Wealth Strategies:  “A sobering reality is confronting many Americans in general, but there is a niche that has unique and serious planning problems–and we are not referring to all those who are going bankrupt, losing their homes to foreclosure, or filling out forms for unemployment benefits.  They won't be getting much sympathy from the one in seven Americans living in poverty, nor from the vast majority of Americans with less than $1 million in total assets, but those with $20-million estates may have the most to lose in a short time if they aren't extremely vigilant right now–and over the next several years.”

Forbes:  “The tax law is maddeningly uncertain. But there's still much a rational taxpayer can do now.  Congress has headed home for elections, leaving the tax code an unstable mess. . . . So what's a rational taxpayer to do? It's certainly tempting to put off planning and hope for a quick resolution after Nov. 2. Don't.”

Wall St. Journal:  “life-insurance companies gradually have shifted away from their broad historical base of middle-class households. Instead, statistics show, an increasing portion of insurers' business consists of selling large policies to wealthier Americans, often as part of complex estate-tax plans.  The shift means that a growing proportion of the tax benefits of life insurance goes to the well-off, not to the middle class that once was the industry's backbone.”

Arizona Republic:  “Many Americans have planned for their eventual demise by drafting wills and writing down instructions for divvying up family keepsakes.  But many have overlooked another issue: the chance that before they die, illness or age will rob them of their ability to take care of themselves or manage their own finances.”

Associate Law Professor Phyllis Smith of Florida A&M University College of Law has written an article called “The Estate and Gift Tax Implications of Self-Settled Domestic Asset Protection Trusts: Can You Really Have Your Cake and Eat it Too?”  Here's the abstract:

“Abstract: Self-settled asset protection trusts are wealth preservation trusts coupled with the spendthrift provisions. This type of trust permits the settler to have the benefit of treating the trust as a separate entity thereby protecting his assets from creditors while maintaining a pecuniary interest, as well as some level of control over what ultimately happens to the trust property. By providing asset protection from potential creditors while still having the ability to maintain a beneficial interest in the trust, the settler can essentially “have his cake and eat it too.” The typical domestic self-settled asset protection trust may not be treated as an asset of the settler for creditor claims. Whether these assets should be treated as owned by the settler for the purpose of inclusion in the gross estate of the decedent for estate tax purposes is the focus of this Article. The author asserts that it is appropriate to include certain property settled in a domestic asset protection trust (“DAPT”) in the settler gross estate for estate tax purposes because of the control the settler retains over the trust assets up until his death.”

Anne Alstott of Harvard Law School wrote an article called “Family Values, Inheritance Law, and Inheritance Taxation.”  Here's the abstract:

“This symposium paper, originally presented at the September 19, 2008 NYU Tax Law Review Symposium on inheritance taxation, begins to examine what it might mean for the law to protect a “right to use one's resources to benefit one's family.” The paper draws on historical debates over inheritance law to identify and examine three rather different ideals of the family that have recurred in various debates over time.

The analysis shows that, while one can interpret values associated with family life in such a way as to oppose the taxation of inheritance, there are equally plausible interpretations according to which the family can co-exist peaceably with the taxation of inheritance, at least in some form. And this basic point holds whether one conceives of the family in liberal terms, in conventional terms, or in functional terms. But although each vision of the family might co-exist with inheritance taxation, the three ideals do have markedly different implications for the terms of inheritance law and inheritance taxation.”

Forbes:  “Wealth advisors have been telling clients all year that if you want to shift wealth to your kids or grandkids with a so-called GRAT, you should be doing one sooner rather than later. Well, it looks like the best time for this tax-saving estate-planning strategy is in October.”

AARP:  “For most people, a will is the first choice for passing on an estate to heirs. But it's not the only choice. Among other estate planning tools, the revocable living trust is gaining in popularity, especially among boomers.”

Many states, including Arizona, have laws that allow people to create trusts for the benefit of family pets. Texas Tech University School of Law Professor Gerry W. Beyer published an article on this subject called “Critters in the Estate Plan.”  Here's the abstract:

“Shadow, Dolly, Spot, Lady, Ming, Trouble, Roxy, and Madam Shan are just a few of the pets that have received favored treatment in their owners’ wills. Because of the foresight of their humans, these beloved companions lived out their lives in comfortable surroundings rather than meeting the Grim Reaper in the local animal shelter’s death chamber.

Virtually all clients want to provide for their pets but few actually do. Why is this? For the most part, either they do not plan their estates as is the case with most Americans or their estate planning attorneys neglect to explain how they can make arrangements for their four-legged, feathered, or scaly friends.

Lawyers should, and may be ethically obligated to, inquire about their client’s pets so that they can make certain their clients’ pets are properly cared for when the client is unable to do so due to injury, illness, or death. This article provides information designed to assist estate planners to carry out the wishes of their pet owning clients.”

Here's the text of the September 16, 2010, press release from the Washington Secretary of State:

Washington Attorney General zooms in on LegalZoom’s claims

DIY legal forms aren’t a substitute for an attorney

SEATTLE – If you’ve watched cable TV, you’ve likely seen celebrity attorney Robert Shapiro tout his company, LegalZoom, as a way to start businesses, patent inventions and create wills. “We put the law on your side,” he says.

But the Washington Attorney General’s Office wants to be sure consumers aren’t misled by LegalZoom’s cost-saving claims.

“LegalZoom offers do-it-yourself legal documents online but can’t provide you with legal advice or tell you which forms to fill out,” Attorney General Rob McKenna said.

Under a settlement with the Attorney General’s Office, LegalZoom can’t compare its costs to attorneys’ fees unless the company clearly discloses that its service isn’t a substitute for a law firm.

Simply selling legal forms doesn’t constitute the practice of law. LegalZoom can only provide an online form service that allows consumers to choose and complete their own legal documents, explained Consumer Protection Division Chief Doug Walsh.

The agreement filed today in Thurston County Superior Court also prohibits LegalZoom from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, selling personal information obtained from Washington customers or misrepresenting the benefits of any estate distribution document.

Additionally, the agreement requires LegalZoom to ensure any forms sold to Washington consumers comply with local laws. Walsh said the Attorney General’s Office was concerned LegalZoom’s estate planning documents weren’t sufficient for all Washington state residents. […]

New York Times:  “THE federal estate tax is scheduled to rise from the ashes on Jan. 1, and a lot more families may feel its bite unless Congress changes current law. . . . Fortunately, a number of strategies are available, and not all of them involve depleting your resources.”

New York Times:  “I drafted my will four times this week — not because I was obsessed with the macabre, but because I wanted to test how computer-generated wills would fare under human scrutiny. . . . But even though they seemed easy to draft, I still needed a lawyer to help decode some seemingly standard clauses and their consequences in my home state of New York.”

The authors of “Trust Decanting:  An Overview and Introduction to Creative Planning Opportunities” summary of their article states, “Since New York enacted the first ‘trust decanting' statute in 1992, nine other states likewise have provided trustees authority to ‘decant' the property of one trust into another trust.  In this Article, the authors provide an overview of the techniques involved with the decanting process and the opportunities these statutes provide trustees.”

Business & Finance:  “More Than 70% of Americans Die Without Leaving Behind a Will.  10 Most Common Questions Families Ask About Estate Planning, Wills, and Trusts.”

Studies show that more than 70% of American adults do not have a will that disposes of their property after death.  One of the primary reasons is procrastination.  A lot of people want a will, but put off getting it on the theory that their inevitable death will be later rather than sooner.  Another reason people do not create a will is because of they fear that having a will some how hastens death.

Forbes:  “A will is one of the most important financial planning documents, especially as you move toward retirement. Yet an astonishing number of people of all ages still don't have one. . . . Why am I strenuously opposed to do-it-yourself wills?  There are just so many things that can go wrong–from the wording of the document, to the required formalities for how it must be signed and witnessed before it can be valid.”

Wealth Strategies:  “Many family business owners struggle with business succession planning because they cannot envision a suitable way to divide their ownership and control among a diverse group of beneficiaries, some of whom are active in the business and some of whom are not. However, by recognizing that ownership and control actually consist of four separate component levels that can be divided differently among the beneficiaries, a family business owner can more easily conceive of a succession plan that rationally assigns leadership and management powers while equitably allocating the economic benefits of the business.”