In my friends case, according to the will, she got nothing from the $5M estate so she will fight for it no matter what.
Accordingly, the magistrate’s finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Elizabeth intended for her accounts to be divided among her six children was critically important for purposes of determining whether the joint accounts were assets of the estate. However, that finding was simply irrelevant for purposes of determining whether the POD accounts were assets of the estate. The appellate court, therefore, remanded the case for entry of a revised order, this time determining that the joint accounts, but not the POD accounts, were assets of the estate.
ivycover wrote: »
. . . . Even if you disown them account for them in a bequeath. . . . . .
ucbalumnus wrote: »
. . . . . How often are people who are specifically excluded from receiving anything successful at contesting or suing for more? . . . . .
Talking about this to H, he was under impression that putting assets in trust means your heirs don’t get a stepped up basis which could make a big impact of how heirs use inheritance. Is he correct or does it vary?
Yes the living trust has essentially no bearing on taxes (income or estate) because assets remain in the estate.
Assuming that naming a trust fits a client’s overall objective, advisors should verify (with an attorney) that the trust qualifies as a “look-through” or “see-through” trust. In other words, the IRS will “look through” the trust and treat the trust’s beneficiary as the IRA’s direct beneficiary, although the trust remains the direct owner of the IRA (actually an inherited IRA). This allows heirs to take advantage of favorable minimum-distribution rules that apply to individual designated beneficiaries (e.g., those beneficiaries that have a life expectancy).