Now is the time to adopt financial habits that determine a successful retirement,
even if you’re still in your 20s.
(Note: Parents, here is a great article to share with your twenty-something adult children!)
If you are a twenty-something, you have plenty of time to think about investing, right?
A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court holding that assets contained in an inherited individual retirement account (IRA) don’t qualify as retirement funds for the purposes of bankruptcy exemption, has turned the estate planning community on its head.
Prior to a recent US Supreme Court ruling, inherited IRAs were treated as retirement savings and not as current income. It was thought that if you made an heir a beneficiary of your IRA, the money in the IRA would be safe from your heir's creditors after you passed away. Well, those inherited IRAs may now be fair game to creditors.
As Insurance News Net points out, in an article titled “Court Decision Has Implications for Estate Planning,” the full implications of this court ruling are not yet clear. The court's decision leaves open the possibility that a surviving spouse named as the beneficiary of an IRA might still be able to treat it as retirement savings, but the court did not address that issue. For other beneficiaries, however, it is clear that in most states, inherited IRAs will be much easier for creditors to claim in bankruptcy proceedings or otherwise. Such an inheritance will be treated as income, not retirement savings.
If there is a boogeyman when it comes to family conversations about inheritance, it is not death. It’s the $40 trillion that financial advisers say their baby boomer clients are going to pass to their children either in an orderly way — or in a chaotic mess. A report by UBS on why families should talk about inheritance confirms the reluctance of people to talk about death and money.
Remarkably, a recent New York Times article, titled "What’s Almost as Certain as Death? Not Talking About the Inheritance," noted that it is easier to have a will (83% do) than it is to discuss the will with your children (only half). It is even more difficult to give them details about those assets (34%).
Regardless their levels of financial wealth, those surveyed were equally deficient when it comes to discussing estate plans with their children. Roughly 55% of people with more than $1 million talk to their children about an inheritance, and 53% of people with fewer than $1 million did. As you might expect, the majority of parents want the transfer of money to their children to go smoothly (84%) without creating bad feelings among siblings (66%).
A scenario commonly encountered within estate planning is when an individual dies while negotiating a separation agreement with their spouse, or when in the midst of divorce proceedings. While a divorce order will void specific bequests to a spouse, merely initiating negotiations or proceedings will not.
Married couples typically plan to leave significant portions of their estates to the surviving spouse. If a divorce were to occur, a change would need to be made to the estate plan to remove the ex-spouse. Most of the time, if you do not change your estate plan after getting a divorce, a judge will ordinarily disregard any specific bequests you made to your ex-spouse. The law assumes you would not want your estate to go to a former spouse.
However, as the Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog points out in a recent article titled “When Death Occurs Mid-Divorce,” the same thing is not true if you are in the divorce process but your divorce has not yet been finalized. This is a common problem when a divorce has been filed and one of the parties passes away during the process. When that happens, it can cause issues with a family home that is owned by both parties. If the home is owned as joint tenants, then the property will automatically pass to the survivor. If the divorcing couple owns the home as tenants in common, however, the deceased party’s share of the home will go to his or her heirs.
Your plan is only as good as the people who implement it. When they aren’t competent, don’t pay attention to details, or decide to pursue their own interests, disaster can ensue. The latest case involves the Walt Disney estate.
"If you can dream it, you can do it." Walt Disney shared great inspiration with the world, and no doubt with his own family. But ever since Disney passed away in 1966, problems with his estate plan have continued to mount.
At issue is a trust he left for his grandchildren. The trust itself is fairly standard in that trust principal was to be distributed to the grandchildren in stages. For one grandchild, everything went according to plan. However, for the other two, problems have arisen.
Lee is a legendary figure in South Korea as the man who turned Samsung Electronics into a powerful conglomerate. He is also the country's richest man with an estimated net worth of US$11.4 billion. Under Korean inheritance law, an heir will have to pay 50 percent in tax when inheriting such wealth, indicating an inheritance tax bill of some US$6 billion.
Estate problems are on the horizon for Samsung Chairman Lee Kun Hee's heirs. Lee suffered a major heart attack three months ago and has been in the hospital ever since. It does not appear he will live for much longer. Hee's estate is believed to be worth approximately $12 billion. As China Topixpoints out, in an article titled “Samsung Heirs Could Pay a Massive US $6 Billion Inheritance Tax,” under South Korean law the estate will have to give half of the estate to the government. The family could avoid some of this tax burden by placing the money in a foundation, but that would mean giving up some control of the assets.
It is unclear whether Lee could have avoided this through estate planning before his heart attack. It is possible that South Korea has laws and vehicles that could be used to more effectively keep wealth in the family as opposed to giving it to the government. In the United States, if a wealthy person does nothing, then their family might not be much better off than Lee's. The government will not necessarily take half of the wealth, but a significant portion of the estate will be lost, as much as 40% in some cases.
Last week, the Uniform Law Commission drafted the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, a model law that would let relatives access the social media accounts of the deceased.
Digital estate planning has become a hot button issue in estate planning and technology law. What exactly happens to our digital accounts after we pass away? It depends. Currently, most states do not have laws that would grant executors or others access to digital accounts. This means that access is determined by the terms and conditions and privacy policies of the technology companies that operate the websites the accounts are on. This has caused headaches for many families attempting to wrap up a loved one's digital affairs.
The Uniform Law Commission has come up with a plan called the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act that, if adopted by the states, would end this problem. However as National Public Radiopoints out, in “A Plan To Untangle Our Digital Lives After We're Gone,” the idea is not popular with all technology companies. The Commission states that its proposal would give an executor access to accounts in the same way that a family has access to real world items, such as photographs and letters. However, technology companies say the proposal could create privacy concerns for third parties as their communications with the deceased would be accessible.
When people die, their assets (cash, real property, investments, savings, car and so on) become the property of their estates. And each estate is obliged to pay all debts, costs, taxes and other liabilities due before it distributes what's left over, according to the deceased's wishes, to the beneficiary or beneficiaries.
Credit card debt is no stranger to the American family. In fact, it's no longer surprising to find out that someone has more credit card debt than assets. But how does that impact one's estate? Unfortunately, credit card debt does not automatically disappear when the debtor passes away. It still needs to be paid by the estate if possible.
The Deseret News discusses the different possibilities in a story titled “What Happens to Credit Card Debt When Someone Dies?” Basically, any credit card debt will have to be paid out of any assets the estate has. The debt must be paid before any heirs can inherit. The good news is that in most cases no one will inherit the debt. If there are not enough assets in the estate to pay the debt, then in essence the debt ceases to exist. However, there are some exceptions. In community property states, a surviving spouse will be responsible for any unpaid credit card debt. A joint owner of the credit card account would also still be responsible for paying off any remaining debt in the account.
Income inequality and the estate tax continue to be hot button issues in American politics and culture. Americans have a wide array of opinions about these two linked topics. Comedian John Oliver recently gave his humorous thoughts on them.
More and more Americans, especially younger Americans, want to be entertained when they are listening to the news. They often look to comedians, such as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, for the lowdown on hot topics. One new television show in this category is HBO's Last Week Tonight hosted by John Oliver.
A recent Los Angeles Timesarticle titled “John Oliver Tackles Income Inequality on 'Last Week Tonight'” describes a recent Oliver show that tackled the estate tax and income inequality. Oliver suggested during the show that whether a viewer would agree with his opinions depended on whether they subscribed to HBO or watched his show by getting it illegally. The implication was that people who were wealthy enough to afford HBO would have one opinion and those who were not would have another opinion. Oliver later went on to compare the American promise to a lottery system where the already rich get multiple fantastic opportunities to win and the poor cannot even get a draw because the machine is broken.
Every so often, a client will come in and announce that he or she needs a revocable trust. Typically the request stems from something the client has read in a book or article, or perhaps advice from a neighbor or friend. Of course, not everyone needs a revocable trust …
As revocable living trusts continue in popularity, many first-timers think that is the solution to their estate planning needs. Usually a friend or family member who has a trust will suggest it, or they may have read articles online suggesting everyone needs to have a revocable living trust. Being new to the estate planning world, they assume this is something they need too. The truth is that revocable living trusts are designed for particular estate planning situations. They are not necessary in every situation.
A recent article in Financial Planning titled “Does Your Client Need a Revocable Trust?” considered common situations that might call for a revocable living trust. The list includes:
