose someone to make financial decisions or, at least, handle your financial affairs, such as paying bills, when you are unable to do these things. A Medical Power of Attorney can provide authority over some medical decisions when your medical condition prevents you from speaking for yourself.

 

A final essential element in every estate plan is commonly known as a Living Will (or Advance Directive). It permits you to make decisions regarding the medical treatment and care that you would want when you can no longer communicate your wishes and are not likely to recover in the opinion of doctors who have examined you while you have been in this condition. You could name a surrogate decision maker, but – if a decision is covered in the Living Will – you can require that your surrogate follows your wishes.

 

The need for a Power of Attorney and a Living Will may be more understandable than the need for a Will if a person has does not own much. However, your Last Will and Testament can provide valuable information, regardless of the size of your estate. You may have items that have sentimental value to family members or even a small amount of cash that you want a particular person to have after your death. A Will can be used to make your intent clear. It also can provide other information; for example, you can name the person you want to handle the necessary activities that follow a person’s death, including handling taxes and your final expenses. You also must remember that, while your Will can make your wishes clear, the necessary person has to have access to it in order for it to be effective.

 

While a Will is important in transferring ownership of property to others, an estate plan can use other methods to do this. Each possibility has positive and negative points that are best reviewed with a professional. One method is to set up a joint account with the right of survivorship, which avoids the probate process but not necessarily the so-called death taxes (such as Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax). Other assets, including a life-insurance policy, can name beneficiaries so probate again can be avoided. Another possibility with life insurance is to use it to fund a trust as part of your estate plan.

 

Trusts of various types can be used for a variety of purposes. There are trusts that are intended to reduce the tax bill for your estate and for others – this is a complicated area that’s beyond the scope of this post, but it may be a realistic consideration depending on your circumstances. An example is a “credit-shelter” trust that a wealthy spouse might want to shield a surviving spouse’s estate from a large federal estate tax bill later on.

However, trusts are not just a tool of the rich and can be created for purposes that don’t focus on protecting wealth. For example, you may have a child who receives Medicaid (or, as it is known in Pennsylvania, Medical Assistance), which limits income and resources that your child can have while retaining eligibility. You could decide to disinherit your child to avoid the loss of these benefits, but you might consider a “supplemental needs” trust in your estate plan. Basically, this does not permit payments that would replace government benefits but can pay for other things to supplement what your child receives from public sources. A carefully drafted trust would make this possible.

 

Estate planning can even take place through gifts while you are alive and through post-mortem planning, such as a disclaimer by a beneficiary or an heir of something that she would receive so that it goes to someone else. Disclaimers often are used based on tax implications. With the numerous potential aspects of an estate plan, a person often benefits from consulting with a professional about the available options. Even the seemingly simplest estate can benefit from a review of an individual’s objectives and the consideration of ways that you might be met.

 

For the moment, there is one final thought to keep in mind. You never should view an estate plan as a final product. With time, changes occur in a life. The purpose of the plan may change if you get married or divorced, for example. Laws also change, and your plan may no longer meet your tax-planning goals when new tax laws are passed. An estate plan should be reviewed every few years, at least, so that it remains relevant to your current circumstances. No matter how simple or complex an estate plan may be, you need to make sure that it is one that you can live with as time goes by.

Proposed Regulations About Adverse Evidence

Alberts Law, Social Security Disability, , ,
[Note: After this post was written, the regulation requiring notice of all evidence, in its entirety, related to whether or not the claimant is blind or disabled became reality. It officially went into effect on April 20, 2015.]

 

Recently, the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives printed an article that detailed regulations being proposed by the Social Security Administration that would require a person applying for disability to disclose all evidence related to the determination of disability. Adverse evidence could not be screened out. While this has been discussed for years, such a regulation seems likely to be adopted in some form in the near future.

The idea behind this is that a person should not be able to pick and choose only the most favorable evidence to submit in a case. If you have applied for disability and provide evidence, you cannot edit what you have submitted under the current regulations. Pulling out only favorable information would not be permitted. If a document with helpful information also contains adverse evidence regarding your claimed disability, you would have to include everything in order to get the favorable facts into your disability file.

What is proposed is that, when you submit evidence from a source, you have to submit all of the evidence from that source. Instead of requiring that each report or medical test be entered into your file without anything edited from it, the new regulations would require that you must introduce everything from that source’s records about you whenever you add evidence from a new source. While the idea is to prevent the hiding of adverse evidence that will have a negative effect on your case, this also opens the possibility that a great deal of irrelevant information will have to be reviewed by the SSA. For example, even the most routine medical tests during a hospital stay would be in your file, which could lead to more important data virtually being buried.

In addition, the proposed regulations would require you, after applying for disability, to either inform the SSA about or actually submit all evidence that you know that exists and relates to whether or not you are disabled. The present regulations state that you have to bring to the attention of the Social Security Administration everything that shows that you are disabled.

The wording of both versions seems to suggest that the SSA will follow up on your information and get the records if you do not. However, nothing in either version states that it has to do this, even though the regulations have included the requirement that the Social Security Administration is to work to develop the record for your case. Will the SSA pursue this obligation more thoroughly when you disclose adverse evidence that may prove that you are not disabled? There is no way to know this at the moment. However, in what is supposed to be a non-adversarial process, the proposed changes would give you the obligation of providing evidence against yourself.

Also, there are changes in the role of an attorney or anyone who is representing you in your case. Your representative would have to help to obtain the information that you would be required to submit under the new regulations. The use of “help” seems to suggest that your representative would have an active role in the development of factors in your favor as well as those that are adverse to you. Potentially, this might lead some claimants to withhold information from representatives in an attempt to prevent adverse evidence winding up in the file. The regulations now state that the representative is to obtain and submit evidence that you want to have in your Social Security file – the proposals would introduce a definite change in the process, and these changes could have unwanted consequences regarding your disability claim.

None of this is to suggest that adverse evidence should be hidden so that individuals who actually do not qualify for disability end up being found disabled. On the other hand, the implications of major changes in any system should receive strong consideration before those changes are put into effect to determine if the “new” system presents an overall improvement upon what currently exists.

Responsibility for Inheritance Tax

Alberts Law, Estate Planning, Probate & Estate Administration, , ,

In Pennsylvania, inheritance tax basically is a tax on your right to receive property of someone who has died. The tax rate is based on which class of beneficiary that you are in. For example, the spousal rate currently is zero percent while transfers to brothers and sisters face a tax rate of 12 percent. Because inheritance tax is assessed on a “transferee” having the right to receive property and the amount of the tax is calculated based on this person’s relationship to the decedent, an argument could be made that transferees, who are the individuals receiving the property, should be taxed. This also is reality, although they usually do not file returns or pay the tax directly to Pennsylvania.

According to Pennsylvania law, the estate’s personal representative (who also is called the administrator or the executor) must file the inheritance tax return that would include property of the decedent over which he or she had control, as well as any other property of which the personal representative has knowledge and that will be subject to inheritance tax when it is transferred. Simply put, the personal representative has the primary responsibility to file the return.

However, complications do arise. If the personal representative does not file an inheritance tax return or does not include property that you received as a transferee, then you are responsible for filing a return regarding that property and also for paying the inheritance tax. Remember that, ultimately, inheritance tax is based on a person’s right to receive estate property, and rights come with obligations. You have the responsibility to pay the inheritance tax on this property when the personal representative fails to do so. For example, a personal representative could exclude a beneficiary in the inheritance tax return when the property was owned jointly with the right of survivorship by the decedent and someone other than a spouse. The personal representative can fill in a circle on the return which states that the survivor, who automatically becomes owner of the entire amount, is to be billed separately by Pennsylvania’s Department of Revenue. The survivor needs to file a return and pay the inheritance tax on the portion that had been owned by the decedent.

The usual situation will involve the personal representative writing the check for the amount of inheritance tax owed, though. While the inheritance tax statute places the “ultimate liability” for payment on the transferee who receives the property, Section 9144 (entitled “Source of payment”) of Pennsylvania’s Fiscal Code, also specifies that the inheritance tax generally is to be paid by the personal representative from the residuary estate (which is what remains after all debts, expenses, claims, and testamentary gifts have been paid out).

If the personal representative does not pay the inheritance tax, then anyone receiving the residuary estate is supposed to pay it. Ultimately, if none of these individuals makes the payment, anyone who received property from the estate will be liable for paying the inheritance tax on the value of what she or he received. This is why you are said to have “ultimate liability” regarding anything that was transferred from the estate to you.

Because the possibility of receiving property from an estate often seems to bring out the worst in people, you might want to consider eliminating as many potential controversies involving the estate that you eventually will leave. An estate plan can be used to make clear how any inheritance tax on your estate is to be paid. This is why a Last Will and Testament commonly includes a clause directing how the inheritance tax, as well as other costs that can typically arise when a person is dying and other common costs after death, are to be handled by the individual who will be in charge of the estate. Setting forth your clear intent regarding payment of inheritance tax ensures that one possible estate controversy is eliminated. At the very least, this shows how good estate planning can prevent a hard time from becoming even harder for your family and friends.