December 20, 2012 – End of the Year Considerations
END OF THE YEAR CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The world is not ending today.
2. Can Clients Use Promissory Note Gifts to Take Advantage of the Current $5,120,000 Exemption?
3. Irrevocable Defective Grantor Trusts: Appropriate Funding Amounts and Potential Tax Implications of Toggling
4. How to Get Your Free Copy of Our BNA Estate and Gift Tax Quarterly Article on Florida Law for Estate and Financial Planners and Non-Florida Lawyers
5. January’s AFRs Released – An Updated Three Month Chart
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 Janine@gassmanpa.com
This report and other Thursday Reports can be found on our website at: www.gassmanlaw.com
END OF THE YEAR CONSIDERATIONS
As the end of the year approaches, a few recent topics have piqued our interest:
1. Can a client make a gift of a promissory note owed by the client to the donee or a trust established for the client’s family?
2. How much is too much as far as funding an irrevocable trust that is disregarded for income tax purposes?
As we approach the edge of the fiscal cliff we have seen these two topics spiritedly debated in Steve Liemberg’s Leimberg Information Services newsletters. We thought that we would weigh in with our opinions on the topics. Below are our letters on each topic.
The world is not ending today, so all those deadlines still need to be met!
But a box of Oreo’s may help!
Can Clients Use Promissory Note Gifts to Take Advantage of the Current $5,120,000 Exemption?
Estate tax authorities, Professor Jeffrey Pennell of Emory University and Jeff Baskies of Katz Baskies, LLC, have written two Leimberg Information Services newsletters in the past six weeks indicating that when a person gives a promissory note as a gift, the technical language of the Internal Revenue Code may not allow the note to be considered a liability on death that would reduce the size of the client’s estate for estate tax purposes.
Another possible issue is whether there is good and valuable consideration for the note to be enforceable.
Our Leimberg Information Services newsletter will be released very soon on this, and reads as follows:
The Subscription Note Capitalized Multiple Member LLC Gifting Structure – Whether a Promissory Note Can Be Gifted
Promissory notes have been around for ages, and constitute a valuable asset that can be gifted to third parties. As we approach the end of 2012, many clients have not yet decided what to gift to make use of their $5,120,000 exemption, so many clients are considering a promissory note payable to an irrevocable trust for the family and having it secured by mortgages and/or collateralization of ownership of private investments. A general UCC-1 security interest can also be given.
When a client has significant assets and net worth, and likes to use and control those assets without being accountable to the Trustee of an independent irrevocable trust, it can certainly make sense to keep ownership and control of the assets, while gifting an economic right that can be easy to value and to keep track of.
If the note bears interest at the government-issued applicable federal rate (which for December 2012 would be 0.24% for a note less than 3 years, 0.95% for a note for 3 years and up to 9 years, and 2.4% for a note exceeding 9 years), then the interest obligation would make this a legitimate arrangement. We believe that the interest should be paid at least annually in these situations.
If the promissory note is not repaid before the donor dies, the donor’s estate does not get a deduction on the donor’s estate tax return for the amount of the note under § 2053 because the donor received no consideration for the note. This is a very unjust result and may be ameliorated by reversing out the gift that took place.
Donors who are concerned that the “Gift-by-Promise” strategy may not work should consider having the note payable to an LLC or LLLP, and having family members or trusts contribute additional assets for a pro rata interest. The donor would receive consideration for the note by receiving the interest in the entity. The donor could then gift the ownership of the entity taking advantage of the increased gift exemption. If the note was not repaid before the donor’s death and the “Gift-by-Promise” strategy did not work, the donor’s estate should be able to claim a deduction on the donor’s estate tax return under § 2053 because the donor received consideration for the note.
This strategy is supported by the recent publication of the Estate Planning Newsletter #2001, that was written by Austin Bramwell and Lisi Mullen titled “Bramwell and Mullen: Donative Promise Can Use Up Gift Tax Exemption.” Their conclusion is that if an individual promises to make gifts to donees in the future, and the promise is designed so that it is legally enforceable under local law but is not in exchange for consideration in money or money’s worth, then the client will be treated as having made a taxable gift for federal gift tax purposes when the promise is made, rather than when the gift is actually paid. For this strategy to work, the authors noted that the promise must be enforceable under local law. If the promise is not enforceable, then no taxable gift will occur when the promise is made, instead the taxable gifts will be made when the gift is actually paid. The above arrangement seemed to be the best way to handle initial decision making to complete a gift in 2012, (with plenty of time to regroup in 2013 to pay some or all of the note with discounted partial interests in LLCs and Partnerships and other assets).
This result was questioned in Estate Planning Newsletter #2022 “Pennell and Baskies: Does the Gift by Promise Plan Work?”, in which Jeff Pennell and Jeff Baskies, two very reputable and astute authorities, indicate that even if a note given as a gift constitutes a legally enforceable promise the “gift by promise” planning technique would still fail. They claim that if the promised gift is not repaid the amount will be included in the decedent’s estate at death, and will not trigger a credit under § 2001(b)(2) against estate tax when no gift tax was paid or payable. They further argue that it was not the intent of Congress to give a credit against estate tax when no gift tax was paid or payable because there was no actual inter vivos transfer. Pennell and Baskies indicate that a note given as a gift may not be an inter vivos gift at all for tax purposes but is somehow a faux gift, similar, in our view, to the IRS’s position that an interest-free loan made to family members is actually a transfer of property by gift. Dickman v. C.I.R., 465 U.S. 330 (1984).
Austin Bramwell responded to their argument in Estate Planning Newsletter #2033, “Austin Bramwell: The Gift-by-Promise Plan Works as Advertised” that it is well-established law that a gift by promise is a gift. He points out that the § 2001(b)(2) credit is allowed for all of a decedent’s gifts, in any form, and the IRS is obligated to treat a gift by promise as a gift.
Both sets of authors assumed that the promissory note would not be repaid before the death of the donor, and further assumed that because the donor had not received any consideration for the note the donor’s estate would not be able to claim a deduction under § 2053 on the donor’s estate tax return for the amount owed.
If the note was payable to an LLC or other entity in exchange for part ownership of the entity in a valid transaction, it seems that the donor would be receiving full consideration. Another person or trust could bring a claim against the donor to seize or enforce the note.
We were unable to find any Tax Court or Federal Circuit Court of Appeals case discussing this concept. However, in the Florida case of Eurovest. Ltd. v. Segall, 528 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the plaintiff, a lawyer, sued to quiet title on a property claiming that the mortgage on the property held by Eurovest was a scam and was not valid because there was no consideration. The property was previously owned by Mr. Kaplan who mortgaged it to Eurovest, Ltd. Mr. Kaplan was Eurovest’s only shareholder. Mr. Kaplan then transferred the property to Segall encumbered by the mortgage to pay for legal services. The Court determined that Segall was estopped from claiming the mortgage was invalid based on consideration because he took title to the property with the mortgage (this lawyer should have done a title search). Without actually going through the analysis to determine whether consideration was valid (the case was decided on other grounds), the court stated that the owner conveyed the mortgage on the property in order to capitalize his LLC. The consideration would have been whatever benefit that he, as sole shareholder, would have received from capitalizing the LLC.
After we reviewed this case, it came to mind that there are a number of cases, and that it would certainly be black letter law, that when two or more individuals form a business entity and agree to pay in capital by subscription or promissory note, this is an enforceable legal obligation from the point of view of the company and the other shareholders and the individuals would receive consideration for the promissory note because they received ownership interests in the entity.
An individual contemplating giving a $5,000,000 note to an irrevocable trust for his or her family may be better served if the individual executes a $5,000,000 note owed to an LLC, and other family members or friends contribute $263,157 in assets or notes in exchange for a 5% ownership interest in the LLC.
Now our donor has received consideration for the note by receiving a 95% ownership interest in the entity.
The client could then transfer the 95% membership interest in the new LLC to an irrevocable trust for the family. Is this a faux gift, or foie gras (a $5,000,000 aperitif to be enjoyed by the beneficiaries who can force the Trustee to sue to enforce the note)?
It may be correct to take no discount on value in the 95% member interest, even if it is nonvoting, because of the Senda case’s conclusion that what is really gifted in a “quick contribution and entity transfer” transaction is a pro rata interest in the underlying asset (that is another French story). As a result, the conservative approach would be to file a gift tax return for the 95% of the LLC interest, which would be equal to the value of the note.
If the note bears interest at less than the going market rate (and certainly the applicable federal rates described above are much lower than what financial institutions in similar circumstances would charge in interest), it may be possible to take a discount on the value of the note if a proper valuation report and analysis is used.
Some attorneys have also expressed concern that the note may not be enforceable. The above referenced newsletter by Bramwell and Mullen does not mention any state specific case law on the enforceability of a note given as a gift, and we would think that state law must be controlling on this issue under the Bosch rule. The question then becomes, in our judgment, whether the Supreme Court of the applicable state where the note is made and delivered would find it to be fully enforceable as a legal property interest.
In Florida and in all other states (or at least the vast majority) any material consideration will be considered sufficient to support a contractual obligation. The Second District Court of Appeal has said that the consideration required to support a contract does not need to be money or something with monetary value, but may be a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee. Lake Sarasota, Inc. v. Pan. Am. Sur. Co., 140 So. 2d 139, 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). The First District has also said that a promise qualifies as consideration if the promisor agrees to do something that he or she is not already obligated to do. Cintas Corp. No. 2 v. Schwalier, 901 So. 2d 307, 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Mullen and Bramwell use the example in their article of a grandparent promising a gift to her daughter if she makes sure the grandchild attends public school, and point out the infamous contracts case, Hamer v. Sidway, 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. 1891), where the court determined a promise not to smoke was valid consideration to enforce a promise. In these examples, the consideration is valid but is not measurable as “money or money’s worth” in the eyes of the IRS. There must be some value to the consideration, however, as courts have held that love and affection are not enough to constitute consideration. Hendrie v. Hendrie, 94 F. 2d 534 (5th Cir. 1938).
The Treasury Regulations contemplate these kinds of enforceable exchanges as gifts: “Transfers reached by the gift tax are not confined to those only which, being without valuable consideration, accord with the common law concept of gifts, but embrace as well sales, exchanges, and other dispositions of property for a consideration to the extent that the value of the property transferred by the donor exceeds the value in money or money’s worth of the consideration given.” See Stern v. U.S., 436 F. 2d 1327 (5th Cir. 1971). In addition, “the meaning of the phrase ‘in money or money’s worth,’ when it follows ‘adequate and full consideration,’ has been interpreted to confine the scope of ‘consideration’ to money or its equivalent; i.e., to exclude a mere promise or agreement as consideration.” Abeid v. C.I.R., 122 T.C. 404, 409 n.7, 2004 WL 1447473 (2004).
When the donor creates a note payable to an LLC or other entity, the donor receives consideration by receiving ownership of the entity. This consideration makes the promissory note enforceable. This consideration also should allow the donor’s estate to take a deduction under § 2053 equal to the amount of the note that has not been repaid. This would alleviate the concern about relying on § 2001(b)(2) for the “Gift-by-Promise” strategy to be successful.
In view of the Pennell and Baskies foie gras discussion why not establish an LLC or limited partnership and make the note payable to that entity with legitimate other members or partners who can enforce the promise. Because the donor received consideration by receiving an ownership interest in the entity, the donor’s estate should be able to claim a deduction under § 2053 on the donor’s estate tax return for any amounts that have not been repaid. It’s easier than French fries and not as fattening.
Click HERE for the prior newsletters on this topic.
Irrevocable Defective Grantor Trusts: Appropriate Funding Amounts and Potential Tax Implications of Toggling
Professor Jerry Hesch wrote Estate Planning Newsletter #2035, issued on December 5, 2012, indicating that advisors should be very careful to not have a client place too much of his or her assets into an irrevocable defective grantor trust for a number of reasons, including a concern that the obligation to pay the taxes attributable to income earned by the trust could cause virtually all of the assets of the grantor to be paid to the IRS. Professor Hesch also expressed a concern that “toggling off” grantor trust status (so that the trust would be taxed as a separate entity) could cause an income tax event based upon the savings from not being responsible to pay the tax attributable to trust income going forward.
We believe that toggling off grantor trust status does not cause a tax event unless certain unique circumstances exist, such as having an installment sale in place with low basis assets owned by the trust.
Our commentary also points out that low income tax assets, such as municipal bond funds and tax efficient mutual funds, can be owned by a defective grantor trust to ameliorate the concerns that Professor Hesch has described.
Our letter, which will be issued in the next few days on the LISI system, is as follows:
DEFECTIVE GRANTOR TRUSTS ARE NOT BLACK HOLES
Well renowned and respected estate tax professor and practitioner, Jerry Hesch, wrote LISI Newsletter #2035 cautioning that practitioners should not automatically assume that clients should prudently place a large portion of their assets into irrevocable defective grantor trusts because of a concern that the obligation to pay income tax on income earned by such trusts could cause a loss of significant assets beyond what the client and the practitioner might otherwise expect. Professor Hesch also cautioned that Atoggling off@ disregarded grantor trust status (the obligation of the grantor to pay income taxes on trust income) could be considered a taxable event, based upon the theory that the grantor would be relieved of indebtedness and thus would receive Aincome from the discharge of indebtedness@ under Section 61(a)(12) of the Internal Revenue Code.
We have never heard of this tax on Atoggling off@ and have found no authority to indicate how or why it would be imposed.
We agree with Professor Hesch that numbers and financial projections should be run for many clients to show the possible effect of a defective grantor trust arrangement, and that in many situations full funding by use of the client=s entire $5,120,000 gift allowance may not be appropriate. We also agree with Professor Hesch=s analysis of the significant impact of the Aburn@ caused by the client being responsible for income taxes associated with the grantor trust=s income.
On the other hand, Professor Hesch=s article did not include some points that we believe should be considered by advisors and their clients in making decisions concerning these types of arrangements.
1. Professor Hesch indicates that the trustee of the defective grantor trust should have the authority to invest in whatever assets are deemed appropriate within reason, and these assets can include tax-free municipal bonds and mutual funds or equities that pay very low dividend rates, and thus cause the incurrence of very low income tax amounts relative to overall value. In addition, Professor Hesch also alludes to the ability of a trustee to invest in life insurance and annuity contracts that can completely avoid or defer taxable income, although the internal costs of such arrangements must be considered.
However, Professor Hesch=s illustration assumes a 5.25% rate of return on average each year that generates ordinary income for the portfolio of a defective grantor trust, and does not take into account that trusts normally have a significant amount of capital gains that are taxed at a lower level (especially trusts holding investment assets, such as the trust in Professor Hesch=s illustration).
If a 60% equity and 40% bond portfolio was invested in one or more tax-efficient funds then the expectation might be for only a 1% to 2% ordinary income rate and a 5% to 6% capital gain, based upon the income reporting that flows through from the fund. For example, the Vanguard Explorer Fund Investment recently reported taxable income to its investors of only .12% as ordinary income and 2.92% as capital gains for the period beginning 10/31/2011 and ending 10/31/2012, although the increase in value of the fund during that same period of time was 16.28%. A trust investing in this fund for this year would report a 2.92% capital gain and only .12% as ordinary income notwithstanding the 16.28% rate of return. The excess growth would be recognized as capital gains when the mutual fund is sold.
Further, if the grantor trust provides the grantor with the power to substitute assets of the trust for assets of equal value, then the grantor could swap non-income producing assets or tax-free municipal bonds for the income-producing assets of the trust without recognizing gain or income. This could effectively eliminate the Aburn@ of grantor trust status at any such time (including as frequently) that the grantor wishes, so long as the grantor has individual assets of equivalent value to the assets that he or she wishes to swap. While the grantor would still be responsible for the income tax associated with the income-producing assets, the grantor would be able to use the income from the asset itself to pay such tax liability.
Therefore the ability of the trustee to change the investment strategy and the ability of the grantor to swap the assets of the trust should not be understated as effective tools to reduce (or even eliminate) any deleterious impact that the Aburn@ has on depleting the grantor=s estate.
2. If a defective grantor trust did have assets that pay a high rate of return, these assets could be sold to the grantor for fair market value in exchange for a promissory note, which according to Professor Hesch =s prior writings could be at or slightly above the applicable federal rate.
As the result of such a situation, the growth of such assets in, and the excess income above the applicable federal rate would go directly into the grantor=s pocket, and could be used to pay income taxes and the interest owed to the defective grantor trust.
In the year 2012, according to Professor Hesch=s illustration, the value of gifts before discount is $13,333,333 and yields $700,000 of income, resulting in $292,950 of income tax.
Assuming a 2% applicable federal rate that would apply to a note owed by the grantor to this trust, $13,333,333 multiplied by 2% is $266,667 that the grantor would owe the trust at the end of the year. If the grantor earns $700,000 on the assets purchased from the trust, and pays income tax of $292,950 related to such income, then he or she still has $13,473,716 left after paying the trust its 2% interest payment of $266,667.
The above example is an extreme example that would cause the grantor=s estate to increase, which is counter-intuitive to the primary purpose for the grantor making the gift. However, it can be used to illustrate the possibility utilizing the strategy of the grantor purchasing assets from the grantor trust for a note at some point in the future when the grantor=s estate has been reduced significantly, and the grantor is more concerned with having funds for living expenses and other personal uses.
3. If the trust is formed in a creditor protection jurisdiction, the grantor can be a discretionary beneficiary or an Aaddable@ beneficiary, and the trust can still not be included in his or her estate by the reasoning and result of Private Letter Ruling 200944002.
If a planner is concerned about Professor Hesch=s observations, why not form the defective grantor trust in Nevada, Delaware, Alaska, or another creditor protection jurisdiction and make the grantor a discretionary beneficiary? If there is a current concern that the IRS might change its position, notwithstanding that it is well-founded in estate tax law, the grantor could be removed as a beneficiary by appointed trust protectors more than three (3) years before death in order to avoid an estate tax inclusion situation under Internal Revenue Code Section 2035.
We typically provide in our documents that the grantor would not be able to receive any benefit or other distribution unless or until his or her net worth comes down to a certain level. We believe that this eliminates the grantor from being considered a potential beneficiary of the trust, and constitutes an act of independent significance that safely keeps the trust from being subject to federal estate tax in the grantor=s estate even if the IRS were to change its position on Private Letter Ruling 200944002.
If the Ablack hole effect@ were to occur and a grantor=s net worth was brought down to below the level specified in the trust document, then the trustee could simply pay the income tax incurred by the grantor and the problem would be eliminated.
4. The problem would also be avoided by simply having the new irrevocable trust be a complex trust, which would be taxed at its own brackets to the extent that it does not distribute all income. Income could be distributed to the descendants of the grantor, who may be in a lower tax bracket than the grantor, and would have the money received to pay the tax thereon.
Alternatively, the grantor might choose to fund two separate trusts, one of which is a grantor trust and the other of which is a complex trust, with gifts to make use of all or a portion of his or her $5,120,000 exemption. This will allow the grantor to reduce the possibility that his or her own estate will be reduced too much by the Aburn,@ while allowing the grantor to take advantage of the positive effects of grantor trusts to some extent. Of course, projections should be run for the client to illustrate the potential consequences of having the two trusts in place and the possible allocation of gifts as between the two trusts.
5. We do not believe that toggling off grantor trust status constitutes an income recognition event. For income tax purposes, income means, Athe accession of wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion@ (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass, 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955)).
While the discharge of debt will constitute taxable income, the change in a situation where an individual is responsible for an ongoing tax obligation of another entity does not generate income or constitute an income recognition event.
We have reviewed articles and materials prepared by numerous analysts and experts on toggling off grantor trust status and have found no mention whatsoever of an income taxable event occurring as the result of toggling off grantor trust status unless there are unique circumstances, which might include a situation where there is a large note owed to the grantor for low basis assets owned by the trust, or liabilities owed by the trust to third parties which exceed the basis of the trust assets. Another possibility of triggering of income could apply under Internal Revenue Code Section 684 if the trust is a foreign trust. As far as recognizing income simply because the grantor will no longer have to be responsible for tax on trust income, none of the cited articles provide any mention of a possibility of this whatsoever.
These articles include: Howard M. Zaritsky, Toggling Made Easy CModifying a Trust to Create a Grantor Trust, Estate Planning, Volume 36, Number 3, March 2009, 48; Howard M. Zaritsky, The Year in Review: An Estate Planner’s Perspective on Recent Tax Developments, Tax Management Estates, Gifts and Trusts Journal, Volume 36, Number 1, January 2011, 3; see Peebles, Mysteries of the Blinking Trust, 147 Tr. & Est. 16 (Sept. 2008); BNA , Portfolio 819-1st Estates, Gifts, and Trusts Portfolios: Trusts, Section F. Toggling Grantor Trust Powers (2012); Steven Akers, Trustee Selection; Retaining Strings Without Getting Strung-Up, (2002); See Mulligan, Sale to an Intentionally Defective Irrevocable Trust for a Balloon Note – An End Run, 33rd Ann. U. Miami Heckerling Inst. On Est. Planning (1998); Samuel A. Donaldson, Understanding Grantor Trusts, 40th Ann. U. Miami Heckerling Inst. On Est. Planning (2006)
Do not sell your clients short by not offering to allow them to engage in defective grantor trust planning. While there can always be concerns with the possible tax law and how it might be interpreted, we believe that the above considerations properly balance Professor Hesch =s well intended and interesting observations and insights.
We fully agree that running the numbers and helping to make sure and that the client and his or her advisors are aware of potential issues and consequences is a good idea. However, it is equally important to inform clients and their advisors of all options available that can assuage potential concerns and reduce the possibility of negative side effects of using a grantor trust.
How to Get Your Free Copy of Our BNA Estate and Gift Tax Quarterly Article on Florida Law for Estate and Financial Planners and Non-Florida Lawyers
We have just completed part 1 of a two part article for the BNA Estate and Gift Tax Quarterly on Florida Law for Estate and Financial Planners and Non-Florida Lawyers.
If you would like to have a copy of what we have submitted, which includes a fairly extensive treatment of common Florida tax laws and planning strategies, please click here. We welcome any and all questions, comments and suggestions on our materials, and thank Stetson Law students Kacie Hohnadell, Eric Moody, Carly Ross, and recent Stetson Law graduate Alexandra Fugate for their hard work and dedication to this project.
January’s AFRs Released – An Updated Three Month Chart
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 three. Please click HERE for the chart.
APPLICABLE FEDERAL RATES
To view a chart of 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 please click here.
The 7520 Rate for December is 1.2% and for November was 1.0%.
SEMINARS AND WEBINARS
FREE WEBINARS OF INTEREST:
MONDAY, January 7, 2012, 12:30 p.m.
Please join us for Lunch Talk, a free monthly webinar series sponsored by the Clearwater Bar Association and moderated by Alan S. Gassman, Esq. This month’s topic is the first part of a two part series with Shannon Waller from Strategic Coach. The topic for the two part series is Accelerating Law Office Teamwork with Interesting Tools You Can Use Immediately. To register for the webinar please visit the www.clearwaterbar.org.
TUESDAY, January 8, 2013, 5:00 – 5:30 pm
How to Land That First Job After College or Graduate School – What the Placement Office Hasn’t Told You. Recent college and graduate school graduates are having a difficult time finding their first professional job and are unaware of many proven techniques to help them find their first position. Job consultant Darry Griffis has an excellent track record in this area and will be sharing ten important techniques that your children or the children of your clients need to know to help find their first professional position.
THURSDAY, January 24, 2013, 4:00 – 4:50 p.m.
Please join us for the 444 Show. A monthly CLE webinar for professionals sponsored by the Clearwater Bar Association and moderated by Alan S. Gassman. This month’s topic is Real Estate Tax Laws PALS & WOWS with Rick Buschart and Mike O’Leary.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2012, 12:30 -1:00 p.m.
Please join us for Lunch Talk, a free monthly webinar series sponsored by the Clearwater Bar Association and moderated by Alan S. Gassman. This month’s topic is the second part of the two part series with Shannon Waller on Accelerating Law Office Teamwork with Interesting Tools You Can Use Immediately. To register for the webinar please visit www.clearwaterbar.org
FRIDAY, JANUARY 18, 2013 Florida Bar Seminar
Save the date for a three day weekend in Ft. Lauderdale! The Florida Bar Continuing Legal Education Committee, the Health Law Section and the Tax Law Section present Representing the Physician 2013: Practical Considerations for Effectively Guiding Physicians and Their Practices. The seminar will be held at the Sheraton in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Speakers include Lester J. Perling, Esq., on the topic of Federal and Florida Health Law: Hypothetical Situations that Are Often Overlooked by Physicians and Alan S. Gassman on the topic of It is Not Just Health and Tax Laws: Charting Florida Waters When Designing Physician and Medical Group Arrangements. Laws you Knew or Wish you Knew. Please click here to register.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013 15th Annual All Children’s Hospital Estate, Tax, Legal and Financial Planning Seminar.
All Children’s Hospital Foundation is hosting the Estate, Tax, Legal and Financial Planning Seminar at the All Children’s Hospital Education Conference Center in St. Petersburg. Programs and presenters include Samuel A. Donaldson on the topic of Federal Tax Update, Jonathan Blattmachr on Myths & Realities of Charitable Trusts and Some Really Cool Generation Skipping Tax Ideas, Investments in Trusts: Charting a Prudent Course by Tami Foley Conetta, and Alan S. Gassman on the topic of Avoiding Disaster in the Sunshine State – Tricks, Traps, and Nuances That Make Florida Planning Interesting and Unique.
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. 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. His email address is Christopher@gassmanpa.com.
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 Practial 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 Ken@gassmanpa.com.
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 Kacie@gassmanpa.com.
Alexandra Fugate earned her B.A. in English from the University of Florida in 2008, and J.D. from Stetson University College of Law in 2012. She has been a Guardian ad Litem for the past two years, a judicial intern for the Twelfth Circuit in Bradenton, and was recently admitted to the Florida Bar. She wants to pursue a career in business, employment, and labor law. Her email is Alexandra@gassmanpa.com.