Source: http://trustsandestates.bbablogs.org/category/uncategorized/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 11:00:54+00:00

Document:
Please follow the link below to obtain the materials from the October Brown Bag lunch on “The Basics of Purpose Trusts.” This program helped attendees understand the concept of a trust without beneficiaries and how they may be used in an estate plan. Alexander A. Bove, Jr. of Bove & Langa, P.C. was the speaker.
In PLR 2014-36036, the IRS was asked to rule on the impact of federal estate and gift taxation on a state judicially-reformed irrevocable trust. Original language in the trust conferred a general power of appointment on a trust beneficiary, which upon reformation was changed to a special power of appointment. The IRS recognized the state’s authority to reform trusts and stated it would apply federal tax law based on the amended provisions of the trust.
Five settlors created and funded an irrevocable trust. The trust beneficiary was given a testamentary power of appointment, with no limitation on the exercise of such appointment in favor of the beneficiary’s estate, beneficiary’s creditors, or creditors of beneficiary’s estate. The settlors subsequently learned that this trust provision was contrary to their original intent. They petitioned their state’s court to reform the trust, requesting that the beneficiary’s general testamentary power be replaced with a special limited testamentary power. The state court agreed that a scrivener’s error had occurred and reformed the trust retroactive to the creation date.
As there are material estate and gift tax consequences in the exercise and release of powers of appointment, the settlors requested a PLR to determine the extent of the IRS’ recognition of the reformed trust language.
1. Will the IRS recognize the reformed trust, and not include assets subject to the reformed testamentary power of appointment in the beneficiary’s estate?
2. Will the reformation be considered a deemed release of the general power, thereby subjecting the beneficiary to gift taxation on the assets?
Section 2041(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code includes in the value of the gross estate any property over which the decedent had a general power of appointment. Section 2514(b) provides that the exercise or release of a general power of appointment is deemed a transfer of property by the individual possessing the power.
In this Private Letter Ruling, the IRS cited U.S. Supreme Court case Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456 (1967). This case considered whether a state trial court’s ruling would be conclusively binding on a federal agency in matters of estate taxation. The Court concluded that only those rulings from the highest court of the state would be binding when applied to a federal matter. However, in the absence of such a ruling, the federal authority may give “proper regard” to lower state court rulings. The federal authority would in effect “sit as a state court” when making its decision.
Because the current case was not heard in the highest court of the state, the IRS instead gave “proper regard” to the lower court’s reformation of the trust. The IRS found that the court’s correction of a scrivener’s error was consistent with state law as would be applied by the highest court of the state.
The IRS concluded that the reformed testamentary power of appointment would not be considered a general power of appointment so as to include trust assets in the beneficiary’s estate. Further, the reformation was not considered a deemed exercise or release of the beneficiary’s general power, which would subject the beneficiary to gift tax.
This taxpayer-friendly ruling should give practitioners some peace of mind that state judicial reformations will be respected by the IRS. It should be noted that absent a ruling from a state’s highest court, the IRS keeps open the possibility of making rulings inconsistent with lower courts, even after giving them their proper regard.
Please note that a Private Letter Ruling is only directed to the taxpayer requesting it, and cannot be used or cited as precedent.
Please follow the link below to obtain the materials from the September Brown Bag lunch on “Trust Administration within the New Paradigm of Estate Planning.” At this program attendees learned what to consider and think about when drafting and administering trusts in the current income and transfer tax environment. Brett J. Barthelmeh of Squillace & Associates, PC was the speaker.
As a result of recent legislative changes to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 190B, in an informal proceeding to probate an estate (with or without a will), a petitioner is now required to give written notice to the Division of Medical Assistance, Estate Recovery Unit (“DMA”), at least seven (7) days prior to filing an informal petition (MPC 150) by sending a copy of the informal petition and death certificate to DMA by certified mail. See G. L. c. 190B, § 3-306(g), as added by St. 2014, c. 165, s. 174.1 Procedurally, the Probate and Family Court shall continue to rely on the affirmative statement made by the petitioner in the informal petition that notice was provided to DMA.
In addition, in a formal proceeding to probate an estate (with or without a will), a petitioner is now required to give citation notice to DMA by mailing a copy of the citation by certified mail, in accordance with the Order of Notice, together with a copy of the formal petition (MPC 160) and death certificate. See G. L. c. 190B, § 3-403(g), as added by St. 2014, c. 165, s. 175.2 Procedurally, the Probate and Family Court shall require that the petitioner certify on the Return of Service that citation notice was provided to DMA.
The above is effective immediately.
1 G. L. c. 118E, § 32(a) as currently enacted refers to § 3-306(f) in error. See G. L. c. 118E, § 32(a), as amended by St. 2014, c. 165, s. 149. Legislative change is required to correct this error.
Tara E. DeCristofaro, Register of the Middlesex Probate and Family Court, has announced that she will be piloting a walk-in session for informal petitions. The walk-in session will be available in the Registry every Tuesday afternoon from 12:00 pm. – 3:00 pm., beginning August 5, 2014. If the program is well received, plans are to expand it to multiple days per week.
“I am hopeful that this new procedure will assist the bar and self-represented litigants by dramatically reducing the wait time to informally appoint a personal representative or probate a will in estate administration cases.” said DeCristofaro.
To take advantage of this program, the informal packet must be complete and include all the necessary documents and filing fees. “You are advised to visit the Probate and Family Court MUPC Hub at www.mass.gov/courts to review the checklist of required documents under the informal procedure and to consult the MUPC Estate Administration Procedural Guide for answers to frequently asked procedural questions. “This program is structured to speed up the wait times for informal petitions. Accordingly, we ask that participants in this walk-in service present a complete packet for allowance. Those with questions should use the public probate counter.” said DeCristofaro.
Upon successful review, consumers will be issued an Informal Order and Letter(s) of Appointment before leaving the Registry. If there are any issues with the informal packet, consumers will be instructed on what is necessary to complete the packet and be asked to return at the next available date, or if necessary, be advised of other procedural options if an informal proceeding is unavailable.
To better serve our customers there will be a Magistrate sitting in the Lawrence Registry of Probate on Wednesdays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. to assist with the procession and allowance of Informal Probate Petitions.
The Trusts & Estates CLE Committee has partnered with the Family Law CLE Committee to co-sponsor a great program on The Intersection of Estate Planning and Family Law. Below is the agenda for the program. The content is very interesting, with current insights on the topics discussed by experienced panelists. Please consider signing up, and share the information with your colleagues as well.
Speaker: Robert J. O’Regan, Esq.
Please join Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) at a free event to learn about their new Legal Services Food Hub, a legal services project connecting lawyers with pro bono opportunities to assist low income farmers and food entrepreneurs in Massachusetts. Enjoy a locally-sourced continental breakfast. Hear about the need for this project from Roger Noonan, a farmer and President of the New England Farmers Union. Receive training on the most common legal issues faced by these constituents from CLF and Harvard Law School Food Law & Policy Clinic staff attorneys. Meet and mingle with fellow Massachusetts lawyers interested in using their legal skills to strengthen our local food economy and increase fresh food access. Leave the event with a hot-off-the-press copy of the Legal Services Food Hub Legal Guide written by Harvard Law School’s Food Law & Policy Clinic.
Click here to register for the event and click here to visit CLF’s website.
Please forward this invite to attorney contacts who may be interested! All attendees must register by Friday, June 13th.
With the second anniversary of the effective date of estate administration sections of the Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code (the “MUPC”) behind us, the Boston Bar Association’s Trusts & Estate’s Section’s Public Service Committee asked the Massachusetts Probate and Family Courts to comment on frequently made errors in MUPC filings. With the assistance of Chief Justice Angela M. Ordoñez and Case Manager Evelyn J. Patsos, Esq., MUPC Magistrates and court personnel compiled a list of common mistakes and simple solutions.
1. Petition Should be Consistent with Death Certificate: A common error is that the decedent’s name as listed on the petition does not match the name listed on the death certificate. If the will and death certificate refer to the decedent by a different name, the petition should include any alias. For example, if the death certificate identifies the decedent as “John M. Smith” and the will identifies the decedent as “John Smith”, the petition should reference the estate as “John M. Smith, also known as John Smith”.
In addition, the decedent’s address as listed on the petition should match the address listed on the death certificate. If the address of the decedent is not accurately reflected on the death certificate an Affidavit of Domicile (Form MPC 485) must be filed with the petition.
2. Suspicious Deaths: Another common mistake occurs where the death certificate lists the cause of death as “pending” or homicide”. If the cause of death is listed as “pending” or “homicide”, the petitioner must file a Suspicious Death Affidavit (Form MPC 475) with the petition (M.G.L. 190B, Section 2-803).
3. Priority for Appointment: If the person requested to be appointed personal representative does not have the highest statutory priority to serve as personal representative pursuant to M.G.L. 190B, Section 3-203 or has equal statutory priority with others, then the petitioner must list the names of all individuals who have statutory priority to serve or who also have an equal statutory priority to serve. If there are renouncements or nominations accompanying the petition, the petitioner should indicate this by checking the appropriate box and filing the Renunciation and/or Nomination (Form MPC 455) of all such individuals. Instructions for completing the Renunciation and/or Nomination form are available (Form MPC 941).
Renunciation and/or Nomination form(s) shall be required and must be submitted with an informal petition if the petitioner is seeking to appoint a personal representative who does NOT have statutory priority for appointment. Only the court in a formal proceeding may appoint a person without statutory priority.
4. Formal vs. Informal Proceeding: Practitioners are attempting to go forward with informal proceedings where only formal proceedings are available. This most often occurs where there is a minor or otherwise incapacitated heir or devisee. If any devisee or heir is a minor or otherwise incapacitated, a formal proceeding is required unless there is an appointed conservator or guardian who is not one of the petitioners (M.G.L. 190B, Section 3-303(a)(8); Section 1-404 (as amended)). Absent an appointed conservator or guardian, informal proceedings are unavailable and formal proceedings are required.
In a formal proceeding, if there is no conflict of interest and no guardian or conservator has been appointed, a parent may represent a minor child. Likewise, if there is a substantially identical interest, a person who has assented or received notice may represent persons interested in an estate who are unborn or unascertained. In order to exert parental or virtual representation, a motion to waive a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) must be filed with the formal petition and allowed by the court. If the court finds that parental or virtual representation exists, a GAL does not need to be appointed.
5. Confusion About a Deceased Spouse: There is confusion about when to list a deceased spouse on a petition. If a spouse survived the decedent but died prior to filing the petition for probate, he or she must be named on the petition and his or her date of death must be provided. If a spouse predeceased the decedent, the predeceasing spouse should not be listed on the petition.
6. Trustees as Devisees: Petitions and voluntary administration filings frequently omit trustees in the list of devisees. If a trust is to receive any part of a decedent’s estate, the trustee of that trust must be listed on the petition as a devisee.
7. Overuse of Special Personal Representative: Special personal representatives often result in increased legal fees to the estate and create an accounting requirement. Courts will consider appointing a special personal representative only if a need for such is clearly articulated in the formal petition for appointment (Form MPC 160 or Form MPC 350). The convenience of an immediate appointment does not justify the appointment of a special personal representative.
8. Fiduciary Bond: A bond (Form MPC 801) must be filed with every petition for informal or formal probate that is seeking the appointment of a personal representative regardless of whether the will waives a bond and/or sureties. The value of personal and real property must be filled out on a bond even if the petitioner is submitting a bond without sureties.
9. File a Complete Package of Documents: The document most often omitted from a probate filing is the proposed Order or Decree. Fillable forms are provided via the Court Forms webpage. To avoid omitting documents, reference the Informal Checklist or Formal Checklists provided at the MUPC Hub before submitting any filing to the court.
10. Filing Fees: When an incorrect filing fee is submitted, no matter how de minimis the shortage or overage, the registry of probate must request additional funds or issue a refund. A new filing fee schedule went into effect only July 9, 2012 and was updated on October 17, 2012. Check filing fees online at the MUPC Hub prior to submitting a petition. If unsure about which fees apply, contact the registry before submitting your filing.
11. Last But Not Least, Proofread: Errors in petitions and other documents delay the probate process and may also increase costs and fees. The most common and easily correctable mistakes can be caught with proofreading. Before submitting a probate filing make sure to reference the MUPC Estate Administration Procedural Guide and review each document to confirm that it is completed properly, signatures are in the right spot and that all documents are dated.
The Probate and Family Court’s new website is full of helpful information, including the MUPC Estate Administration Procedural Guide, Uniform Fee Schedule, Informal and Formal Checklists, fillable forms for will and estate proceedings and fillable forms for trust proceedings.
 It is anticipated that the title of the Suspicious Death Affidavit will soon be changed to “Cause of Death Affidavit”.
 If you have trouble opening forms in Google Chrome, try opening them in Explorer.
• LARC is seeking T&E attorneys to provide limited legal advice over the phone to low income clients. Attorneys will participate in up to 3 phone calls lasting up to 30 minutes each on a select afternoon (generally Wednesday). Attorneys may participate as often as weekly, or as their schedule permits. The purpose of the call is to advise the client on his or her trusts and estates legal matter. If the attorney determines that the client requires further legal assistance, the attorney will recommend to VLP that the case be further staffed by a volunteer attorney. LARC prescreens each client for income eligibility and identifies the interested parties so that the attorney may check for conflicts before speaking with the client.
• VLP is seeking T&E attorneys on cases requiring assistance beyond LARC’s single phone call, such as probating an estate so that a client may retain a house, or a car often essential for employment. Other clients may need wills, health care proxies, powers of attorney or other basic estate planning documents.
• VLP is seeking T&E attorneys to participate in its guardianship practice. VLP represents those persons who are seeking guardianship for minors or incapacitated adults. VLP manages a clinic at Suffolk Probate and Family Court every Tuesday morning where such persons are given assistance filling out the necessary papers. In some cases, attorneys are assigned to represent the individuals throughout the process. On occasion, there is a need for an attorney to represent a client in a contested matter. Anyone interested in volunteering at the guardianship clinic should first attend training at VLP. The calendar for trainings can be found at VLP’s website.
To join the roster of attorneys for any of these important initiatives or to request more information, contact Dan Biagiotti at LARC ([email protected]) or Lynn Girton, Chief Counsel at VLP ([email protected]). Thank you.
•	LARC is seeking T&E attorneys to provide limited legal advice over the phone to low income clients. Attorneys will participate in up to 3 phone calls lasting up to 30 minutes each on a select afternoon (generally Wednesday). Attorneys may participate as often as weekly, or as their schedule permits. The purpose of the call is to advise the client on his or her trusts and estates legal matter. If the attorney determines that the client requires further legal assistance, the attorney will recommend to VLP that the case be further staffed by a volunteer attorney. LARC prescreens each client for income eligibility and identifies the interested parties so that the attorney may check for conflicts before speaking with the client.
•	VLP is seeking T&E attorneys on cases requiring assistance beyond LARC’s single phone call, such as probating an estate so that a client may retain a house, or a car often essential for employment. Other clients may need wills, health care proxies, powers of attorney or other basic estate planning documents.
•	VLP is seeking T&E attorneys to participate in its guardianship practice. VLP represents those persons who are seeking guardianship for minors or incapacitated adults. VLP manages a clinic at Suffolk Probate and Family Court every Tuesday morning where such persons are given assistance filling out the necessary papers. In some cases, attorneys are assigned to represent the individuals throughout the process. On occasion, there is a need for an attorney to represent a client in a contested matter. Anyone interested in volunteering at the guardianship clinic should first attend training at VLP. The calendar for trainings can be found at VLP’s website.
To join the roster of attorneys for any of these important initiatives or to request more information, contact Dan Biagiotti at LARC ([email protected]) or Lynn Girton, Chief Counsel at VLP ([email protected]). Thank you!

References: v. 
 § 3
 § 3
 § 32
 § 3
 § 32