New Newsletter Published!

A new newsletter has been published – read it here!

Recent News

15 Sep 2021

Indirect Loans Between a Private Foundation and a Disqualified Person Are on the IRS’ Radar

Code Section 4941(d)(1)(B) treats lending transactions between a private foundation and disqualified person as an act of self-dealing (although an interest-free loan by the disqualified person to the private foundation is not self-dealing) subject to an excise tax. What happens if the private foundation owns an interest in an entity, and that entity holds a promissory note of a disqualified person? Does this avoid self-dealing?

In Rev. Proc. 2021-40. . .

23 Aug 2021

Jenna Rubin presents at 2021 Attorney Trust Officer Conference

On August 20, 2021, Jenna Rubin presented as a panelist at the 2021 Attorney Trust Officer Conference of the Real Property and Probate Law Section of the Florida Bar on “More Than Money: Mediating Trust and Estate Disputes.”

15 Aug 2021

New Homestead Laws [Florida]

In its most recent legislative session, the Florida legislature enacted a number of additions and modifications to Florida statutory law relating to Florida’s homestead exemption. These provisions can be summarized as enhancing or clarifying the exemption. The following is a summary of the new provisions, along with some excerpts.

==============

736.0201(7): A proceeding to determine the homestead status of real property owned by a trust may be filed in the probate proceeding . . .

15 Aug 2021

Foreign Grantor Trust Making a Distribution to Owner/Beneficiary – One or Two Penalties for Nonreporting?

A U.S. grantor of a foreign trust that is a grantor trust that receives a distribution from the trust as beneficiary has two U.S. filing requirements attributable to the foreign trust status:

Code Section 6048(b) requires. . .

19 Apr 2021

White v. Marks

By Jenna G. Rubin

This decision involves a strange set of facts under which a purported heir attempted to assert rights as a beneficiary and child of the decedent, even though she was neither the biological child of the decedent nor adopted by him. The decedent’s will specifically provided that the decedent “intentionally made no provision under this will” for his “adopted daughter.” This decision ultimately turned on whether (1) the statute of limitations to determine paternity had expired, and (2) whether certain writings were acknowledgements of paternity under F.S. 732.108(2).

A boutique law firm with a practice limited to

tax, estate planning, probate, trust & guardianship law and litigation, and related commercial matters