The Thursday Report – Issue 327

By Info | July 8, 2022 | Comments Off on The Thursday Report – Issue 327





 

 

 

 

 

 

Thursday, July 7th, 2022

Issue #327

Peter Piper Prepared this Pickled Publication

Coming from the Law Offices of Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A. in Clearwater, FL.

Edited By: Wesley Dickson, Esquire

Having trouble viewing this? Use this link

 
 

Please Note: Gassman, Crotty, & Denicolo, P.A. will be sending the Thursday Report out during the first week of every month.

Article 1

IRS Publishes Introduction to Incidental and Tenuous Exception to Self-dealing Under Treasury Regulations

Written By: Alan Gassman, JD, LL.M. (Taxation), AEP® (Distinguished)

Article 2

Governor Vetoes “Kearney Patch” IRA Blanket UCC-1 Disqualification Bill – The Kearney Case is Permanent Law… For Now

Written By: Alan Gassman, JD, LL.M., & Brock Exline, Stetson Law Student

Article 3

IRS Issues Proposed Regulations for the Present Value of 
Estate Tax Deductions, Estate Administration

Written By: Samuel Craig, Stetson Law Student

Article 4

TBE, Your Paramour And Me

Written By: Alan Gassman, JD, LL.M., & Brock Exline, Stetson Law Student

Article 5

PCF Social Justice Fund: Trust-based Philanthropy In Action

Written By: Pinellas Community Foundation

Forbes Corner

Gun Law Changes Will Impact Legal Advisors

Written By: Alan Gassman, JD, LL.M. (Taxation), AEP® (Distinguished)

For Finkel’s Followers

3 Marketing Questions You Need To Ask

Written By: David Finkel

Free Saturday Webinar

Basic Estate and LLC Planning: Fun with Dick & Jane

Presented By: Alan Gassman

More Upcoming Events

YouTube Library

Tech Tip of the Month

Humor

 
 

 

Article 1

IRS Publishes Introduction to Incidental and Tenuous Exception to Self-dealing Under Treasury Regulations

The IRS is in a Precarious (and Pickled) Position

Written By: Alan Gassman, JD, LL.M., Peter Farrell, Stetson Law Student

On June 29, 2022, the IRS published a non-precedential addition to its manual materials for auditors to discuss if and when monies spent from or transactions entered into between an individual taxpayer and an exempt private foundation will violate the self-dealing rules.
                
    The update notes that public recognition that a person or company receives from the charitable activities of a private foundation to which such person has contributed will not “by itself result in an act of self-dealing since generally the benefit is incidental and tenuous.”

    The manual also indicates that a scholarship or fellowship grant to a non-disqualified person will not be an act of self-dealing when made by a private foundation “in accordance with a program to award scholarships or fellowship grants to the children of employees of a substantial contributor.” This new manual entry refers to Revenue Ruling 80-310, where “the grant by [a] private foundation to [a] university to establish an educational program in manufacturing engineering [did] not constitute an act of self-dealing” because “any benefit to the corporation, a disqualified person [was] incidental” and to Treasury Regulation § 53.4945-4(b)(5):

Example 1:

X company employs 100,000 people of whom 1,000 are classified by the company as executives. The company has organized the X company foundation which, as its sole activity, provides 100 4-year college scholarships per year for children of the company’s employees. Children of all employees (other than disqualified persons with respect to the foundation) who have worked for the X company for at least 2 years are eligible to apply for these scholarships. In previous years, the number of children eligible to apply for such scholarships has averaged 2,000 per year. Selection of scholarship recipients from among the applicants is made by three prominent educators, who have no connection (other than as members of the selection committee) with the company, the foundation or any of the employees of the company. The selections are made on the basis of the applicants’ prior academic performance, performance on certain tests designed to measure ability and aptitude for college work, and financial need. No disproportionate number of scholarships has been granted to relatives of executives of X company. Under these circumstances, the operation of the scholarship program by the X company foundation: (1) Is consistent with the existence of the foundation’s exempt status under section 501 (c) (3) [sic] and with the allowance of deductions under section 170 for contributions to the foundation; (2) Utilizes objective and nondiscriminatory criteria in selecting scholarship recipients from among the applicants; and (3) Utilizes a selection committee which appears likely to make objective and nondiscriminatory selections of grant recipients.

    The manual also references Revenue Ruling 77-331, which indicates that general reputation or prestige enhancement that is caused by public acknowledgment of donations is a relatively minor benefit “in the fruits of some charitable program that is of broad public interest to the community.”

    The manual entry states that a foundation can give its proxy for voting rights at an annual shareholder meeting to the subject company whose stock is being voted when the management of the company includes disqualified persons.

    The naming of a recreational center after a substantial contributor as a condition of a gift and a contribution by a private foundation to a public charity that requires the public charity to change its name to that of a substantial contributor for 100 years have been held by the IRS to not constitute self-dealing (example 4 of Treasury Regulation § 53.4941(d)-2(f)(9) and Revenue Ruling 73-407, 1973-2).

    The following “audit tips,” which an auditor who reviews a private foundation may use to detect self-dealing, are listed in the IRS’s update:

Issue Indicators:

•    Review Form 990-PF, Return of Private Foundation or Section 4947(a)(1) Nonexempt Charitable Trust Treated as a Private Foundation, Part VI-B (Statements Regarding Activities for Which Form 4720 May Be Required) to determine whether there is any initial excise tax due under Section 4941.
•    Analyze any possible self-dealing transactions to determine if the benefit to the disqualified person might meet the exception to self-dealing as being incidental and tenuous, taking into consideration that the exception should be narrowly construed.
•    Review grants to determine if any disqualified person with respect to the private foundation has any connection with the organization receiving the grants.
•    Review the foundation’s website to see if there are any benefits that might possibly be obtained by a disqualified person by the use of the foundation’s assets.

Audit Tips:

•    Review all transactions undertaken between the foundation and its disqualified persons. Examiners will need to investigate and identify the disqualified persons with respect to the private foundation and determine if any transactions have occurred between the disqualified persons and the foundation that might warrant further review. Evidence can be obtained from contracts, meeting minutes, bank statements and cancelled checks, interviews, tours of the facility, personnel and payroll records.
•    Review other Chapter 42 excise taxes to ensure no other Chapter 42 violations occurred. These potential violations include Section 4942 (Mandatory Distributions), Section 4943 (Excess Business Holdings), Section 4944 (Jeopardizing Investments), and Section 4945 (Taxable Expenditures). For instance, an act of self-dealing that violates Section 4941 might also be a taxable expenditure pursuant to Section 4945(d)(5).
•    Tour the foundation’s facility to observe all property (real or personal) owned by the foundation.
•    Review balance sheet listing of assets, including depreciation schedules.
•    Establish location of all assets, even fully depreciated ones, and identify who is using them. For instance:
    • [R]eal property owned by the private foundation might be used by disqualified persons for hunting or other personal uses. See Treas. Reg. 53.4941(d)-4(e) for an exception for certain property jointly owned as of Oct. 9, 1969.
    •    [A] fully depreciated vehicle may be driven by a disqualified person.
    •  [A]rtwork owned by the private foundation may be listed in the books as in “storage” but in fact is displayed in a disqualified person’s residence or business.
•How were fully depreciated assets (which still may have value) disposed of?  Were they just given to a disqualified person?
•    Review rental agreements, sales contracts, agreements, side deals.
•    Examine the income stream of the foundation to ensure the income is not being derived from any activity involving a disqualified person. If so, determine if the activity falls within one of the exceptions to self-dealing pursuant to Section 4941.
 

Back to Top
 

 

Article 2

Governor Vetoes “Kearney Patch” IRA Blanket UCC-1 Disqualification Bill – The Kearney Case is Permanent Law… For Now

Is Peter Piper “Kearney” Patch on a Permanent Pause

Written By: Alan Gassman, JD, LL.M., & Brock Exline, Stetson Law Student

 

 The November  13, 2019 decision of Kearney Construction Company, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, determined that a debtors’ personal IRA, which will normally be protected from creditors, is not protected and is instead liened if and when the IRA owner has completed a “Blanket” UCC-1 financing statement. A Blanket UCC-1 refers to a financing statement which grants a security interest to one or more lenders in “all assets of the debtor” or  “all accounts.” The Kearney decision created much uncertainty regarding the use of boilerplate language in UCC-1’s of debtors who have a personal IRA, because Kearney indicated that such boilerplate language can result in disqualification of the IRA as a creditor protected asset, even after the creditor with the lien has been paid in full[1].

In the 2021 Florida Legislative Session, efforts were made to introduce a new bill that would fix the uncertainties created by the Kearney decision.  Last year’s initial bill titled “Waivers of Exemptions of Applicable Assets,” spearheaded by Senator Lori Berman, unfortunately died in appropriations. At that time, however, the Tax Section of the Florida Bar indicated that they would look to put another iteration of the bill on the agenda in 2022. 

Senate Bill 406 was drafted to amend the current rules on description sufficiency when granting a security interest. The bill provided that a security agreement which granted a security interest in an IRA and only described the IRA by collateral type (i.e. accounts, deposit accounts, investment property, etc.) was insufficient so as to grant a valid security interest in the collateral. The bill would have fixed what has been considered an improper result for most IRA holders who may file a blanket UCC-1 due to the Kearney decision.   

Although the bill made it past the preliminary stages of this year’s legislative session, it was eventually vetoed by Governor Ron DeSantis on June 24, 2022. The Governor’s veto reads as follows: 

By the authority vested in me as Governor of the State of Florida, under the provisions of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida, I do hereby veto and transmit my objection to Senate Bill 406 (SB 406), enacted during the 124th Session of the Legislature of Florida, during the Regular Session of 2022 and entitled: An act related to Secure Transactions.

If SB 406 were to become law and be given retroactive effect as the Legislature intends, it would unconstitutionally impair certain vested rights and contracts. See art. I,§§ 9, 10, Fla. Const.[2] While the prospective policy reforms are sound, this does not cure the legal infirmities of the legislation.

For this reason, I withhold my approval of Senate Bill 406 and do hereby veto the same.[3]

This leaves thousands of Floridians who have given “Blanket UCC’s” over personal assets to creditors in a position where their IRAs may be subject to both: (1) Loss of creditor protection forevermore as to each IRA that existed at the time the Blanket UCC-1 was filed; and (2) Possible disallowance of the IRA at the time that the lien was given, causing taxable income to be recognized in an amount equal to the value of the IRA on that date, in addition to interest and penalties that could be applicable. 

A possible solution for IRA owners who have this issue may be to establish a new IRA, and transfer the assets from the IRA that was owned when the UCC-1 lien was granted to the new IRA as a “rollover” so that the new IRA has never been tainted by the lien, although it is not clear whether a legitimate new IRA funded in great part from an IRA that was or should have been disqualified will be treated the same as an IRA owned by an individual who has never had these issues. 

Fortunately, for many debtors, news and knowledge of the Kearney decision along with, the possible disqualification of their IRAs and the tax and creditor implications thereof, will never be known or recognized. However, in situations where creditors can easily see what UCC-1’s  have historically been filed against an individual, such creditors may not only seize the IRA but also report the situation to the IRS, and the exposure may be significant. 

Another strategy would be to make withdrawals from the IRA and pay taxes thereon, or convert the IRA in whole or in part to a Roth IRA, so as to both: (1) Bear the tax burden sooner rather than later: and (2) Spend down the monies that come from the IRA, as opposed to converting them to another asset that a creditor may be able to seize. 
                        
For example, an individual who earns $500,000 a year in W2 income as the head of household may have a $500,000 IRA, a $1,000,000 homestead on half an acre within the city limits which is protected from creditors, and $2,000,000 in a 401k account that would not be impacted by a blanket UCC that he/she gave to a lender in years past.

Assuming that the IRA is not protected because of the blanket UCC filing, this individual can withdraw all of his living expenses from the IRA that would otherwise have been exposed to existing creditors, while banking his or her paycheck into a low cost variable annuity contract or into tenancy by the entireties with a spouse that does not have an obligation to the same creditor or creditors in order to maximize asset protection planning without violating fraudulent transfer rules. 

The Governor’s veto indicates that he may be in agreement with the policy rationale behind the Kearney patch Bill. Perhaps a version of the bill which does not seek to give the law retroactive effect would pass muster and not be held to “impair certain vested rights and contracts.” 

In the meantime, and unless or until a Kearney patch bill is enacted, readers must be aware that the current state of Florida law continues to treat pledge agreements and security agreements which pledge all of an IRA holder’s “assets and rights, wherever located” as a pledge of IRAs, and possibly other tax-advantaged assets. As such, any security agreements should be closely reviewed and should carve out any tax-advantaged assets from being pledged under the agreement. A prudent debtor will pledge assets with great specificity. 

__________________________________________________________
 

[1]  The specific language at issue in the security agreement in Kearney Construction Company, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America 795 Fed. Appx. 671 (11th Cir. 2019)(unpublished) is as follows: “As security for any and all Indebtedness (as defined below), the Pledgor hereby irrevocably and unconditionally grants a security interest in the collateral described in the following properties[:] all assets and rights of the Pledgor, wherever located, whether now owned or hereafter acquired or arising, and all proceeds and products thereof, all goods (including inventory, equipment and any accessories thereto), instruments (including promissory notes), documents, accounts, chattel paper, deposit accounts, letters of credit, rights, securities and all other investment property, supporting obligation[s], any contract or contract rights or rights to the payment of money, insurance claims, and proceeds, and general intangibles.” 

[2] Article 1, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution provides: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.” Article 1, Section 10 of the Florida Constitution provides: “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed”    

[3] https://www.wqcs.org/2022-06-27/governor-vetoes-five-bills-and-signs-another-thirty-three-into-law

 

Back To Top
 

 

Article 3

IRS Issues Proposed Regulations for the Present Value of 
Estate Tax Deductions, Estate Administration

Peter Pipers Proposed Regulations Provide Present Value Perfection

Written By: Samuel Craig, Stetson Law Student

 

Executive Summary.

On June 28, 2022, the IRS published Proposed Regulations pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 2053.[1],[2]

Liabilities and expenses that are paid or incurred to satisfy the obligations of a deceased person’s estate are deductible for federal estate tax purposes, but the IRS proposed regulations in 2009 that would have required such liabilities and expenses to be discounted to take into account the time value of money when they were to be paid well after the death of a decedent.[3]

The Proposed Regulations provide guidance on the use of present-value principles in determining the amount deductible by an estate for funeral expenses, administration expenses, and certain claims against the estate. In addition, the Proposed Regulations provide guidance on the deductibility of interest expense accruing on tax and penalties owed by an estate, and interest expense accruing on certain loan obligations incurred by an estate. The Proposed Regulations also amend and clarify the requirements for substantiating the value of a claim against an estate that is deductible in certain cases. Finally, the Proposed Regulations provide guidance on the deductibility of amounts paid under a decedent’s personal guarantee.

Three-Year Grace Period;

The Preamble to the Proposed Regulations states that limiting the amount deductible to the present value of the amounts paid after an extended post-death period will more accurately reflect the economic realities of the transaction, the true economic cost of that expense or claim and the amount not passing to the beneficiaries of the estate. Accordingly, the Proposed Regulations incorporate present-value principles in determining the amount deductible for claims and expenses, subject to certain exceptions (including for unpaid principal of mortgages and certain other indebtedness).

The Proposed Regulations provide a general three-year safe harbor before any present value discounting will be required.

The three-year period “takes into account a reasonable time for administering and closing the estate,” while not being an overly long amount of time such that the lack of present value discounting would significantly distort the value of the net (distributable) estate. Thus, applying present-value principles in computing the deductible amount of those claims and expenses paid more than three years after the decedent’s death “strikes an appropriate balance between benefits and burdens.”

The discount rate to be used is the applicable federal rate determined under IRC Section 1274(d) for the month in which the decedent’s date of death occurs, compounded annually.

A liability or expense that is paid more than three years before the anniversary date of the decedent’s date of death would be discounted under the Proposed Regulations by the applicable federal rate that applies to the month in which the decedent’s death occurs, compounded annually.

The midterm applicable federal rate would be used if the liability or expense is expected to be paid more than three years after the death of the decedent but within nine years, and the long term applicable federal rate will apply if the liability or expense is expected to be paid more than nine years after the date of death.

The Proposed Regulations indicate “reasonable assumptions and methodology can be used” to calculate the present value of the post-grace period payment(s). The revisions and addition to Section 20.2053-4 read as follows:

The value of each such claim against the estate is supported by a written appraisal document to be filed with the Form 706, or successor form, and the written appraisal document—

            (A) Adequately reflects post-death events that have occurred prior to the date on which a deduction is claimed on an estate’s Form 706;

            (B) Reports, considers, and appropriately weighs all relevant facts and elements of value as are known or are reasonably determinable at the time of the appraisal, including the underlying facts of the claim against the estate, potential litigating risks, and the current status of the claim and procedural history;

            (C) Takes into account post-death events reasonably anticipated to occur;

            (D) Identifies an expected date or dates of payment (for purposes of determining the applicability of the present value limitation in § 20.2053-1(d)(6));

            (E) Explains in detail the methods and analysis that support the appraisal’s conclusions.

The reasonable assumptions or methodology has generally been: (a) A facts and circumstances analysis, or (b) The use of actuarial tables. Fair market value generally involves estimates and both of these methods of valuation require the knowledge of some facts. With respect to valuation of gifts or assets included in the decedent’s gross estate, courts routinely determine fair market value by looking at transactions occurring after the gift or decedent’s date of death, as long as these facts were reasonably foreseeable. Similarly, no logical reason exists why courts should not be able to value a deduction under Treasury Regulation Section 2053 by incorporating relevant post-death facts when interpreting the claim’s date-of-death value.

The Proposed Regulations provide guidance on calculating the present value of amounts paid or payable, with respect to the grace period in Section 20.2053-1(d)(6):

(A) Single post-grace-period payment. The amount deductible under section 2053 for a single post-grace-period payment is computed by calculating the present value of such payment as follows:

            Amount of future payment × [1 ÷ (1 + i)]t

            Where:

 t  is the amount of time (expressed in years and fractions of years) from the day after the decedent’s date of         death to the payment date or expected date of payment; and

           i  is the applicable discount rate.

(B) Multiple post-grace-period payments. The amount deductible under section 2053 for multiple post-grace-period payments is computed by calculating the present value of each such payment using the formula in [paragraph (A)] of this section; the sum of the discounted amounts of the post-grace-period payments is the amount that is deductible for such payments.

Deductibility of Amounts Paid Under Personal Guarantees;

The Proposed Regulations also provide that any claims that are based upon a promise to pay by the decedent will be deductible only if the promise represents: (1) Personal obligation of the decedent existing at the time of the decedent’s death; and (2) The claim must be enforceable against the decedent’s estate.

The Proposed Regulations indicate that a deduction for a claim founded upon a promise or agreement is limited to the extent that the promisor agreement “was bona fide and in exchange for adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth: that is that, the promisor agreement must have bargained for at arm’s length and the price must have been an adequate or full equivalent reducible to money value.”

This seems unfair because under state law, a promise to pay can be enforceable even when the consideration received by the promisor is gratuitous or nominal.

The Proposed Regulations also discuss the decedent’s promise to guarantee a debt of an entity that the decedent had an ownership interest in and indicates that this will satisfy the requirement that it be in adequate and full consideration if at the time the guarantee was given, the decedent had control of the entity as defined in IRC Section 2701(b)(2), or to the extent that the maximum liability of the decedent under the guarantee did not exceed the fair market value of the decedent’s interest in the entity at the time the guarantee was given.

The Proposed Regulations provide the following example:

Example 10: Guarantee. On Date 1, D entered into a guarantee agreement with Bank (C) to secure financing for a closely-held business (LLC) in which D had a controlling interest. LLC was solvent at the time LLC executed a promissory note in the amount of $100x in favor of C. Prior to D’s death, LLC became insolvent and stopped making payments on the note. After D’s death, C filed a claim against D’s estate for payment of the remaining balance due under the note and E paid the full amount due. Although E had a right of contribution against LLC for primary payment of the indebtedness, LLC was insolvent and no part of the debt was collectible at the time E deducted the payment. D’s estate may deduct the amount paid to C in satisfaction of D’s liability under the guarantee agreement. The guarantee agreement is considered to have been contracted for an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth. The result would be the same if D did not have control of LLC as long as the fair market value of D’s interest in the LLC on Date 1 was at least $100x.

Substantiation Requirements for Valuations of a Claim Against an Estate;

Treasury Regulation Section 20.2053-4(b)[4] or (c)[5] provides exceptions to the general rule that an estate may deduct only amounts that actually are paid by the estate in satisfaction of a claim.

Section 20.2053-4(b) generally allows a deduction for the value of claims and counterclaims in a related matter, and Section 20.2053-4(c) allows a deduction for the value of unpaid claims totaling not more than $500,000. In each case, certain requirements must be satisfied to enable the estate to use these exceptions.

One requirement that the IRS has considered is that the value of a claim against the estate that is deductible under either Section 20.2053-4(b) or (c) must be determined by a “qualified owner” or “qualified appraisal” performed by a “qualified appraiser” based upon the definitions that apply in the charitable income tax rules under IRC Section 170.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the rule in Section 20.2053-4(b) and (c) should remove the “qualified appraisal” performed by a “qualified appraiser” requirement; instead, the Proposed Regulations require a written appraisal that adequately reflects the current value of the claim when the Form 706 estate tax return is being completed. The current value of the claim should take into account post-death events occurring prior to the time a deduction is claimed as well as those events “reasonably anticipated to occur.”

The estate’s right of contribution or reimbursement will reduce the amount deductible in a guarantee situation. Payments made to actually satisfy the guarantee after the death of the decedent will be deductible “only to the extent that the debt for which the guarantee is given has not been taken into account in computing the value of the gross estate” under Section 20.2053-7 or otherwise.

Interest On Certain Loan Obligations Incurred by an Estate;

The Proposed Regulations also take aim at “Graegin loans,” which are loans taken out by an estate for the purpose to pay administration expenses and may be used to prevent unwanted liquidation of estate assets to pay estate taxes and other expenses.[6]

The Preamble acknowledges that some estates face genuine liquidity issues that make it necessary to find a means to satisfy their liabilities and incurring a loan obligation on which interest accrues may be the only or best way to obtain the necessary liquid funds. However, if liquidity has been created intentionally prior to the creation of the loan obligation to pay estate expenses and liabilities, the underlying loan may be bona fide but “most likely will not be found to be actually and necessarily incurred in the administration of the estate.”

The Proposed Regulations provide that interest expense is deductible “only if: (i) the interest accrues pursuant to an instrument or contractual arrangement that constitutes indebtedness under applicable income tax regulations and general principles of federal tax law; (ii) both the interest expense and the loan on which interest expense accrues satisfy the requirement of Section 20.2053-1(b)(2) that they are bona fide in nature; and (iii) the loan on which interest accrues and the loan’s terms are actually and necessarily incurred in the administration of the decedent’s estate and are essential to the proper settlement of the decedent’s estate (within the meaning of Section 20.2053-3(a)).”

The IRS appears to be taking a look at actions taken after death that may create illiquidity, as well as estate planning during the decedent’s lifetime that produces post-death illiquidity. For example, there may be significant impacts to estate plans with irrevocable life insurance trusts (ILITs) which are commonly used to create a source of liquidity outside of a decedent’s taxable estate. Under the Proposed Regulations, without a modification to exclude ILITs, such a pre-death funding arrangement will limit an estate’s interest deductions.

The Proposed Regulations also provide “a nonexhaustive list of factors” to consider in determining “whether interest expense payable pursuant to such a loan obligation of an estate satisfies the requirements of Sections 20.2053-1(b)(2) and 20.2053-3(a).”

Interest on Tax and Penalties Owed;

In general, interest is payable at the underpayment rate in Section 6621 on (a) Any amount of unpaid federal tax; and (b) Any unpaid additions to tax, additional taxes, and penalties (such interest referred to in the Preamble as “Section 6601 interest” and such penalties collectively referred to as “penalties”).

According to the Preamble of the Proposed Regulations, the IRS has determined that interest payable on unpaid estate tax in connection with an extension under IRC Section 6161 or a deferral under IRC Section 6163 is necessarily incurred in the administration of the estate. Additionally, the Proposed Regulations acknowledge that interest on estate tax installment payments that are authorized pursuant to Section 6166 are not deductible for estate tax purposes. This point is reiterated in the Proposed Regulations as “non-Section 6166 interests” to describe all situations where interest can be payable in connection with the administration of an estate.

The Proposed Regulations go on to note that when interest accrues on any unpaid tax or penalty and the interest expense is attributable to an executor’s negligence, disregard of the rules or regulations, or fraud with intent to evade tax, the interest expense is neither actually and necessarily incurred in the administration of the estate nor essential to the proper settlement of the estate. The Treasury Department and IRS have determined that the rationale underlying this determination applies to all non-Section 6166 interest, whether the interest accrues in connection with a deferral, underpayment, or deficiency.

The rules in the Proposed Regulations pertaining to whether non-Section 6166 interest satisfies the requirement in Section 20.2053-3(a) supplant the rule reflected in Rev. Rul. 79-252, 1979-2 C.B. 333, and in the second holding of Rev. Rul. 81-154, 1981-1 C.B. 470.[7] Together, these two holdings create an implicit presumption that interest accruing on any unpaid portion of tax or penalties in all cases satisfies the requirements for a deductible administration expense, which is inconsistent with the requirement in Section 20.2053-3(a) that the expense be actually and necessarily incurred in the administration of the estate.

Conclusion;

There is still time for the IRS to address the concerns that planners have with the Proposed Regulations before they take effect later this year. Perhaps most notably are concerns that the IRS seeks to hinder the viability of common estate planning strategies, namely, the concern that the Proposed Regulations seek to reduce an estate’s ability to borrow money after death to pay estate taxes. We expect the IRS will receive a number of comments with respect to these Proposed Regulations.

 

[1] Guidance Under Section 2053 Regarding Deduction for Interest Expense and Amounts Paid Under a Personal Guarantee, Certain Substantiation Requirements, and Applicability of Present Value Concepts, 87 Fed. Reg. 38331 (proposed June 28, 2022) (to be codified at 26 C.F.R. 20).

[2] Electronic or written comments must be received by September 26, 2022. The public hearing is being held by teleconference on October 12, 2022 at 10 a.m. EST.

[3] Final regulations amending the regulations under Section 2053 (TD 9468) were published in the Federal Register (74 FR 53652) on October 20, 2009 (2009 Final Regulations).

[4] Exceptions for claims and counterclaims in related manner.

[5] Exceptions for claims totaling not more than $500,000.

[6] See, Estate of Graegin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-477

[7] See, § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b).

 

Back to Top
 

Article 4

TBE, Your Paramour And Me

Peter Piper Picked a Paramour to Help Protect his Property

Written By: Alan Gassman, JD, LL.M., & Brock Exline, Stetson Law Student

Florida Appellate Court Finds that Tenancy by the Entireties is not Destroyed by an Agreement Between Spouses that Requires Transfer of the Assets to an Irrevocable Trust on the First Death.

    Is the requirement that an asset must be held jointly with right of survivorship to be a tenancy by the entireties asset violated when a married couple enters into a binding agreement that requires the surviving spouse to transfer the assets to an irrevocable trust to benefit the surviving spouse and descendants? 

    Can a constructive trust be imposed for quantum merit or detrimental reliance when a spouse inappropriately transfers tenancy by the entireties assets to a paramour in exchange for companionship services?

    Do people really have affairs with paramours and give them millions of dollars in assets in exchange for “love and affection”?    
        
    In the interesting and dramatic case of Wallace v. Torres-Rodriguez, a husband with a degenerative neurological condition conveyed approximately $5,000,000 in TBE assets owned by he and his wife to a girlfriend that he was having a secret affair with.[1] The trial court had sympathy for the girlfriend’s situation and her reliance on the assets transferred to her, observing that the husband had voluntarily transferred the assets because:

 [H]e wished to provide for her, to make her financially secure, and even comfortable. In exchange, she provided him her time, her companionship, and her intimate affection. She did not go to college and study for a career. She did not get a job and build up pension benefits and social security credits. She became Milton Wallace’s paramour.[2]

 The trial court concluded that the sacrifices made by the girlfriend (also known as the paramour) entitled her to keep some (approximately $1,700,000) of the assets that she had received based upon the doctrine of equitable estoppel (“detrimental reliance”) as recovery.[3]

    The Florida Third District Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that the trust assets conveyed to the girlfriend could be recouped. The assets that he transferred to the girlfriend were held in an irrevocable trust for the benefit of the spouses and the children of their marriage and the trust was supplemented by a marital agreement that prohibited either spouse from transferring joint marital assets while they were alive without “direct and personal joinder” of the other spouse.[4] 

    The trial court imposed a constructive trust, which is “an equitable remedy in a situation where there is a wrongful taking in the property of another,” against some of the TBE assets that had been transferred to the girlfriend.[5] 

    In the oft-cited Florida case of Quinn v. Phipps, the Florida Supreme Court accurately summarized the constructive trust doctrine as follows: 

A constructive trust is one raised by equity in respect of property which has been acquired by fraud, or where, though acquired originally without fraud, it is against equity that it should be retained by him who holds it. Constructive trusts arise purely by construction of equity, independently of any actual or presumed intention of the parties to create a trust, and are generally thrust on the trustee for the purpose of working out the remedy. They are said to arise from actual fraud, constructive fraud, and from some equitable principle independent of the existence of any fraud.[6]

         Under Florida law, to impose a constructive trust, a court must find clear and convincing proof of: (1) A promise, express or implied; (2) Transfer of the property and reliance thereon; (3) a confidential relationship; and (4) Unjust enrichment.[7] 

    The appellate court agreed that a constructive trust was the proper remedy to recover TBE assets that were wrongfully transferred by one spouse during the marriage without the consent of the other spouse. However, the appellate court found that the detrimental reliance claim made by the paramour could not stand in light of the fact that the paramour was aware that she was receiving someone else’s property. The appellate court therefore concluded that all of the TBE assets given by the husband to the paramour could be disgorged, and in turn transferred back to the irrevocable trust.

    The doctrine of equitable estoppel embraces the notion that a party should not be permitted to profit by asserting rights against another when the party’s own inequitable conduct has lulled the other into action or inaction detrimental to its position.[8] The elements necessary to establish equitable estoppel are: 
    
    1. A representation as to a material fact that is contrary to a later-asserted position;

    2. Reliance on that representation; and

    3. A change in position detrimental to the party claiming estoppel, caused by the representation and reliance thereon. 

    In holding that the paramour was entitled to an equitable setoff, the trial court failed to recognize that any detrimental reliance by the paramour on the alleged promise by the husband of future financial support in exchange for her “intimate affection” was unreasonable as a matter of law because the promise of financial support in exchange for sex is unenforceable in Florida. This is what is commonly referred to as “prostitution”.[9]  

    The appellate court further found that the evidentiary record reflected that the paramour knew that she was receiving marital property, and the cases it cited supported the proposition that in order to recover under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the girlfriend would have to show that there was “receipt of a benefit that has lead a recipient without notice to change position in such manner that an obligation to make restitution… would be inequitable.”     

    Wallace v. Torres-Rodriguez is a great illustration of the well settled law in Florida that TBE assets are vested in the husband and wife as one person, and that neither spouse may sell, encumber, or forfeit those assets without the consent of the other spouse.[10] 

    Possibly most interesting in Wallace v. Torres-Rodriguez is what the court did not say. The TBE assets were held in trust for the benefit of the husband, his wife, and their children. The court made no mention of the fact that the trust assets might fail to be characterized as TBE because the children were named as co-beneficiaries of the trust and therefore the spouses did not enjoy a full right of survivorship as to the trust assets. As described below, at least one Florida case has held a similar trust arrangement to not qualify for tenancy by the entireties ownership.

Bankruptcy Judge Inaccurately States That “A Trust Cannot Hold Real Property as Tenants by the Entireties.”
    
    In another interesting decision out of Florida, bankruptcy court Judge Karen S. Jennemann issued a memorandum opinion stating that “a trust cannot hold real property as tenants by the entireties” in a decision under the continuing bankruptcy court case of In re Givans. In this case, a home is owned under a revocable trust that provides the debtor (Mr. Givans) and his wife, Mrs. Givans, with the right to become an income beneficiary under the trust in order to preserve the trust assets for their two children, as primary beneficiaries, if one of them dies. 

    While Judge Jennemann is correct that the particular arrangement in Givans will not qualify for tenancy by the entireties ownership because it is without full right of survivorship, the author believes that a properly drafted trust can hold property and be characterized as a tenancy by the entireties asset as further discussed in LISI Newsletter #2957.    
 

________________________________________________________

[1]  Wallace v. Torres-Rodriguez, 3D21-244, 2022 WL 1481782 (Fla. 3d Dist. App. May 11, 2022)

[2] Id. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “paramour” as “a lover, especially the illicit partner of a married person.”  Two paramours would be “a pair and more.” One who eats a lot of fruit may be a “pear a mour.”  Constantly with a new woman, Hugh Heffner has been known to have a “para du jour.” The paramour in this case apparently has a new job working at a marina, so one might call her a  “par-a-moor.”

[3] The trial court therefore valued the paramour’s “love and affection” and her subsequent “change of position” at $1,700,000.

[4] The marital agreement further authorized the children of the marriage, one of whom was the trustee, to take all actions necessary to rescind any transfers in violation of the marital agreement.

[5] The court cited the cases of Douglass v. Jones, 422 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), Sitomer v. Orlan, 660 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), Abele v. Sawyer, 750 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) and Browning v. Browning, 784 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2001)

[6]  Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419, 54 A.L.R. 1173 (1927).

[7]  Gersh v. Cofman, 769 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th Dist. App. 2000)

[8] Natl. Auto Serv. Centers, Inc. v. F/R 550, LLC, 192 So. 3d 498 (Fla. 2d Dist. App. 2016)

[9] Posik v. Layton, 695 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 5th Dist. App. 1997). 

[10] See also Douglass v. Jones, 422 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)

Back to Top
 

 

Article 5

PCF Social Justice Fund: Trust-based Philanthropy In Action

Written By: Pinellas Community Foundation

The Social Justice Fund, formerly the Venture Philanthropy Fund, serves to increase the capacity and hands-on impact of Tampa Bay non-profits working around issues of injustice and equity/or – racial, economic, educational, housing, and/or health.

Now in its in fourth year of giving, the decision to rename the PCF fund came out of a natural progression and acknowledgement of the work of the organizations we were funding. Since it began, the Social Justice Fund at Pinellas Community Foundation has awarded over 40 nonprofits working with and in communities and economies long-plagued by inequitable distribution of resources with capacity-building, support services, trainings, and over a $700,000 in financial awards.

Formed by one generous donor, the fund was initially named and inspired by the concept of venture capital investment, which leverages private money to invest in for-profit business startups. The funder’s thought was to take this concept and direct it toward nonprofits to support their missions, investing in their missions without ‘fear of risk’: in other words, trust-based philanthropy.

Trust-based philanthropy.org shares six practices that philanthropists and philanthropic organizations can implement to better serve the needs of low-income and resource-starved communities, including multi-year, unrestricted funding, long-term flexible funding, and simplifying and streamlining paperwork.  

The Social Justice Fund advisor, J.A. Morton-Jones, says that knowing the communities and the challenges they are facing, as well as knowing the organizations working in them on a hands-on, working level, is key to developing trust-based philanthropic ventures.

For Morton-Jones, that means spending more time in the field, working with the nonprofits and listening closely to the people they work with. “I’m not sure how funders can effectively grasp the work being done by an organization successfully or unsuccessfully, without an intimate understanding of the community and a thorough knowledge of how the nonprofit is working in that community. And that knowledge needs to be gained through spending time with orgs and the people they support – sort of in a feet-on-the-ground, hands-on, way.”

NOMADStudio has received multiyear funding to bring the studio’s work throughout Tampa Bay, including various accessible art events in neighborhood parks, foster homes, and the Pinellas JDC.

“NOMADstudio was incredibly relieved to receive a grant from the PCF SJF. This funding made it possible for us to resume our outreach to two group children’s homes after an extended suspension due to the pandemic. The children are happy to have the Art Bus back again,” shared NOMADStudio’s executive director Carrie Boucher.

The Social Justice Fund is supported by a number of generous donors. If you are interested in donating to the Social Justice Fund, please contact Leigh Davis, Director of Donor and Advisor Relations, ldavis@pinellascf.org, 727-306-3142.
 

Forbes Corner

Gun Law Changes Will Impact Legal Advisors

Written By: Alan Gassman, JD, LL.M, AEP (Distinguished)

Just days later, the Supreme Court announced its decision in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, where the court struck down New York’s law requiring applicants for a concealed handgun license show “proper cause” before receiving their permit… Continue Reading on Forbes.

Back to Top
 

 

For Finkel’s Followers

Written By: David Finkel; Author, CEO, and Business Coach

 

I was recently talking with a new business coaching client who has struggled to scale their marketing efforts over the past few years. They have had some big wins and some losses, but have for the most part remained rather stagnant. And they weren’t really sure what steps they should take to get to the next level. So, I shared with them some of my favorite questions to ask to find out where to spend your time and energy in the marketing department and what to leave behind. And today, I wanted to share those questions with you.

But First A Word Of Caution.

Having worked with business owners for the past twenty five years, I can tell you that many times the business owner thinks that they know the answer to the questions below. They know the ins and outs of their business, and they think that they know the strengths and weaknesses. But oftentimes that comes with a healthy dose of bias. When you are so close to the situation, it is difficult to be impartial and look at things with a fresh set of eyes. Which is why hiring a business coach or having an outsider come in and interview your sales team as well as some of your upper management is a great way to get an outsider perspective on the situation. You can then compile all the answers and put together a plan of attack to scale your marketing strategy.

The Questions.

  1. What is your best method for generating new leads?

Is it your referrals, your affiliate program, social media, google ads? There are a multiple of ways that clients can initiate a relationship with you, and some are going to be better than others. As a business owner you may be spending all your marketing time and money on google ads because you think that they are the best way to get new clients, but your best sales might come from referrals or social media if you ask your sales team. And once you find that out, you may change the way you spend your marketing dollars and attention.

  1. How can you do more of #1?

Once you identify what is working, you can focus on doing more of that. Instead of throwing money away on ad campaigns that don’t convert, or social media strategies that don’t get your customers attention you may decide to scale your referrals with a formalized referral program. The key is to do more of what works and less of what isn’t.

  1. How can you be more consistent?

Let’s say that social media is a big revenue driver for your business, and up to now you have been posting sporadically or whenever you find the time and energy to focus on the platform. After talking to your team, you realize that a large portion of your sales is coming from that platform and you want to scale. Set up a formalized calendar with clear dates and deliverables so that you can make it more of a priority. Since you have been able to free up energy and resources that were spent in other places, this should be more feasible as you grow.

Scaling marketing efforts and doing more of what is successful is always a worthwhile endeavor. By asking these three simple questions you can get a better handle on just how to do that with your own business. Good luck!

 

Back to Top
 

 

Free Saturday Webinar

 

Date: Saturday, July 9, 2022 

Time: 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM EDT (60 minutes)

Presented by: Alan Gassman, JD, LL.M. (Taxation), AEP (Distinguished)

 

We are collaborating with CPAacademy.org to offer 1.0 CPE credit to CPAs who watch this webinar through their system.  If you are a CPA and would like to earn this credit, then feel free to register below.  If you are not already a CPAacademy.org member, you will be prompted to first set up a free member profile.

REGISTER BELOW:

 

For 1.0 CPE Credit (CPA’s)

 

For Non-CPE Credit

 

REGISTER HERE FOR 1.0 CPE CREDIT

 

REGISTER HERE FOR NON-CPE CREDIT

 

To Qualify:

  • You must sign up through CPAacademy.org.
  • You must watch for at least 50 minutes through their portal.
  • Answer at least three polling questions during the live webinar.

 

   Watch & Enjoy!

Please Note:

This is a complimentary webinar program. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. Approximately 3-5 hours after the program concludes, the recording and materials will be sent to the email address you registered with.

Important: If you are already on the “Register For All Upcoming Free Webinars” list, you will be auto-registered on Friday for non-CPE credit. If you would like 1.0 free CPE Credit for this webinar, please also register above through CPA Academy.

Please email registration questions to info@gassmanpa.com.

__________________________________________________________

BONUS PRESENTATION

THE WISDOM AND EXPERIENCE OF GEORGE GREER

Presented By Special Guest: George Greer & Alan Gassman

George Greer is well known and respected as a former lawyer, County Commissioner, judge, and mediator.

While George’s most publicized “claims to fame” are having presided over the Terri Schiavo case in 2005, and having The Doors member Jim Morrison as a roommate during college at F.S.U., those of us who know and respect him recognize the brilliance and dedication that is generally unsurpassed in the legal and societal communities.

George has led significant charities and charitable committees, and has never ending positivity, with warmth, empathy, and friendship for those who he interacts with.

Join us for this interview.

PLEASE NOTE: This presentation will be ongoing from 11:00 AM to 12:30 PM EDT. One registration link for both presentations. Please feel free to join at any time.

The portion from 12:00 PM – 12:30 PM ET does not offer CLE/CPE credits.

Please email registration questions to info@gassmanpa.com.

Back to Top

 

 

All Upcoming Events

Click this link to be auto-registered for all upcoming free webinars from our firm (Non-CPE Credit only).

 

Saturday,

July 9, 2022

Free from our Firm

(Virtual Session – *CPE Credits Will Be Offered Through CPAacademy.org)

Alan Gassman presents:

BASIC ESTATE & LLC PLANNING – FUN WITH JANE AND DICK

11:00 AM to 12:00 PM EDT

(60 minutes)

GUEST SPEAKER George Greer Presents: 

THE WISDOM AND EXPERIENCE OF GEORGE GREER

12:00 PM to 12:30 PM EDT

(30 minutes)

NON – CPE CREDIT REGISTRATION

 

CPE CREDIT THROUGH CPA ACADEMY REGISTRATION

 

Wednesday,

July 13, 2022

 

 Florida Bar Tax Section

Alan Gassman presents:

HOT TOPICS AND BEST STRATEGIES FOR ESTATE TAX PLANNING PART 2

12:00 to 1:00 PM EST

 REGISTER HERE

Saturday,

July 16, 2022

Free from our Firm

(Virtual Session – No CLE/CPE Credits)

Alan Gassman presents:

HOT TOPICS FOR A HOT SUMMER

11:00 AM to 12:00 PM EDT

(60 minutes)

GUEST SPEAKER Luis Silva Presents:

PLANIFICACION PATRIMONAL PARA FAMILIAS LATINOAMERICANAS

12:00 PM to 12:30 PM EDT

(30 minutes)

 REGISTER HERE

Saturday,

July 23, 2022

Free from our Firm

(Virtual Session – *CPE Credits Will Be Offered Through CPAacademy.org)

Alan Gassman presents:

 THE MAUI MASTERMIND MEMBER’S GUIDE TO BUSINESS AND ESTATE PLANNING LAW

11:00 AM to 12:00 PM EDT

(60 minutes)

 REGISTER HERE

Saturday,

July 30, 2022

Free from our Firm

(Virtual Session – No CLE/CPE Credits)

Alan Gassman presents:

TEN ESTATE PLANS REVIEWED

11:00 AM to 12:00 PM EDT

(60 minutes)

 REGISTER HERE

Saturday,

August 6, 2022

Free from our Firm

(Virtual Session – No CLE/CPE Credits)

Alan Gassman presents:

RUNNING THE NUMBERS ON ESTATE AND CHARITABLE PLANNING TECHNIQUES: REAL SITUATIONS, REAL NUMBERS, SILLY PUPPETS

11:00 AM to 12:00 PM EDT

(60 minutes)

 REGISTER HERE

Saturday,

August 13, 2022

Free from our Firm

(Virtual Session – No CLE/CPE Credits)

Alan Gassman presents:

FUNDAMENTALS OF ESTATE TAX PLANNING

11:00 AM to 12:00 PM EDT

(60 minutes)

 REGISTER HERE

Saturday,

August 20, 2022

Free from our Firm

(Virtual Session – *CPE Credits Will Be Offered Through CPAacademy.org)

Alan Gassman presents:

SLAT UPDATE AND STRATEGIES – INCLUDING FLORIDA’S NEW LAW

11:00 AM to 12:00 PM EDT

(60 minutes)

 REGISTER HERE

Tuesday,

August 23, 2022

Free from our Firm

(Virtual Session – No CLE/CPE Credits)

Kettering Health Network

Alan Gassman & Johnthan Blattmachr presents: 

TOPIC: UNDERUSED STRATEGIES FOR ESTATE TAX PLANNING

12:00 PM to 12:30 PM EDT

(30 minutes)

 REGISTER HERE

Saturday,

August 27, 2022

Free from our Firm

(Virtual Session – No CLE/CPE Credits)

Alan Gassman presents:

INCOME TAX ASPECTS OF ESTATE TAX PLANNING

11:00 AM to 12:00 PM EDT

(60 minutes)

 REGISTER HERE

 

Tuesday-Wednesday,

September 20-21

 

 53rd UJA-Federation Annual Sidney Kess New York Estate, Tax & Financial Planning Conference

TOPIC: TBD

 Coming Soon

Tuesday,

October 18, 2022

Free from our Firm

(Virtual Session – No CLE/CPE Credits)

Kettering Health Network

Alan Gassman presents: 

TOPIC: UNIQUE AND CREATIVE CHARITABLE PLANNING TECHNIQUES

12:00 PM to 12:30 PM EDT

(30 minutes)

 REGISTER HERE

Thursday,

October 20, 2022

 

Florida State University (FSU) Accounting Conference

(Virtual – 16 Continuing Education Credits Offered)

 

Alan Gassman presents:

PRACTICAL PLANNING FOR BUSINESS AND ESTATE PLANNING CLIENTS IN VIEW OF RECENT FEDERAL TAX DEVELOPMENTS

12:50 to 1:40 PM EDT

(50 minutes)

THE CPA’S GUIDE TO ESTATE AND TRUST PLANNING BEFORE AND AFTER DEATH

1:50 to 2:40 PM EDT

(50 minutes)

 REGISTER HERE

Wednesday, Thursday, & Friday

November 9, 10 & 11, 2022

48th Annual Notre Dame Tax and Estate Planning

(Continuing Education Credits Offered)

WE WILL BE ATTENDING THIS AMAZING CONFERENCE.

 Coming Soon

Thursday,

December 15, 2022

Free from our Firm

(Virtual Session – No CLE/CPE Credits)

Kettering Health Network

Alan Gassman, Johnathan Blattmachr, & Marty Shenkman presents: 

TOPIC: YEAR-END PLANNING: PICKING UP THE PIECES AND SEIZING OPPORTUNTIES

12:00 PM to 12:30 PM EDT

(30 minutes)

 REGISTER HERE

Thursday,

February 23, 2023

Free from our Firm

(Virtual Session – No CLE/CPE Credits)

Kettering Health Network

Alan Gassman presents: 

TOPIC: 4 HOT TOPICS WITH SOLID ACTION ITEMS

12:00 PM to 12:30 PM EDT

(30 minutes)

 REGISTER HERE

 

February,

2023

 

Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital

(Continuing Education Credits Offered)

We are proud sponsors of this event.

25TH ANNUAL ESTATE, TAX, LEGAL AND FINANCIAL PLANNING SEMINAR

Please Reserve the Whole Day

 Coming Soon

Thursday,

April 20, 2023

Free from our Firm

(Virtual Session – No CLE/CPE Credits)

Kettering Health Network

Alan Gassman presents: 

TOPIC: PUTTING ASSET PROTECTION INTO AN ESTATE PLAN

12:00 PM to 12:30 PM EDT

(30 minutes)

 REGISTER HERE

Thursday,

May 18, 2023

Free from our Firm

(Virtual Session – No CLE/CPE Credits)

Kettering Health Network

Half or Full Day Event

Please Support this Important Program

3535 Southern Blvd. Kettering, OH 45429

 Coming Soon

November,

2023

 Birmingham, AL Estate Planning Council

Alan Gassman and Brandon Ketron present:

ESTATE TAX STRATEGIES, HOT TOPICS AND YEAR-END PLANNING — BETTER THAN BBQ, HOTTER THAN SUMMER

(100 minutes)

 Coming Soon

November,

2023

 Birmingham, AL Estate Planning Council

Alan Gassman and Brandon Ketron present:

ESTATE TAX STRATEGIES, HOT TOPICS AND YEAR-END PLANNING — BETTER THAN BBQ, HOTTER THAN SUMMER

(100 minutes)

 Coming Soon

Back to Top
 

 

YouTube Library

Visit Alan Gassman’s YouTube Channel for complimentary webinars and more!

The PowerPoint materials can be found in the description box located at the bottom of the YouTube recording.

Click here or on the image of the playlists below to go to Alan Gassman’s YouTube Library.

Back to Top
 

Tech Tip of the Month

 

Technical Tip #1

When emailing multiple PDF files, please combine them into one file.

    Please see the instructions below:

    1.    Open Adobe Acrobat.
    2.    Select “Tools.”
    3.    Select “Combine Files.”
    4.    Select “Add Files.”
    5.    Navigate to the PDF file that you would like to appear first.
    6.    You will be taken back to the Combine Files screen.
    7.    Select “Add Files” and repeat until you have added all files that you want to combine.    
    8.    Select “Combine” located in the upper right corner of screen.
    9.    Complete.

 

Technical Tip #2

Please reply all so that we do not have to reply all and add everyone who should have received your response.
 

Back to Top
 

 

Humor

 

 

TODAY-IN-HISTORY FACTS

Written By: Wesley Dickson, Esquire

  • Otto Frederick Rohwedder was born on this day in 1880. Mr. Rohwedder is known as the “Inventor of Sliced Bread”, as his automatic bread slicing machine was the first machine of its kind commercially produced and distributed. The first loaf of sliced bread was sold on July 7, 1928 (Otto’s 48th Birthday!)
  • I’ve Got a Feeling that many of you will have heard of this next celebrity: Though perhaps not as big of a star as Otto, Ringo Starr of The Beatles fame was born on July 7, 1940.
  • July 7 was a good day for independence, it would seem, as the Solomon Islands became independent from the U.K. on this day in 1978.
  • The Hawaiian Islands were annexed through a Joint Resolution signed by President McKinley on this day in 1898, which created the Territory of Hawaii. It wouldn’t be until 1959, almost 61 years after annexation.  
  • To “Top” it off with something legally-related: The New York Court of Appeals (confusingly a higher court than the New York Supreme Court) ruled on July 7, 1992 that women have the same right to be topless in public as men.

Now that the Thursday Report has passed go and get pickled!

 

Back to Top
 

 

Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A.

1245 Court Street

Clearwater, FL 33756

(727) 442-1200

Copyright © 2021 Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A

 

 

Unsubscribe here