Tag Archives: estate planning

Inherited IRA and 401(k)s

Does a Surviving Spouse have a Right to the Deceased Spouse’s 401(k) or IRA?

When choosing a beneficiary for a retirement plan, it is important to understand how your spouse will be treated under the plan. Surviving spouses are treated differently under 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts (IRAs). While a 401(k) provides protections for a surviving spouse, an IRA does not.

Because the 401(k) is an employee-based retirement system, it is governed by a federal law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Under ERISA, a surviving spouse is usually the automatic beneficiary of a retirement plan (There may be some exceptions. For example, the spouse may have to be married to the employee for a certain amount of time). The spouse must consent in writing if the employee wishes to name someone else as the beneficiary.

IRAs, on the other hand, are not governed by ERISA, so they do not include the same protections for spouses. This is true even if a 401(k) is rolled into an IRA. In a recent case, Charles Schwab v. Debickero (U.S. Ct. App., 9th Cir., No. 07-15261, Jan. 22, 2010) a husband rolled his 401(k) into an IRA with Charles Schwab & Company after he retired. He named his children as the IRA’s beneficiaries. After he died, his wife claimed that she was entitled to the account funds as his surviving spouse. She argued that because her husband rolled his 401(k) into the IRA, she should receive the same protections that the 401(k) gave her. The court disagreed, finding that the IRAs are excluded from ERISA coverage even if the funds originated in a 401(k).

If you have an IRA and want your spouse to be its beneficiary, you have to specifically name the spouse as a beneficiary. If you have a 401(k) and want your spouse to be the beneficiary, you should still fill out a beneficiary designation form, naming your spouse. And if you roll it over into an IRA, make sure you fill out a new beneficiary designation form. If you want someone other than your spouse to be the 401(k)’s beneficiary, you will need the spouse’s consent in writing, as noted above.

Whether you have a 401(k) or an IRA, it is important to regularly check your beneficiary designations to ensure they are current.

from www.elderlawanswer.com

New Estate Tax and Gift Tax Rules

Congress passed and President Obama has signed into law the deal extending the Bush tax cuts that he struck with Congressional Republicans. The legislation restores the estate tax for two years at a 35 percent tax rate, with estates up to $5 million exempt from paying any tax ($10 million for couples). If Congress does not change the law in the interim, in 2013 the estate tax will revert to what it was scheduled to be in 2011 — a 55 percent rate and a $1 million exemption.

The new $5 million estate tax exemption and 35 percent rate are retroactive to January 1, 2010. The heirs of those dying in 2010 will have a choice between applying the new rules or electing to be covered under the rules that have applied in 2010 — no estate tax but only a limited step-up in the cost basis of inherited assets. This will benefit the heirs of tens of thousands who died in 2010 with relatively modest estates and who would have been subject to capital gains tax on inherited assets above a certain threshold.

The law makes the estate tax exemption “portable” between spouses. This means that if the first spouse to die does not use all of his or her $5 million exemption, the estate of the surviving spouse could use it.

The law unifies the estate, gift and generation-skipping transfer tax exemptions at $5 million. (For 2010 there is no generation-skipping tax, while the gift tax exemption has been $1 million for a number of years.) A 35 percent tax rate will apply to gifts or transfers over the $5 million threshold. (There is no change in the $13,000 annual exclusion amount for gifts.)

from www.elderlawanswers.com.

Online Legal Forms

Online Legal Forms Company Sued

LegalZoom, one of the most prominent sellers of do-it-yourself wills and other estate planning documents, is the target of a class action lawsuit in California charging that the company engages in deceptive business practices and is practicing law without a license.

The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, by Katherine Webster, who is the niece of the late Anthony J. Ferrantino and the executor of Mr. Ferrantino’s estate.

Knowing that he had only a few months to live, Mr. Ferrantino asked Ms. Webster to help him use LegalZoom to execute a will and living trust. Based on LegalZoom’s advertising, Ms. Webster says she believed that the documents they created would be legally binding and that if they encountered any problems, the company’s customer service department would resolve them.

But after the living trust documents were created and signed, Ms. Webster could not transfer any of her uncle’s assets into the trust because the financial institutions that held his money refused to accept the LegalZoom documents as valid. Ms. Webster tried to get help from LegalZoom, with no success. The trust was still not funded when Mr. Ferrantino died.

Ms. Webster was forced to hire an estate planning attorney, who petitioned the court to allow the post-death funding of the trust. The attorney then had to convince the banks to transfer the funds — a more difficult task following Mr. Ferrantino’s death. The attorney also discovered that the will LegalZoom created for Mr. Ferrantino had not been properly witnessed. All this cost Mr. Ferrantino’s estate thousands of dollars.

The lawsuit claims that Ms. Webster and others like her relied on misleading statements by LegalZoom, including that LegalZoom carefully reviews customer documents, that it guarantees its customers 100 percent satisfaction with its services, that its documents are the same quality as those prepared by an attorney, and that the documents are effective and dependable.

“Nowhere in the [company’s] manual do defendants explain that using LegalZoom is not the same as using an attorney and that its documents are only ‘customized’ to the extent that the LegalZoom computer program inputs your name and identifying information, but not tailored to your specific circumstances,” the lawsuit states, adding that “the customer service representatives are not lawyers and cannot by law provide legal advice.”

Ms. Webster is suing not only on her behalf but on behalf of anyone in California who paid LegalZoom for a living trust, will, living will, advance health care directive or power of attorney. The lawsuit estimates this class embraces more than 3,000 individuals.

“LegalZoom’s business is based on nurturing the false sense of security that people do not need to hire a traditional attorney,” says San Francisco attorney Robert Arns, one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit. “The complaint points out that LegalZoom advertises that you don’t need a real attorney because its work is legally binding and reliable. That’s misleading. Improperly prepared estate planning documents are a ticking time bomb that can result in improper tax consequences and other items that could cost the estate and heirs huge sums.”

“LegalZoom preys on people when they’re at their most vulnerable, when they are of advanced age or poor health and need a will or a living trust,” adds San Francisco elder abuse attorney Kathryn Stebner, Ms. Webster’s lead counsel.

One of the defendants named in the suit is LegalZoom co-founder Robert Shapiro, who appears on the LegalZoom Web page and TV ads and who is best-known for being one of O.J. Simpsons attorneys.

This is not the first suit against LegalZoom. In December 2009, a Missouri man who paid LegalZoom to prepare his will sued the company for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law (Janson v. LegalZoom). The lawsuit is also seeking class action status. LegalZoom is trying to have the case removed from Missouri state court to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
From www.elderlawanswers.com.