Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Leaving Retirement Plan Benefits to Trusts
As the baby boomer generation ages, a greater and greater concentration of wealth is being held in retirement plan benefits. Dealing with the complexities of retirement plan benefits, whether it be via a prenuptial agreement or a divorce settlement, is unavoidable. An inadequate understanding of how these plans work can make a significant difference in your client's tax bill. For example, it may make perfect sense, for a variety of non-tax reasons, to make one spouse's retirement plan benefit payable to a trust for the benefit of the surviving spouse. However, such an arrangement may come at the price of significant income tax costs. While it is important to understand and be sensitive to the multitude of factors motivating an individual to leave assets in trust, it is just as important to understand the income tax consequences of this choice.
Leaving Benefits Outright To a Spouse
If one spouse leaves retirement plan benefits outright to the surviving spouse, the surviving spouse can then rollover the benefits into his or her own retirement plan. From a tax perspective, the rollover is extremely powerful and is a great gift from the Internal Revenue Service. However, if one spouse leaves retirement plan benefits in trust for the benefit of the surviving spouse, the surviving spouse cannot rollover those benefits unless he or she has the complete right to withdraw all of the assets held in the trust. Such a provision usually defeats the purpose of creating the trust in the first place. Further, a standard qualified terminable interest trust would not include such a provision and would therefore not qualify for the rollover.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.