Trust BCLP

Trust BCLP

ARCHIVE

Main Content

Expert Witness’s Draft Reports Not Discoverable in Tax Court

The U.S. Tax Court recently amended Tax Court Rule 70(c)(4). It now specifically recognizes that the Limitations on Discovery set forth in Tax Court Rule 70(c)(3) does apply to draft reports of any expert witness in a Tax Court case.

Whenever a taxpayer or the government expects to call an expert witness in a Tax Court case, the direct testimony of the expert witness is to be submitted to the Tax Court in written form. This change in Rule 70 now expressly treats the work preliminary to the final report that is filed with the court as having been prepared in anticipation of litigation. Consequently, the drafts of that final report is not subject to discovery.

In addition to this change in Rule 70, the new Rule 70 protects from discovery communication with a non-testifying expert witness, unless the party seeking such discovery can establish “exceptional circumstances” such that it

Interest Rates Indicate a Great Time for Charitable Lead Trusts

charity

Originally posted on our sister blog, www.bryancavecharitylaw.com

Previously, I blogged about the low interest rate environment and how that results in a great opportunity for a donor with charitable objectives who also wishes to pass assets to the next generation free of federal estate or generation-skipping transfer tax. To read that posting about Charitable Lead Trusts, click here. Well, rates have continued to stay at historic lows.  The IRS just announced the rates available for June of 1.2%.  These low rates mean that it’s easier then ever for these trusts to be productive to pass even more cash to lower generations free of transfer tax. So, if you think that the trust’s investment strategy could beat the IRS-decreed rate of 1.2%, while also benefiting charity, June is the time.

For an overview regarding the basics

Alcoholism And Incapacity

May 24, 2013

Authored by:

Categories

Alcoholism And Incapacity

May 24, 2013

Authored by: Luke Lantta

A common theme of plaintiffs in lack of capacity cases is that some kind of cognitive impairment, such as dementia, chronic alcoholism, or major depression, by itself indicates that the grantor or testator lacked the requisite capacity to create a trust or will, respectively.  In Dorsey v. Ratz (link from Justia), a Maryland federal court recently looked at whether the diagnosis of major depressive disorder and alcohol dependence suggested incompetence when it came to executing a change of beneficiary form on a life insurance policy.

Will an Affirmative Disposition of an IRA in a Trust Work? Maybe

In the past, the Service has indicated informally that an affirmative direction in a trust that is named as the beneficiary of an IRA would not be respected to limit the consideration of other beneficiaries named in other sections of the trust, but that a negative direction would work. Thus, if the trust created Trust A, Trust B and Trust C after the settlor’s death, and specified that the IRA was to be an asset of Trust A, the Service still required a review of all the beneficiaries of Trust B and Trust C, but if the trust specified that the IRA could not be used to fund Trust B or Trust C, the beneficiaries of those trusts would not be considered in determining whether the trust was a “see through” trust and the measuring life for purposes of the required minimum distributions. However, in PLR 201241017, the Service appears

Defalcation, Bankruptcy, And Fiduciary Litigation

Originally posted on our sister blog, www.bryancavefiduciarylitigation.com

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., which addressed the circumstances in which a breach of fiduciary duty judgment can be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.  Specifically, the Court resolved a deeply fractured Circuit split on the scope of the term “defalcation” within Section 523(a)(4) of the Federal Bankruptcy Code.  That Section of the Bankruptcy Code provides that an individual cannot obtain bankruptcy discharge “for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny.”  For years, the lower courts had struggled with what, exactly, “defalcation” means.  Wonder no longer because the Supreme Court has defined it.

Defalcation, Bankruptcy, And Fiduciary Litigation

May 20, 2013

Authored by:

Categories

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., which addressed the circumstances in which a breach of fiduciary duty judgment can be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.  Specifically, the Court resolved a deeply fractured Circuit split on the scope of the term “defalcation” within Section 523(a)(4) of the Federal Bankruptcy Code.  That Section of the Bankruptcy Code provides that an individual cannot obtain bankruptcy discharge “for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny.”  For years, the lower courts had struggled with what, exactly, “defalcation” means.  Wonder no longer because the Supreme Court has defined it.

How is an Illinois Trust Now Like a Fine Wine? It Can Be Decanted: A Summary of the New Illinois Decanting Statute

decanterEffective January 1, 2013, Illinois statute authorizes “decanting” of irrevocable trusts. What is decanting, you ask? Isn’t that something you do with a bottle of wine? Yes, it is, and just like you decant wine from one bottle into a new container to remove sediment and to allow the wine to breathe, when you decant a trust, you pour the trust assets from one trust into another trust, allowing flexibility in the terms of an otherwise irrevocable trust.

Illinois recently enacted a new Section 16.4 of the Trust and Trustees Act, entitled “Distribution of trust principal in further trust” (the “Decanting Statute”). The Decanting Statute allows the trustees of an irrevocable trust (the first trust), acting pursuant to their fiduciary duty (and assuming certain conditions are met), to distribute all or part of

When The General Powers Granted To A Trustee Conflict With A Specific Trust Provision

From BryanCaveFiduciaryLitigation.com

Almost invariably, settlors give their trustees broad powers regarding trust property.  Often these broad powers include the power to convey and encumber trust property and the power to loan trust property.  But, sometimes, the settlor also gives the trustee specific instructions with respect to specific trust property.  In Hamel v. Hamel, the Kansas Supreme Court interpreted a trust instrument that gave the trustee broad general powers, but also specific directions regarding a specific piece of real property, and examined the interplay between the two provisions.

Arthur L. Hamel’s trust instrument gave the trustee broad authorization to control and administer trust property, including “the power to do all acts that might legally be done by an individual in absolute ownership and control of the property” and provided the trustee with “the power to lend money to . . . any beneficiary

The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.