Fiduciary Law Blog Archive
  • Home
  • FAQ
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Archive for category: Administration Expenses

Be Wary of Colorado Entity Renewal Notices from Unofficial Sources

February 13, 2019/in Administration Expenses, Administration of Estate, Administration of Trust, Court Procedures, Fiduciary Duties

by Jody H. Hall, Paralegal

In the past week, our firm has had several clients receive in the mail, and fortunately ask us about, a form titled “2019 – Period Report Instruction Form (Colorado LLCs)”.  This form purports to advise the client that the annual report or renewal for their entity is now due; however, the form is not from the Colorado Secretary of State but is instead from a non-related company.  The form does list the specific entity name and address information and looks deceptively official; however, it also specifically states “… is not a government agency and does not have a contract with any governmental agency to provide this service.”

Read more
https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2019-02-13 11:52:102019-02-13 11:52:10Be Wary of Colorado Entity Renewal Notices from Unofficial Sources

Planning Opportunities Under the New Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

January 16, 2018/in Administration Expenses, Administration of Estate, Estate Planning, Legislation, Taxes

By Chelsea May

In December, President Trump signed into law what is commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  This legislation, which is mostly effective as of January 1, 2018, is the first major reform to the federal tax code since 1986 and affects almost every individual and business taxpayers in some way or another. For individuals, the top tax rate has temporarily dropped from 39.6% to 37% and the standard deduction has nearly doubled.  Personal exemptions are repealed and the mortgage interest deduction is limited to interest on a mortgage of $750,000 or less per married couple. The AGI limitation for deductions of cash donations to public charities increased from 50% to 60% and the deduction for alimony payments was repealed (for divorces or separations executed after December 31, 2018).  Corporate tax rates have dropped from a 35% top rate to a permanent 21% flat rate, a 20% deduction is now available for certain pass through entity income and the corporate AMT has been repealed.

The new tax act also increased the federal estate and gift tax exemption amount. Specifically, for lifetime gifts and the estates of any decedents passing between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2025, the estate tax and GST tax exemption amounts were increased to $10 million per person, adjusted for inflation occurring after 2011 (expected to be about $11.2 million for 2018). The marginal transfer tax rate remains at 40%. Read more

https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2018-01-16 10:03:012018-01-16 10:03:01Planning Opportunities Under the New Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover (or Fifty Ways to Plan, Administer and Litigate Estates)

September 26, 2017/in Administration Expenses, Administration of Estate, Administration of Trust, Bonds, Conservator, Court Procedures, Fees, Fiduciary Discretion, Fiduciary Duties, Fiduciary Litigation, Guardian, Life Insurance, Personal Representative, Powers of Attorney, Removal of Fiduciary, Surcharge of Fiduciary, Testamentary Capacity, Testamentary Intent, Trustee, Undue Influence, Will & Trust Construction

by Carol Warnick

As the old song by Paul Simon contemplates, there are fifty ways to leave your lover, and there are also fifty ways to plan, administer and litigate estates and trusts.  I have recently become aware of various situations in which attorneys assume that because things are done a certain way in the state in which they practice, they are done the same way in other states.

I am licensed in three states, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, and deal regularly with the significant differences between them.  For example, Colorado tends to use “by representation” in dealing with passing assets down the generations, but Utah and Wyoming both use “per stirpes.”  Read more

https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2017-09-26 10:14:572017-09-26 10:14:57Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover (or Fifty Ways to Plan, Administer and Litigate Estates)

Contracts to Make Wills or Trusts

April 10, 2017/in Administration Expenses, Administration of Estate, Administration of Trust, Fiduciary Litigation, Testamentary Intent, Will & Trust Construction

by Carol Warnick

Does the fact that a husband and wife create “mirror-image” wills or trusts mean that they have entered into a contract with their spouse to maintain the dispositive provisions in the document?  The law in Colorado is very clear that no contract exists merely because the documents are “mirror-image” or reciprocal.

Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-11-514, a contract to make a devise may be established only by:

(i) provisions of a will stating material provisions of the contract, (ii) an express reference in a will to a contract and extrinsic evidence proving the terms of the contract, or (iii) a writing signed by the decedent evidencing the contract. The execution of a joint will or mutual wills does not create a presumption of a contract not to revoke the will or wills. (emphasis added).

Read more

https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2017-04-10 09:29:102017-04-10 09:29:10Contracts to Make Wills or Trusts

Now There Are Tax Transcripts In Lieu of Estate Tax Closing Letters

December 14, 2015/in Administration Expenses, Administration of Estate, Fiduciary Duties, Personal Representative, Trustee

by Carol Warnick

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) announced earlier this year that it would no longer routinely send out an estate tax closing letter and that such letters would have to be specifically requested by the taxpayer. The change in procedure was effective for all estate tax returns filed after June 1, 2015.

Previously, an estate tax closing letter was evidence to show that the IRS had either accepted an estate tax return as filed, or if there has been an audit, that final changes had been made and accepted. Receipt of an estate tax closing letter has never meant that the statute of limitations on the return has run, but it has given comfort to the estate administrator that he or she could make distributions and/or pay creditors knowing that the chances of further IRS review of the return was not likely. Many personal representatives and trustees have made it a practice to wait for such a closing letter before funding sub-trusts or making any significant distributions.

On December 4, 2015, the IRS announced that “account transcripts, which reflect transactions including the acceptance of Form 706 and the completion of an examination, may be an acceptable substitute for the estate tax closing letter.”   Such account transcripts will be made available online to registered tax professionals using the Transcript Delivery System (TDS). Transcripts will also be made available to authorized representatives making requests using Form 4506-T. They still must be requested, but may be easier to obtain than an estate tax closing letter.

For further instructions, here is the link to the information on the IRS website: http://tinyurl.com/plhb6f6.

https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2015-12-14 08:27:572015-12-14 08:27:57Now There Are Tax Transcripts In Lieu of Estate Tax Closing Letters

Updates for fiduciaries from the IRS and Colorado

June 24, 2015/in Administration Expenses, Administration of Estate, Administration of Trust, Legislation, Personal Representative, Trustee

by Kelly Cooper

The IRS has stated that it will not issue closing letters for federal estate tax returns filed on or after June 1, 2015, unless one is requested by the taxpayer. The information provided by the IRS states that the taxpayer should wait at least four months after filing the return to request a closing letter. A closing letter indicates that the estate’s federal estate tax liabilities have been paid. While a closing letter is not a formal closing agreement, many fiduciaries wish to have a closing letter from the IRS before making final distributions and closing estates. For returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, please refer to the following document for guidance as to when a closing letter will be issued:

Frequently Asked Questions on Estate Taxes

Certain statutes in the Colorado Probate Code are subject to cost of living adjustments each year. The numbers for 2010-2015 can viewed here:

Cost of Living Adjustment of Certain Dollar Amounts for Property of Estates in Probate

https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2015-06-24 09:01:222015-06-24 09:01:22Updates for fiduciaries from the IRS and Colorado

Trustees Take Heed: Arizona Adopts the Fiduciary Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege

February 2, 2015/in Administration Expenses, Administration of Estate, Administration of Trust, Court Procedures, Fees, Fiduciary Duties, Fiduciary Litigation, Personal Representative, Trustee

by Kelly Cooper

For trustees in Colorado, the question remains to what extent does the attorney-client privilege offer protection from disclosure of confidential communications between trustees and their attorneys in litigation with beneficiaries.  Despite the uncertainty in Colorado, several states and the U.S. Supreme Court have weighed in on this question and Arizona is the latest state to adopt the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege.  Hammerman v. The Northern Trust Company, 329 P.3d 1055 (Ariz. App. June 3, 2014).

The Court of Appeals of Arizona held that a trustee’s attorney-client privilege “extends to all legal advice sought in the trustee’s personal capacity for purposes of self-protection.”  However, the Court also held that the trustee had an “obligation to disclose to Hammerman [beneficiary]  all attorney-client communications that occurred in its fiduciary capacity on matters of administration of the trust.”

These standards will inevitably give rise to many questions depending on the facts and circumstances of the trust administration at issue, but one will likely come up over and over again.  At what point will a trustee be permitted to seek advice for self-protection.  Is a question from a beneficiary enough?  Does a lawsuit have to be filed?  A demand letter sent?  Can the trustee use trust funds to pay for the advice?

In a departure from other courts, the Court of Appeals of Arizona held that the trustee’s attorney-client privilege does not end merely because the advice was paid for out of trust funds.  (For example, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the source of payment for fees is “highly relevant” in identifying who is the “real client.”  United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 131 S. Ct. 2313, 2330 (2011).  The Delaware Court of Chancery found that the source of payment was a ““significant factor… [and] a strong indication of precisely who the real clients were.”  Riggs National Bank of Washington, D.C. v. Zimmer, 355 A.2d 709, 712 (Del. Ch. 1976).)

Without any clear guidance in Colorado, it is important for trustees (and their counsel) to keep a close watch on future developments. 

https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2015-02-02 09:16:002015-02-02 09:16:00Trustees Take Heed: Arizona Adopts the Fiduciary Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege

Avoidable Litigation as a Threat to the Assets of An Estate

January 20, 2015/in Administration Expenses, Administration of Estate, Administration of Trust, Court Procedures, Fees, Fiduciary Litigation, Testamentary Intent, Will & Trust Construction

by Carol Warnick

It wasn’t that long ago when the real threat to the financial well-being of a person’s estate was death taxes.  People were concerned about losing close to 50% of their estate to taxes without proper planning.  But with the increased exemption amounts, death taxes are not a big issue in most cases.  But something else is taking its toll on the hope of a smooth and simple passing of assets at death, and that is litigation. 

Much of the current estate litigation relates to family disputes, some of which might have been avoided through better estate planning.  But a certain amount of these family disputes would have occurred anyway simply because the families were upset enough to litigate over anything once mom and dad have passed away.  There is a different type of litigation beginning to crop up, however, that may create just as many problems for an estate as family in-fighting, and one which can be totally prevented.  I am speaking of litigation over wills and trusts drafted with forms obtained over the internet.

Unfortunately, with the increased exemption amounts (currently $5.43 million per person) and since many people no longer need tax planning they are more apt to decide they can do their estate planning documents themselves and not involve an attorney.  While self-drafted wills are not new and have been creating estate administration problems for years, I believe that the current ease of finding forms on the internet, making a few changes, and printing them at home will likely make this a more significant problem in the future. 

Cases are starting to crop up regarding mistakes made by consumers using internet forms.  One Florida case is a good example.  The case is Aldrich v. Basile, 136 So. 3rd, 530 (Fla. 2014).  In this case, Ms. Aldrich used a form and listed all the assets she owned at the time (her home and its contents, an IRA, a car and some bank accounts) and stated they should go to her sister.  If her sister didn’t survive her, she listed her brother as the one to receive everything. 

As luck would have it, her sister predeceased her and left her some additional assets which weren’t listed in Ms. Aldrich’s will because she didn’t own them when she drafted her will.   Either because the internet form didn’t contain one or because Ms. Aldrich took it out when she printed the will because she thought all her assets were covered, there was no residuary clause in the will.  As a result, after a trial court decision, an appellate court reversal, and ultimately an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, it was decided that the listed assets would go per the will but the after-acquired assets inherited from her sister would pass through intestacy, bringing in two nieces who were the daughters of Ms. Aldrich’s deceased brother to share in the estate.

Although the living brother offered a note left by Ms. Aldrich and other extrinsic evidence that Ms. Aldrich intended all of her assets to go to him, the court refused to consider them because of the “four corners” doctrine. There was no ambiguity within the four corners of the will, therefore no extrinsic evidence was admitted.

It is easy to see how Ms. Aldrich could have simply deleted the residuary clause thinking she didn’t need it, but it is very unlikely that a competent lawyer drafting a will would make that mistake.  If the lawyer had made the mistake, there would potentially have been recourse through the lawyer’s malpractice insurance. It seems that the ease of which will and trust forms are now available on the internet and the fact that many people don’t need a lawyer’s expertise for tax planning under current law will combine to create many more of these problems.  Such problems lead to costly litigation with really no recourse for the families of those “do-it-yourselfers.”

Several states have looked at the issue of whether or not legal form providers are violating unauthorized practice of law statutes, but the cases are by no means consistently decided.  While such issues are being sorted out, the old adage “buyer beware” certainly applies with regard to do-it-yourself wills and trusts. 

A concurring opinion in the Florida case summed it up as follows:

Obviously, the cost of drafting a will through the use of a pre-printed form is likely substantially lower than the cost of hiring a knowledgeable lawyer.  However, as illustrated by this case, the ultimate cost of utilizing such a form to draft one’s will has the potential to far surpass the cost of hiring a lawyer at the outset.  In a case such as this, which involved a substantial sum of money, the time, effort, and expense of extensive litigation undertaken in order to prove a testator’s true intent after the testator’s death can necessitate the expenditure of much more substantial amounts in attorney’s fees than was avoided during the testator’s life by the use of a pre-printed form1.


 1Aldrich v. Basile, 136 So. 3rd 530, 538 (Fla. 2014). 

https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2015-01-20 09:30:302015-01-20 09:30:30Avoidable Litigation as a Threat to the Assets of An Estate

Robin Williams Got It Right

September 3, 2014/in Administration Expenses, Administration of Estate, Administration of Trust, Court Procedures, Personal Representative, Trustee

by Kelly Cooper

The popular press is always full of cautionary tales about celebrities and their estate plans (see our previous post on Philip Seymour Hoffman).  These stories make it seem that more celebrities get estate planning wrong then get it right.  However, it appears that Robin Williams did take several steps to get his estate plan right before his untimely death. 

Williams created a revocable living trust.  Since trust documents are not part of the public record like a will, we may never know who Williams gave his assets to and how those assets will be handled (in a trust, outright gifts, etc.).  The living trust will help protect Williams’ legacy and his family’s privacy (assuming there is no litigation or disclosure by those with knowledge of the plan).

In addition, living trusts help to avoid probate if they are properly funded.  In California, where Williams lived, the probate process can be expensive due to fees for the attorney and executor that are based on the value of the assets going through probate in addition to appraisal fees and court costs.  If Williams transferred all of his personal assets to the living trust prior to his death, he will have helped to avoid these expenses.

Williams also appears to have created a trust to hold his real estate in California (estimated equity of $25 million) and another trust to benefit his children (value unknown).  While it is not known whether Williams created these trusts to help reduce his estate tax costs, it is possible that he did so.  This uncertainty is because the terms of these trusts remain private.

I hope that Williams’ family benefits from his planning and foresight and that other celebrities take notice.

https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2014-09-03 08:30:002014-09-03 08:30:00Robin Williams Got It Right

Probate and Trust Issues in Colorado’s Upcoming Legislative Session

December 9, 2013/in Administration Expenses, Administration of Estate, Administration of Trust, Conservator, Court Procedures, Fiduciary Discretion, Fiduciary Duties, Fiduciary Litigation, Guardian, Legislation, Life Insurance, Personal Representative, Powers of Attorney, Removal of Fiduciary, Surcharge of Fiduciary, Testamentary Capacity, Trust Litigation, Trustee, Undue Influence, Will & Trust Construction

by Kelly Cooper

Colorado’s General Assembly will reconvene on January 8, 2014.  At this time, it appears that at least two probate and trust related issues will be the subject of debate by the Assembly.

The first is a proposed change to the Colorado Civil Unions Act that would permit partners to a civil union to file joint income tax returns if they are permitted to do so by federal law.  Under the current proposal being considered by the Colorado Bar Association, there would be changes to both the Civil Unions Act and Colorado’s income tax statutes.  This is partly in response to the issuance of Revenue Ruling 2013-17 by the Internal Revenue Service, which permits married same sex couples to file joint federal income tax returns. 

The second is a proposal to codify a testamentary exception to Colorado’s attorney-client privilege.  The necessity and proposed scope of the testamentary exception are currently being discussed by a subcommittee of the Statutory Revisions Committee of the Trust & Estate Section of the Colorado Bar Association and will likely be discussed later this week at Super Thursday meetings.

The Colorado Supreme Court has previously recognized that the attorney-client privilege generally survives the death of the client to further one of the policies of the attorney-client privilege – to encourage clients to communicate fully and frankly with counsel.  The Colorado Supreme Court has also held that a “testamentary exception” to the privilege exists, which permits an attorney to reveal certain types of communications when there is dispute among the heirs, devisees or other parties who claim by succession from a decedent so that the intent of the decedent can be upheld.

https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://fiduciarylawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2013-12-09 08:16:002013-12-09 08:16:00Probate and Trust Issues in Colorado’s Upcoming Legislative Session

Fiduciary Law Blog Archive

NOTE: This blog is no longer an active blog. For the foreseeable future, we will not be contributing content. However, we continue to offer the already published content as a service to anyone interested in the topics Holland & Hart’s Trust & Estates team covered here.

Trust & Estate Litigation Practice

Holland & Hart has one of the premiere trust and estate litigation practices in the Mountain West Region. We offer legal services in the areas of probate, trust, and fiduciary litigation, and provide customized solutions to fiduciaries with the intent of avoiding future litigation. Our team represents trustees, financial institutions, trust companies, beneficiaries, creditors, agents under powers of attorney, and individuals in probate, trust, and fiduciary disputes. As part of a full-service law firm, we can also provide streamlined coordination with attorneys in other related disciplines to provide maximum efficiency and effectiveness. Click here to read more.

Categories

  • Administration Expenses
  • Administration of Estate
  • Administration of Trust
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Arbitration
  • Bonds
  • Charities
  • Conservator
  • Court Procedures
  • Elder Law
  • Estate Planning
  • Fees
  • Fiduciary Discretion
  • Fiduciary Duties
  • Fiduciary Litigation
  • Guardian
  • Legislation
  • Life Insurance
  • Mediation
  • Personal Representative
  • Powers of Attorney
  • Removal of Fiduciary
  • Settlement of Controversies
  • Surcharge of Fiduciary
  • Taxes
  • Testamentary Capacity
  • Testamentary Intent
  • Trust Litigation
  • Trustee
  • Uncategorized
  • Undue Influence
  • Will & Trust Construction

Archives

Blog Authors

Desta Asfaw
Margot Edwards
Jody Hall
Richard Kiely
Andrew LeMieux
Megan Meyers
Peter O’Brien
Kami Pomerantz
Helen Rogers
Carol Warnick

About the Firm

Holland & Hart is a full-service law firm with locations in 14 offices. Throughout the Mountain West, from coast to coast and beyond, Holland & Hart provides clients with sharp legal counsel from a vantage like no other. For more information, visit www.hollandhart.com or on Twitter: @HollandHart.

Disclaimer

This publication is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal or financial advice nor do they necessarily reflect the views of Holland & Hart LLP or any of its attorneys other than the author. This publication is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Holland & Hart LLP. Substantive changes in the law subsequent to the date of this publication might affect the analysis or commentary. Similarly, the analysis may differ depending on the jurisdiction or circumstances. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.

Privacy Policy

View our privacy policy.

© Copyright - Holland & Hart LLP - Enfold Theme by Kriesi
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top