Steve Jobs's"Amazing" Estate Plan

I have no way of checking this story - only Steve Jobs's family and estate attorneys know the facts for sure - but it seems reasonable to assume that the authors have done some pretty thorough research.

Steve Jobs, of course, died a very wealthy man. Most estimate put the wealth of one of Apple's founders in the neighborhood of $6 billion or so.

However, it appears that his estate tax bill will be essentially nothing.

According to this article which appeared on The Trust Advisor Blog, after Jobs had his first brush with death in 2003 he put the vast majority of his assets in trusts.

Most of Jobs wealth was in the form of three huge stock positions: Disney (he was a 7% owner); Pixar; and, of course, Apple. Since these assets were moved into trusts, so none of them would be part of his estate.

His house would have naturally gone to his wife Laurene (as the surviving spouse) but apparently he put this in trust also.

Jobs was famous for not taking a salary from Apple in recent years, which meant that he probably had little in the way of assets other than his stock holdings.

His estate plan would also explain why Jobs did little in the way of large philanthropic gifts like his fellow billionaires Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Since most of his assets were in trusts, and he didn't have any salary from Apple, he might simply not have had the money.

Here's an excerpt from the blog:

Given his efforts to keep his personal life private, we won’t ever know exactly how his estate plan allocates his wealth — unless, of course, he wanted the world to know.

We do know that it involved a network of at least two trusts. California records show that he and his wife, Laurene, moved their Palo Alto house and other real estate into two trusts when his liver was failing in early 2009...

Completely under the radar, SEC filings reveal that Jobs was also busy moving the rest of his material wealth — 5.5 million shares of Apple stock and 138 million Disney shares, a memento of his other baby, the animation company Pixar — out of his estate and into a trust.

Since he basically earned nothing from either Apple or Disney since then, it’s possible that he died with no real assets in his name...

http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/stevejobs

Given the elegance of the products he designed, it is not surprising, I suppose, that his estate plan was so clean and effective.

Or, as he might have said, it's "amazing".

Deborah Jacobs: Married's Couple to the New Estate Tax Law

I have written about Deborah Jacobs and her excellent book Estate Planning Smarts on this blog before.

If you have any interest in the subject, or know anyone who should, I highly recommend her book (and, no, I do not have any financial interest in this matter, nor have I ever met Ms. Jacobs).

Here's the link to her web page:

www.estateplanningsmarts.com.

Deborah also has written a very useful column in Forbes.com about the new estate tax law. The new package contains a number of features that can be very tax-friendly to wealthy couples. Here's an excerpt from her article, with the full link below:

The sweeping tax overhaul that President Obama signed Dec. 17, raising the exemption from federal estate tax to $5 million a person, includes a wonderful new break for widows and widowers. Starting in 2011, they can add the unused estate tax exemption of the spouse who died most recently to their own. This dramatic change enables spouses together to transfer up to $10 million tax-free. It also eliminates the need in many cases for the tax-planning gyrations that lawyers routinely recommended to preserve each spouse's estate tax exemption amounts.

Forbes.com - Magazine Article

Congress Gives the Wealthy an Early Christmas Present

I must admit that I was very surprised that Congress and the President made changes to the federal estate tax provisions that essentially eliminated the estate tax for 99.5% of the American population.

I am been going under the assumption for most of this year that Congress would allow the estate tax exemption to lapse to where it was in 2001. This would have meant that "just" the first $1 million of an estate would be exempt from estate taxes.

Instead, for the next couple of years, the estate tax exemption will rise to $5 million (or $10 million for married couples who do the simplest estate planning), with the maximum tax rate dropping to 35% from 45% currently.

There's lots more in the recent tax bill that probably means some near-term work for estate lawyers but this past Saturday's New York Times carried a good article discussing some of the implications.

Here's an excerpt, with the full link below:

OPTIONS FOR 2010 Under the estate tax wording in the bill, the heirs of people who died this year will have two options for a tax bill. If they chose to treat the estate by the tax laws in place in 2010, they will have to calculate the capital gains on all assets in the estate to determine if the value is above a level the Internal Revenue Service is allowing. This “artificial step-up in basis” is $1.3 million to any heir and $3 million to a surviving spouse.

The other option is to apply the 2011 law, which would exempt the first $5 million of the estate and impose a rate of 35 percent on anything above that. This is far more generous than the 2009 law — a $3.5 million exemption and a 45 percent tax rate — which many people thought would be reinstated.

Estate Tax Will Dwindle Under Tax Cut Package - NYTimes.com

New Fiscal Agreement: Mostly Good News for Investors

The Big News yesterday in the financial world was the agreement that President Obama and Congress reached on taxes.

Stocks rallied sharply in the aftermath of the announcement, but then sold off in the afternoon to end the day basically flat. Bonds, meanwhile, are getting killed, both in the taxable and municipal areas. At this writing, the 10 year US Treasury is yielding 3.25%, which is up almost 80 basis points from two months ago, as the overall package is apparently viewed not only as pro-growth but also will increase the budget deficit and could potentially stir inflationary pressures.

I won't get into whether this current political compromise is healthy for the longer term - you and I will be reading lots of analysis on this question in the weeks ahead. Instead, I wanted to highlight a couple of things that are pretty good news for investors in these recent developments.

Here's an excerpt from Barron's on-line today (I have added a couple of highlights):

Notwithstanding how it was being played in the media, there was no "extension of the Bush tax cuts" in the deal made by Obama with Congressional Republicans. The tax-rate increases slated to take effect on Jan. 1 were staved off for two years, as most forecasters had assumed would happen. So, no surprise there.

For investors, the favorable 15% tax rates for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends also were extended. In addition, the proposed bipartisan calls for the estate tax to resume at 35% with a $5 million exclusion on Jan. 1, instead of the 55% rate on estates over $1 million, as current law calls for.

The other key parts of the deal were a one-year, two-percentage-point reduction in Social Security withholding taxes (FICA on your pay stub) and a 13-month extension of emergency unemployment benefits. Both are designed to spur the economy by increasing the tax-home pay of those who work and maintain spending by those who aren't.

The news on estate taxes was better than I expected, frankly, since this benefit only helps those at the very highest wealth levels, but the Republican view carried the day.

Higher Interest Rates Could Offset Obama Tax Deal - Barrons.com

QPRTs in Estate Planning

Yesterday's New York Times had a special section called "Wealth" focusing on financial planning and management.

One of the articles - written by Deborah Jacobs, author of very useful Estate Planning Smarts - had several good tips, I thought, about how to effectively pass your primary home to your heirs.

First, a general comment about the section. Most of the articles dealt not with "get rich quickly" thoughts that seemed to dominate the financial press a few years ago. This reflects the mood of most clients I speak to these days: wealth preservation, and not outliving your savings, is the #1 topic.

QPRT's are a popular way to leave one's primary residence to your heirs. Here's what the article had to say:

CREATE A QPRT With the Qualified Personal Residence Trust, known as a QPRT (pronounced CUE-pert), you put your primary residence or vacation home into an irrevocable trust, retaining the right to live there rent-free for a specified number of years. During that period, the trust, of which you could be trustee, owns the property. If you survive the preset period — a condition for this technique to work— ownership can then pass to the beneficiaries, usually children, or go into another trust, often called a dropdown trust, for the rest of your life (you would then need to pay rent if you want to live there).

The taxable gift with a QPRT reflects the value of the right to acquire the personal residence a certain number of years from when it is set up, discounted by the probability that the person setting up the trust will live that long. Figuring the discount involves a complex actuarial calculation based on the Section 7520 rate set each month by the Internal Revenue Service. The higher the rate and the longer the term, the bigger the discount and the more savings associated with the QPRT, said Mr. Katzenstein, whose Tiger Tables Actuarial Software (www.tigertables.com) does such computations.

Leave the Children the House, Without a Big Tax Bill - NYTimes.com

The first paragraph from the article brings up a point that a lot of people don't think about when they set up a QPRT. Namely, once the preset period ends, you have to pay market rents in order to continue to live in your own house.

I have couple of savvy (and very healthy) clients who set up QPRTs years ago whose preset terms have ended. They are now trying to figure out the best way to pay market rents to their children, or else face the loss of a very effective estate planning tool.

Their children are uncomfortable with taking money from their parents to live in their own homes, but unless the estate lawyers can come up with some creative techniques my clients will have no choice.

Wealthy Lock In Low Gift Levy as Time Runs Out on 0% Estate Tax - Bloomberg

As we get closer to year-end, and no resolution on taxes seems near, taxpayers are being forced to make gifting and other estate planning decisions based on what seems to be the most likely scenario (in my opinion): we go back to 2001 tax rates.

For individuals, this means that the estate tax (which is currently 0%) goes back to 55% at levels above $1 million. In addition, gift tax rates also go up to 55%, from the 35% level this year. For the ultra-wealthy, this may mean that gifting this year may make the most sense, as this article from Bloomberg notes:

Estates are exempt from all taxes for 2010, and the rate shoots up to 55 percent next year unless lawmakers act in a post-election session. That means the best tax-reduction strategy, short of dying in 2010, may be to transfer assets to family members this year and lock in a historically low gift-tax rate of 35 percent.

The article goes on:

“This is the lowest rate that the gift tax has ever been at; it’s only going to get higher,” {said one estate attorney}.

Gift taxes have long been matched with estate taxes to prevent the wealthiest from ducking the Internal Revenue Service after death. Americans can give away a total of $13,000 this year without any tax consequence, up to a $1 million lifetime maximum. When the allowance is spent, gifts are taxed at the same rate as estates. The exception: the 0 percent estate-tax rate prevailing in 2010, which is accompanied by a 35 percent gift tax, equal to the top marginal rate on ordinary income.

Wealthy Lock In Low Gift Levy as Time Runs Out on 0% Estate Tax - Bloomberg

Devising Strategies While the Estate Tax Is in Limbo - NYTimes.com

Here's one of the great things about social media: you get know experts that you have never met, and probably would not have ever heard of, if they had not been active in posting their articles and portions of their books on sites like Twitter.

I first ran across the name of attorney Deborah Jacobs about a year ago, on Twitter. She had just published a book called Estate Planning Smarts, which is an excellent guide for anyone interested in the subject (interestingly, she published it herself, rather than using a conventional publisher). She also writes periodically for Forbes and the New York Times.

Again, I have never met Deborah, so my endorsement of her work is based solely on what I have seen and read.

In any event, she published a piece last week in the New York Times about what individuals should be thinking about doing while the debate over the estate tax continues. Her article contains a number of good suggestions, so I would encourage you to read the whole note, but there were a couple of suggestions that I thought were particularly interesting.

First, she discusses the possible use of life insurance:

During this period of uncertainty, buy a one- or two-year term policy to cover the tax bill if the exemption amount is only $1 million, said Ann B. Burns, a lawyer with Gray Plant Mooty in Minneapolis. The policy can be canceled if Congress eases your estate tax concerns.

Be sure that your beneficiaries, not you, own the policy, or the proceeds will count as part of your estate and could be subject to tax. As owners, your beneficiaries must pay the premiums, but you can give them the money to do that using annual gifts. If you already own a policy, sell it to the trust or to family members for its fair market value, said Ms. Burns.

The other idea which one of my clients is actually did last week involves lending money to a family member that might need some financial help:

If you lend money to family members — say, to buy a house or a car or to start a business — you create a win-win situation. You must charge a minimum rate of interest set each month by the Treasury, called the applicable federal rate, to avoid potential gift tax and income tax consequences. For September, the rate for loans lasting more than nine years and requiring monthly payments is an attractive 3.6 percent. That is less than family members would have to pay for a bank loan, assuming they could get one in today’s tight credit market, but more than you could earn from C.D.’s or money market accounts.

Here's the link to the whole piece:

Devising Strategies While the Estate Tax Is in Limbo - NYTimes.com

Also, on Monday of this week, the Wall Street Journal had a good article on estate-tax planning. In this piece, the Journal asked several estate tax planning experts what they are currently advising their clients to do:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704095704575473363496319960.html?KEYWORDS=what+should+you+do+now

Both Ms. Jacobs and the Journal talk about gifting strategies as part of the estate tax planning process. Here's a excerpt from the Journal's article (which is actually quoting someone named Marv Hills):

Since clients expect that the estate tax is coming back in 2011, they are making plans now to implement taxable gifts this year. This way, they can pay gift tax at the 35% gift-tax rate applicable in 2010, in order to avoid paying estate tax later at a presumably higher rate in 2011 and after. Although it seems certain that an estate tax will exist beginning in 2011, it is impossible to know whether the rate will be 55% as currently scheduled, or a different rate if Congress changes the law before next year.

Even though the gift-tax rate is low in 2010, some clients are waiting to make the gifts very late in the year, between Dec. 26 and 31, because they are concerned about the risk of dying unexpectedly during 2010. These clients realize that if they make a taxable gift now but then die before Congress changes the laws, they will have paid gift tax at 35% when the assets could have passed through their estates in 2010 without being subject to estate tax....

Getting a Will: Six Common Questions - NYTimes.com

Deborah Jacobs brought this good article from the New York Times to my attention on LinkedIn.

Estate planning and wills are subjects that most people like to delay talking about, for obvious reasons. However, taking a few hours to discuss minor details like how to title your assets could someday save your heirs a considerable amount of taxes.

One of the most simple steps - but often overlooked - is to hold your assets in a revocable trust rather than titling in your own name. Here's why:

One of the big reasons people set up revocable trusts, also known as living trusts, is to avoid probate, the court-supervised process to settle a deceased person’s estate. Why? Depending on where you live, probate can be a costly and lengthy process. Attorney, court and other fees often cost up to 5 percent of the value of the estate, Ms. Randolph said. Many Californians choose to use revocable trusts for that reason, she said. Be sure to check the probate laws in your state.

Here’s how the revocable trust works: you put all of your assets into the trust, which remains in your control and can be changed at any time. For the trust to work, you need to retitle all of your assets to the trust (a “pour over” will is also typically used to transfer, or “pour over,” any assets that weren’t in the trust at the time of your death). After you die, a trustee that you name distributes the assets according to your instructions, all while avoiding probate.

Thanks Deborah!


Getting a Will: Six Common Questions - NYTimes.com

Steinbrenner's death raises estate tax issue - Investment News

There have been lots of articles in the press today about the death of George Steinbrenner.

One of the pieces called him the best-known owner in professional sports, which I think is probably true (BTW: the portrayals of Steinbrenner in Seinfeld were always funny).

Since I am in the investment management business, I naturally was interested in some of the investment and estate planning issues raised in Steinbrenner's passing.

Although I doubt he planned it that way, Steinbrenner picked a good year to die from an estate tax standpoint, as the attached article from the Investment News points out:

The late New York Yankee owner, who died on Tuesday of a heart attack, left an estate estimated to be worth $1.15 billion, consisting primarily of his share of the Yankees' YES broadcasting network, according to Forbes. But in all likelihood, the tax man will take the collar on this one — and won't get a penny from the Boss' estate.

Indeed, Mr. Steinbrenner's family looks set to inherit his estate practically tax-free, thanks to the expiration of the federal estate tax in 2010 and the light tax regime of the Boss's home state, Florida. By comparison, New York state has a 16% estate tax.

“It is the ultimate home run,” Ronald Aucutt, a partner at law firm McGuireWoods in McLean, Va., told Bloomberg.

Steinbrenner's death raises estate tax issue - Investment News

A number of the articles have focused on the fact that Steinbrenner bought the Yankees in 1973 for $10 million, and today the Yankees are estimated to be worth $1.6 billion. So I pulled out my calculator, and figured this was a compound return of 14.7%.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/sports/baseball/14steinbrenner.html

As it turns out, any way you look at it, the Yankees were a great investment, assuming they will be selling.

That said, according to the articles, while the Steinbrenner family has no plans to sell, it is not really clear who would actually pay that type of money for the Yankees. True, they are on the top of the Majors, but they also have the highest payroll in the league, and highest costs.

If the Yankees falter (we can only hope, says Red Sox nation!), attendance would surely decline (see: New York Mets). In other words, buying the Yankees today is like buying a high P/E stock - there's already a lot of "good news" priced in.

While it is true that the Steinbrenner family is largely avoiding estate taxes, the family also does not get the step-up in basis that previously heirs received at time of death. As you recall, when Congress put the "sunset" provision in the capital gains bill in 2001, they eliminated the step-up in basis at time of death in 2010.

If the Steinbrenners were to sell, they would pay long-term capital gains tax of at least 15% (at the federal level), or about $240 million.

Finally, there is the interesting question of how Steinbrenner's return on his Yankee investment would compare to other investments over the same time period.

For the purposes of this analysis I have ignored taxes simply because it makes the calculations way too complex (e.g. dividend tax rates have changed numerous times over the last 37 years, as have capital gains rates).

So, assuming that Steinbrenner's syndicate took the same $10 million that they invested in the of the Yankees in 1973 and invested in other assets, here's what the total return would have been:

• Even after the "lost decade" of 0% returns for the last 10 years, the S&P 500 have returned a compound return of 10.1% since 1973. This means the $10 million would have been worth approximately $350 million;

• Of course, if George had been smart enough to recognize that the stock market was in a bubble in 1999, and sold all of the stocks and reinvested in bonds, he would have received $383 million in 1999 which would today would be worth $705 million;

• $10 million in Treasury Bills starting in 1973 would have returned 5.5% pa , and be worth $72 million today;

• $10 million in Treasury Bonds starting in 1973 would have returned 7.5% pa, and be worth about $150 million.

So the Yankee investment was a "grand slam" for the Steinbrenners compared to other alternatives.

One more interesting point: I was surprised to see how much the additional 4% in total annual return from the Yankee investment relative to stocks added to the ending amount of money. That is, the difference between 14.7% pa and 10.1% pa may not seem too much, but over the course of 37 years it is huge - in this case, more than $1 billion more.

Op-Ed Contributor - America Builds an Aristocracy - NYTimes.com

Interesting piece from Friday's New York Times on the use of Dynasty Trusts.

This is an estate planning issue that probably most people don't even know exists yet it has been used very successfully by some of America's most wealthy families to pass huge sums of wealth to other generations without paying taxes.

Here's an excerpt:

Dynasty trusts can grow much larger than the $3.5 million exemption amount would suggest. A couple can, for example, put $7 million (their two $3.5 million exemptions) into a life insurance policy owned by the trust. They apply their exemption at the start, and the trust is forever free from taxes — even when, after the death of the second spouse, the life insurance policy pays off at $100 million. Alternatively, a trust can use the $7 million as seed money for a profitable business that the trust then owns.

An ordinary trust dissipates as money is distributed to the beneficiaries. But a dynasty trust can avoid this by discouraging outright distributions and instead encouraging trustees to buy, for the use of the beneficiaries, things like houses, artwork, airplanes and even businesses. Because the trust retains ownership, the assets can pass tax-free and creditor-proof to the next generation.

Beneficiaries don’t pay taxes on the use of this property. In contrast, a worker whose employer provides housing or other benefits is taxed on those benefits.

But tax breaks are not the only special advantages that dynasty trusts provide. Even more troubling, they commonly include a “spendthrift clause,” which provides that trust assets cannot be reached by a beneficiary’s creditors. If a beneficiary causes a car accident, for example, the victim cannot be compensated with assets from the trust, even if they are the driver’s only resources. So beneficiaries are free to behave as recklessly as they like, knowing that their money is forever protected for themselves and their heirs.

Op-Ed Contributor - America Builds an Aristocracy - NYTimes.com

Taxable Gifts Get New Look From Wealthy

From Financial Advisor Magazine:

Right now, anyone can make unlimited gifts to individuals of up to $13,000 each year without owing tax on them. Any amount above that is taxed. There is a $1 million lifetime gift tax exemption.

For 2010, the gift tax rate is 35%. Differences between the estate and gift tax rules mean that if the donor survives the gift by three years, the effective gift tax rate is effectively only 26%. Next year, unless Congress acts, the top tax rate on gifts and bequests over $1.2 million will be 55% with an additional 5% surtax on transfers from $10 million to $17.1 million.

Prepaying gift tax rather than waiting and paying estate tax can make sense in certain scenarios.

An example: A man has $6 million left, and his estate will be in a 55% tax bracket after 2010. If he waits until he dies and bequeaths the money, the net transfer is only $2.7 million. If instead in 2010 he makes a taxable gift, he can give $4.4 million—64% more—and pay the taxes with the rest; at a 35% rate, the gift tax would amount to $1.5 million. He must survive the gift by three years for the tax brackets to apply.


Taxable Gifts Get New Look From Wealthy

Wealth Matters - Confusion Over Estate Tax Keeps Advisers Busy - NYTimes.com

Good discussion in today's New York Times about the current state of estate planning.

If you have the chance to read the whole piece, you'll probably notice that the author raises more questions than provides answers. This unfortunately is where most financial planners are in June 2010 - since there is no clarification on "the rules", it is hard to advise clients how best to structure their affairs.

An excerpt:

The real problem comes for the merely rich — individuals worth more than $1 million and less than $3.5 million and couples with net worths of $2 million to $7 million who previously did not have to worry about the estate tax. If Congress fails to act again this year, the estate tax laws next year will revert to their levels before 2001, and that could snare a host of people who set up the estate plans on the assumption that there would be no tax when they died.

“If Congress does nothing, there would be a sevenfold increase in the number of estates subject to the tax than if the exemption stayed at $3.5 million,” said John Dadakis, partner at the Holland & Knight law firm.

As the law stands, the heirs of a single person who dies next year with more than $1 million would be subject to a 55 percent tax. (For couples, it is $2 million.) Heirs of that same person, with a $3.5 million estate, would have paid nothing in 2009 but could pay as much as $1.375 million in 2011, depending on the level of planning. And while this wealth may seem high in many parts of the country, it has professionals on the coasts grumbling.

The best advice seems to be: Stay Tuned.



Wealth Matters - Confusion Over Estate Tax Keeps Advisers Busy - NYTimes.com

Estate Tax Dormant, Billionaire’s Bequest Is Tax-Free - NYTimes.com

I don't know if you saw this story in this morning's New York Times, but it illustrates the cost (to the Treasury) of the delay on the part of Congress to do anything about the estate tax.

As I mentioned in a post about a month ago, many estate lawyers had been thinking that there would be some clarity on the federal estate tax by Memorial Day. Well, the end of May has come and gone, and no action from Washington.

The problem is what steps, if any, investors should be taking in anticipation of estate tax law changes. At this point, it is simply not clear.

Here's a short excerpt from the piece:

Dan L. Duncan, a soft-spoken farm boy who started with $10,000 and two propane trucks, and built a network of natural gas processing plants and pipelines that made him the richest person in Houston, died in late March of a brain hemorrhage at 77.

Had his life ended three months earlier, Mr. Duncan’s riches — Forbes magazine estimated his worth at $9 billion, ranking him as the 74th wealthiest in the world — would have been subject to a federal tax of at least 45 percent. If he had lived past Jan. 1, 2011, the rate would be even higher — 55 percent.

Instead, because Congress allowed the tax to lapse for one year and gave all estates a free pass in 2010, Mr. Duncan’s four children and four grandchildren stand to collect billions that in any other year would have gone to the Treasury.

Estate Tax Dormant, Billionaire’s Bequest Is Tax-Free - NYTimes.com

Death Tax Lives in Estate Repeal for Heir Who Must Sell Assets - Bloomberg.com

Estate planning is not known for its funny situations. People who help others in planning for the disposition of their assets in anticipation of their death are always looking for ways to lighten what can often be a fairly serious discussion.

And so in recent years it had become a standard joke to say, "Well, if you're going to die, 2010 is a good year to do so, since there's no federal estate tax."

But, as it turns out, this is not exactly the case. When Congress changed the estate laws in 2001, it inserted some provisions that many not know about that can affect estate tax returns in 2010.

For example, while there is not a federal estate tax in 2010 (although there still is state estate tax), but there also is not the usual step-up provision for inherited assets that historically had been the case.

The capital gains tax does not kick in until after the first $1.3 million in capital gains, but stock that had been held for a long time it possible that the gains could be considerably more than this figure.

Here's an excerpt from an article in the June issue of Bloomberg Markets:

A sole heir who sells inherited assets valued at more than $1.3 million must account for their original cost. So if Grandpa bequeaths 100 shares of Google Inc. he bought in 2004’s initial public offering at $85 a share to a granddaughter and those shares were worth $600 each in January when he died, the granddaughter would pay a 15 percent capital-gains tax on $51,500 if she sells the stock, or $7,725.

Last year, the granddaughter might have paid nothing because the old estate-tax law effectively reset the securities’ worth to fair market value on the day they were inherited.

It gets more complicated. People who inherit stock have to reconcile the original price paid for each share with decades of splits and reinvested dividends. Heirs also must account for the initial price of coins or stamps in a collection.

The recipient of Grandma’s Renoir or Monet has to determine how much the grandmother paid for the painting -- or its value at the time she may have inherited it. For collectibles such as art and jewelry, the capital-gains tax rate is 28 percent.

Death Tax Lives in Estate Repeal for Heir Who Must Sell Assets - Bloomberg.com

Fidelity Investments: Helping Aging Parents Plan

Good summary piece from Fidelity.


Fidelity Investments:

Estate Tax Could Come Back With Sharp Bite - Forbes.com

Another good piece from Deborah Jacobs on estate planning.


Estate Tax Could Come Back With Sharp Bite - Forbes.com

The Other April 15 Tax Return - Forbes.com

Good review of the rules on gift taxes from Deborah Jacobs.


The Other April 15 Tax Return - Forbes.com

The GRAT Rush Of 2010

Good, detailed summary from estate attorney Deborah Jacobs:


The GRAT Rush Of 2010

Posted using ShareThis

"Time Goes By - What's It's Really Like to Get Older"

Worth a look:

(Warning: Not necessarily the most upbeat blog, but lots of useful info on issues that seniors face)

http://www.timegoesby.net/weblog/

Efficient Gifting

From Private Wealth magazine:

Efficient Gifting

Posted using ShareThis