LWP.MaximizingYourLT.FB

Maximizing Your Legal Technical Training

by with 3 Comments Asset ProtectionCoaching & ImplementationDavid J. ZumpanoEstate Planning Drafting SoftwareLegal TechnicalMedicaidSystems & Processes

Lawyers with Purpose is getting ready for some exciting changes in our legal technical training. Over the past several months, as my calendar has been freed up to provide one-on-one legal training and file reviews with members, case-specific questions for the Live Case Study review have slowly faded. As such, we are restructuring the Monday afternoon hour to continue to provide members with the most efficient use of your time and the time of your staff. Moving forward, while we will continue to address all questions that are submitted by 5 p.m. Friday on the following Monday, we will be using a large portion of the legal technical hour as an in-depth study of the Lawyers with Purpose system and the many uses of the LWP Client Centered Software.

Bigstock-Broken-Wedding-Rings-19863971

Proper Remarriage Protection Planning

by with No Comment Asset ProtectionDavid J. ZumpanoEstate Planning Drafting Software

Many lawyers proclaim to have remarriage protection in their estate planning documents, but few are worthy of this claim. For most lawyers, having remarriage protection means removing a spouse’s right to benefit from a trust in the event the spouse remarries. Although this is a good start, it is wholly insufficient in determining the expansive abilities that one can have regarding remarriage protections.

So let’s look at the key points. Typically, clients use trusts to benefit their spouse. Outright conveyances to spouses are common, but they do not provide any asset protection or remarriage protection. To ensure that assets are protected in a remarriage, one must plan appropriately in four core areas.

  1. Beneficial interest of the spouse
  2. The definition of “remarriage”
  3. Powers of appointment to the spouse
  4. Removal powers to the spouse


Bigstock-Broken-Wedding-Rings-19863971When designating trusts for clients of long-term marriages, most want to ensure that the intentions of the couple are carried out after the death of the first spouse, and are not adversely influenced. Although this is a common goal, it could be derailed when a new relationship enters the picture after the death of the first spouse. The goals and intentions of the surviving spouse are often altered significantly due to the fear of having lost their spouse and/or the introduction of a new relationship that can influence them. To ensure that the deceased spouse’s intentions are carried out, the Lawyers with Purpose Client-Centered Software (LWP-CCS) ensures remarriage protection at all three levels. Let’s examine each and how they apply to remarriage protection.

First is the spouse’s right to a beneficial interest. The surviving spouse often has a right to principle and/or income from the deceased spouse’s trust. That interest can come in the form of a family-type trust that benefits the spouse’s kids/non-family, or a common trust with other beneficiaries. So often, we see lawyers name just the spouse as the beneficiary of the family trust. Although this protects the spouse, it also unduly restricts them. A spouse who wants to benefit a child and use assets from the deceased spouse’s trust often has to take the distribution and then give it to the child. Instead, it is more practical to include the children and other descendants as benefits of the principal and income to a surviving spouse. This allows the surviving spouse, as trustee, to distribute or “sprinkle” the income or principal as they determine to accomplish the goals of the family. In contrast, if the surviving spouse gets unduly influenced by a new relationship, then one must be able to restrict that spouse’s right to income and principal under the deceased spouse’s trust. Remember, the surviving spouse has assets that are still available as provided by the original planning.

Another critical issue in remarriage planning is the definition of remarriage. Most trusts define remarriage as however remarriage is legal in the jurisdiction. This is another mistake. In today’s day and age, no one gets married anymore, but not getting married does not mean that a new “significant other” does not have significant influence over the surviving spouse. That’s why Lawyers with Purpose’s Client-Centered Software includes default remarriage language that identifies remarriage as any marriage legal in the jurisdiction or any relationship that results in cohabitation for one night. The software also allows attorneys to custom-tailor the definition of remarriage any way they choose. What’s critically important is what remarriage protections are triggered when the remarriage definition is met, first, upon remarriage under the definition, the ability to access principal or income can be restricted in the LWP-CCS software.

In addition, a deceased spouse’s trust can allow a spouse certain powers of appointment to ensure that the couple’s goals are continued after the death of the first spouse. When there is an outside influence or a remarriage (as defined by you), then you may also begin to restrict the surviving spouse’s power of appointment to ensure that the children are not penalized for failing to agree with the surviving spouse, and the power to make distributions that would go against the deceased spouse’s intentions.

Perhaps the most significant power that can be removed in the LWP-CCS remarriage protection software is the ability to remove a surviving spouse’s removal powers. Removal powers include the surviving spouse’s ability to remove a trustee and/or trust protector of the deceased spouse’s trust. Allowing removal powers after the influence of a new third party can adversely affect children or other beneficiaries who are acting as co-trustees, or trust protectors who were independent and in place to ensure the preservation of the deceased grantor’s intentions. Interestingly, the Lawyers with Purpose software allows not only the appointment of all these powers to a spouse, it also allows you as the attorney to cherry pick which powers, or any combination of them, are altered upon the remarriage of a spouse as you wish to create them with the client.

Again, this is what we call trust drafting. Too many times we have lawyers get comfortable and lazy with the simple provisions most would call “remarriage protection.” That’s why at Lawyers with Purpose our software supports your ability to be purposeful to your client’s plan. 

If you want to learn more about what it means to be a Lawyers With Purpose member, consider joining us for THE estate and elder law event not to be missed this June in San Diego.  You can see the full agenda here: http://retreat.lawyerswithpurpose.com/agenda/.  If you aren't a member contact Molly Hall at mhall@lawyerswithpurpose.com to find out more information about how you can reserve your spot today.  Early bird pricing ends Friday, May 13th so register today!

Registration link: www.retreat.lawyerswithpurpose.com

Dave Zumpano, Co-founder – Lawyers With Purpose

Bigstock-Funding-for-welfare-collection-125848160

Trust Funding Essentials

by with No Comment Asset ProtectionDavid J. Zumpano

We as attorneys, and sometimes even our clients, hear so much about trust funding, but rarely is it truly understood. I would like to outline a few essentials when doing trust funding to ensure that the underlying estate plan works as intended.

The first key step in any trust funding strategy is to identify what type of estate plan the client is pursuing. A traditional revocable living trust is an estate plan wherein the client identifies who gets to benefit from the client's assets when the client is well, disabled, and after death. A critically important point to funding a revocable living trust is if all assets funded in the trust are still 100 percent available to creditors, predators, and long-term care costs of the grantor while alive. The assets can continue to be made available to the creditors and predators of the beneficiary after the death of the grantor without proper planning (more on that later). In the alternative, if a client has opted to do an irrevocable trust for asset protection and/or current or future benefits eligibility (we call these IPUG® trusts) then funding is much more important, because assets are not protected from third-party predators until funded, and they're not protected from long-term care costs until funded and any related penalty period for the conveyance of the trust has expired.

Bigstock-Funding-for-welfare-collection-125848160Therefore, funding in asset protection or benefits eligibility is significantly different. Finally, if the client has done a trust predominantly for estate tax planning to ensure that assets are not included in the grantor's taxable estate, or to minimize the taxes on them, funding takes on yet another unique importance. Finally, regardless of what type of planning, we also need to look at the types of assets we are funding. For example, funding a home has several options as well as funding an IRA or other tax-qualified assets. So examine the differences and determine how to fund properly.

The first questions we must ask are, what type of planning has the client done and what type of assets is the client funding? If a client has done a revocable living trust, then funding is important to ensure that the trustee actually has the authority over the client's assets to administer them in the manner that has been identified by the client in the trust. If funding is not completed or properly done, a "pow will" usually cleans up any missed items at death by ensuring that any assets not funded that go through probate name the trust as beneficiary. Unfortunately, if the client doesn’t die but instead becomes incapacitated, failure to fund a revocable trust has more dire consequences. In addition, failure to fund assets to the trust does not eliminate probate, one of the primary benefits of having a revocable living trust to ensure the plan is carried out without the excess costs, delays and frustrations of probate to the client’s family.

In stark contrast to revocable trust planning, when planning for asset protection or benefits eligibility, funding becomes the most critical element to which all protection occurs. For example, if an asset is funded into an irrevocable asset protection trust today, it is protected from any and all claims that arise after the funding. More definitive, if planning for benefits eligibility, the funding of the last asset becomes most critical, as all assets funded to a trust will be subject to Medicaid's review of that transfer for up to 60 months. At Lawyers with Purpose, we call this the "look forward™" period. When funding an irrevocable trust for benefits planning, the look forward on the final conveyed assets will trigger protection of the assets. For example, if a client has $500,000 to fund and only funds $450,000 of it, and two years later remembers to finally fund the last $50,000, the $450,000 conveyed initially will have a 60‑month look forward, but the $50,000 conveyed two years later will have its own separate 60-month look forward that will extend years beyond the expiration of the previous trust transfer. That is why it's essential when benefits eligibility planning that funding be done in a timely and effective manner to ensure that the look forward is minimized.

For estate tax planning, obviously the funding of assets becomes critical by use of the Crummey power if life insurance or any gift-discounting techniques are being used, since the funding must be used to pay the insurance premium and must specifically relate to any special valuations that are obtained at the time of funding.

Although funding is a critical element in each type of planning, what can complicate it further is the type of assets being funded. For example, let's consider funding a home. For a typical revocable living trust, the funding of the home ensures that there will be no probate on the home but still makes the home available to creditors (if not protected by some other state statute while tenancy by the entirety), or it can become a recoverable asset after death if Medicaid benefits are received. While the home is exempt for married and single applicants, it can be subject to estate recovery after death for all funds paid on behalf of the applicant during their lifetime. See my related article on Estate Recovery ­­­­- What Can (And Can't) They Get.  Finally, a recent case in Massachusetts suggests that having a trust that allows the grantor to reside in the house makes the entire value of the house an available resource in determining the client's eligibility for benefits. See my post on Nadeau v. Thorne – No Reason To Fear. This adds additional complications in funding, since attorneys may now choose to reserve a life estate in the deed rather than fund the entire property to the trust and risk its loss as an available resource. Finally, transferring a house or second home to a qualified personal residence trust is a gift-discounting technique often utilized by those subject to estate tax. Again, the funding of these properties into the trust, and the subsequent survival of the grantor during the term in which the interest is held, is essential to maximize the estate tax reduction.

The other major asset to be considered in funding is the IRA. The Supreme Court in Clark v. Rameker decided in June 2014 that IRAs are not protected for those who inherit them. There is an obvious exception for an IRA that names a spouse beneficiary, who then combines it with an existing IRA. While this ensures IRA protection from general creditors, an IRA is not exempt in determining one's eligibility for Medicaid, and therefore, leaving an IRA to a spouse can expose the entire IRA balance to the surviving spouse's nursing home costs. Federal Medicaid laws are absolute: an IRA is an available resource, unless it is annuitized. Although some states have liberalized the interpretation of annuitization (i.e. many states deem they were payouts of RMD to satisfy the annuity executor) it is not the federal law, but merely state policy, which could be changed at any time without notice. Over the last few years, several states have changed their policy, thus making assets that were presumed to have been protected immediately available for long-term care costs.

The naming of a beneficiary of an IRA and other qualified or beneficiary designated accounts to the trust is now essential to maintain the asset protection intended. For example, even for a young couple with no assets, a $250,000 life insurance policy that pays to the spouse at death could be a catastrophe, as young people often get remarried or make unwise decisions. One should be cautious and ensure that all or part of a life insurance policy for a young couple names a separate share trust under a will for the benefit of the minor children, so as to ensure that the surviving spouse does not squander the proceeds, and that they are used as intended by the client. Finally, as we look at trust funding, it is essential to have a key system in place to ensure that your funding is done in a timely and appropriate manner. How assets are funded, the timing of assets funding, and the beneficiary designation utilized in funding for after death, are essential to ensure that the underlying goals of the client are achieved.

To have learn more about the support and systems to fund clients' plans properly, contact Lawyers with Purpose now.  If you want to learn more about who we are consider joining our FREE webinar this Thursday, April 21st.  Discover how to build a thriving Estate, Elder and Asset Protection practice that attracts higher quality clients, generates an endless supply of referrals and continuous exposure in the community … without working 80 hours a week or breaking the bank! Reserve your spot today, just click here now.

David J. Zumpano, Co-founder – Lawyers With Purpose

 

Bigstock-Red-Pencil-Standing-Out-From-C-104390930

The ILIT / TAP Distinction

by with One Comment Asset ProtectionDavid J. ZumpanoEstate Planning Drafting Software

Many people commonly use Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts (ILIT) to ensure that life insurance owned by an individual is not included in their taxable estate at death. While an ILIT is a useful trust, you could accomplish far more with a TAP™ trust. So let's review an ILIT and distinguish how a TAP enhances the benefits often sought by ILITs. An ILIT is an irrevocable trust wherein the grantor retains no rights to modify the trust, benefit from the trust or control the trust. Retention of any of these rights will trigger estate tax inclusion under Internal Revenue Code Sections 2036 through 2042. An Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust may be a non-grantor trust or grantor trust, depending upon the attorney's drafting choice.

Triggering a provision of Internal Revenue Code Sections 671 through 679 will cause the inclusion of all income from the ILIT to be included in the personal income tax return of the grantor. While the grantor retains no rights to modify, control, or benefit from the trust, the grantor may be taxed on its income if a grantor trust provision is triggered. The most common of these grantor trust provisions is to allow the grantor to substitute assets of equal value, or make loans to the grantor without adequate security. By choosing grantor trust status, it essentially serves as an additional gift without having to utilize the annual gift tax exclusion, because the income taxes are paid from the grantor, rather than the trust. As a result, those additional sums are retained in the trust, thus providing additional assets to the intended beneficiaries that otherwise would have been used to pay the taxes.


Bigstock-Red-Pencil-Standing-Out-From-C-104390930One of the core elements of an ILIT is ensuring the use of Crummey powers. Crummey powers are based on the landmark case Crummey v. the Commissioner wherein the U.S. Tax Court held that granting someone the right to withdraw money funded to a trust immediately but limited to a short period of time (i.e. 30 days) was sufficient timing to deem the contribution a "present interest" and thereby trigger the annual gift tax exclusion for the contribution. A Crummey power is essential to ensure that the annual gift tax exclusions are utilized so as not to reduce the grantor's overall lifetime estate and gift tax exemption. One critical restriction under the current power, however, is that Section of the Internal Revenue Code limits the annual exclusion made to trusts to the greater of 5 percent of trust assets or $5,000. Therefore, it is essential to have a "hanging power" to ensure any contributions in excess of $5,000 or 5 percent are not deemed to be taxable gifts.

These hanging powers allow the Crummey beneficiary to continue to have the right to withdraw this excess amount, even beyond the 30-day period. For example, if a grantor contributes $42,000 to a trust for three Crummey beneficiaries and the $42,000 is the only asset of the trust and it was utilized to pay the insurance premium, then 5 percent of the trust assets only equals $2,000. Obviously, $5,000 would be greater, so $5,000 of each $14,000 contribution would be deemed to be a present interest gift and $9,000 of the contribution would "hang" until no contributions are made in a given year. At that time, an additional allocation of the annual gift would occur based on the $5,000 or 5 percent trust value limitation. Obviously, this could be problematic if these powers hang and one of your Crummey beneficiaries becomes subject to lawsuits, divorce or long-term care costs.

Another consideration with the Crummey power is to have straw Crummey beneficiaries. This is typically done by adding beneficiaries to the lifetime trust, which operates during the grantor's lifetime and provides the names of people who are not residuary beneficiaries. For example, one straw Crummey beneficiary might include spouses or other remote relatives who are willing to be a Crummey beneficiary, understanding that they are not likely to be an ultimate beneficiary. This allows additional payments each year to be contributed within the annual exclusion limit. Both ILITs and TAP trusts have Crummey provisions with hanging powers.

Neither ILITs nor TAPs are user friendly to individuals with estates less than $5,450,000, or $10,900,000 if married. These excessive restrictions need not be applied in circumstances where the total estate of the grantor plus the life insurance benefits does not exceed the estate tax limit. Obviously, the only other consideration would be if your state had an estate tax at a lower limit. If estate tax is a concern, a primary benefit of the TAP trust over the ILIT is that a TAP trust stands for Tax All Purpose trust, which means its intended benefit is far beyond the holding of life insurance. The TAP trust will typically hold life insurance policies, stocks, bonds, and other assets and/or business interests that the grantor would like to get passed on to the trust beneficiaries after death. This is especially helpful, as it will ensure that there are other assets in the trust other than the life insurance policy to accumulate assets of more than $280,000 to ensure that the entire Crummey contribution can be utilized each year with no hanging powers. In addition, the TAP trust has extensive provisions for lifetime and residuary trusts to the individuals or classes of people.

For example, sometimes a grantor will create a family-type trust that takes effect after death for the benefit of the surviving spouse and children, and upon the death of the surviving spouse, it provides separate residuary trusts for each child. Other times, clients may want to create a benefit for a class of their children for their lifetime, and at the death of the last child the balance is allocated to their then-surviving children in separate share trusts. TAP trusts are extremely flexible and powerful in ensuring that whatever assets are passed through them (life insurance, stocks, bonds, business interests, etc.) are passed on to their loved ones fully asset-protected in separate asset protection trusts or common trusts, depending on the client's goal. One of the critical distinctions in asset protection trusts after death is to ensure that the trustee is an independent trustee under Internal Revenue Code Section 672(c). One distinction to resolve the concern of naming the child beneficiary as the trustee without violating Section 672(c) is to ensure that you name a co-trustee who is adverse, a strategy far too few lawyers utilize. For example, after the death of a grantor, the surviving spouse can be the trustee with a co-trustee of one of their children. While this would be considered under the family attribution rules to be a controlled trustee, the adverse party interest ensures that the Internal Revenue Code distinctions are met. For example, if a child was a co-trustee with the spouse and approved a payment to the spouse during a family trust administration, that would be adverse to the child's residuary interest and thus satisfy the restrictions within 672(c).

The other exciting element of a TAP trust is the allowance of the spouse or trust protector to have a power of appointment to modify the beneficiaries within a class of people identified by the grantor. This can ensure that the family is able to adjust for changing circumstances after the death of the grantor to cover his or her overall planning intentions. One of the key distinctions of a TAP trust is also specific language that authorizes the accumulation of income but specifically requires the trustee to account separately for income that is accumulated and converted to principal, so as to ensure no portion of that is utilized to pay insurance premiums on the grantor. While the trust ensures that all the proper legal language is included, to be legally proper it is incumbent upon the attorney to educate the client to understand how to properly administer a trust so as not to violate that provision.

So, as you look at the distinctions between an ILIT and a TAP, it's important to note that everything an ILIT is is included in the TAP trust, but not everything in a TAP trust is included in an ILIT, so a TAP is a far more expansive trust that allows much more flexibility and use by a client. If you want to learn more about becoming a Lawyers with Purpose member to discover how the TAP trust can benefit you in your practice and, more importantly, benefit your clients consider joining our FREE webinar "The Four Essentials For A Profitable Practice" on Thursday, April 21st at 8EST. Click here to register now.

This is a FREE training webinar designed for attorneys who wish to add Estate Planning, Asset Protection, Medicaid, or VA Planning to their practice, or significantly improve on their existing business using our PROVEN and paint-by-number strategies. Reserve your spot now!

 David J. Zumpano, Co-founder – Lawyers With Purpose, Founder and Senior Partner of Estate Planning Law Center 

Bigstock-Question-mark-heap-on-table-co-86579810

The Death of Ascertainable Standards

by with No Comment Asset ProtectionDavid J. ZumpanoEstate Planning Drafting Software

The recent Pfannenstiehl v. Pfannenstiehl case in Massachusetts is a pretty good indication that the use of ascertainable standards in asset protection planning is dangerous. While this may be news to you, the Lawyers with Purpose legal community has known this for some time and has changed its recommended planning strategy more than seven years ago on how to ensure asset protection is maintained.

Bigstock-Question-mark-heap-on-table-co-86579810When creating an irrevocable trust, some of the most important legal determinations made are the discretion granted to the trustee to make distributions to the beneficiaries. The two most common are "wholly discretionary" and "ascertainable standards." What is the difference? Traditionally when a trustee is allowed to make distributions pursuant to the health, education, maintenance and support of the beneficiary, that is traditionally identified as ascertainable standards, otherwise known as HEMS.

This standard was predominantly created through tax law cases where the question became whether the trustee garnered too much control or authority so as to include the assets of the trust in the taxable estate. The court cases resolved that as long as there were ascertainable standards, it would provide sufficient discretion so as not to have the adverse tax impact. So HEMS became the standard of discretion for trustees. Once again, it was a case of the tail wagging the dog. While estate tax planning was a concern in generations past, since 2001 with the passage of EGTRRA and the massive expansion of the estate tax exemption, the HEMS standard for estate tax purposes only applies to less than two out of 1,000 Americans. Why is it, then, that most lawyers still draft their trust for everyone according to the restrictions required for the two-tenths of 1 percent of Americans? The typical answer is, because that's the way they always did it.

At Lawyers with Purpose, we are absolutely present and future-oriented and always looking at the current laws, but more importantly, we consider the relevance of the laws to the needs of the clients. For example, I remember particularly a case where I drafted an irrevocable life insurance trust and granted powers to the spouse that could deem it to be includable in her estate. While this was not the best tax planning strategy for the client, I clearly reviewed all the rules with the client, explained the adverse consequences and the client's response was "I don't care about the tax impacts; I want my wife to have it." In such a case, I had the client sign an acknowledgment that he was made aware of the adverse consequence, but to any third party reviewing the trust, they were confident I committed malpractice. That's the challenge today: Lawyers want to impose their ways on clients. Our job is not to tell clients what to do; our job is to tell clients what they can do, the pros and the cons of each approach, and to let them make the decisions that best suit the needs of their family. Such is true with ascertainable standards.

It is LWP’s recommendation – and has been for many years – wholly discretionary powers are typically worded as that a wholly discretionary standard be used rather than ascertainable standards, “the trustee shall make distributions to any beneficiary in their sole and absolute discretion….” This assures that discretion is held wholly within the trustee and there is less risk of the trust being invaded by outside sources to ensure for the health, education, maintenance and support of the beneficiary. Can you imagine a court looking at a trust that a senior residing in a nursing home was the beneficiary of and the trust provided that that senior was the beneficiary and the trustee can make distributions for health, education, maintenance and support? How can the trustee not deem a distribution for the cost of that nursing home to be for their health or maintenance or support? It's an accident waiting to happen. In fact some states like Ohio have gone as far as to say that any trust that has ascertainable standards can be pierced to make medical payments in accordance with the health, education, maintenance and support provisions. Don't wait. Stop using ascertainable standards now and protect your clients from any undue risk of having their asset protection trust invaded.

If you would like to learn more about our estate planning drafting software and how it can support you in your estate or elder law practice, schedule a live software demo at: https://www.lawyerswithpurpose.com/Estate-Planning-Drafting-Software.php.  Learn how you can (1) regain lost hours (2) train your team so you spend less time drafting (3) effective document prep for 99% of your estate planning clients (4) and much, much more….

David J. Zumpano, Co-founder – Lawyers With Purpose, Founder and Senior Partner of Estate Planning Law Center 

Bigstock-Who--4420521

Who Should Be Trustee?

by with No Comment Asset ProtectionDavid J. ZumpanoEstate Planning Drafting SoftwareLegal Technical

There's a constant battle between lawyers as to who should be trustee of an irrevocable asset protection trust. The primary school of thought is that it should never be the grantor, and some schools of thought believe it should never be the beneficiary. At Lawyers with Purpose, we disagree with both of those positions, but we recognize the concerns and rely on sound principles of asset protection law in making the final determinations.

Bigstock-Who--4420521Let's first discuss the question of whether the grantor should be trustee. Many practitioners believe that allowing the grantor to be trustee makes the assets of an irrevocable trust available to the grantor's creditors. Such a proposition is ludicrous. The challenge with most lawyers is that they do not allow the grantor to be trustee of his or her irrevocable trust. When pushed to explain why, they typically assume that's the way it was always done. Few dig further to see why it was done that way. So let's examine why grantors were not traditionally named trustee. The most adverse impact is that, if the grantor is trustee, they're deemed to retain enough control to have the assets of the trust included in their taxable estate when they die. For many generations, this was the death knell? of an asset protection trust. But in the last 15 years it's become irrelevant because of the rise of the estate tax exemption. Today only two in a thousand Americans have a taxable estate, so preventing the grantor from being trustee because of a potential inclusion of the trust asset in the estate of the grantor is not relevant to 99.8 percent of Americans. So why hold them to that standard?

The next major argument is a theory that if the grantor has control of the trust, then he could direct it back to himself. Well, that depends. What does the trust say? If the trust says that the grantor is not a beneficiary, or similarly the grantor is not a principal beneficiary but is entitled to the income, does that mean that the grantor as trustee all of a sudden gains a super power to violate the terms of the trust and give himself the principal when it's not allowed for? Hardly. In fact, there is consistent case law throughout all of the states, including cases that lead all the way up to the Supreme Court, that supports the notion that a grantor as trustee has all of the same fiduciary obligations as any other trustee and by no means has authority to act outside the powers granted to trustee. I specifically refer you to my Law Review article, "The Irrevocable Pure Grantor Trust: The Estate Planning Landscape Has Changed" in the Syracuse Law Review. In this article, I go through in‑depth review of all of the case law nationwide, and I'm excited to say that it is sound law that a grantor can be a trustee without risking the assets to the creditors of the grantor. One caveat, however, is if the grantor does retain the right to the income, then absolutely the income will be available to the creditors of the grantor.

So are there circumstances when the grantor as trustee's trust is invaded? Absolutely, but in every single case the invasion was not due to the grantor being the trustee, but rather was due to the pattern of behavior by a grantor trustee who violated regularly the terms of the trust in favor of themselves, and the trust was thereafter deemed a sham. In such cases, I concur with any court that makes that decision based on people who try to defraud the system. Irrevocable trusts must be managed in an arm's length manner, and as lawyers we do not plan for someone to become fraudulent. They are fraudulent to their own peril. But a properly drawn trust when the trustee is the grantor in no way, shape or form creates any risk of loss of asset protection if the terms of the trust are followed, as they are required to be in every case whether the grantor is trustee or not.

So at Lawyers with Purpose we encourage our members to do good legal work based on sound law, not fear, conjecture or because that's the way it's always been done. In the end, the client wins. It is silly to deny thousands of clients that we serve the ability to manage and control their own assets for the benefit of their families, just because some rogue case in some rogue state from some vile fact pattern allowed the court to invade against the intentions of the grantor. Protect your clients. Teach your clients. Share with your clients how these work. They are very safe and a great planning tool.

If you want to learn more about Lawyers With Purpose you can find all the information about becoming a member by clicking here to download our Membership Brochure.

David J. Zumpano, Esq, CPA, Co-founder Lawyers With Purpose, Founder and Senior Partner of Estate Planning Law Center

Quote-the-day-before-something-is-a-breakthrough-it-s-a-crazy-idea-peter-diamandis-75-56-81

Are You Abundant?

by with No Comment Coaching & ImplementationDavid J. Zumpano

On January 24, 25 and 26, I had the opportunity to attend my second Abundance 360 event. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Abundance community, it is led by Peter Diamandis, an amazing entrepreneur who has identified his goal to transform and improve the world. Peter's first book, “Abundance: The Future is Better Than You Think,” written with Steven Kotler, was an immediate insight into a world of abundance that is approaching. His second book, “BOLD: How to Go Big, Create Wealth and Impact the World,” which was recently released, has changed the game for entrepreneurs from simple business owners to world transformers. Peter also has a great blog, which I recommend you sign up for just to be aware of what's going on in the world around you.

Quote-the-day-before-something-is-a-breakthrough-it-s-a-crazy-idea-peter-diamandis-75-56-81In the three‑day conference, we were exposed to the amazing advancements of artificial intelligence, robotics, returns, sensors, augmented reality, material successes, and the impact of each on medical advancement. The fundamental element of the future of entrepreneurialism centers around the six D’s of exponential growth. First among those is to digitize. That is, to put into technology what is capable of being delegated to it.   Second is the deceptive stage, where things are happening and no one is aware, but they are happening nonetheless. Third is the disruptive stage, when people begin to become aware of what has been digitized and has been unknown, and it begins to disrupt the way we look at what we do. Uber is a perfect example of something that was digitized, deceptive, and has become disruptive. The final three D's relate to dematerialization; that is, to eliminate the necessity of materialism – for example, how a cellphone has eliminated the need for flashlights, cameras, recording devices, calculators, and myriad other elements we typically relied on in the past. The fifth D is to demonetize. That is, to take the cost out of the technology, as we have seen with the cost of computers, cellphones and the like that have come down dramatically since they were first introduced. And the final D is democratization, to ensure availability globally as easy as locally.

Entrepreneurs of Abundance are now working under these core concepts, so they are no longer just ideas. There are myriad entrepreneurs who have focused their future vision on transforming the world, not just their local marketplace. These are what Dan Sullivan, of Strategic Coach, has called game changers. I encourage you to click on this video to watch the Emmy Award-winning short film on Peter Diamandis (but hurry because they are offering a Free Online Pre-Screening that will expire February 20th).  It will cause you to identify a new world of abundance that may be deceptive to you currently, but just getting in the conversations will help you find your place within it.

If you want to learn more about our Cloud Based Work Flow System join our live demo on Friday, February 26th at 2EST. Just click here to reserve your spot now!

David J. Zumpano, Co-Founder, Lawyers With Purpose

Bigstock-Breaking-The-Bank-4881450

Is Asset Protection Dead? Pfannenstiehl v. Pfannenstiehl

by with No Comment Asset ProtectionDavid J. Zumpano

A recent Massachusetts case throws into question whether long-term asset protection is safe. This particular case was disturbing because the defendant in a divorce proceeding's share in an irrevocable trust from his parents was deemed to be a marital asset and had to be distributed to his ex‑wife. This was a third-party trust, created by the parents for the benefit of their son, that had specific spendthrift provisions to prohibit such an attack. The Massachusetts court deemed otherwise.

So is asset protection planning on its way out? Absolutely not, in light of the fact that the case had several significant factors – and as always, the devil is in the details. First, Massachusetts has a very strong statute regarding marital property interests. Second, the trust had a specific termination date wherein the son was going to get the rest, residue and remainder of his share at a specific date. Third, payments from the trust were made regularly and consistently and stopped on the “eve” of the divorce. And fourth, the trustee had ascertainable distribution standards of health, education, maintenance and support. Finally, it had the ideal plaintiff: the wife who shared two special-needs children with the defendant. Put all of that together and judges will find a way to pierce the trust. So what is one to do?

Bigstock-Breaking-The-Bank-4881450While this case was shocking to many, decisions like this are not a surprise in the Lawyers with Purpose community, which is why we have been recommending certain strategies to safeguard against even the pickiest judges and fact patterns. For example, when traditionally drafting a trust and leaving it to beneficiaries in asset protection trusts, we believe the strongest protection comes from having separate share trusts for each beneficiary, with provisions specific to the needs of the individual beneficiary. Second – and this is the most important part – we believe there should not be ascertainable standards, but rather pure discretionary rights to the trustee. Finally, whenever possible the beneficiary should not be an individual, but rather a class of people. For example, in this case, instead of naming just the son as beneficiary, we would recommend naming the son and his issue as beneficiaries, thereby opening up the class of beneficiaries and enhancing the asset protection. One may be fearful of naming the issue. Well, therein lies the trick. Who is named beneficiary is not ultimately the determining factor of who benefits, but rather who the trustee determines who benefits. Create a class of people the trustee can sprinkle income and/or principal among as they deem appropriate in their absolute discretion (not ascertainable standards).

In the Massachusetts case, this could have solved the problem. How? During the marriage, it is likely most of the regular payments provided to the son were actually used in the marriage for the children or items that the husband and wife benefited from jointly. By opening up the class of people, the trustee could have made distributions directly to the children to provide support for the children that the husband was using the money for anyway. By doing this, it surely indicates the assets were not assets of the husband's, but were truly a third-party trust that, at the discretion of the trustee, was distributed to various members in the class, thereby not making it a marital asset. The defendant could have continued to use proceeds from the trust for the benefit of his special-needs children even after the divorce; in fact, most fathers would not penalize their children for divorcing from their spouse. But the key distinction would be that the husband would have remained in control of the assets rather than having to surrender them to a former spouse, wherein there would be no control.

The challenge today is that too many lawyers are on autopilot when they're drafting trusts – or worse, their trust drafting software system doesn’t allow the customizations and protections that the Lawyers with Purpose client-centered software does. Our client-centered software advises the attorneys and allows them to custom tailor each and every option. In addition, LWP™ attorneys are trained to think like the worst court you can imagine and identify how to create provisions that are not specifically targeted at a particular goal but rather strategically drafted to accommodate multiple objectives.

Click here now to see how our trust drafting software will keep your client's needs always in the front of your planning. 

David J. Zumpano, Esq, CPA, Co-founder Lawyers With Purpose, Founder and Senior Partner of Estate Planning Law Center

Bigstock-Legal-Law-Rules-Community-Just-94090013

Why You Might Be A Trust Mill

by with No Comment Asset ProtectionDavid J. ZumpanoEstate Planning Drafting Software

Having practiced in the estate planning field for almost 23 years, I'm amazed when I review many trust plans done by lawyers that are still "boilerplate," with nothing distinguishing them other than the names of the client and beneficiaries. Interestingly, even when reviewing trusts created by software systems from well-known organizations in the estate planning industry, I am perplexed about the over-complexity, but also the under-simplicity, of how they work. Most trust systems in the estate planning industry have many options to designate different legal technical phrases and provisions to enter into the trust document. Unfortunately, once an attorney chooses the "standard provisions," nothing else changes in the document but the client names. So while they believe they have a very comprehensive estate planning trust system, they really have a glorified trust mill system (a better mouse trap?).


Bigstock-Legal-Law-Rules-Community-Just-94090013The Lawyers with Purpose client centered document creation system is unparalleled in the industry. It is the only software in the industry that was reverse-engineered. Rather than identifying the specific legal provisions required, it instead identifies the particular needs and goals of the client. Once those goals and needs are determined, the software then allows you to custom tailor every single core element of the trust to accomplish those client objectives. As you complete the client needs and their particular customizations, the software automatically inserts the necessary legal provisions and clauses to accomplish the client goals. No two LWP drafted trusts are ever the same. There are over 5,000 combinations of choices, and that's not even including the customization element in each of the decision levels.

While it sounds scary, the systemization of it makes it quite easy. In fact, it is the only document creation system in the industry that is integrated into a complete estate planning practice module. What does that mean? The marketing, legal technical training, workshop presentation, and client design are all integrated to facilitate and work with each other. Each one supports the other. For example, the initial client educational workshop helps identify the various issues that can be addressed in planning – which flows into the vision meeting, where, based on a series of questions – the client is able to self-select one of five different plans that will accomplish the specific goals the client identified. Next, the design meeting is tailored to focus on the specific plan (legal documents) chosen by the client. Then, the most exciting part: the attorney can customize every single aspect of the general plan to meet the client’s individual needs.

The cherry atop all of this is that the attorney designs the custom plan using specific design templates that permit others in the office to actually draft the trust (the software follows the template, including all customizations). Don't be a trust mill – learn how to put the client first. Client-centered document creation software is the first key. Click here to discover how the Lawyers with Purpose Client Centered Software can transform a mere practice, and discover the impact you can have on your client. Reserve a day and time that works for you now.

David J. Zumpano, Esq, CPA, Co-founder Lawyers With Purpose, Founder and Senior Partner of Estate Planning Law Center