Comments for New York Trusts & Estates Law Blog

Comment on Halachic perspective on the Estate of Max Feinberg by Saul Elnadav

Saul Elnadav — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:32:09 +0000

And thanks to Avrohom Gefen , a litigation associate at VMM, for reading the post over several times and saving it from utter incomprehensibility.

Comment on Will New York revise the power of attorney law again? by Saul Elnadav

Saul Elnadav — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:20:41 +0000

If you meant to say notarized, the new proposal does not change that requirement.

Comment on Will New York revise the power of attorney law again? by Haraz31

Haraz31 — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:41:05 +0000

What about the new law that requires you get it notified is that still going to be the part of the POA

Comment on Warren Buffett and Bill Gates on the estate tax by Saul Elnadav

Saul Elnadav — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:29:00 +0000

Avrohom: I think you are construing the idea of a moral debt to society a little narrowly, as though it were a debt specifically to the U.S. government. Zelinsky would like to see at least some of the money intended for the public good go through the Treasury rather than charitable organizations. He places a lot of importance on the fact that “the federal Treasury is controlled by the people of the United States through their elected representatives,” while “the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is controlled by Bill and Melinda Gates.”

On the other hand, it is perfectly natural, and I think appropriate, for someone who is giving his entire wealth back to society to plan for what he believes will make the biggest positive impact on society. And as long as it’s legal to do so, why should his philanthropy take a back seat to what the people through their elected representatives deem the best use of his money? Just to make the point that the estate tax is morally defensible?

Comment on Warren Buffett and Bill Gates on the estate tax by rod

rod — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:35:00 +0000

To me, these two individuals carry little credibility on this issue. It is one thing to have billions of dollars, which after taxes will leave enough wealth to sustain many generations. It’s entirely different to work your entire life, own a business, farm or just have 1 million dollars in wealth and have the government 50% of what your family could have to live on. It’s simply not right for the “state” to have claim to that much of one’s hard earned wealth.

Comment on Warren Buffett and Bill Gates on the estate tax by Avrohom Gefen

Avrohom Gefen — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:04:00 +0000

“If Buffett really believes that the best place for his money was the federal government, he should donate it all to the Treasury and encourage Bill Gates to do the same.” I think you miss Zelinsky’s point. From Buffet’s viewpoint, Buffet doesn’t need to believe that the federal govt. is the best place for his money to logically fund his foundation with after-tax money. Rather, if Buffet thinks that there is a debt owed to the U.S. for enabling the creation of his great wealth, then taxes should be paid, regardless of whether this is the absolute best use of the money.

Comment on Warren Buffett and Bill Gates on the estate tax by Saul Elnadav

Saul Elnadav — Mon, 18 May 2009 18:17:00 +0000

Bigcitythinker:

I highly doubt that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are donating their wealth to charity for the purpose of avoiding estate tax. As you say, this is clearly about supporting important causes. However, the question, as posed by Professor Zelinsky, is why they do so in a way that avoids the estate tax if they’ve also publicly supported the retention of the estate tax. Why not give to charity on a taxable basis?

I’ll plead guilty to slippery-sloping Professor Zelinsky’s suggestion that the Treasury get a significant share of the estates. I don’t know Professor Zelinsky, but by urging Gates and Buffett to give charity on a taxable basis, he probably does not mean that the best use of wealth is to turn it all over to the government. But he does want to see Warren Buffett back up his support for the estate tax with actions.

My point, though, is that the moral obligation for the wealthy to give back to society, attributed to both Gates and Buffet, is consistent with the kind of philanthropy Gates and Buffett are engaged in. You don’t have to wholeheartedly sign on to the U.S. government’s spending policies to give back to society. In fact, it appears that by not giving charity on a taxable basis, Warren Buffett is saying that the Gates Foundation will do more good with his money that the U.S. government.

Comment on Warren Buffett and Bill Gates on the estate tax by Bigcitythinker

Bigcitythinker — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:38:00 +0000

Your logic doesn't necessarily follow. Just because Bill and Warren donate their fortune to charity does NOT mean that they do so to avoid paying taxes. It's possible, but you have no proof of that. I would argue that donating your wealth to charity has much more to do with supporting causes that you're passionate about – whether or not you think that they're the responsibility of good government. For example, the Gates Foundation invests heavily in R&D for the developing world, not something that is traditionally the domain of the US gov.

Comment on Hard work and dumb luck by Avrohom Gefen

Avrohom Gefen — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:33:00 +0000

Another factor to consider in the debate over tax and spend policy is whether this should be the default policy or an emergency measure to counter an “unprecedented” economic crisis.
Framing the policy as an emergency measure will probably make it slightly more palatable to fiscal conservatives.
The question,of course, is how to wean the government once to crisis has passed.

Comment on Hard work and dumb luck by Saul Elnadav

Saul Elnadav — Mon, 04 May 2009 22:53:00 +0000

Comments welcome, as always.

Comment on Tough luck for dumb luck by yair

yair — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:59:00 +0000

Saul, i don’t think people think like that. when they work they aren’t thinking about estate tax. at least not people younger than 60. they do think about income tax, but income tax is not being raised to 50%. it is being raised from 35% to 39.5%. the guy paying more is thinking about how to increase his revenue to get back that 4.5%. a guy who made $1,000,000 in 2008 and paid $350,000 in income taxes is not going to say “why should i work so hard 2009 if i’m going to have to pay $45,000 more.” (though i do believe that the hike is only on $750,000 not on the first $250,000)

Comment on Tough luck for dumb luck by Saul Elnadav

Saul Elnadav — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:14:00 +0000

I don’t think that the argument that taxes are a disincentive to hard work relies solely on people making purely conscious decisions. The argument is that as the reward for additional effort is reduced, people are less inclined to make the effort. Put simply, would you work as hard as you work now if your salary were cut in half?

Robert Frank is arguing that because luck and circumstances, not just effort, play a big role in success, taxing those who benefit most from society is justified. Even if that were true and acknowledged, I don’t see how you can disassociate effort and reward in people’s brains. It may be that on a macro level raising taxes is on the whole beneficial. But I don’t think the argument that it stifles hard work is specious.

Comment on Tough luck for dumb luck by yair

yair — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:58:00 +0000

1.it is a tax on money that has already been taxed once. so a rich guy in the top bracket who already paid his 39.5% would now have his estate taxed another 50% or so. which leaves us to taxing that guy on whatever he hasn’t spent during his lifetime 70% . it just seems unfair that if a guy was frugal, uncle sam gets it.
2. if there were no estate tax you’d be out of a job.
3. Gefen is probably correct. I doubt anyone will be working less just because Obama is raising taxes for the people in the top bracket

Comment on Tough luck for dumb luck by Avrohom Gefen

Avrohom Gefen — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:19:00 +0000

Although I am not a proponent of high taxes, I find the “disincentive” argument specious. Realistically, how many people will make a conscious decision to work less because the government will be taking 40-50% of their earnings? If anything, high taxes may have the opposite effect; work harder to earn more money to achieve your goals because you only get to keep half of it.

Comment on Tough luck for dumb luck by Saul Elnadav

Saul Elnadav — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 03:44:00 +0000

The floor is open for comments.

Comment on Estate planning during a recession by belicoso

belicoso — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:40:00 +0000

It is always beneficial to have a proper estate plan (no matter how lavish or humble your estate may be) if for no other reason than so your surviving family will be able to enjoy the property you have left them. If you don’t have a will and you leave it up to the process of intestate succession, then things move rather slowly and it might take years for your relatives to realize the gifts you’ve left for them. But if you have a plan then the distribution is much easier. Even though anyone could have an Anna Nicole Smith kind of relative who slows own the process for everyone with frivolous legal tactics, you shouldn’t resign yourself to that eventuality and think that estate plans are useless. Fact is, they’re incredibly useful and if everyone had one there would be far fewer needs for probate courts.

Comment on Litigation over stranger-originated life insurance policies (SOLI or STOLI) by Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:15:00 +0000

To clarify, in NY, a legitimate life settlement agreement(which is a regulated) is permissible. Holders of policies may sell them to investors for a cash payment. The problem arises when the policy is originated solely for stranger’s benefit. Whether the transaction is legitimate may depend on how long the purchaser holds onto the policy before transferring.

Comment on Debt Collection Chicanery by Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:08:00 +0000

The point is, the debt continues to exist regardless of a creditor’s ability to legally enforce the obligation. Hence, some scrupulous individuals feel the “moral” obligation to repay the debt. The idea behind their actions, I believe, is that the debtor should not suffer a loss. This is in no way a “private bailout” of a bank.