The Thursday Report 4.3.2014 – Two New Cases to Know About

Tax Court Clears the Way for Trustee Work to Satisfy the Passive Loss Rules

Everything You Need to Know About IRS Transcripts

University of Florida Dean Search – The Final Four Who Were Not Chosen

Insurance…look again! By Dr. Jack Barrett

Justice Roberts Leads the Supremes to Allow Any Individual to Donate $5,200 per Candidate to as Many Candidates as Desired

Humor!

We welcome contributions for future Thursday Report topics. If you are interested in making a contribution as a guest writer, please email Janine Gunyan at Janine@gassmanpa.com.

This report and other Thursday Reports can be found on our website at www.gassmanlaw.com.

Tax Court Clears the Way for Trustee Work to Satisfy the Passive Loss Rules

The Tax Court made the right decision in the March 27,2014 case of Frank Aragona Trust v. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Here is what others have said about the case:

Tax advisers have moved one step closer to a resolution of what constitutes material participation for trusts and estates with the U.S. Tax Court’s decision in the Frank Aragona Trust case, an opinion practitioners said will give them new ammunition in fighting the net investment income tax under Section 1411 (Frank Aragona Trust v. Commissioner, T.C., No. 15392-11, 142 T.C. No. 9, 2014 BL 85221, 3/27/14).

The Tax Court’s recent decision in Frank Aragona Trust v. Commissioner concludes that a trust can indeed “materially participate” in a real-property trade or business thus qualifying for the exception found in I.R.C. sec. 469(c)(7) to the per se classification of rental real-estate activities as a passive activity under sec. 469(2). Sec. 497(c)(7)(B) tests for both personal service and materiality.

Aragona Trust is likely to result in a flood of comments and articles (the first one noted is in Tax Notes Today, See Madara, Trust Material Participation Decision Will Significantly Affect NII Tax, TNT March 28, 2014) since it will also impact how Section 1411’s tax on passive investment income will apply to the income of trusts and will be helpful for trusts which have trustees who actually work in the businesses owned by the trusts (even through employment of affiliated entities it seems).

“This case offers a number of planning opportunities for trusts to maximize the benefits of business losses and to avoid the new net investment income tax.”

Many farm holdings have now been placed into trust for the benefit of children and grandchildren.  This decision would allow “farming operations” with enough material participation by trustees and employees to fully deduct those losses and not have any income subject to the new 3.8% net investment income tax.  However, for most farmland placed in a trust that is cash rented or crop shared, these losses would most likely still not be deductible and any income would be subject to the new 3.8% tax (once trust income exceeds about $13,000).

Although a victory for the taxpayer, it will primarily apply to those larger trusts with major farming or ranching activities.

Key language from the case is as follows:

This exception is applicable if more than one-half of the personal services performed in trades or businesses by the taxpayer are performed in real-property trades or businesses in which the taxpayer materially participates and if the taxpayer performs more than 750 hours of services during the year in real-property trades or businesses in which the taxpayer materially participates.

A trust is capable of performing personal services within the meaning of I.R.C. sec. 469(c)(7). Services performed by individual trustees on behalf of the trust may be considered personal services performed by the trust.

One of the six trustees was an independent trustee. The other five trustees were Frank Aragona’s five children, including Paul V. Aragona, the executive trustee.

Three of the children-Paul V. Aragona, Frank S. Aragona, and Annette Aragona Moran-worked full time for Holiday Enterprises, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company that is wholly owned by the Trust. Holiday Enterprises, LLC, is a disregarded entity for federal income tax purposes. Holiday Enterprises, LLC, managed most of the Trust’s rental real-estate properties. It employed several people in addition to Paul V. Aragona, Frank S. Aragona, and Annette Aragona Moran . . .

The Trust conducted some of its rental real-estate activities directly, some through wholly owned entities, and the rest through entities in which it owned majority interests and in which Paul V. and Frank S. Aragona owned minority interests. It conducted its real-estate holding and real-estate development operations through entities in which it owned majority or minority interests and in which Paul V. and Frank S. Aragona owned minority interests.

The table below summarizes the activities of the six trustees on behalf of the Trust during 2005 and 2006:

During the 2005 and 2006 tax years, the Trust incurred losses from its rental real-estate properties. The losses were reported on the Trust’s income-tax returns, Forms 1041, “U.S. Income Tax Return for Estates and Trusts” and on Schedules E, “Supplemental Income and Loss”, and were reflected on line 5.

In the notice of deficiency, the IRS determined that the Trust’s rental real-estate activities were passive activities, a determination that increased the passive-activity losses for 2005 and 2006.

The second test is met if the taxpayer performs more than 750 hours of “services” during the year in real-property trades or businesses in which the taxpayer materially participates. Sec. 469(c)(7)(B)(ii). Both tests must be met.

The requirements of section 469(c)(7)(B) can be met only by a taxpayer who materially participates in a real-property trade or business. This is because the one-half-of-personal-services test, the 750–hour test, and the special rule for closely held C corporations all presuppose that the taxpayer materially participates in real-property trades or businesses. Sec. 469(c)(7)(B)(i) and (ii); see sec. 469(c)(7)(D); see also sec. 1 .469–9(c)(3), Income Tax Regs.

Section 469(h) provides that for the purposes of section 469 a taxpayer is treated as materially participating in an activity only if the taxpayer is involved in the operation of the activity on a basis which is regular, continuous, and substantial.

Thus, a taxpayer is treated as materially participating in real-property trades or businesses if the taxpayer is involved in the operation of real-property trades or businesses on a basis which is regular, continuous, and substantial.

For the section 469(c)(7) exception to apply, there must be “personal services performed * * * by the taxpayer”. Sec. 469(c)(7)(B)(i). Because “[p]ersonal services” are defined by regulation as “work performed by an individual in connection with a trade or business”, the IRS contends that a trust cannot perform personal services. See sec. 1.469–9(b)(4), Income Tax Regs. Therefore, the IRS contends, a trust cannot qualify for the section 469(c)(7) exception.

The IRS argues that a trust is incapable of performing “personal services” because the regulation defines “personal services” to mean “any work performed by an individual in connection with a trade or business”. Sec. 1.469–9(b)(4), Income Tax Regs. We reject the IRS’s argument. A trust is an arrangement whereby trustees manage assets for the trust’s beneficiaries.

Indeed, if Congress had wanted to exclude trusts from the section 469(c)(7) exception, it could have done so explicitly by limiting the exception to “any natural person”. In section 469(i), the Internal Revenue Code does exactly that. Section 469(i) grants a $25,000 allowance to “any natural person” who fulfills certain requirements. That Congress did not use the phrase “natural person” but instead used the word “taxpayer” in section 469(c)(7) suggests that Congress did not intend to exclude trusts from the section 469(c)(7) exception, despite what the IRS argues here.

The IRS’s fallback position is that even if some trusts can qualify for the section 469(c)(7) exception, the trust does not qualify because it did not materially participate in real-property trades or businesses. The IRS concedes that the Trust’s real-estate operations qualify as real property trades or businesses. Therefore the question to be resolved is whether the Trust materially participated in its real-estate operations. We hold that it did so.

Section 469(h) supplies the definition of what it means to materially participate in an activity. By that definition, a taxpayer is treated as materially participating in an activity only if the taxpayer is involved in the operations of the activity on a basis which is regular, continuous, and substantial. Sec. 469(h). Interpreting section 469(h), the Department of the Treasury has promulgated regulations for determining whether taxpayers who are individuals materially participate in an activity. See sec. 1.469–5T(a), (b), (c), and (d), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 53 Fed.Reg. 5725 (Feb. 25, 1988)

The statute does not provide a method for determining how a trust may materially participate in an activity, and no regulations have yet been promulgated for taxpayers that are trusts. See sec. 1.469–5T(g), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 53 Fed.Reg. 5727 (Feb. 25, 1988) (reserving a place for a regulation to be titled “Material participation of trusts and estates”). Therefore, we must make the determination of whether a trust materially participates in an activity in the absence of regulatory guidance.

Considering the activities of all six trustees in their roles as trustees and as employees of Holiday Enterprises, LLC, the Trust materially participated in its real-estate operations. Three of the trustees participated in the Trust’s real-estate operations full time. The Trust’s real-estate operations were substantial. The Trust had practically no other types of operations. The trustees handled practically no other businesses on behalf of the Trust. The IRS argues that because Paul V. Aragona and Frank S. Aragona had minority ownership interests in all of the entities through which the Trust operated real-estate holding and real-estate development projects and because they had minority interests in some of the entities through which the Trust operated its rental real-estate business, some of these two trustees’ efforts in managing the jointly held entities are attributable to their personal portions of the businesses, not the Trust’s portion. Despite two of the trustees’ holding ownership interests, we are convinced that the Trust materially participated in the Trust’s real-estate operations. First, Frank S. and Paul V. Aragona’s combined ownership interest in each entity was not a majority interest-for no entity did their combined ownership interest exceed 50%. Second, Frank S. and Paul V. Aragona’s combined ownership interest in each entity was never greater than the trust’s ownership interest. Third, Frank S. and Paul V. Aragona’s interests as owners were generally compatible with the Trust’s goals—they and the Trust wanted the jointly held enterprises to succeed. Fourth, Frank S. and Paul V. Aragona were involved in managing the day-to-day operations of the Trust’s various real-estate businesses.

We hold that the Trust materially participated in real-property trades or businesses. For a taxpayer who has materially participated in real-property trades or businesses, the next steps in ascertaining whether the taxpayer benefits from the section 469(c)(7) exception are (1) to determine whether more than one-half of the personal services performed in trades or businesses by the taxpayer during the year are performed in real-property trades or businesses, and (2) to determine whether the taxpayer performed more than 750 hours of services during the year in the real-property trades or businesses. As to whether the Trust qualifies for the section 469(c)(7) exception, however, the IRS has limited its arguments to the two arguments discussed above, namely (1) that trusts are categorically barred from qualifying under the section 469(c)(7) exception, and (2) that the Trust did not materially participate in real-property trades or businesses. In the context of the arguments raised in this case, therefore, we hold the Trust meets the section 469(c)(7) exception for the years at issue.

Once it is determined that the Trust qualifies under the section 469(c)(7) exception, and that therefore the Trust’s rental real-estate activities are not per se passive activities, a theoretical next step is to determine whether the Trust materially participated in its rental real-estate activities. If the Trust materially participated in its rental real-estate activities, then its rental real-estate activities are not passive activities. If the Trust did not materially participate in its rental real-estate activities, then its rental real-estate activities are passive activities.17 The IRS argues only that the Trust is not excepted by section 469(c)(7). It does not argue that-in the event that we determine that the Trust is excepted by section 469(c)(7)—the Trust did not materially participate in its rental real-estate activities. We hold that, in the context of the arguments presented in this case, the Trust’s rental real-estate activities are not passive activities.

Everything You Need to Know About IRS Transcripts

It is now relatively easy to get a comprehensive IRS transcript to show past tax payments, taxes due, and historical tax return history.

What is an IRS Transcript?

These can now be used to help assure that there has not been an identity theft or fraudulent tax refund filed for a client, and can also be used to verify the taxpayer’s income and tax filing status for various purposes.  The IRS provides these transcripts free of charge to individuals.

Many individuals may be hesitant to request their tax information due to assuming that it may create a flag on the account and trigger an audit.  We do not believe that there is any correlation between the chances of being audited and whether someone has requested their tax information.  Taxpayers who request their information are probably more likely to be compliant than the average taxpayer.

Different Types of Transcripts

There are 5 different types of transcripts that an individual can obtain.  These are as follows:

1. Tax Return Transcript – Displays the majority of the line items from your originally filed tax returns as well as any accompanying forms and/or schedules, however, this transcript does not show any changes made by the taxpayer or the IRS.

2. Tax Account Transcript – Shows any adjustments made by the taxpayer or the IRS after the tax return was filed.

3. Record of Account Transcript – Combines the information provided in the tax return and tax account transcripts.

4. Wage and Income Transcript – Displays information and data from your returns, including, but not limited to, W-2s, 1099s, 1098s, and other forms that were submitted to the IRS.

5. Verification of Non-Filing Letter – Proof from the IRS that you did not file a return for the requested year; only available after June 15th.

How to Get Your Transcript?

Transcripts can be received by mail or online.  Online is preferred because it allows you to view and print the transcript immediately, and eliminates the chances that someone from the post office or who receives your mail will obtain a copy.

The mail order transcript reportedly arrives between 5 to 7 business days after the IRS receives the request.

A third party or representative can request a transcript on behalf of an individual taxpayer, but in order to do so a Form 4506-T must be filed with the IRS.

When requesting a copy of your transcript online, you may view and print the transcript immediately. The online method allows you to choose among a tax return, tax account, record of account, wage and income transcripts or a Verification of Non-filing letter.

Step-by-Step Instructions for Getting Your IRS Transcript are as follows:

1) Go to www.irs.gov

2) Under Tools, Click “Get Transcript of Your Tax Records

3) Choose whether you want to receive your transcripts via the online method or via mail

4) If you choose the online method, your screen will look as follows. You will need to create an account if this is your first time requesting a transcript online. Proceed to follow the on-screen instructions and enter the proper information.

5) If you choose the mail method, your screen will look as follows and proceed to follow the on-screen instructions and enter the proper information.

University of Florida Dean Search – The Final Four Who Were Not Chosen

Many University of Florida alumni and others are aware of the recent new Law School Dean search, and the resulting appointment of an Interim Dean.  Apparently, none of the final four candidates were acceptable.  Most tax lawyers are very disappointed that Professor Sam Donaldson of George State University, who is a University of Florida LLM graduate and a very well known and respected speaker and author was not chosen.  He would have been a fantastic leader for the law school in our opinion.

If you are reading about what happened here you may find the following summary of the final four candidates to be of interest:

David A. Brennen:

David A. Brennen has been the Dean of the University of Kentucky College of Law since 2009 and a professor of the University since 2006. Brennen has close to 20 years of experience in the classroom and has taught at Florida A&M University, Syracuse University College of Law, the University of Richmond School of law, Mercer University School of Law and University of Georgia. Brennen received his law degree from the University of Florida in 1991 and also received his LL.M. in tax law from there. Brennen has published many books including Race and Equality Across the Law School Curriculum: The Law of Tax Exemption and he has published many articles.[1]

David Huebner:

David Huebner was the former United States Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa. He was the first openly gay ambassador in the Obama administration. He has been celebrated as a very successful Ambassador. Before his career as Ambassador he was an international lawyer in Los Angeles, Shanghai, and New York. He graduated from Yale law school in 1986. He taught international law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law from 1999-2007. [2]  His Wikipedia biography is very interesting.

Alex Acosta:

Alex Acosta is the Dean of Florida International University College of Law. He received his law degree from Harvard Law School. He was a member of the National Labor Relations Board as well as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Acosta has been named one of the 50 most influential Hispanics in the nation by Hispanic Business Magazine twice.[3]  His Wikipedia biography is very interesting.

Sam Donaldson:

Samual A. Donaldson is a law professor at Georgia State University College of Law. He received his law degree from the University of Arizona College of Law in 1993 and has an LL.M. in tax from the University of Florida. He was a professor at the University of Washington and was an associate dean for academic administration from 2010-2012.[4]   He also prepares crossword puzzles for the New York Times and other publications.

When you enjoy the Final Four on Monday night remember that there is not always a winner.

The Gainesville Sun and The Ocala Star Banner have some interesting articles with respect to this.

Insurance…look again!

By Dr. Jack Barrett

 

Dr. John P. Barrett, a retired but very active Tampa Bay orthopedic surgeon, is an internationally known innovator, investor, philanthropist and serial entrepreneur. Dr. Barrett’s passion for investment management and research inspired him to create Successful Portfolios. Dr. Barrett can be reached via email at jpbmd@aol.com

All of us insure our automobile.  Because it’s the law.  All of us insure our home. The mortgage holder demands it.  And then there is health insurance. You will have to pay a fine in 2014 if you don’t. The federal government is getting serious. Life insurance is currently a hot topic in the Thursday report. Where are you going to buy the insurance?  So there you have it in a nutshell. Auto, home, health and life, the four horsemen of the insurance industry. But wait a minute, there is another asset that needs insuring. Auto, home, health and life alone don’t cover all the bases.  A large part of your financial well being has been left out in the cold without a coat.

You have probably guessed it by now….Your stock portfolio. This discussion is limited to stocks. There are some techniques for bonds but not today…  Looking at the bright side. In 2013, you didn’t wreck your auto, get sick and go to the hospital, your house didn’t burn down and you didn’t die. All of your insurance expired worthless. But you didn’t have to pay any deductibles either. Your out of pocket cost was only $15,000. But you’re so happy, you bought a bucket of Kentucky fried chicken for all your neighbors on New Year’s eve.

Dial back to the bear market of 2008. Your $2,000,000 IRA was cut in half (if it was all in stocks). That wasn’t a good idea anyway. Here is where it really gets interesting. Assume all your stocks were in the S&P 500(America’s largest companies). Your clever advisor alerted you to the head and shoulders top in late 2007 and advised you to buy a PUT option on the SPY. You were too busy writing an estate plan for your favorite client and dillydallied for a month. The market only lost 5% so your portfolio was worth $1,900,000. You call clever advisor and agree to buy the PUT insurance with no deductible. At the end of the bear market in April 2009 your IRA is worth $1,900,000. Four years go by, the bull market roars ahead and your IRA is worth almost $4,000,000. Your friends wish they knew how to insure their portfolios. The example is a bit of a fantasy.

We didn’t cover the specifics of option, PUT options, bonds or other techniques such as stops. The KISS system wins a bucket of Kentucky fried chicken.

Justice Roberts Leads the Supremes to Allow Any Individual to Donate $5,200 per Candidate to as Many Candidates as Desired

The U.S. Supreme Court removed limits on the amount of contributions a single person can give to candidates and party campaigns. The issue was the law that limited someone donating no more than $48,600 to federal candidates, and $74,600 to a committee in a 2 year election cycle.[5]

The 5-4 ruling kept the $5,200 limit for any single candidate but removed the limit on the total amount people can donate to different campaigns in a season. Chief Justice Roberts stated that the total limits on contributions “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise the most fundamental First Amendment activities.” Buckley, 424 U. S., at 14.”[6]   There has been support from people in the political arena for the Supreme Court’s holding:

‘What I think this means is that freedom of speech is being upheld,’ said House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). ‘You all have the freedom to write what you want to write, donors ought to have the freedom to give what they want to give.’[7]

‘The Supreme Court has once again reminded Congress that Americans have a Constitutional First Amendment right to speak and associate with political candidates and parties of their choice,’ said Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.[8]

The dissent felt the majority’s holding “creates huge loopholes in the law; and that undermines, perhaps devastates, what remains of campaign finance reform.”[9]   Supporters of the original cap agreed:

‘The Supreme Court majority continued on its march to destroy the nation’s campaign finance laws, which were enacted to prevent corruption and protect the integrity of our democracy,’ said Democracy 21 president Fred Wertheimer, a longtime advocate for election money reforms. ‘The court re-created the system of legalized bribery today that existed during the Watergate days.’[10]

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who last decade co-authored a sweeping law that put in place strict campaign finance limits, said ‘I am concerned that today’s ruling may represent the latest step in an effort by a majority of the Court to dismantle entirely the longstanding structure of campaign finance law erected to limit the undue influence of special interests on American politics.’[11]

As a result of the above we will be seeing more television commercials, more billboards, more campaign events and hopefully more information going to the American public in the upcoming elections.

Hats off to all elected officials and those who would like to be elected. 

Humor (Or Lack Thereof!)

LEGAL AFTERMATH OF FAMOUS MOVIES:

“Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”

Occupational Safety and Health shut down the chocolate factory and police arrested the proprietor, Mr. Wonka, for negligence in not preventing fatal bubble gum accidents and bear attacks.  Officials from the Labor Department freed his tiny imprisoned orange workers, however, the so-called “Ooompa Loompas” were unable to assimilate into society.  A few days after their liberation they were found in diabetic comas under a bridge after trying to satisfy their sugar addiction by eating chocolate chip cake and cookies from the delectable dessert menu at a local Kentucky Fried Chicken. Federal authorities who questioned how this operation was allowed to continue for so long eventually indicted the town’s mayor, Winky Wonka, and the police chief, Wimpy Wonka. Both are being held without bail in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

ATTORNEYS AND CPA’S TRAPPED ON CARNIVAL CRUSIE LINE FOR TAX SEMINAR RECOUNT FASCINATING TALES OF SURVIVAL:

“After the seminar, we discovered we had been drifting for three days and the crew had abandoned ship. The break out meetings on Carried Interest and Mitigation of the Statute of Limitations were so fascinating we never noticed.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

THE BALCONY SCENE IF ROMEO AND JULIET WERE ATTORNEYS

JULIET: Deny thy father, and refuse thy name, and petition in chancery court for a name change, and file before the office of vital statistics.

ROMEO: My name, dear saint, is hateful to myself, because it is an enemy to thee.  I will therefore show that my petition is filed for no ulterior or illegal purpose and granting it will not in any manner invade the property rights of others, according to Title VI, Chapter 68.07 (j).

JULIET: How camest thou hither, tell me, and wherefore? The orchard walls are high and hard to climb, and a person who, without being authorized, licensed or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property violates Title XLVI, Chapter 810.09 and the place death, if any of my kinsmen find thee here. Does thou love me? I know thou wilt say ‘Aye’, thou may prove false, at lover’s perjuries, they say, ‘Jove Laughs’.

ROMEO: Lady, by the blessed moon, I swear

JULIET: O, swear not by the moon, the inconstant moon.

ROMEO, Then I call the judge from “Merchant of Venice” and a stenographer.

JUDGE AND STENOGRAPHER: Hello.

ROMEO: Who will now depose me, under rule 1.310 of the rules of civil procedure, recording my oath or affirmation taken or administered before an officer authorized under s. 92.50, knowing that the penalty for perjury, under s775.082, s775.083 or s775.084 may result in imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of $1,000 dollars, or both, since this is not a legal proceeding for a capital felony.

JUDGE: Ready, my lady?

(JULIET HAS FALLEN ASLEEP)

Upcoming Seminars and Webinars

LUNCH TALK – LAW PRACTICE EFFICIENCY TIPS

Learn 30 efficiency techniques in 30 minutes – use any 3 and save hours between now and year end!

Date: Monday, April 7, 2014 | 12:30 p.m. (30 minutes)

Location: Online webinar

Speaker: Alan S. Gassman

Additional Information: To register for this webinar please visit www.clearwaterbar.org

****************************************************

LEGAL COMPLIANCE FOR MEDICAL PRACTICES THAT USE NURSE PRACTITIONERS AND PRACTICE EXTENDERS

Date: Thursday, April 10, 2014 | 5:00 p.m. (30 Minutes)

Location: Online webinar

Speakers: Cynthia Mikos, Esq. and Alan S. Gassman, Esq.

Cynthia Mikos is an excellent speaker and Tampa healthcare lawyer with a nursing background.  Join her fan club by attending this informative webinar.  Her materials are excellent.

Additional Information: To register for this webinar please click here. [LINK: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/869219714]

****************************************************

FIND OUT WHAT JERRY HESCH’S LATEST THINKING IS ON SELF-CANCELLING INSTALLMENT NOTES, THE KITE CASE, PRIVATE ANNUITIES, AND TRIUMPH SPIT-FIRES

Date: Monday, April 14, 2014 | 12:30 p.m. (30 Minutes)

Location: Online webinar

Speakers: Jerry Hesch and Alan S. Gassman

Additional Information: To register for this webinar please click here. [LINK:  https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/437023986]

****************************************************

FICPA SUNCOAST CHAPTER MONTHLY MEETING

Alan S. Gassman will be speaking at the FICPA Suncoast Chapter’s monthly meeting on PLANNING WITH PHYSICIANS AND MEDICAL PRACTICES

Date: Thursday, April 17, 2014 | 4:00 p.m.

Location: Tampa, Florida

Additional Information: For more information on this event please email agassman@gassmanpa.com or mary@clawsonasplus.com

******************************************************

DONOR LUNCHEON AT RUTH ECKERD HALL WITH PROFESSOR JERRY HESCH IN CLEARWATER, FLORIDA

Sponsored by Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A.

Professor Jerry Hesch and 29 time nominee and Broadway show producer Zev Buffman will be speaking at a Donor Luncheon on the topic of CHARITABLE TAX SAVINGS: HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT UNCLE SAM CONTRIBUTES HIS SHARE TO MAXIMIZE RESULTS.

Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 | 12:00 p.m.

Location: Ruth Eckerd Hall, Clearwater, Florida

Additional Information: For additional information please contact Suzanne Ruley at sruley@rutheckerd.net or Alan Gassman at agassman@gassmanpa.com

******************************************************

RUTH ECKERD HALL PLANNED GIVING MEETING

Professor Jerry Hesch will be speaking at the Ruth Eckerd Hall Planned Giving Meeting in Clearwater, Florida on the topic of INNOVATIVE CHARITABLE GIVING TECHNIQUES FOR THE WELL TUNED ESTATE PLANNER

Sponsored by Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A.

Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 | 4:00 p.m.

Location: Ruth Eckerd Hall, Clearwater, Florida

Additional Information: This session qualifies for 1 hour of continuing education credit for lawyers and CPA’s.  To attend please email Suzanne Ruley at sruley@rutheckerd.net or Alan Gassman at agassman@gassmanpa.com

******************************************************

1^st ANNUAL ESTATE PLANNER’S DAY AT AVE MARIA SCHOOL OF LAW

Speakers: Speakers will include Professor Jerry Hesch, Jonathan Gopman, Alan Gassman and others.

Alan Gassman will cover Using Estate Planning Techniques to Optimize Family Wealth Preservation.

Date: April 25, 2014

Location: Ave Maria School of Law, Naples, Florida

Sponsors:AveMariaSchool of Law, Collier County Estate Planning Council and more to be announced.

Additional Information: For more information on this event please contact visit http://www.avemarialaw.edu/estateplanning/Index.aspx

******************************************************

WHAT LAWYERS AND TAX ADVISORS NEED TO KNOW WHEN PLANNING FOR SAME SEX COUPLES – UNUSUAL RULES, STRATEGIES, CHECKLISTS AND TRAPS FOR THE UNWARY

Speakers: Alan S. Gassman, Professors Jason Palmer and Rebecca Morgan from Stetson University, Jessica Lillesand of Wells Fargo and Rob Webster, Esq.

The speakers will present a comprehensive discussion of practical and technical items that need to be considered when representing same gender couples, with rubber meets the road strategies, partner agreement provisions, and discussion by experts of planning techniques and traps for the unwary.  This presentation goes well beyond the common discussion of constitutional rights and social considerations to provide practitioners with what they need to know to represent same gender couples and their families.”

Date: Monday, April 28, 2014 | 12:30 – 2:00 p.m.

Location: Bloomberg BNA Tax & Accounting Online webinar

Additional Information:  To register for the webinar please click here [LINK: http://www.bna.com/lawyers-tax-advisors-w17179889147/]  You can use discount code

******************************************************

THE FLORIDA BAR ANNUAL WEALTH PROTECTION SEMINAR (with 2 hours of Ethics CLE credit)

I think that we have hit the ball well out of the ballpark for the May 8, 2014 Annual Wealth Protection Seminar.

Please check out the schedule below and come and see us.

We are particularly looking forward to the ethical panel discussion that will include reviewing important components for fee agreements, conflict of interest rules, liability avoidance for professionals, and comprehensive practice checklists.

Date: Thursday, May 8, 2014

Speakers and Agenda:

8:30 a.m. B 9:00 a.m. – How I ask Questions and Obtain the Right Documents and Information to Develop a Client=s Asset Protection Profile. 

Speaker: Denis Kleinfeld, Esq.

9:00 a.m. B 9:40 a.m. – How I Structure an Integrated Income, Estate Tax, and Asset Protection Family Plan. 

Speaker: Alan S. Gassman, Esq.

9:40 a.m. B 10:30 a.m. – The New Designer Entities B How to Use These Cutting Edge Tools to Protect Wealth.

Speaker: Howard Fisher, Esq. and Alex Fisher, Esq.

10:30 a.m. B 10:45 a.m.  Break (Mingle and Exchange Cards)

10:45 a.m. B 11:30 a.m. – What the Last Two Years of Legal Developments and Litigation Tells Us About Protective Planning With Trust and Associated Entities

Speaker: Barry Engel, Esq.

11:30 a.m. B 12:15 p.m. – What The Case Law Tells Me About Charging Orders and Declaratory Judgments.

Speaker: Jay Adkisson, Esq.

12:15 p.m. B 1:00 p.m. Lunch (Box Lunch) – Income and Estate Tax Issues For 2014 B Q & A.

Speaker: Jerry Hesch, Esq.

1:00 p.m. B 2:30 p.m. – What We Think You Need to Know About Asset Protection Litigation and Obtaining A Good Result For the Client.

Speakers: Jay Adkisson, Howard Fisher, Alex Fisher and Denis Kleinfeld.

2:30 p.m. B 2:45 p.m.  Break

2:45 p.m. B 4:15 p.m. – What are the Ethical, Legal and Administrative Liability Exposures in Wealth Protection Planning and How Do We Protect Ourselves.

Speakers: Barry Engel, Alan Gassman, Jerry Hesch, and Denis Kleinfeld.

4:15 p.m. B 5:00 p.m. – Open Forum Q & A

Speakers: Barry Engel, Jay Adkisson, Howard Fisher, Jerry Hesch, Alan Gassman and Denis Kleinfeld.

Location: Hyatt Regency Downtown, Miami, Florida

Additional Information: For more information please contact agassman@gassmanpa.com

******************************************************

THE JOINT EXEMPT STEP-UP TRUST and ANOTHER TOPIC TO BE DETERMINED

Alan Gassman will be speaking at the Ohio Conference on Wealth Transfer on The Joint Exempt Step-Up Trust as well as participating in a panel discussion the evening before in Columbus, Ohio.

Date: June 4, 2014

Location: Hilton at Easton, Columbus, Ohio

Additional Information:  For more information on the conference and to register for the conference please contact agassman@gassmanpa.com

********************************************************

HIRING AND TERMINATING EMPLOYEES; WHAT TO DO, WHAT TO AVOID

Speaker: Colleen Flynn, Esq., Dr. Stephanie Thomason and Alan S. Gassman, Esq.

Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 | 2:00 – 3:00 p.m.

Location: Bloomberg BNA Tax & Accounting Online webinar

Additional Information:  For more information, to register and a discount code please email agassman@gassmanpa.com

********************************************************

40^th ANNUAL NOTRE DAME TAX & ESTATE PLANNING INSTITUTE

Please send us your questions, comments and suggestions for Alan Gassman’s talk on Planning with Variable Annuities.  He will also discuss how to spreadsheet and illustrate mutual fund characteristics, variable life insurance policies, whole life policies, and how other products work in the taxable and non-taxable world, and how to evaluate whether real savings occur from tax deferral.

Date: November 13 and 14, 2014

Location: Century Center, South Bend, Indiana

We welcome questions, comments and suggestions on variable annuities, which will be Alan Gassman’s topic for this conference.

Additional Information: The focus of this year’s institute will be on “Business Succession Planning: An Income Tax, Estate Tax and Financial Analysis.”  As in past years, several sessions are designed to evaluate certain financial products and tax planning techniques so that the audience can better understand and evaluate these proposals in determining not only the tax and financial advantages they offer, but also evaluate limitations and problems they may cause in the future.  Given that fewer clients will need high-end estate tax planning with the $5 million exemptions, other sessions will address concerns that all clients have.  For example, a session will describe scams that target elderly individuals and how to protect the elderly from these scams.  As part of the objective on refreshing or introducing the audience to areas that can expand their practice, other sessions will review the income tax consequences of debt cancellation, foreclosures, short sales, the special concerns that arise in bankruptcy and various planning available to eliminate the cancellation of debt income or at least defer it with a possible step-up basis at death.  The Institute will also continue to have sessions devoted to income tax planning techniques that clients can use immediately instead of waiting to save estate taxes far in the future.

Applicable Federal Rates

Below we have this month, last month’s, and the preceding month’s Applicable Federal Rates, because for a sale you can use the lowest of the 3.

The 7520 rate for April is 2.2% and for March was 2.2%