Posted on July 16, 2010 by Angelo Tartaro

Million-Heirs Cashing in on the Estate Tax Lapse

George Steinbrenner passed away earlier this week. The man left behind an extraordinary legacy, a controversial reputation, and an estate estimated at more than $1.3 billion by Forbes Magazine.

With the estate tax lapsed this year, Mr. Steinbrenner’s heirs may not have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes on what they’re about to inherit.

According to the Wall Street Journal, wealthy people who die before 2011 will spare their heirs a hefty 45% tax fee. This situation has all the makings of a potentially great homicide novel (someone hastens the death of a rich uncle), not to mention a plethora of legal and ethical quandaries.

It’s never wise to make life and death decisions based on finances and estates. But when the New Year is rung in, the Journal reports, the top tax rate will jump to 55%, and the federal estate tax exemption amount will shrink from $3.5 million per individual in 2009 to just $1 million.

In the meantime, we’ll watch the Steinbrenner situation play out. “The Boss” is survived by his wife and four children. The ABA Journal posts that a marital deduction likely would have applied if he had died in 2009 or 2011.  Under federal law, probate transfers among spouses are tax-free. But, according to Forbes magazine, “the absence of the estate tax could set up an intriguing scenario in which Steinbrenner’s spouse could disclaim a bequest, allowing assets to move to the next generation.” Of course, his estate is going to be very complex and not a guide for more typical situations.

For those of us not needing to worry about the millions or billions we leave behind for our loved ones, it’s best to consult an estate planning attorney who can help make decisions based on law (regardless of how confusing it may seem).
 

Tags: , ,
Posted on July 7, 2010 by Angelo Tartaro

Big Brother is Monitoring: Texting/Paging in the Workplace

Mom always said, “think before you speak,” but nowadays that advice extends to “think before you type” – especially when it’s on your employer’s keyboard.

In the case of the City of Ontario, CA v. Quon, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rights of employers to monitor employee communications, in the public and private sector. Mr. Quon had asserted that he had been subjected to an unreasonable "search" under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution because the city of Ontario, his employer, had read the messages on his pager.

This is a California case but was watched in all jurisdictions because it could be very influential.  However, as True/Slant points out, this opinion may be limited in its applicability to other employees, since Quon works for the government and the law differs somewhat for public employees.

The electronic monitoring policy of the police department, for whom Quon worked, was not very precise or completely distinctive. We join many other bloggers who have commented in asserting that common sense – and now the law – dictates that employers should eliminate ambiguities in their policies. This, however, may be easier said than done, considering the emerging concepts in this new field – including the lack of technical proficiency from the Courts. (The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reported that our esteemed Supreme Court judges are not exactly “tech-savvy,” and needed some explanations regarding pagers, cell phones, etc.)

When it comes down it, why would an employee take a chance to text on an employer’s device? Perhaps because it’s convenient, and who’s really going to carry two electronic devices, one for professional and one for private use? An employer’s device is probably better technology than something one would purchase for oneself. But, if the messages are really meant to be private, is it worth taking the risk?
 

Tags: , , , ,