msfiduciary

A Discussion Forum for the Mississippi Estate Planning Community

Welcome to The Mississippi Fiduciary

David RussellWelcome to The Mississippi Fiduciary, a discussion forum for the Mississippi estate planning community hosted and edited by Pinnacle Trust.   As the senior editor for this site, I look forward to promoting discussion of current and relevant issues related to the disciplines within estate planning –  including law, accounting, banking, insurance, financial planning, and family counseling. In fulfilling the site’s mission, I draw from my own experience within the Trust and Financial Planning industry, as well as from the wealth of  news from other blog posts, websites, and events that travel the information highway.  And, because our state is blessed with tremendous specialized talent far and above anything I can offer, we also feature articles, commentary, and analysis by many of our state’s most recognized professionals in the estate planning arena. I invite you to lend us your own insights into this field as well by posting your comments. Or, if you have an interesting topic to discuss, contact me about being a guest author.

I look forward to hearing from you,
David W. Russell, CFP®

Mississippi Fiduciary Launches LinkedIn Group

MS Fiduciary Profile Pic

The Mississippi Fiduciary blog has launched a LinkedIn Group. Since its launch in January 2011, The Mississippi Fiduciary has received over 7,700 views from visitors around the world who have read many of its 123 posts in 45 categories.

As many of you know, it’s tough to keep a blog going with fresh new content. Much of the material that is of interest to the estate planning community has already been written about on other blogs, publications, or websites. With this new group, it will be much easier for group members to share relevant content, or to create original content, polls, or questions and foster greater networking among the legal, accounting, insurance, trust, and investment community in Mississippi.

This blog will remain active at least through the end of 2012. If you are a LinkedIn member, please join us at http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=4393924.

Book Offered on Financial Caregiving

Book Cover I am pleased to announce the publication of my first book, What You Need to Know: The Adult Child’s Guide to Becoming a Financial Caregiver. The book is a culmination of both my professional and personal experience in working with older clients and their families, as well as working with my own parents. Three years ago, I became a financial caregiver to my parents. All of the years I had spent advising others about this reality came home and I realized that it’s one thing to advise others about this; quite another to actually be in the role. Even with my recent experience, I understand that my parents’ situation will be different from everyone else’s. I am less the “expert” than a fellow caregiver with thousands of others who entered this chapter in the relationship with their parents, not knowing what they need to know. I confess without hesitation that I am not the answer-man when it comes to the delicate issues surrounding this role. I doubt anyone is. Instead, the book focuses on what I refer to as the Four P’s – People, Property, Programs, and Plans – and what the financial caregiver needs to know about each.

The book can be ordered on Amazon for $14.95, or if you’d like a free copy, just email me at drussell@pinntrust.com and send me your mailing address. I’ll be glad to send it to you.

Back-Door Roth IRA’s for the wealthy

Forbes.com contributing author Ashlea Ebeling, recently reported on the so-called “back-door Roth” whereby high income earners can make contributions to a Roth IRA. Congress ended income limits on Roth conversions in 2010, but retained the income limits for contributions. The back-door approach, perfectly legal according to statements by tax authorities, utilizes a two-step approach and qualified employer retirement accounts to allow high-income earners to contribute to a Roth, bypassing the income restrictions.

See Roths For The Rich. Forbes Magazine, Feb. 27, 2012

Long Term Care not a priority among candidates

According to a recent article published by Forbes contributing author, Howard Gleckman, long tem care issues are not high priority items for discussion. This despite the fact that the fastest growing segment of our population are the octogenarians, those 80 and over, who are likely to place a heavy demand on long term care services.

Most presidential candidates don’t care enough about long-term care services to bother to describe their views on issue. Of the five candidates surveyed by 15 national advocacy groups only two–President Obama and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich–responded to five questions on long-term care. Neither of the two GOP frontrunners, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, answered the survey. Nor has Ron Paul.

See Long-Term Care Services: Forgotten By Most Presidential Candidates. Forbes 2/22/2012

New budget proposal targets Defective Grantor Trusts

The Journal of Accountancy reports that one of the features of the Obama Administration’s newly released 2013 revenue proposals “is a new plan that could alter estate planning techniques and benefits with intentionally defective grantor trusts (IDGTs).”

The proposal is being considered to coordinate certain income and transfer tax rules applicable to grantor trusts. Under the proposal, when a transfer is made to a grantor trust, the gift tax would be applicable when there is a distribution from the grantor trust or when the trust ceases to be a grantor trust. To the extent not yet distributed, any amount in the grantor trust at the date of the grantor’s death would be subject to estate tax. This would eliminate the transfer tax benefits of sales to IDGTs.

See Eileen Reichenberg Sherr, Budget Proposal Includes Change to Treatment of Intentionally Defective Trusts, Journal of Accountancy, Feb. 21, 2012.

Hat tip to Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog.

IRA Beneficiary Planning

Retirement-Income.net has published an excellent article titled IRA Beneficiary Selection. The article discusses common mistakes made in naming IRA beneficiaries, and addresses such issues as naming trusts as IRA beneficiaries and how to title inherited IRA’s.

The introduction to the article is below:

Every week, more than 28,000 people reach the age where they must begin to take mandatory IRA distributions.  When the IRS “simplified” the IRA distribution rules in January 2001, many people mistakenly assumed that the process of distribution planning would now be simpler and that detailed planning was less necessary. But selection of IRA beneficiaries is now more important than ever. 

The new rules have not, in fact, made planning simpler; in truth there are many significant errors in IRA distribution planning that could prevent your legacy from ending up where you really want it to go.

Failure to probate will results in lost mineral rights

The 12th District Court of Appeals in Tyler Texas affirmed a lower court’s decision denying the appellant’s application for probating a will 13 years after the testator’s death. It should be a wakeup call for anyone whose family members may have owned land at one time or another in areas of the country that may now be sources of rich deposits of oil, gas, or other minerals. Since I recently became the financial caregiver for my parents who do own mineral interests in Louisiana and Texas, this case certainly hits close to home.

In the Estate of Everett H. Rothrock, Deceased, Jerry E. Rothrock appealed the trial court’s order denying his application to probate his father’s will as a muniment of title.  In one issue, Jerry contends the trial court erred in determining that he was in default for failing to probate  his father’s will within the statutory period. 

Section 73(a) of the Texas Probate Code states as follows:

(a) No will shall be admitted to probate after the lapse of four years from the death of the testator unless it be shown by proof that the party applying for such probate was not in default in failing to present the same for probate within the four years aforesaid; and in no case shall letters testamentary be issued where a will is admitted
to probate after the lapse of four years from the death of the testator.

In 1986, Everett H. Rothrock, Jerry’s father, signed a will appointing Jerry as the independent executor of the will and naming him as the sole beneficiary of the estate. Everett died on June 5, 1994.  In September 2008, Jerry was notified by an oil and gas landman that Everett owned mineral interests in Cherokee County, Texas.  On October 6, 2008, Jerry filed an application to probate Everett’s will as a muniment of title.

At a hearing on the application, Jerry testified that, in gathering Everett’s assets between 1985 and 1986, he investigated whether Everett owned any land. According to Jerry, Everett told him that he had sold all of the real property he had received from his parents and that he did not have any real property left.

The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision stating, “Because Jerry did not probate Everett’s will within four years after his death, relied upon a family agreement, and failed to show reasonable diligence, the evidence is factually sufficient to support the  trial court’s finding  that Jerry was in default.  The trial court did not err in denying Jerry’s application to probate Everett’s will as a muniment of title.”

Adding insult to injury is the fact that according to court documents, Jerry was also a “very successful lawyer in Washington, D.C. and that about half of his practice dealt with oil and gas law.”

MS Supreme Court Determines Conditional Bequest as Precatory

In Estate of Brill, No. 2009–CT–01968–SCT (Miss. Dec. 15, 2011), the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed in an opinion thoroughly analyzing the Mississippi precedents and holding that the language was precatory and thus the will gave the sister fee simple ownership of the residuary estate.

Bobbye Brill died testate on April 1, 2004.  She was survived by her mother, Annie Nichols, and her brother and sister, Frank Nichols and Shirlee Phillips, respectively.  Brill’s holographic will states:

I, Bobbye Brill, leave my home and contents to my sister, Shirlee Phillips.  My Thunderbird  car  I  leave  to my  brother,  Frank Nichols. The  remainder  of my estate   I  leave  to my  sister, Shirlee Phillips, with  the  understanding  she  will  take care of my mother, Annie Nichols.  Please be sure this is carried out.

Brill’s brother Frank Nichols, claimed that the language created an testamentary trust for the benefit of Annie Nichols, and did not confer a fee-simple remainder interest in Brill’s entire estate to Shirlee Phillips.

Both the Chancery Court and the Court of Appeals ruled against Nichols, claiming that the language created a “conditional bequest” to Phillips and that she had fulfilled the condition by caring for Annie Nichols.

In rendering its option, The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that

After reviewing the entire will, we find that the sentence creates neither a testamentary trust nor a ‘conditional bequest’. We find that the language ‘with the understanding that she will take care of my mother’ was a precatory expression of Brill’s wish or desire and was not imperative. Brill’s will conveyed her residuary estate to Phillips in fee simple. Accordingly, we find that the Court of Appeals and chancery court correctly awarded the residuary estate to Phillips, but that both courts erred in finding that the will created a conditional bequest.

State v. Smith and State v. Snelling (Indiana)

The Indiana state securities regulators pursued an action alleging that Jerry Smith and Jasen Snelling bilked investors out of more than $4.5 million in a nearly decade-long Ponzi scheme where Mr. Smith and Mr. Snelling told investors they were talented day traders and promised up to 20% returns. Mr. Smith and Mr. Snelling, through various companies, encouraged investors to roll over their traditional IRA accounts into self-directed IRAs at a trust company. Mr. Smith and Mr. Snelling would immediately take the funds from those accounts and use them for personal living expenses, but investors continued to receive statements from the trust company, as well as bills for custodial fees, even after their money was taken out of the ac-counts. Mr. Smith and Mr. Snelling are charged with more than fifty counts of violations of the Indiana Uniform Securities Act.

To read more on this case, click here.

SEC v. Durmaz, et al

The SEC filed charges alleging that a company and its partners perpetrated a Ponzi scheme in which at least $20 million was raised from more than 120 investors. In particular, the SEC alleged that the defendants promised safe, guaranteed returns in purported investments in foreign bonds and raised money by convincing investors to invest in self-directed IRAs and steering them to custodians who offered the self-directed IRAs. $20 million of the funds invested in the fraudulent scheme came from self-directed IRAs.

The SEC alleges that USA Retirement Management Services (“USARMS”) and managing partners Francois E. Durmaz and Robert C. Pribilski mass-mailed promotional materials to prospective investors and invited them to estate planning seminars held at country clubs and banquet halls. They gained retirees’ confidence in follow-up meetings and portrayed themselves as educated and experienced in foreign investments specifically tailored to the needs of seniors. Durmaz and Pribilski then pitched what they represented as safe, guaranteed investments in “Turkish Eurobonds” through the purchase of USARMS promissory notes that would earn annual returns between 8 and 11 percent.

The SEC alleges that USARMS raised at least $20 million from more than 120 investors, but did not actually invest the money in Turkish Eurobonds as promised. Instead, returns were paid to earlier investors with funds received from new investors in Ponzi-like fashion. Durmaz and Pribilski further misused investor funds to finance their other businesses and purchase such things as luxury automobiles, homes, vacations, and web-based pornography. They also wired investor money into bank accounts belonging to individuals living in Turkey who are named as relief defendants in the SEC’s case.

To read the full complaint, click here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers