The exit times from family limited partnerships are two fold, during life or at death. And the exit strategy most often applied is complete liquidation of the partnership and distribution of partnership assets. This is particularly true with a family partnership that is made up primarily of marketable assets (a “MAP,” or “marketable asset partnership”).
The article, “Should Pets Inherit?” by Frances H. Foster, is an important practical piece for estate planners. His theme, that pets should be allowed to inherit to a similar extent as individuals, is well argued, but along the way, he points out important pitfalls to practitioners when planning for pet bequests.
Insurance is often touted to be one of those rare assets free of estate tax. Not exactly. It is not free of estate tax to any greater extent than cash or marketable securities. But insurance transferred to a third party, much like cash and marketable securities transferred to a third party, is free of estate tax. And insurance, because it has no value (in the case of a term policy) or minimal value (in the case of a whole life policy) at inception of a policy, is a seemingly easier asset to gift than cash or marketable securities because the transfer of insurance has minimal gift tax concerns.
In the early 1960s, Tyrone Brown a young, tall, black man was arrested by the Chicago police for loitering. Tyrone (not his real name) was belligerent, calling the police many inflammatory names. After a few hours at the police station, the police took him to the hospital, his hands still cuffed tightly behind him. Tyrone died shortly thereafter of internal injuries, the result of severe blows to the abdomen.
Clyde Bowles, a young lawyer, was assigned by the then state’s attorney to head a special investigation to determine if the police were the cause of the injuries and Tyrone’s death.
Somewhere in a bleak house in Washington, D.C. a plot exists. The conspirators are working against a favorite planning tool, the grantor retailed annuity trust (GRAT). Bill after bill has been born to limit the flexibility and power of the GRAT. The authors of these legislative works have great expectations to oppress this popular idea.
0ne of the more important appellate court valuation cases was handed down in late spring by the Eighth Circuit, T.H. Holman. In this month's column, we analyze the reasoning and how it applies to the structuring of family Iimited partnerships.
A family limited partnership (FLP) and a family limited liability company (FLLC) are two entity choices frequently used by estate planners to achieve federal estate tax (“estate tax”) savings. While many considerations impact the choice of a FLP versus a FLLC,5 one factor that probably escapes consideration by many practitioners is the impact of the passive activity loss (PAL) rules for Federal income tax (“income tax”) purposes on that choice.