Thursday, April 2, 2009

A former nurse from Texas is in jail after a grand jury in Angelina County indicted her over allegations she murdered patients by injecting bleach into them. Kimberly Saenz is suspected of killing five people at the DaVita Dialysis Center in Lufkin.

A sudden string of deaths caused the center to close on April 28, 2008. The center reopened that July. Saenz was fired in April, and arrested last May under suspicion of having caused harm to two patients. It is now believed by authorities she injected ten people with bleach, killing five.

Our patients and the caregivers have been outraged at how the alleged actions of one person have caused so much pain and trauma to so many

She is accused of killing Clara Strange, Thelma Metcalf, Garlin Kelley, Cora Bryant and Opal Few and of harming Marva Rhone, Carolyn Risinger, Debra Oates, Graciela Castenada and Marie Bradley. The 35-year-old is being held without bond after turning herself in.

DaVita’s regional vice president Larry Crisp said of the developments “The grand jury has issued an indictment for capital murder for the death of five patients and further, five additional indictments for aggravated assault. Our patients and the caregivers have been outraged at how the alleged actions of one person have caused so much pain and trauma to so many.”

Monday, January 31, 2005

Metlife announced on 01/31/05 that they were going to acquire Travelers Life and Annuity from Citigroup. Travelers Life and Annuity is an insurance underwriter. MetLife is a large life insurance and annuities underwriter. MetLife will have to borrow a lot of money to pay for the company, so rating agencies like S&P warn that the AA credit rating of MetLife might be lowered. This would cause the interest rates at which all of MetLife’s debt must be repaid to increase.

Citigroup committed to continue distributing Travelers life insurance and annuities through its Smith Barney stock brokers, Primerica agents, and Citibank branches.

Citigroup was previously known as Travelers Insurance before it bought Citicorp. First the Property and Casualty business of Travelers was spun off, and now the life insurance division has been sold off. This is primarily because insurance underwriters get a lower price to earnings multiple from the stock market because of the cycles and uncertainty associated with the insurance business. Also, having an insurance underwriter and a bank together does not usually create “cross-sell” opportunities, because consumers and businesses almost always buy life insurance and annuities through brokers who have a duty to give them other options. Citigroup will continue to sell insurance through its brokers as before.


Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Campaigners opposed to the expansion of London Heathrow Airport have today scaled the roof of the U.K. Houses of Parliament and hung protest banners reading ‘BAA HQ’ and ‘No 3rd Runway’ from the building, before and during Prime Minister’s Questions inside the building.

The three men and two women were from climate action group, Plane Stupid. The non-violent direct action comes on the day a government consultation into the Heathrow expansion of a third runway ends.

The protesters made paper aeroplanes out of confidential Whitehall documents that allegedly show collusion between the British Airports Authority (B.A.A.) and the Government department of transport to subvert the public consultation process on the proposed third runway. These documents were obtained from the Department for Transport by Greenpeace under the freedom of information act.

B.A.A. claims a third runway is essential for Britain’s economy, and would reduce congestion at Heathrow, actually cutting emissions, and is necessary to keep up with the booming aviation industry. This would allow the number of flights to increase from 480,000 a year to around 702,000 .

In a statement given by one of the protesters from the roof to the Guardian newspaper:

“ We’ve come to this symbolic home of democracy to make clear that the consultation process of the third runway at Heathrow has, from the beginning, been a sham.

We’re taking direct action as a last resort because we don’t believe that the consultation has been a democratic process. This is the beginning of a campaign of direct action that will not cease until we feel we’re being listened to and until we’re satisfied that it’s Londoners’ views, rather than B.A.A.’s, that the government paying attention to.

”

Matthew Knowles from the Society of British Aerospace Companies made a statement to the B.B.C. that: “These stunts are becoming tiresome and do nothing more than peddle inaccurate propaganda.”

The rooftop occupation comes two days after Greenpeace protesters scaled an Airbus A320 which had just touched down at Heathrow from Manchester, and follows a succession of direct action protests in the U.K. in relation to climate change.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Morale is “fine” inside the Vestas plant in Newport, Isle of Wight, England, as an industrial occupation of the wind turbine factory finished entered its fourth night, says one of the occupiers.

“Mark,” who prefers not to give his last name for fear of management reprisals, spoke to Wikinews and gave an update on the situation inside the plant, where 30 of the 525 workers whose jobs are slated to be lost at the end of July occupied management offices on Monday evening and issued a call for the British government to nationalise the plant.

A double fence now rings the plant, surrounded by police in riot gear. Five people have been arrested for attempting to enter the plant grounds. According to Mark, while police are now letting food onto the plant grounds, Vestas’ private security have been halting it at the gate; food for the occupiers is now being provided by Vestas management after the occupiers accused Vestas in the press of violating the Human Rights Act; commenting on the quality of the food, Mark said “it’s not been that good”. According to the BBC, the content has been mostly sausage rolls, pasties and crisps.

The occupiers were informed yesterday that if they did not leave the plant by 10:30 p.m. on July 22, they would be fired. They have since been served with papers charging them with aggravated trespass and are seeking legal representation; the court papers give them until July 29 to vacate, but according to Mark, the occupiers have no plans to leave: “we’re going to be in here for a while”.

Vestas has given no comment to the press about the occupation.

Political parties in Britain have begun responding to the Vestas situation, with the Green Party adding its support to the occupation following the early declarations of support, previously reported here, by the Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party. Green Party Leader Dr Caroline Lucas MEP gave her “full support”, and said in an online statement, “We should be seizing the opportunity to create a renewable energy revolution through a favourable policy environment and massive investment in the new technologies that can see us through a transition towards a more environmentally and economically stable economy. The Government can make a genuine start along this road by pledging financial aid to help keep the Isle of Wight’s Vestas plant open for business”. The Greens held a demonstration in London supporting the Vestas workers on July 22. Environmentalist protesters have established a climate camp with dozens of people outside the perimeter of the fence and a mass demonstration is planned for Friday evening in Newport’s St Thomas’s Square.

In parliament, meanwhile, five MPs of the ruling Labour Party have signed a motion protesting the Vestas plant’s closure and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg stated, “This closure exposes the hollow truth of Labour’s climate change strategy”. Labour Party left-wing veteran Tony Benn is expected to appear with RMT general secretary Bob Crow and address a rally at the factory Thursday night. Opposition leader David Cameron of the Conservative Party has not yet commented on the Vestas situation, but Conservative MP Andrew Turner, who represents the Isle of Wight, held a confidential meeting with Vestas management, after which he said that nationalisation was “not on the table”. Earlier in parliament, Turner said that he found Vestas’s lack of negotiations with its employees “totally unacceptable”.

Late on Thursday, Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Minister, published an editorial in The Guardian, writing:

[W]e have to win a political argument that environmentally and industrially, onshore wind is part of the solution. In the meantime, there must be a strategy for the Isle of Wight to do all we can to help and there is. Not just support for the workers who are losing their jobs, but a strategy to work with Vestas.

Milliband went on to promise £120 million in government investment in offshore wind power production and £60 million in marine manufacturing.

Vestas attributes its pullout from the UK to difficulty in obtaining planning permission for wind farms. The Independent quotes a senior company executive as saying, “We needed a stable long-term market and that was not there in the UK. We have made clear to the Government that we need a market. We do not need money.” Vestas’s income is up 59% in the last quarter, although its stock has dropped 4.4% on the Copenhagen Stock Exchange since the occupation began.

Meanwhile in the United States, Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick cut the ribbon at the opening of a 300-turbine, 800-megawatt capacity wind farm built by Vestas in Holden, Massachusetts. Vestas is a finalist in a multi-million dollar government contract to build a new offshore wind farm to be constructed in Nantucket Sound by 2012.

Friday, November 24, 2006

An ongoing struggle in Kazakhstan between the authorities and a local Hindu village has turned serious. Forum 18 has been documenting the alleged human rights abuse regarding the Hare Krishna village for some time, but as of 21st November events took a drastic turn.

The following was seen and written by Ninel Fokina, president of the Almaty Helsinki Committee, and Andrei Grishin, official member of the International Bureau of Human Rights and Law Observance:

On November 21, 2006 at 1 pm the information was received that according to the court decision to evict the members of the religion organization International Society for Krishna Consciousness from the occupied land near Sri Vrindavan Dham farm, and the demolition of 13 country houses will beginimmediately.

Heavy equipment was brought to the suburban community: trucks, demolition machines, three busses with riot policemen, a bus withdemolition squad and the local authorities including the Hakim. Electricity was disconnected in the morning of the same day.

There were only women and children in the village. All men went to work in town.

The president of the Almaty Helsinki Committee Ninel Fokina tried to contact different officials in Astana (the capital): B.Baikadamov, the envoy of human rights, B. Muhamedjanov, the minister forinternal affairs I. Bakhtibayev, the assistant General Prosecutor; R.Aliev, the deputy minister for foreign affairs.

She had a conversation with B. Baikadamov, the only person she could reach at that time, who promised to communicate to theCommittee of Religious Affairs at the Ministry of Justice, the Supreme Court, and the Court Administration Committee which includes the department of court decision execution.

At 3 pm representatives of human rights organizations: Ninel Fokina, Andrei Grishin, and Maxim Varfolomeev, press-secretary of theSociety for Krishna Consciousness, plus, a journalist and representativeof Astana TV channel left for the village which is located 40 km fromAlmaty.

All the roads to village were closed and patrolled by police. They would not let anyone go through. The human rights representatives and the journalist took detour through the fields. It was snowing, but they were able to reach the border of the village because of the four-wheel-drive jeep they were traveling in. But even that road was closed by patrol.

The jeep was not allowed to drive into the village. The patrol explained it was instruction of authorities. When Grishin and the jeep driver tried to pass by walk they were stopped and threatened to beput in handcuffs. And the patrol promised to send for additional force.

Lieutenant colonel, who came with another patrol car, explained that they are not allowed to the village for their own safety. He said that at that time the electric line was being dismounted in the area.

The driver of the jeep had his wife and two months old daughter in thevillage. He was begging to let him go through, but his request was denied. He was told that safety is guaranteed to his family.This group could still enter the village. They approached it from the other detour road, and leaving the car on the sidewalk, one by one theyentered the village.

As they approached the village they met two small groups of young people who were not drunk but unnaturally exited.They held hammers, big dumb-bells, metal crow-bars and sticks. Two of them politely greeted the group, and one said gaily, “Your houses are finished.

Four big busses with toned windows and two cars of ambulance were parked at the entrance of the village in the grove. 30-40 policemen stood by the houses, and 20-30 people in civil clothes includingthe leaders of the district with the Hakim, the head of local executiveauthority stood on the street, watching the demolition.

It was snowing. Residents’ household stuff such as mattresses, blankets,utensils cookware, and furniture were laying outside on the lawns by their houses. People in construction outfits (labor people) got inside the houses and started crushing windows and doors, destroyingwalls. The bulldozer was demolishing the buildings and the big stone fencing with cast iron openwork lattice which separated the houses from the driving area.

A small group of inhabitants (20-30 people, mostly women) did not offerphysical resistance. One of the women felt dizzy, fell down and was picked up by the ambulance. Police was bringing down thosefew (basically women) who tried to interfere with the destruction of their property. Two men tried to prevent the entrance of destroyers into a house, but were brought down by 15 policemen who twisted their hands and took them away to the police car.

During all these events none of the representatives from the Office ofPublic Prosecutor were present at the place of the event, even though both Krishna people and legal service people demanded meeting with representatives of the Office of Public Prosecutor who are obligated to be present during this type of actions.

The Hakim of the Yetisu district who was personally responsible for thisaction noticed A. Grishin photographing the destruction of the houses using a digital camera and commanded the policemen to detainhim. A. Grishin is an officer of the Human Rights Bureau and a journalist.

To avoid confiscation of the camera A. Grishin tried to escape. He ran away by 200 meters and was caught by the police. Police officers confiscated his digital camera and took away his journalist certificate.

Then he was let free, but police refused to return the camera, saying that they would give it to the Hakim. The camera was indeed found in the car of the Hakim, but the flash card and the batteries wereconfiscated. When Grishin approached the Hakim to find out for whatreason his camera and his journalist ID were confiscated, the Hakim told in front of the witnesses, “If I see you here again, I will personally crash Your eyes, even though I am the Hakim.”

No one of the policemen, who took part in the camera and ID confiscation,wanted to reveal their names.

Ms. Fokina was able to talk with the assistant of the General prosecutor I. Bakhtibayev, who did confirm that he would contact the prosecutor of the province and he would work out this situation.

The envoy of human rights E. Baikadamov, who was also contacted, said that the president of the Court Administration Committee Z. Makashev confirmed that he would contact immediately the provincial department and would give the appropriate instructions.

All the attempts of the representatives of the human rights organizations to find the people in charge of the operation and givethem any information were unsuccessful.

All the present officials refused to speak and declared that they were not responsible for the action. The Police colonels would point at bailiffs. The bailiffs did not confirm their being bailiffs.

The OSCE representatives in Almaty Eugenia Benigni and Lisa Zhumakhmetovadid not make it to the village. Their car just was stoped by police.

When the darkness fell, at around 6 pm, everything was finished: 13 houses destroyed, people thrown to the snowbound street, the village left without electricity, without heat and water.

The condition of the witnesses can be described as shock. The condition of the people who were thrown from their destroyed houses to the dirt and snow cannot be described.

When all the 13 buildings were destroyed as was planned … while theadjacent houses of other people who do not belong to the Society for Krishna Consciousness were left untouched even though theirtitle deeds have the same status … the bailiffs decided to give aninterview to the TV channel “to avoid one-sided opinion.” However no one of them introduced himself. The only thing they could say, “we are executing the court decision.”

Neither the Hakim, nor the police chiefs, nor the bailiffs would listen to the arguments that the governmental commission established to solve the issue around the Society for Krishna Consciousness has not yet come to final decision.

Notice: the notifications of eviction and demolition of the 13 houses owned by members of the cottage cooperative, who are the members of the religious organization Society for Krishna Consciousness, weredelivered to the watchman of Sri Vrindavan Dham in the evening ofNovember 20. The date of execution and the period for evacuating the buildings were not stated. It should be noted that the acting Kazakh law does not stipulate such a kind of eviction as the demolition of houses, and the eviction should be accompanied by the inventory of property removed from the evacuated building, while the storage of this property should be provided is necessary.

2012 Olympics clash with Ramadan

Posted by: in Uncategorized
22
Oct

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Muslim groups from across the world are criticising the organisers of the 2012 Olympics in London after it was revealed that the games will take place over Ramadan. The most holy month in the Muslim calendar, which will take place from the 21 July to 20 August in 2012, involves fasting during daylight hours and will affect an estimated 3,000 athletes.

Joanna Manning Cooper, spokesman for the games said: “We did know about it when we submitted our bid and we have always believed that we could find ways to accommodate it.”Nevertheless, this will come as a huge embarrassment for the organisers who have tried to ensure the event involve all of Britain’s ethnic communities.A quarter of the athletes who took part in the 2004 Athens Olympics were from predominantly Muslim countries and the fast will put any athletes involved at a clear disadvantage.

The chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, Massoud Shadjared said: “This is going to disadvantage the athletes and alienate the Asian communities by saying they don’t matter. It’s not only going to affect the participants, it’s going to affect all the people who want to watch the games.”

The president of the National Olympic Committee of Turkey, Togay Bayalti, said: “This will be difficult for Muslim athletes. They don’t have to observe Ramadan if they are doing sport and travelling but they will have to decide whether it is important to them. “It would be nice for the friendship of the Games if they had chosen a different date.”

The games will run from the 27 July to 12 August to coincide with the British Summer holidays. The summer holidays are a six week period running from mid July to early September. During this time, public transportation is generally less crowded and it will be easier to find the 70,000 volunteers needed to keep the games running. The International Olympics Committee has specified that the games must take place between July 15 to August 31. Giselle Davies, IOC spokesperson said, “We give a window to the five bid cities. The host city selects the dates within that window.”

The organisers are working with the Muslim Council of Great Britain to find ways around the problem.

Bomb blast damages buildings in Athens

Posted by: in Uncategorized
20
Oct

Friday, March 20, 2009

Two buildings have been damaged in a bombing in Athens, Greece on Thursday. The target was a building owned by an agency that manages state real estate.

Nobody was injured in the blast, but the building’s entrance was damaged. A nearby store and a parked car also sustained damage. The homemade device, which consisted of explosives placed inside a plastic bag and tied to a pole close to the target, damaged the Hellenic Public Real Estate Corporation building.

The area was cordoned off by police after the explosion, which occurred at 9:30 p.m. local time yesterday. Bomb disposal experts checked the area following the explosion, while anti-terrorism officers began their investigation. The building is about 250 yards from the Athens police headquarters, and is also close to the Supreme Court.

No claim of responsibility has yet been made, but the Greek conservative government has been attempting to control left-wing terrorism in recent months. One group, the Revolutionary Struggle, was responsible for a failed car bombing against an Athens Citibank office on February 28, and also bombed a Citibank branch in the city on March 9. Greece has been receiving advice from police in London after the increase in terrorist activity and rioting last year throughout the nation.

Disney animator Ollie Johnston dies at 95

Posted by: in Uncategorized
20
Oct

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

American animator Ollie Johnston, the last of Disney’s so-called “Nine Old Men”, has died at the age of 95.

Johnston died of natural causes on Monday in Sequim, Washington, according to Walt Disney Studios Vice President Howard E. Green.

Johnston worked on many of the Disney’s classic films, including Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), Pinnochio (1940), Fantasia (1940), Bambi (1942), and many others.

Ollie was part of an amazing generation of artists.

Johnston worked extensively with his best friend Frank Thomas, a fellow “old man” who died in 2004. The pair met at Stanford University in the 1930s and worked together until Thomas’ death. They retired from animation in 1978, but remained popular speakers and authors about Disney and animation.

“Ollie was part of an amazing generation of artists, one of the real pioneers of our art, one of the major participants in the blossoming of animation into the art form we know today,” said Roy E. Disney.

Johnston devoted much of his retirement to writing and lecturing, but perhaps even more to model trains, a field in which he became considered one of the world’s foremost experts.

Ollie Johnston’s last film was The Fox and the Hound (1981) on which he worked as a supervisor.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

British Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling announced to a shocked House of Commons today that two password-protected — but not encrypted — computer disks containing the entire Child Benefit database have been lost in transit between the offices of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in Washington, Tyne & Wear and the National Audit Office (NAO) in London, in what has been described as “one of the world’s biggest ID protection failures”.

The database contains details of all families in the UK who receive Child Benefit — all families with children up to 16 years of age, plus those with children up to 20 years old if they are in full-time education or training — estimated to contain 25 million individuals in 7.25 million families. Among other items of information, the database contains names, addresses, dates of birth, child benefit and National Insurance numbers, and where appropriate, bank or building society account details.

The discs were created by a junior official at the HMRC in response to a request for information by the NAO, and were sent unregistered and unrecorded on 18 October using the courier company TNT — which operates the HMRC’s internal mail system. When it was found that the discs had not arrived for audit at the NAO, a further copy of this data was made and sent — this time by registered mail — and this package did arrive. HMRC were not informed that the original discs had been lost until 8 November, and Darling himself was informed on 10 November.

The violation of data protection laws involved in the creation of the discs has led to strong attacks on the government’s competence to establish the proposed National Identity Register, when all UK residents will have an identity card. Conservative Shadow Chancellor George Osborne described the loss of data as “catastrophic” and said “They [the government] simply cannot be trusted with people’s personal information”.

The Chairman of HMRC, Paul Gray, has resigned over the affair, and critics are calling for Darling to do likewise.

This is the third data embarrassment for HMRC in recent weeks — earlier this month it was reported that the details of over 15,000 Standard Life customers had been put on disk, and then lost en route from HMRC in Newcastle to Standard Life in Edinburgh — and last month a laptop containing the data of 400 people with high-value ISAs was stolen from the boot of a car belonging to a HMRC official who had been carrying out a routine audit.

By Julius Giarmarco, Esq.

While there is a present lapse in the estate and generation-skipping transfer taxes, it’s likely that Congress will reinstate both taxes (perhaps even retroactively) some time during 2010. If not, on January 1, 2011, the estate tax exemption (which was $3.5 million in 2009) becomes $1 million, and the top estate tax rate (which was 45% in 2009) becomes 55%. Assuming the federal estate tax (FET) exemption is reinstated at $3.5 million or more, then for most people the FET has been repealed. According to the Tax Policy Center, only five of every 100,000 people who die have estates over $3.5 million.

For married couples with taxable estates, the common planning tool is for each spouse to establish a revocable living trust. Upon the death of the first spouse, an amount equal to his/her FET exemption is allocated to a Credit Shelter Trust (CST). Other terms for the Credit Shelter Trust are Bypass Trust, Family Trust and Residuary Trust. A CST allows the surviving spouse broad access to the assets in the CST without the assets being included in the spouse’s estate. Thus, the CST allows each spouse to leave his/her FET exemption to their children. Without a CST, the first spouse to die ‘wastes’ his/her estate tax exemption.

The provisions that the spouse can enjoy from the CST during his/her lifetime (without causing the assets in the CST to be taxable in the surviving spouse’s estate) are:

1. The spouse can have all of the income of the CST. Treas. Reg. Sec. 25.2518-2(e)(5), Example 4. Alternatively, the trustee can ‘sprinkle’ the income of the CST to children and grandchildren so as to shift that income to lower tax brackets, or can accumulate the income and add it to principal.

2. The spouse can receive principal distributions from the CST (see Paragraphs 5 and 6 below).

3. The spouse can have the power to withdraw the greater of $5,000 or 5% of the principal of the CST each year. IRC Section 2041(b)(2).

4. The spouse can have a testamentary limited power of appointment (LPA) over the assets in the CST. An LPA allows the spouse to ‘rewrite’ the dispositive provisions of the CST. However, the LPA is usually drafted so that the LPA can only be exercised in favor of the grantor’s descendants and/or charities. The LPA cannot be exercised in favor of the spouse, his/her creditors, his/her estate, or the creditors of his/her estate. IRC Section 2041(b)(1).

5. The spouse can be the sole trustee of the CST, provided that distributions to the spouse are limited to an ‘ascertainable standard’ (i.e., health, education, maintenance and support). IRC Section 2041(b)(1)(A).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdyDFhZr78A[/youtube]

6. Distributions to the spouse in excess of the ascertainable standard can be made from the CST if an independent co-trustee is named to serve with the spouse, but discretion on distributions to the spouse must be limited solely to the independent co-trustee.

7. The spouse can have the power to remove the co-trustee and appoint an individual or corporate successor co-trustee that is not related or subordinate to the spouse (within the meaning of IRC Section 672(c)). Rev. Rul. 95-58.

The deceased spouse’s estate, over and above the amount allocated to the CST, will pass estate tax free to the Marital Trust because of the unlimited marital deduction. When the surviving spouse dies, the assets in the Marital Trust (along with the assets in the spouse’s Living Trust) will be subject to estate taxes, but only after subtracting the surviving spouse’s FET exemption.

The two most common types of Marital Trusts are the General Power of Appointment (GPA) Trust and the Qualified Terminable Interest Property (QTIP) Trust. Both types of Marital Trusts must provide the surviving spouse with all of the income and may (but need not) provide the spouse with principal. The typical GPA Marital Trust allows the spouse to determine the ultimate beneficiaries of the Marital Trust upon his/her death, and usually allows the spouse to withdraw the principal of the Marital Trust during his/her lifetime without restriction. The QTIP Marital Trust, on the other hand, does not allow the spouse to determine the ultimate beneficiaries and usually restricts the spouse to principal as needed for health, education, maintenance and support. But, to add flexibility to a QTIP Marital Trust, the spouse may be given a $5,000/5% annual withdrawal power and/or a limited power of appointment over the QTIP Trust.

A CST has the following advantages: It utilizes both spouses’ FET exemptions, while giving the surviving spouse access to and control over the assets in the CST; it preserves assets for the couple’s descendants (in case the spouse remarries); and it protects the spouse and descendants from creditors.

But, there are disadvantages to a CST as well. The surviving spouse’s access to the assets in the CST, albeit broad, is (as noted above) restricted. Moreover, if the spouse withdraws more from the CST than permitted, he/she may be accountable to the ultimate beneficiaries of the CST (i.e., children and grandchildren). The CST also adds complexity to the spouse’s life in that separate records for the CST must be maintained and annual income tax returns (Form 1041) must be filed for the remainder of the spouse’s lifetime. And, if a co-trustee over the CST is used, the spouse will have to cooperate with that trustee.

For many couples with non-taxable estates, particularly those with children all from the same marriage, the disadvantages of a CST outweigh the advantages. Therefore, they would prefer to simply leave their estate to a GPA Marital Trust for the surviving spouse. But, if their estates were to increase and/or the FET exemption was reduced by future legislation, they still want the ability to use both spouses’ FET exemptions. It is possible to accomplish both objectives with a Disclaimer Trust.

Disclaimer Trusts became popular after the 2001 Tax Act was passed because of the increasing FET exemption and the uncertainty created by the Act. With a Disclaimer Trust, a married couple’s revocable living trusts leave the deceased spouse’s entire estate to a GPA Marital Trust. The CST is then funded only if the surviving spouse disclaims (refuses) part of the deceased spouse’s estate. This enables the spouse to decide how much to keep outright (to be taxed at the second death) and the amount to be allocated to the CST (where it is shielded from estate tax at the second death). In making an informed decision to disclaim and how much to disclaim, one must examine the size of the combined estate, the spouse’s age and health (which impacts the spouse’s needs for funds), whether minor children will be beneficiaries of the CST, the potential appreciation of the assets not disclaimed, and the status of the FET exemption.

For example, assume a married couple has combined assets of $4.5 million, which are evenly divided between their revocable living trusts. Each trust provides that 100% of the trust property is allocated to a GPA Marital Trust upon the death of the grantor-spouse. But, if the surviving spouse disclaims all or a portion of the decedent’s estate, the disclaimed portion passes to a CST. If, at the time of the first death, both husband and wife are in their seventies or eighties and the FET exemption is $3.5 million, it might make sense for the spouse to disclaim $1 million of the deceased spouse’s $2.25 million estate. This will leave the spouse with a $3.5 million taxable estate (i.e., $2.25 million in the spouse’s living trust and $1.25 million in the GPA Marital Trust), which will be completely sheltered from estate taxes by the spouse’s FET exemption.

But, if at the first death the surviving spouse is only in his/her forties or early fifties, the decision might be to forgo the disclaimer. The younger the spouse, the more likely the estate will not increase, but instead be consumed and decline in value. This would be particularly true if there are young children involved. Moreover, the spouse will have ample time to gift a portion of the combined estate to children and grandchildren (using his/her $13,000 annual gift tax exclusion) so that there may be no estate tax due upon the death of the surviving spouse.

For couples whose estates are below the estate tax exemption, a disclaimer trust still makes sense. It’s possible the estate could grow through appreciation, inheritances, and/or by acquiring life insurance on one or both spouses’ lives. It’s also possible the estate tax exemption will be reduced by Congress in the future. The disclaimer trust avoids saddling the surviving spouse with the time and expenses of administering a CST, unless funding a CST would result in an estate tax savings.

In order to be a ‘qualified’ disclaimer for FET purposes, the disclaimer must meet the following five requirements set forth in Internal Revenue Code Section 2518(b):

1. It must be an irrevocable and unqualified refusal to accept an interest in property;

2. It must be in writing, signed by the spouse;

3. It must be received by the trustee within nine (9) months of the grantor-spouse’s death;

4. The spouse must not have accepted the disclaimed property or any of its benefits; and

5. As a result of the disclaimer, the interest must pass without any direction from the spouse.

Because IRC Section 2518 prohibits the surviving spouse from holding a power to direct the disposition of the disclaimed property, the spouse cannot be given a limited power of appointment over the CST (unless limited by an ascertainable standard). See Treas. Reg. Sec. 25-2518-2(e)(2) and Treas. Reg. Sec. 25-2518-2(e)(5), Example 5. Nor can the spouse (either as a beneficiary or as the sole trustee) have any discretion over the CST’s property. But, the spouse can serve as the sole trustee of the CST if the trust agreement contains mandatory distributions (i.e., no discretion on part of the trustee) or ascertainable standards for distributions of principal and income. Treas. Reg. Secs. 25-2518-2(e)(2) and 25-2518-2(e)(5), Examples 11 and 12.

There are also state law requirements for making a disclaimer. Failure by the surviving spouse to satisfy all of the federal requirements set forth above will result in the disclaimer being treated as a taxable gift from the spouse to the remainder beneficiaries of the CST (i.e., the children and grandchildren).

In summary, for a married couple whose combined estate may or may not exceed the FET exemption, a disclaimer trust will provide the couple with the greatest degree of flexibility. But, for couples with children from a prior marriage, a disclaimer trust will not guarantee that the children will receive an inheritance (as would be the case where the CST is funded automatically with the deceased spouse’s FET exemption). Even with a first marriage, the surviving spouse could remarry and leave the estate to the new spouse with a disclaimer trust. Finally, care must be taken immediately after the first spouse’s death (when the spouse may be unable to cope with making financial decisions) to protect the qualified disclaimer. Thus, the flexibility found is disclaimer trusts may not be right for every couple and, therefore, the couple should consult with an experienced estate planning attorney.

THIS ARTICLE MAY NOT BE USED FOR PENALTY PROTECTION.

About the Author: Julius Giarmarco, J.D., LL.M, chairs the Trusts and Estates Practice Group of Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C., in Troy, Michigan. For more articles on estate and business succession planning, please visit the author’s website,

disinherit-irs.com

, and click on ‘Advisor Resources’.

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=507886&ca=Legal