The Section 7520 rate is 1.8% AFRs Annual Semi-annual Quarterly Monthly Short-term 0.74% 0.74% 0.74% 0.74% Mid-term 1.47% 1.46% 1.46% 1.46% Long-term 2.26% 2.25% 2.24% 2.24%
Guardianships and conservatorships are seldom happy events. Despite whatever may have precipitated the need for financial or personal protection, there must be an attempt to respect the desires of the ward, if possible. That’s why, when it comes to picking a conservator, the ward’s choice falls first in the order of priorities of appointment. However, in In re Estate of Curtis, the Georgia Court of Appeals determined that’s where the order of priority may end – at the inception of the conservatorship.
A ward wanted to replace his conservator for a variety of reasons. And, while the appellate court’s opinion focused mainly on evidentiary issues, it also addressed how to handle a ward’s preference for a particular conservator. The time for a ward to express his or her preference is at the initial appointment of the conservator. Nothing in the record demonstrated that the ward had
Bryan Cave’s Private Client Group was recently recognized by US News & World Report’s 2017 “Best Law Firms” as a “National Tier 1” practice in the Trusts and Estates category.
No procedural or jurisdictional issues in Georgia fiduciary litigation can cause as much headache as the sometimes exclusive and sometimes concurrent jurisdiction of the superior and probate courts. The Georgia Court of Appeals’ recent decisions in Rentz v. Rentz and Rentz Family Farms v. Rentz put a spotlight on these procedural and jurisdictional tensions. The cases involved the distribution of real property held by an estate, a probate court’s order to liquidate that real property despite a current lease on certain parcels, and an attempt to have a superior court weigh in on the propriety of the probate court’s actions while the probate court proceedings were ongoing.
The appellate court’s description of the interaction between the probate and superior court as “complicated” may be an understatement. Cutting through the “complicated interaction” was case and fact specific, but there seems to be a
Originally posted by our employee benefits and compensation team, here.
Posted: 31 Oct 2016 12:15 PM PDT
The IRS recently released updated limits for retirement plans. Our summary of those limits (along with the limits from the last few years) is below.
Type of Limitation 2017 2016 2015 2014 Elective Deferrals (401(k), 403(b), 457(b)(2) and 457(c)(1)) $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $17,500 Section 414(v) Catch-Up Deferrals to 401(k), 403(b), 457(b), or SARSEP Plans (457(b)(3) and 402(g) provide separate catch-up rules to be considered as appropriate) $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $5,500 SIMPLE 401(k) or regular SIMPLE plans, Catch-Up Deferrals $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $2,500 415 limit for Defined Benefit Plans $215,000 $210,000 $210,000 $210,000 415 limit for Defined Contribution Plans $54,000 $53,000 $53,000 $52,000 Annual Compensation Limit $270,000 $265,000 $265,000 $260,000 Annual Compensation Limit for Grandfathered Participants in Governmental Plans Which Followed 401(a)(17) Limits (With Indexing) on July 1,