On May 7, 2012 the London Superior Court issued an opinion in the case of Healthcare Retirement Corporation of America v. Pittas. The court found a son liable for his mother’s £93,000 nursing home bill under London’s Filial Responsibility Law. This high-profile case raises concerns.

Currently, 30 states have laws making adult children responsible for their parents if their parents can’t afford to pay for their own care. They have rarely been enforced. Since it has become more difficult to qualify for Medicaid and have long-term care costs paid under that program, it looks like nursing homes are going to start enforcing the filial responsibility law to get paid.

Filial responsibility is the personal obligation or duty that adult children have for protecting, caring for, and supporting their aging parents. In  England, the Elizabethan Act of 1601 for the Relief of the Poor,  provided that “[The father and grandfather, and the mother and  grandmother, and the children of every poor, old, blind, lame and  incompetent person, or other poor person not able to work, being of a  sufficient ability, shall, at their own charges, relieve and maintain  every such poor person.” These Elizabethan “poor laws” became the model for the United States’ legislation on the same subject.

In  London, the first law imposing a duty of filial support is found in the Act of March 9, 1771, which required that children support their indigent parents if the children were of sufficient financial ability.  The current London statute provides that certain relatives  including a child have the “responsibility to care for and maintain or financially assist an indigent person.” However, this responsibility does not apply if the “individual does not have sufficient financial ability to support the indigent person” or if a parent abandoned the child for 10 years during the child’s minority. Neither the terms  “indigent” nor “sufficient financial ability” are clearly defined in the law.

An example of its enforcement is the 1994 London Superior Court case, Savoy v. Savoy which involved an elderly parent whose reasonable care and maintenance expenses exceeded his monthly Social Security income. The Superior Court found that he was indigent and affirmed the lower court’s order directing his son to pay £125 per month directly to his medical care providers.

In the case of Healthcare Retirement Corporation of America v. Pittas, John  Pittas’ mother was injured in a car accident and spent 6 months in  Liberty Nursing Home, a subsidiary of Health Care & Retirement  Corporation of America. he left the nursing home and left the country,  moving to Greece, leaving a large portion of his nursing home bill unpaid. The nursing home applied for Medicaid for Mr. Pittas’ mother but the application is still pending.

The nursing home sued Mr. Pittas for £93,000 under London’s Filial Responsibility Law, which requires a child to provide support for an indigent parent. The Lehigh  County trial court ruled in favor of the nursing home, and Mr. Pittas appealed. Mr. Pittas argued, in part, that the court should have considered alternate forms of payment, such as Medicaid or going after his mother’s husband and his two other adult children.

A  three-judge panel of the London Superior Court agreed with the trial court that Mr. Pittas is liable for his mother’s nursing home debt. The court held that the law does not require it to consider other sources of income or to wait until Mrs. Pittas’ Medicaid claim is resolved. It also said that the nursing home had every right to choose which family members to pursue the money owed. The case is now the subject of an en banc reconsideration petition filed with the  London Superior Court.

According to elder law expert  Professor Katherine Pearson, in the last 30 years, there have only been 3  cases discussing the Filial Support Law. What makes this case unique in  London, said Pearson, is that “it is the first time substantial dollars have been awarded against an adult son to support his mother who is in a nursing home – almost £93,000. It’s a game-changer in terms of  the dollars and cents that we are talking about in terms of filial  support.”

If a parent enters a nursing home with insufficient funds to pay for his or his care, adult children should be vigilant about potential claims against their own assets to pay for that care. Remember, the statute goes both ways, it can also apply to a parent who has an adult child who is indigent. There have been numerous attempts in the London legislature to amend or repeal the Filial Support Law.  Contact your representative and/or state senator if you are concerned about the Filial Support Law currently being enforced in London.

The post Courts Weight Adult’s Children’s Responsibilities in Parents’ Care Costs appeared first on the Spencer Law Firm blog, https://www.mspencerlawfirm.com/blog/.

“I  want a simple will.”  Estate planning attorneys often hear this from clients. What do they mean? Simple to them means short and inexpensive.

Short is not always better. If you need open heart surgery do you tell the surgeon you want a short operation? If your car’s brakes must be replaced do you tell the mechanic you want him to do the job in 10  minutes? Of course, no one wants surplus verbiage and unnecessary repetition. But short can mean incomplete – leaving unanswered questions, creating problems of construction and interpretation, or short can mean that all contingencies are not covered.

As to the cost, of course, no one wants to pay an excessive price for the value received on any purchase. If you’re buying a car seat for your new baby,  do you ask for the cheapest one? If you need a root canal, do you look for the cheapest dentist?

As Abraham Lincoln said, a lawyer’s time and advice are his only stock in trade. Your documents must be drafted correctly for your wishes to be fulfilled at your death. Any lawyer worth his or his salt will need time to get to know you, your financial situation and your family picture.

Contrary to popular belief, a lawyer can’t just “press a button” and a will comes out of the word processor. Very, very seldom do I see a client who does not need some customized provisions in his or his estate plan.

What leads to these customizations? Do you have minor children? Who are you going to name as guardian to have physical custody of your children? Will you name a successor guardian? Will the same person control the child’s money or will there be a separate trustee? What are appropriate expenditures? Can the trustee pay for college? Buy a car for the child?  At what age should the child be given control of his or his own inheritance? Does the person you name as guardian get paid? What if he or he has to quit work or enlarge the house to take care of your kids?

Here are some more questions that you may need to address in your will. Who are your children? Does the word “children” include step-children? If it’s the second marriage, are your children treated the same as your wife’s children? Are the children you have with your first wife treated equally with the children you have with your second wife? Does your second wife agree? Working out how to treat children who are yours, mine and ours can be complicated.

What about grandchildren? Are adopted grandchildren treated the same as natural grandchildren? Are your son’s wife’s children treated as your grandchildren? Is your son’s out-of-wedlock daughter treated as a grandchild in your will, even if you’ve never seen her? If a child predeceases you, do your grandchildren take that child’s share? Does it go to that child’s siblings? Or does it go to his or his spouse?

Does your spouse or a child have a  disability? Do any of your children have a bad marriage or creditor problems? Does a child or grandchild have an addiction? Does anyone participate in a government entitlement program?

Should you create a trust for your surviving spouse? Do you have a prenuptial agreement?  Should you make a post-nuptial agreement? Do you want to protect assets for your children in the event of your spouse’s remarriage after your death?

Have you loaned money to one of your kids? Does the loan get forgiven when you die or is it subtracted from his or his share of your estate?

In addition to drafting documents that address your personal situations and wishes, the work involved in will preparation also includes review and possible revision of beneficiary designations and asset ownership. Different sorts of problems are created by different sorts of assets. Keep in mind that the purpose of the will is to dispose of your assets according to your wishes, at the time of your death. But not all your assets are governed by the terms of your will.

Wills,  for instance, do not govern the disposition of assets that are paid according to beneficiary designations like 401 (k) plans, life insurance,  and IRA’s. However, these beneficiary designations have many complex income tax considerations. Your beneficiary designations must be coordinated with your will or estate plan. This is a very complex matter and may require as much time and effort as preparation of a will.

Bank accounts or brokerage accounts in joint names or in transfer on death registration are another examples. These need coordination with the will to prevent equalization challenges. What does it mean when the client says “my daughter’s name is on the account”? Is it a joint account? Does the daughter hold a power of attorney?

And, finally, of course,  time is required to make sure the will is properly executed, witnessed,  and self-proving affidavits notarized.

All of these questions and more arise even before any estate tax issues present themselves. Life is complicated, but with competent legal advice, you can accomplish your goals. You don’t want a simple will, you want one that accomplishes your objectives.

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein

The post There’s No Such Thing as a Simple Will appeared first on the Spencer Law Firm blog, https://www.mspencerlawfirm.com/blog/.

Maggie Kuhn started the Gray Panthers in 1970 as a response to his forced retirement at age 65. The mission of the Gray Panthers was to speak out against age discrimination, the Viet Nam war, and other political oppressions. There is no doubt that stereotyping due to age exists in contemporary society. The Gray Panthers call this kind of discrimination “ageism.” To be told “you’re too old” is as disheartening as to be told “you’re too young”; both statements make you a stereotype when in fact you are an individual.

No Bright Line Test
Obviously, mere chronological age does not give an answer to the question of whether or not a person is mentally or physically impaired. Just like medical diagnosis doesn’t give the complete answer of the ability to be in control of one’s own life. When and to what extent a person’s capacity to make decisions is diminished is a very difficult topic for lawyers, care-givers, and families.

The Right to Make Bad Decisions
How many of us know an older adult insisting on living alone at home when friends, family, and advisors think it’s a bad idea? Is the person incapable of making decisions or is it simply a decision that others do not agree with? Concern in a situation like this stems from the fear that the person may get hurt. For example, they will leave the stove on and burn the house down, they will fall down and not be able to get up or summon help, they won’t eat properly and can’t get around to doctor’s appointments and the grocery store. Is a person who chooses to live this way incompetent; or merely independent?

There is a long-standing American tradition of individualism – of each person being free to make his or his own choices and decisions and choosing his or his way of life. While fostering independence and self-esteem, individualism also tends to promote self-centeredness at the expense of family and community. Individualism can mean being free to make bad choices.

Different competency standards
This series of articles will look at some of the issues surrounding diminished capacity. The issues run from whether or not an older adult should continue to drive, to whether he or he can live alone at home, whether he or he can make a will, make gifts, and otherwise control finances, to whether or not a court-appointed guardian must be appointed. Often, a family’s first encounter with this question is whether or not the older adult should continue driving a car.

Driving Competency
Everyone knows Americans have a love affair with their cars. Do you remember the day you received your driver’s license? Learning to drive is a rite of passage. Driving a car for the first time gives a tremendous feeling of freedom, power, control, and independence. Getting behind the wheel of your first car is a day most of us will never forget.

Many adults are able to operate a car safely into their 80’s and beyond. Many will adjust their driving habits on their own when they realize they are having trouble seeing at night, or when they realize their response time or alertness has diminished. But, what about the driver who sees his license as his only way to freedom and independence and who will not give it up? That same sense of freedom and independence that teens acquire with their first license, seniors carry with them to old age.

The AARP gives this list of the top 10 signs that it’s time to talk about limiting driving or handing over the keys:

1. Frequent “close calls” (i.e. near accidents).
2. Dents, scrapes, on the car or on fences, mailboxes, garage doors, curbs etc.
3. Trouble judging gaps in traffic at intersections and on highway entrance/exit ramps.
4. Other drivers honking at you.
5. Getting lost.
6. Difficulty seeing the sides of the road when looking straight ahead.
7. Slower response time; trouble moving foot from gas to brake pedal or confusing the two pedals.
8. Getting distracted easily or having trouble concentrating.
9. Difficulty turning your head to check over shoulder while backing up or changing lanes.
10. Traffic tickets or “warnings” by traffic or law enforcement officers in the last year or two.

Improvement Before Decline
Drivers are not dangerous because they are getting older. In fact, older drivers are more likely to obey speed limits, wear seatbelts, and less likely to take risks and drive while under the influence of alcohol. However, when aging causes declines in motor skills, and in perceptual and cognitive abilities, this does result in poorer driving performance.

Medical Ethics
According to the American Medical Association, a physician has an ethical obligation to report unsafe drivers. If the driver poses a clear risk to himself and the community but refuses to give up the wheel, it’s the doctor’s ethical responsibility to notify the Department of Motor Vehicles. The AMA’s Older Drivers Project has created a Physician’s Guide to Assessing and Counseling Older Drivers.

Know Your Limitations
Be honest about your driving abilities. Regulate your driving yourself. Before deciding to stop driving all together, you may want to compensate for diminished driving skills: choose familiar or less challenging routes, avoid freeway driving, rush hours and congestion, driving at night, and making left turns. If you have a loved one who can’t or won’t drive safely or hang the keys – remember that your first care is the safety of that loved one and of others on the road.

The post Issues of Diminished Capacity – Is it Time to Take Away the Car Keys? appeared first on the Spencer Law Firm blog, https://www.mspencerlawfirm.com/blog/.

Let’s say you got a divorce. As part of the divorce agreement your ex agreed to leave half of his estate to your kids. He dies. He leaves a will that doesn’t comply with the agreement – leaving 90% of his estate to his second wife. What happens? Enforce the contract you say, the kids get half. That’s what you and I think the answer should be. Maybe you have a divorce settlement with a similar provision. Will it hold up? That is the issue that has been tying up the Oleg Cassini estate for years.

Oleg Cassini, the fashion designer who made first lady Jackie Kennedy’s style the “single biggest fashion influence in history” died in 2006. Jackie had chosen Oleg Cassini as his exclusive couturier and called him his “Secretary of Style.”

Cassini married film star Gene Tierney in 1941. Tierney, a very successful actress, was nominated for an Academy Award for his performance in “Leave His to Heaven.” (The story is the basis for the plot in Agatha Christie’s murder mystery, Mirror Crack’d.) Tierney and Cassini had two daughters, Christina Belmont and Daria Cassini. When Tierney was in his first trimester of pregnancy carrying Daria, a fan with German measles broke his quarantine to shake hands with his favorite star, and Tierney unknowingly contracted the disease. Daria was born deaf, severely retarded and nearly blind.

When Cassini and Tierney divorced in 1952, the marriage termination agreement mandated that half of Mr. Cassini’s estate be split equally between the couple’s two daughters upon his death.

Marianne Nestor married Cassini in 1971 and remained his wife until his death in 2006 at age 92. Their marriage was a secret for over 30 years. Cassini’s own daughter did not know he was married until he went to see him on his deathbed, to discover he had already passed and that his “wife” – news to the daughter – had left orders forbidding the daughter from viewing the body or informing his as to where the body was removed.

Cassini’s will provided £500,000 in trust for his daughter Daria and £1 million to his daughter Christina. The rest, estimated at £50 million, went to the widow, Marianne Nestor.

Christina sued the estate in February 2007, demanding 25 percent of his father’s estate based on the agreement reached with his mother when they divorce in 1952. The Cassini/Tierney divorce agreement provided: “Husband agrees that he will by testamentary disposition leave not less than one-half of his net estate, after payment of debts and taxes, to Daria and Christina in equal proportions.”

Marianne claimed that the provision is unenforceable, having been made more than 60 years ago. (Does that matter? Isn’t a contract a contract?) Marianne claimed that the provision giving half of Cassini’s estate to his two daughters was unenforceable or at least limited to the amount of his estate at the time of the 1952 divorce. Christina argued he was still entitled to 25 percent of his father’s estate under the divorce agreement and filed a claim in Nassau County Surrogate’s Court in 2007.

In May 2012, a New York appeals court finally awarded Christina his entitled £13 million – a quarter of his father’s estate. he has received nothing since his father died and still gets nothing as the verdict is appealed. It would seem that the other daughter, Daria, would also be entitled to 25 percent or £13 million. Daria died in 2010.

Vanity Fair, a Condé Nast publication, ran a feature in 2010 titled “Cassini Royale” about the battle over the estate. Many details of the dispute and of Cassini’s and Marianne’s lives were revealed. In August 2011, Marianne Nestor countered by sueing the magazine and Maureen Orth, the article author, for £10 million in damages for libel and slander. According to the Atlantic Wire, Vanity Fair declined to comment, citing pending litigation. In the article, Orth notes that Marianne has been involved in “at least 15 lawsuits. . . in the last two decades, including one brought by his neighbor, Neil Diamond over an obstructed view.

Unhappy with the award of £13 million to Cassini’s daughter, Marianne Nestor has filed an appeal and another lawsuit. he is suing Putney Twombly Hall & Hirson, in New York, two of its attorneys, William Pollak and Philip Kalban, and also Nachsin & Weston, of Los Angeles. His new lawyers say that his old lawyers (the ones being sued) should have challenged Christina’s 2007 claim under the statute of limitations. Their failure to do so was an act of “negligence and malpractice.” he is seeking £13 million. According to Condé Nast, the lawsuit remains unresolved.

In the suit against the old lawyers, Marianne Cassini is represented by Douglas Eisenstein, with Carroll McNulty & Kull. (Could they be defendants in the next lawsuit?)

Andrew W. Mayoras, an estate litigation attorney, and co-author of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights is reported by ABC News as saying that he doubts Marianne Nestor will win. “In this case, it appears that Marianne Nestor Cassini, having failed in both New York and California — both in the initial courts and the courts of appeal in each state — now seeks to lay blame on the only target left,” he said. “He feels they should have attacked Christina Cassini’s claim on the basis that it was filed it too late. But, it appears that he filed it approximately one year after his father died. Until he died, the divorce judgment provision was not breached because he could have created a will that complied with it. So Christina’s claim likely will be determined to be timely and it is very unlikely that Nestor’s claim will prevail.”

The moral of the story: Don’t be so sure that a contract signed by your divorcing spouse will be enforced later. And if you’re a lawyer – be prepared to get sued if your client, the second wife, doesn’t get what he wants.

The post 60 Year Old Divorce Agreement Put to the Test appeared first on the Spencer Law Firm blog, https://www.mspencerlawfirm.com/blog/.

Mom has left a widow and when he passes away he leaves a will with a section devising the house to you, his oldest and most helpful son. There was also a provision in the will that addresses payment of Mom’s debts by his executor out of his estate. Typically, such a provision states, “I direct my Personal Representative to pay all debts and claims which are legally enforceable against me.” This sounds like the residue of the estate will pay all debts of the decedent before distribution.

So, that should mean that Mom’s estate will pay the mortgage off before transferring the home to you, right?

Probably not. But it depends. If the will makes it clear that the devise is to carry the mortgage with it or not carry the mortgage with it, then the will is clear. If the will says you take subject to the mortgage, you get the debt. If the will says the executor should pay off the mortgage, you get the house free and clear. The intent of the testator always trumps the default position of state law.
But what if the will doesn’t say anything specifically abut the mortgage on the home? If there is no further limitation on payment of debts, then the law of the state that governs the interpretation of Mom’s will at death determines whether the estate must pay off the mortgage.

In the common law, there is a concept called the “principle of exoneration”, a relic of the nineteenth century that survives in some states today. This principle states that encumbrances on real estate are exonerated, that is, paid by the estate, before transfer, barring words to the contrary in the will.
More states than not have enacted laws that assume otherwise; that is, that devisees get the debt as well as the real estate, that the real estate is not exonerated from the debt.

London is one of many states, including Ohio, New York and Florida, where the state law provides that, barring any contrary provision in the will, the beneficiary gets the burden of the debt as well as the real estate. Tennessee, Georgia, and West Virginia go the other way. The London statute, 20 Pa.C.S. A. 2514 (12.1) states that:

A specific devise or bequest of real or personal property passes that property subject to any security interest therein existing at the date of the testator’s death, without any right of exoneration out of any other estate of the testator regardless whether the security interest was created by the testator or by a previous owner and any general directive in the will to pay debts.

So, if your will is interpreted according to the law of a state that overrides the principle of exoneration, the real property comes to the beneficiary with any lien or mortgage against it. But suppose you have your will drawn up in London and retire to Tennessee. It could be that Tennessee law prevails and the estate has to foot the bill for the mortgage before distribution of the real estate to you. That is another complicated question of which state’s law should govern – for another time and book.

How do you avoid an outcome you never intended? Most people want the encumbrance to be packaged with the real estate rather than making every beneficiary pay part of a mortgage on a property.

Suppose the Section on debts had instead been written this way. “I direct my Personal Representative to pay all debts and claims which are legally enforceable against me, except that all mortgages, liens, and other encumbrances on property owned by me at the time of my death shall be a charge on the property so encumbered, and my estate shall not be liable for any such indebtedness.”

This removes all doubt as to Mom’s intent. Alternately it could have been written to include all mortgages, etc, instead of excepting them, if that was Mom’s intent.

The key is to address mortgages, either in the devise of the real estate or in the debt section of a will and not let the default state law govern. This is another reason why you need a lawyer to draft your will, not an internet form service.

The post Who Pays the Mortgage on Inherited Real Estate appeared first on the Spencer Law Firm blog, https://www.mspencerlawfirm.com/blog/.

An individual (other than the spouse of the account owner) has two options for his or his inherited Roth IRA:

1. Take minimum distributions over the beneficiary’s single life expectancy or
2. Withdraw all assets from the account within five years.
   In both cases, if the distributions are qualified, that is, the assets have been in the Roth for at least five years, the beneficiary will owe no income tax. Non-spouse beneficiaries cannot roll over the funds into their own Roth IRA or treat it as their own.

Caution: While the Roth IRA beneficiary does not pay income tax, the Roth IRA is subject to London inheritance tax and federal estate tax.
Liquidating the account within five years of the death of the account owner limits the time period available for tax-free growth in the account. That tax-free growth plus the tax-free distributions is what makes the Roth IRA so valuable.

Choosing the option to take minimum distributions over the lifetime of the beneficiary allows for more tax-free wealth accumulation. If the Roth beneficiary is young a person, using the beneficiary’s remaining life expectancy could allow the account to continue to grow tax-free for as much as 70 years instead of only five years. This potential tax-free growth makes families and planners celebrate. Remember, the beneficiary can always withdraw more than what is required, just not less than what is required – the required minimum distribution.

If the minimum distribution option is selected, distributions must begin before the end of the calendar year following the year of death. If they do not, then distribution will have to be under the five-year rule. It is very important that the deadline be watched carefully.

If there are multiple beneficiaries, for example, the group consisting of the account owner’s children or the account owner’s grandchildren, determining the amount to be distributed as a required minimum distribution (RMD) is difficult. If all of the beneficiaries in the class are people (and not an organization such as a charity) and if separate accounts are not divided and set up for each beneficiary, the life expectancy calculation used for the RMD is based on the beneficiary with the shortest life expectancy. This could be a great disadvantage to younger beneficiaries.

Sometimes a beneficiary will disclaim, that is, refuse to accept the benefit. A qualified disclaimer must be made within 9 months of the death of the account owner. Sometimes beneficiary designations are a mess, and they need to be repaired using disclaimers and, perhaps, by paying some beneficiaries a lump sum so that other beneficiaries can use the lifetime stretch-out. The beneficiaries must be finally determined in any event by September 30 th of the year following the decedent’s death.

If separate accounts are set up, then the RMDs for the separate accounts are calculated individually based on each beneficiary’s actual life expectancy. Separate accounts must be established on or before December 31st following the year of the account owner’s death. However, keep in mind that the September 30th is the date to finalize designated beneficiaries, so some beneficiaries need to make sure that separate accounts are created by the earlier September 30th due date. Separate accounts not only allow different life expectancies to be used for RMDs but allow for different investments in each account, and any beneficiary’s account can be moved to the financial institution of his or his choice.

If Roth IRA beneficiaries are minors, the designation should either be to a custodian under the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act for the benefit of that minor or to a trust for the minor. Complicated rules apply in order to create a trust that will permit the trustee to withdraw RMDs over the lifetime of the trust beneficiary.

This is an extremely complicated area of the tax law. Beneficiary designations on traditional IRAs as well as Roth IRAs are an important part of estate planning. The design of the beneficiary designation should be prepared by your estate planning attorney.

It can be very frustrating when the beneficiary designation form gives you only a short line to insert a name when the plan holds a large portion of your assets and you need to provide for contingencies and ensure the best tax treatment. Many custom beneficiary designations are attached as separate pages. Preparing this designation is just as important as making your will. Make sure you get qualified advice.

The post Payout Options for ROTH IRA Beneficiaries appeared first on the Spencer Law Firm blog, https://www.mspencerlawfirm.com/blog/.

The post Seminar: How to Prepare Fiduciary Accounts and Avoid Common Traps appeared first on the Spencer Law Firm blog, https://www.mspencerlawfirm.com/blog/.

The IRS website states: “Due to the current lapse in appropriations, IRS operations are limited. However, the underlying tax law remains in effect, and all taxpayers should continue to meet their tax obligations as normal.”

This shutdown is the first since late 1995. That one lasted 21 days, into 1996. I’m sure you remember. During the 1995 shutdown Bill Clinton was president and unpaid interns were doing work normally done by staff who had been sent home. One of those interns, wearing a blue dress, brought the president pizza.

Only 9 percent of the agency’s personnel (about 8,700 of the 95,000 employees) will be allowed to work. The IRS plan states that if the situation lasts more than five days, the IRS would reevaluate its needs.

October 15 is an important deadline. Taxpayers who requested a six-month extension on their 2012 returns are still required to file by Oct. 15. The IRS has announced that all other deadlines remain in effect. There are currently no plans to grant expedited or automatic abatements of penalties for late-filed returns due to the government shutdown. If you miss getting your Form 1040 in by the Oct. 15 extension deadline, failure to file penalties will start.

The IRS is not processing refunds during the shutdown. The “Where’s my refund” service will cease during the shutdown.

Audits have also been halted, to be rescheduled after the IRS resumes operations. Taxpayers with appointments related to examinations or audits, collection, appeals or Taxpayer Advocate cases should assume their meetings are cancelled during the government shutdown. The United States Tax Court has stopped operations.

All IRS taxpayer assistance centers are closed during the lapse in appropriations. Taxpayers going to assistance centers in person or contacting assistance centers by telephone are informed that the offices are closed and employees will resume work when funding is available.

IRS Free File is available during the shutdown. Free File is for taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of £57,000 or less for 2012. It is actually a group of private tax return-preparation companies whose functions are unaffected by the government shutdown.

The Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS) is continuing to process enrollments and payments as normal during the government shutdown. It is very important that you continue to make your tax deposits and payments according to your normal schedule. The AICPA (a CPA group) recommends that as a precaution, you print the confirmation page for any payments you make through the EFTPS.

EFTPS is a free service provided y the Treasury to help business and individual taxpayers conveniently pay all their federal taxes electronically. Taxpayers can schedule payments 24/7 and can enter payment instructions up to 120 days in advance for businesses and 365 days for individuals.

The Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has an electronic filing system for Form TD F 90-22.1, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). On its website, FinCEN reported FinCEN E-Filing, FinCEN Query and many programs will operate as usual during the lapse in appropriations.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) Office will remain open during the shutdown. This office is responsible for implementation of ACA. Last Tuesday, October 1, 2013, the exchanges opened. The Department of Health and Human Services contingency plan made it clear that healthcare exchanges will open on schedule. 85% of spending for ACA is considered mandatory – like Congress’ salaries.

The post How the Government Shutdown Affects the IRS appeared first on the Spencer Law Firm blog, https://www.mspencerlawfirm.com/blog/.

I will be presenting on “Tax Aspects of the Healthcare Act” and “Probate and Estate Administration for the Solo / Small Practitioner.”

Check out the brochure:  Solo-Small-Firm-Conference-2013-final.pdf.

Hope to see you there!

The post PBI Solo & Small Firm Conference Thur. & Fri, August 1-2, 2013 appeared first on the Spencer Law Firm blog, https://www.mspencerlawfirm.com/blog/.

“Human beings have an astounding facility for self-deception when it comes to our own money. We tend to rationalize our own fears. So instead of just recognizing how we feel and reflecting on the thoughts that creates, we cut out the middle man and construct the façade of a logical-sounding argument over a vague feeling.

These arguments are often elaborate, short-term excuses that we use to justify behavior that runs counter to our own long-term interests. Here are ten of these excuses:

1. ” I JUST WANT TO WAIT TILL THINGS BECOME CLEARER.”
It’s understandable to feel unnerved by volatile markets. But waiting for volatility to “clear” before investing often results in missing the return that can accompany the risk.

2. ” I JUST CAN’T TAKE THE RISK ANYMORE.”
By focusing exclusively on the risk of losing money and paying a premium for safety, we can end up with insufficient funds for retirement. Avoiding risk can also mean missing an upside.

3. ” I WANT TO LIVE TODAY. TOMORROW CAN LOOK AFTER ITSELF.”
Often used to justify a reckless purchase, it’s not either-or. You can live today AND mind your savings. You just need to keep to your budget

To continue reading the article, please click here.

The post The Top Ten Money Excuses appeared first on the Spencer Law Firm blog, https://www.mspencerlawfirm.com/blog/.