The Thursday Report – May 16, 2013 – Avoiding Estate Tax, Special Clauses for Trust Agreements and The Most Important Changes to Florida Estate Planning Law in 2013





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

This report and other Thursday Reports can be found on our website at


I have a hunch that this attempt to prevent us from using the title is the brainchild of some ferret-faced shyster, serving a brief apprenticeship in your legal department.”

We can’t get enough of the Marx Brothers, in particular a letter that Groucho Marx wrote to Warner Brothers after they accused the Marx Brothers of using a film title that was too close to a film title released by Warner Brothers. In 1947, the Marx Brothers received a letter from Warner Brothers that threatened legal action because the Marx Brothers planned to film a movie called A Night in Casablanca.  Warner Brothers felt the title was too close to their own film, the 1942 blockbuster Casablanca, which was released nearly five years earlier.

With characteristic chutzpa, Groucho Marx sent the following letter to the studio giant’s legal department. Share this with your intellectual property oriented clients. It is extremely well written.

Dear Warner Brothers:

            Apparently there is more than one way of conquering a city and holding it as your own. For example, up to the time that we contemplated making this picture, I had no idea that the city of Casablanca belonged exclusively to Warner Brothers. However, it was only a few days after our announcement appeared that we received your long, ominous legal document warning us not to use the name Casablanca.

It seems that in 1471, Ferdinand Balboa Warner, your great-great-grandfather, while looking for a shortcut to the city of Burbank, had stumbled on the shores of Africa and, raising his alpenstock (which he later turned in for a hundred shares of common), named it Casablanca.

I just don’t understand your attitude. Even if you plan on releasing your picture, I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don’t know whether I could, but I certainly would like to try.

You claim that you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without permission. What about “Warner Brothers”? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about the name Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were. We were touring the sticks as the Marx Brothers when Vitaphone was still a gleam in the inventor’s eye, and even before there had been other brothers—the Smith Brothers; the Brothers Karamazov; Dan Brothers, an outfielder with Detroit; and “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?” (This was originally “Brothers, Can You Spare a Dime?” but this was spreading a dime pretty thin, so they threw out one brother, gave all the money to the other one, and whittled it down to “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?”)

Now Jack, how about you? Do you maintain that yours is an original name? Well it’s not. It was used long before you were born. Offhand, I can think of two Jacks—Jack of “Jack and the Beanstalk,” and Jack the Ripper, who cut quite a figure in his day.

As for you, Harry, you probably sign your checks sure in the belief that you are the first Harry of all time and that all other Harrys are impostors. I can think of two Harrys that preceded you. There was Lighthouse Harry of Revolutionary fame and a Harry Appelbaum who lived on the corner of 93rd Street and Lexington Avenue. Unfortunately, Appelbaum wasn’t too well-known. The last I heard of him, he was selling neckties at Weber and Heilbroner.

Now about the Burbank studio. I believe this is what you brothers call your place. Old man Burbank is gone. Perhaps you remember him. He was a great man in a garden. His wife often said Luther had ten green thumbs. What a witty woman she must have been! Burbank was the wizard who crossed all those fruits and vegetables until he had the poor plants in such confused and jittery condition that they could never decide whether to enter the dining room on the meat platter or the dessert dish.

This is pure conjecture, of course, but who knows—perhaps Burbank’s survivors aren’t too happy with the fact that a plant that grinds out pictures on a quota settled in their town, appropriated Burbank’s name and uses it as a front for their films. It is even possible that the Burbank family is prouder of the potato produced by the old man than they are of the fact that your studio emerged “Casablanca” or even “Gold Diggers of 1931.”

This all seems to add up to a pretty bitter tirade, but I assure you it’s not meant to. I love Warners. Some of my best friends are Warner Brothers. It is even possible that I am doing you an injustice and that you, yourselves, know nothing about this dog-in-the-Wanger attitude. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to discover that the heads of your legal department are unaware of this absurd dispute, for I am acquainted with many of them and they are fine fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits and a love of their fellow man that out-Saroyans Saroyan.

I have a hunch that this attempt to prevent us from using the title is the brainchild of some ferret-faced shyster, serving a brief apprenticeship in your legal department. I know the type well—hot out of law school, hungry for success, and too ambitious to follow the natural laws of promotion. This bar sinister probably needled your attorneys, most of whom are fine fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits, etc., into attempting to enjoin us. Well, he won’t get away with it! We’ll fight him to the highest court! No pasty-faced legal adventurer is going to cause bad blood between the Warners and the Marxes. We are all brothers under the skin, and we’ll remain friends till the last reel of “A Night in Casablanca” goes tumbling over the spool.


Groucho Marx

The legal department at Warner Brothers was not amused with Groucho’s letter and responded with a letter requesting that the Marx Brothers provide a description of their film. Groucho replied with a convoluted and ridiculous plot, even by the Marx Brothers’ typically ludicrous standards. Warner Brothers responded with an unamused letter that requested clarification on the plot. Groucho seized the opportunity and proceeded to draft an even more ridiculous version of A Night in Casablanca. In the end, it seems that Groucho and satire came out victorious, as Warner Brothers did not respond, and A Night in Casablanca was released in 1946.


            The Kite case has brought a three ring circus of new case law and implications for advisors along with it.  The case reminds us to be aware of the Step Transaction Doctrine.  Application of this doctrine could cause unintended results for advisors and their clients.

            In recognition of the importance of this case, The Thursday Report is preparing a special video summary of the case that will be available next week, featuring a soon to be well-known Broadway starlet (if you know any, please have them call us soon).

            The Step Transaction Doctrine is a judicially created doctrine which combines a series of seemingly independent steps into one, concentrating on the substance of a transaction rather than the actual form.

            As the surviving spouse of Mr. Kite, Mrs. Kite was the beneficiary of Q-TIP trusts.  In 1996, she contributed the assets of the Q-TIP trusts to the Baldwin Limited Partnership in exchange for limited partnership interests.  The Q-TIP trusts later sold the interests in the Baldwin Limited Partnership to her children in exchange for promissory notes.  Mrs. Kite was still the income beneficiary of the Q-TIP trusts, and therefore the trusts still continued to qualify as Q-TIP trusts.

            Later the Q-TIP trusts contributed these notes to a new partnership, the KIC (not to be confused with KFC) Partnership, in exchange for limited partner interests.  She continued to have a qualifying income interest in the Trusts’ assets and therefore the Trusts continued to qualify as Q-TIP trusts.

            On January 1, 2001, Mrs. Kite’s children became the trustees of the Q-TIP trusts.  On that same day, the Kite children terminated the Q-TIP trusts by distributing the Q-TIP trusts’ assets to Mrs. Kite’s revocable trust.  As a result, Mrs. Kite’s revocable trust owned the limited partner interests in the KIC Partnership.

            Two days later, Mrs. Kite’s revocable trust sold its entire interest in the partnership to the children under three private annuity agreements.  The private annuity agreements had a combined value of $10,605,278.  The first annuity payments were not due until ten years after the transaction, and would thereafter be made every year until Mrs. Kite’s death.

            In situations where a surviving spouse disposes of all or part of his or her qualifying income interest, Section 2519 will apply so that the spouse will be treated as having made a taxable gift equal to the value of the Q-TIP assets minus the income stream retained by the surviving spouse if any such interest is retained.  Treasury Regulation Section 25.2519-1(f) specifically provides that the sale of Q-TIP assets “followed by the payment to the donee spouse of a portion of the proceeds equal to the value of the donee spouse’s income interest, is considered a disposition of the qualifying income interest” and will trigger the application of Section 2519.

            The Court agreed with the IRS’ argument to apply the Step Transaction Doctrine to Mrs. Kite’s annuity transaction.  The Court found that the termination of the Q-TIP trusts and subsequent sale of assets in exchange for the annuity payment rights were part of a prearranged plan.  As a result, Mrs. Kite was treated as having disposed of her income interest in the Q-TIP trusts in exchange for the deferred annuity.

            It is significant that the Trustees of the Q-TIP trusts had the discretion to terminate the Q-TIP trusts.  However, the Court noted that the estate provided no evidence as to why the trusts were terminated.

            Instead the Court found that the estate was trying to avoid the application of Section 2519 by terminating the Q-TIP trusts and distributing the assets to Mrs. Kite individually, and then having Mrs. Kite sell her “individual assets” in exchange for the annuity.  If the Court had accepted the Kite’s planning, the application of Section 2519 would have been avoided and Mrs. Kite would not have owed any gift tax under Section 2519.

            Because Mrs. Kite received adequate and full consideration for her interests in the KIC Partnership which were sold by receiving the deferred annuities, the Court treated Mrs. Kite as having made a disposition of her qualifying income interest in the assets of the Q-TIP trusts.  Mrs. Kite owed gift tax under Section 2519 to the extent of the fair market value of the entire property subject to Mrs. Kite’s qualifying income interests less the value of her qualifying income interests, determined on the date of annuity transaction.  The Court noted that because Mrs. Kite received full and adequate consideration for her income interest she did not make a gift of the qualifying income interest under Section 2519.

            Mrs. Kite may have avoided the application of Section 2519 if she had waited longer than two days after receiving the Q-TIP assets and selling these assets in exchange for the private annuity.  Mrs. Kite might have also avoided the application of the Step Transaction Doctrine if she had been able to supply a business purpose or other legitimate reason why the assets of the Q-TIP trusts were distributed outright to her before she entered into the private annuity transaction.

Additional History

            Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite lyrics were inspired by a circus poster from the Victorian era that Lennon found in an antique shop.  Mr. Kite was a real circus acrobat; tightrope walking, horse-riding and all.

            Sergeant Pepper’s was the original concept album, with the Beatles shedding their mop-top identities and recording as a different band entirely.  They played with new tools, effects, and techniques.

            Speaking of new techniques, try the mashed potatoes right on top of the corn for a delicious layered effect!


This morning at The Florida Bar Annual Wealth Protection Seminar in Miami, FL, Alan S. Gassman offered his Using Estate Planning Techniques to Optimize Family Wealth Presentation. If you were not able to attend this seminar, consider buying the materials from The Florida Bar, which include a special appearance from Jerry Hesch to discuss the Kite case. We thank Professor Hesch for his thoughts on the case. If he had any rhythm, we would have him star alongside the unnamed starlet in our forthcoming video on the Kite case.

A significant portion of Alan’s presentation was about making sure that trusts are specifically tailored for each individual client’s needs. Below is an excerpt from Alan’s presentation about how to make sure to meet this goal. If you would like a copy of the complete PowerPoint presentation, please email Janine Ruggiero at

Not all trusts are created equal.

While the trust agreements that we typically prepare for clients have a number of clauses that give instructions to trustees on how and when to determine what income, support, and principal payments should be made to beneficiaries, different clients have different views and preferences.  Here is a list of questions and approaches that can be considered in trust design and implementation.

            1.         Whether to let the beneficiary of a particular trust have a voice as co-trustee or the ability to replace any acting trustee with a licensed trust company or other trustworthy trustee or advisor.

            2.         Whether to require that the beneficiary would have a prenuptial agreement or a post-nuptial agreement before being able to inherit from a trust or to receive any significant benefits or to have control.

            3.         Whether there should be a monthly or annual distribution amount guideline that would be presumed to be the maximum that a person should receive, the minimum that a person should receive, or a provision that gives a minimum and a maximum that can be changed with the Consumer Price Index.

            4.         Whether young beneficiaries should be required to finish a four year degree, a post-undergraduate degree, work full time, have a profession, or be a full time homemaker with children before being able to receive any significant benefits.

            5.         Whether a beneficiary should have an “incentive clause” where the trust would pay minimal benefits except to match W-2 or other professional or entrepreneurial earnings or pay an hourly rate based upon actual hours worked by the beneficiary in any notable endeavor.

            6.         Whether individuals who may have tendencies towards alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling problems, or other addictions should have separate guidelines and standards.

            7.         Whether any spouse or a long time spouse should have the ability to be:

                                                (a)       Added as a beneficiary after a certain number of years of consecutive marriage;

                                                (b)       To serve as a trustee for the benefit of descendants if that spouse will not be a beneficiary (or if he or she will).

            8.         Whether the beneficiary should have the power to appoint some portion of the assets upon death to a class of persons, or entities, which can include your descendants, or certain qualified charitable organizations.

            9.         Whether the beneficiary should have a power to appoint some portion of the assets upon death to a trust that could benefit the long term spouse and would then eventually be devised to the descendants upon his or her death, or upon his or her re-marriage.

            10.       Whether a beneficiary will be able to receive a percentage or other specified portion of the trust assets for use in business, or entrepreneurial endeavors if the Trustee deems appropriate.

            11.       Whether a Trust Protector Committee should be appointed, with the power to change the trust language or to direct the trustees as to certain matters or parameters.  This is also known as a “King Solomon Clause.”


            In addition to Florida’s revised LLC Act Bill, several other bills that have been enrolled and are on their way to Governor Rick Scott will likely impact Florida estate planners and their clients. In order to save you the time, we reviewed the Florida Senate’s 2013 Summary of Legislation Passed to find the bills that are most likely to affect estate planners. Below are the Senate summaries of the engrossed bills we found most important, including Florida’s Revised LLC Act. If you want to review the 347 page document yourself, click here for a copy of the PDF.  Here are the Senate summaries on four bills you need to know about:

1. Senate Bill 492 – This Bill revises Florida’s Probate Code. If approved by Governor Scott, the Bill will take effect October 1, 2013. Here are the major changes according to the Florida Senate:

  • Retroactively eliminating a requirement that an estate file a tax return for an estate tax when no tax is due.
  • Reducing from 5 years to 2 years the time period in which intangible property held in a trust is presumed to be unclaimed property and payable to the Department of Financial Services.
  • Providing that a caveator is not required to serve notice on his or herself when he or she submits a petition for administration of an estate.
  • Making void, with certain exceptions, any gift received by a lawyer, or a relative of the lawyer, from a written instrument that the lawyer prepared.
  • Requiring that a clerk of court, upon receipt of a will, keep the will in its original form for 20 years.
  • Expanding the long-arm jurisdiction of Florida courts to adjudicate trust disputes.
  • Removing conflicts between the Florida Statutes and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to forum non conveniens.
  • Requiring that a trustee provide a trust accounting to beneficiaries at least once a year.

 Click here for a complete copy of the bill.

2. House Bill 841 – This Bill revises Florida’s Power of Attorney law. If approved by Governor Scott, the Bill will take effect immediately upon becoming law. Here are the major changes according to the Florida Senate:

  • Make provisions of the Act which apply to financial institutions expressly applicable to broker-dealers.
  • Specify that the laws governing powers of attorney do not apply to a power given to a transfer agent to facilitate a specific transfer of a financial instrument, a power authorizing a financial institution or broker-dealer to act as agent for the account owner in executing transfers of financial assets or a delegation of powers by a trustee.
  • Allow a notary public to sign the principal’s name on a power of attorney document if the principal is physically unable to sign.
  • Allow a third party to require that an original power of attorney be provided for recording in official records if the power of attorney is relied on to transfer real property.
  • Allow an agent with a power of attorney to delegate authority to a third person using a prescribed government form if the delegation is for a governmental purpose.
  • Provide a standard for a court to award attorney fees in litigation involving a power of attorney.
  • Allow a third party to require that an agent provide an affidavit stating whether the agent’s authority has been terminated by the filing of an action for dissolution of marriage of the agent and principal.
  • Clarify when a rejection of a power of attorney by a third party must be in writing.
  • Clarify that the default cap in existing law on the amount of gifts that an agent may give under a power of attorney applies to gifts given in a single a calendar year.

 Click here for a complete copy of the bill.

 3. House Bill 229 – This Bill revises Florida’s Land Trust law. If approved by Governor Scott, the Bill will take effect immediately upon becoming law. Here are the major changes according to the Florida Senate:

  • Clarifies the distinction between a land trust governed by s. 689.071, F.S., and other trusts governed by the Florida Trust Code.
  • Defines a land trust based on the functional scope of the land trustee’s duties, although the power to manage or dispose of property remains an essential element of a Florida land trust.
  • Relocates provisions of s. 689.071, F.S., to a newly-created section, s. 689.073, F.S.
  • These provisions generally state that purchasers and others can rely on a land trustee’s authority over property as described in a recorded instrument. These provisions will remain equally applicable to any recorded instrument, created before or after the effective date of the bill, which conveys title to property and the power to manage or dispose of the property.
  • Codifies a number of land trust practices and principles commonly used in Florida and Illinois which are derived from judicial precedents or treatises on land trusts.

 Click here for a complete copy of the bill.

4. Senate Bill 492 – This Bill revises Florida’s LLC Act. If approved by Governor Scott, the Bill will take effect January 1, 2014. Here are the major changes according to the Florida Senate:

  • Imposes an obligation directly on the members or managers of an LLC, as applicable, to correct information in articles of organization that becomes inaccurate.
  • Expands the list of nonwaivable default rules that cannot be superseded by the operating agreement of an LLC.
  • Authorizes an LLC to file a statement of authority, which provides constructive notice as to who can bind the LLC.
  • Modifies provisions addressing the LLC’s management structure. It removes the concept of a “managing member” who is elected from among the existing members. An LLC that was managed by a “managing member” is now considered to be member managed and the former managing member is not entitled to compensation unless agreed upon in an operating agreement.
  • Requires the unanimous vote of the members to amend the operating agreement or the articles of organization of a member-managed LLC.
  • Allows a member of an LLC to dissociate at any time, rightfully or wrongfully, by withdrawing by “express will.” If a member dissociates, the member loses the right to participate in the LLC’s management. Additionally, the bill provides 14 new causes for dissociation of a member other than bankruptcy or insolvency of a member, which already exist in current law.
  • Provides specific procedures for service of process on an LLC, including the method of delivery and waiver of a right to notice given by the bill or the articles of organization or the operating agreement of the LLC.
  • Allows a member of an LLC to maintain a derivative action to enforce a right of the LLC when, within a reasonable time, an action is not instituted after a member or manager makes a demand. If the demand would be futile or irreparable injury would result to the LLC by waiting for the members or managers to bring the action, the bill authorizes the member to begin a derivative action.
  • Permits interest exchanges in another business entity and allows non-U.S. entities to become LLCs in this state while continuing its existence in the foreign jurisdiction.

 Click here for a complete copy of the bill.


Please Click here to view a chart of this month’s, last month’s, and the preceding month’s Applicable Federal Rates, because for a sale you can use the lowest of the 3.




  • Wednesday, October 16 to Friday, October 18, 2013. Professor Jerry Hesch’s Notre Dame Tax Institute will once again emphasize the importance of income tax planning and implications in addition to estate, estate tax, and related concepts.  The Institute is held in South Bend, Indiana each fall. This year the dates are Wednesday, October 16 to Friday, October 18, 2013.

 Book now to get your football tickets to the Notre Dame-USC game on October 19.

 We welcome questions, comments and suggestions for the presentation that we are assisting Jerry in preparing and presenting – Interesting Interest Questions, Planning with Low Interest Loans, Self-Cancelling Installment Notes, Private Annuities, Defective Grantor Trusts, and Similar Issues That Arise in a Low Interest Rate Environment.


  • WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2013 –Estate Trek – The Next Generation – If you have tried our software, or haven’t, you will want to join us for an upcoming webinar to show you what we have added to this software.

 Please join our beta testers and receive continuing education credit and to register for the webinar, please click here.

  • TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2013. Bloomberg/BNA Webinar: Valuable Planning for Snowbirds: Tips, Traps and Tactics for Advisors with Clients in Florida: Gassman Law Associates is happy to announce our upcoming webinar with BNA on May 28. You can register by clicking here.  Thursday Report Readers can use the top secret, very confidential promotional code “GASSMAN” to receive a $100 discount off the price of the webinar or the webinar and CD package. Please don’t tell anyone who attended Florida State University. Details for the webinar are as follows. We hope you can join us!

Most advisors with Florida clients are unaware of the myriad of unique rules and planning considerations that affect Florida estate, tax and business planning.   It is therefore vitally important for advisors to be aware of pertinent tricks and traps for the unwary.  Unlike some other states, Florida’s laws regarding limited liability companies, powers of attorney, taxation, homestead, creditor exemptions, trusts and estates, and documentary stamp taxes are not simply versions of a Uniform Act, and have been crafted by the Florida legislature to apply to various specific issues in an often counterintuitive manner.

BNA authors Alan S. Gassman and Christopher J. Denicolo have completed a 200 plus page easy to read outline with forms on major Florida law considerations and will they present the outline and PowerPoint slides to share techniques and opportunities, new practical ideas, and very useful client explanation charts, sample clauses, and checklists.

In 90 minutes, Gassman and Denicolo will cover:

  • Business and tax law anomalies and planning opportunities.
  • Creditor protection considerations and Florida’s statutory creditor exemptions.
  • Unique aspects of the Florida Trust and Probate Codes.
  • Florida medical practice rules and regulations.
  • Documentary stamp taxes, sales taxes, rent taxes, property taxes and how to avoid them.
  • Traps and tricks associated with Florida’s Homestead law, and Elective Share.
  • The new Florida Power of Attorney Act.
  • The current status of Florida charging order protection for limited partnerships and LLCs.

 Educational Objectives:

  • Become conversant with the primary rules, opportunities and limitations with respect to Florida creditor exemptions.
  • Discuss various key considerations with respect to the design and implementation of estate plans and Trusts in Florida.
  • Understand the scope and application of Florida’s tax system and primary tax avoidance techniques and issues.
  • Review unique aspects of Florida law, including its new Power of Attorney Act, Homestead laws, and medical practice rules and regulations.

 For details about each event, please visit us online at

Alan S. Gassman, J.D., LL.M. is a practicing lawyer and author based in Clearwater, Florida. Mr. Gassman is the founder of the firm Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A., which focuses on the representation of physicians, high net worth individuals, and business owners in estate planning, taxation, and business and personal matters.  He is the lead author on Bloomberg BNA’s Estate Tax Planning in 2011 and 2012, Creditor Protection for Florida Physicians, Gassman & Markham on Florida and Federal Asset Protection Law, A Practical Guide to Kickback and Self-Referral Laws for Florida Physicians, The Florida Physician Advertising Handbook, and The Florida Guide to Prescription, Controlled Substance and Pain Medicine Laws, among others.  Mr. Gassman is a frequent speaker for continuing education programs, publishes regularly for Bloomberg BNA Tax & Accounting, Estates and Trusts Magazine, Estate Planning Magazine and Leimberg Estate Planning Network (LISI).  He holds a law degree and a Masters of Law degree (LL.M.) in Taxation from the University of Florida, and a business degree from Rollins College.  Mr. Gassman is board certified by the Florida Bar Association in Estate Planning and Trust Law, and has the Accredited Estate Planner designation for the National Association of Estate Planners & Councils.  Mr. Gassman’s email is

Thomas J. Ellwanger, J.D., is a lawyer practicing at the Clearwater, Florida firm of Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A.  Mr. Ellwanger received his B.A. in 1970 from Northwestern University and his J.D. with honors in 1974 from the University of Florida College of Law.  His practice areas include estate planning, trust and estate administration, personal tax planning and charitable tax planning.  Mr. Ellwanger is a member of the American College of Trusts and Estates Counsel (ACTEC). His email address is

Christopher Denicolo, J.D., LL.M. is a partner at the Clearwater, Florida law firm of Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A., where he practices in the areas of estate tax and trust planning, taxation, physician representation, and corporate and business law.  He has co-authored several handbooks that have been featured in Bloomberg BNA Tax & Accounting, Steve Leimberg’s Estate Planning and Asset Protection Planning Newsletters, and the Florida Bar Journal. He is also the author of the Federal Income Taxation of the Business Entity Chapter of the Florida Bar’s Florida Small Business Practice, Seventh Edition. Mr. Denicolo received his B.A. and B.S. degrees from Florida State University, his J.D. from Stetson University College of Law, and his LL.M. (Estate Planning) from the University of Miami.  He, Alan Gassman and Kenneth Crotty are the co-authors of the BNA book Estate Tax Planning in 2011 & 2012. His email address is

Kenneth J. Crotty, J.D., LL.M., is a partner at the Clearwater, Florida law firm of Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A., where he practices in the areas of estate tax and trust planning, taxation, physician representation, and corporate and business law. Mr. Crotty has co-authored several handbooks that have been published in BNA Tax & Accounting, Estate Planning, Steve Leimberg’s Estate Planning and Asset Protection Planning Newsletters, Estate Planning magazine, and Practical Tax Strategies.  Mr. Crotty is also the author of the Limited Liability Company Chapter of the Florida Bar’s Florida Small Business Practice, Seventh Edition. He, Alan Gassman and Christopher Denicolo are the co-authors of the BNA book Estate Tax Planning in 2011 & 2012. His email address is

Thank you to our law clerks that assisted us in preparing this report:

Kacie Hohnadell is a third-year law student at Stetson University College of Law and is considering pursuing an LL.M. in taxation upon graduation. Kacie is also the Executive Editor of Stetson Law Review and is actively involved in Stetson’s chapter of the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund. In 2010, she received her B.A. from the University of Central Florida in Advertising and Public Relations with a minor in Marketing, and moved to St. Petersburg shortly after graduation to pursue her Juris Doctor. Her email address is

Eric Moody graduated from Stetson University College of Law in December 2012 and was recently admitted to the Florida Bar. While at Stetson, Eric was an Articles and Symposia Editor for the Stetson Law Review. In 2009, Eric received a B.S. in Business Management from the University of South Florida. Eric’s email address is