HECKERLING REPORTS: Heckerling Report Report No. 12 (Fri. 1/29 & Others)

Transcription

1 HECKERLING REPORTS: Heckerling Report Report No. 12 (Fri. 1/29 & Others) As we have done in January for the last thirteen years, and again with the permission of the University of Miami School of Law Center for Continuing Legal Education, we will be posting daily Reports to this list containing highlights of the proceedings of the 44th Annual Philip E. Heckerling Institute on Estate Planning that is being held January 25-29, 2010 at the Orlando World Center Marriott Resort and Convention Center in Orlando, Florida, a new venue for the Institute starting in A complete listing of the proceedings and speakers will be published here later and is also available on the Institute's Web site at In Report #11 we covered the following from Special Sessions #4, those being Unwinding Bad Transactions (4-B), Forum Shopping (4-C), Anatomy of a Crummey Power (4-D) and Dysfunctional Families (4-E) plus some more Technology Tips. In this Report #12 we will cover the final three main sessions on Friday morning, those being Fiduciaries and their Lawyers, Financed Net Gifts, and the Wrap Up Final Session. It also includes the report on Wednesday Special Session 2-F on Life Insurance and the Economic Downturn. It also includes the report on the Thursday morning session on EP Strategies for QTIP Trust Assets. Lastly, some additional Technology Tidbits are included. ERRATA In Report #11 we mistakenly forgot to mention at the top of that Report that the report on Special Sessions 4-D about the Anatomy of a Crummey Power was also included. We did not have this report available to us when Report #11 was being initially prepared, but it came it just as we were getting ready to issue the Report and in our haste to do so we forgot to update this summary comment. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Friday, January 29, :00 9:50 Fiduciaries and Their Lawyers: Tempting Targets in Troubled Times Presenter: Randall W. Roth Reporter: Carol Sobczak This very informative session highlighted several issues facing fiduciaries and the attorneys who represent them and included very informative commentary at the end on the Bishop Trust case in Hawaii that the presenter participated in. Those issues included the following important ones. One preliminary issue to ask is who has a fiduciary duty. Even a broker could be considered a fiduciary if he/she exceeds his or her contractual obligations. A very important consideration when in litigation is not what the facts are, but what you can prove with

2 evidence. Make sure you have good notes from meetings and have proof of what you have, and have not, discussed with your client. One ought to remember that fiduciaries are held to a high standard: Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive... according to then-judge Benjamin Cardozo. When a fiduciary hires a lawyer, the key question is, Who is the Client? Some lawyers (and states) believe they represent the executor or trustee, and some the estate or trust. It is important to know the capacity in which you represent a fiduciary - personally or as the representative of the trust or estate. Professor Roth discussed the concept of hindsight bias as a very real tendency of human behavior. We believe that we should have seen it coming. While some cases exonerating trustees have stated that a trustee could not foresee a drop in the stock market, others have posited that anyone could have seen a future fall in the market. Professor Roth was asked to mention Ponzi schemes, considering the recent Madoff situation. He sent us to for FBI reports on recent Ponzi schemes. Should the fiduciaries be blamed if they did not perform normal due diligence in investing with Madoff or others? An important issue facing lawyers is whether they should have (again, in hindsight) recommended certain estate planning techniques to their clients. If you do recommend estate tax savings devices and the client decides not to use them, memorialize that in case the beneficiaries sue later. Attorneys should not have such a duty, but it s best to be prepared. Professor Roth, along with four elders in the native Hawaiian community, alleged massive trust abuse by the trustees of the Bishop Trust, a hugely vast and wealthy charitable trust set up by Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop in She was the last acknowledged descendant of Hawaiian monarch Kamehameha, who united the Hawaiian kingdom. (Yes, a real life princess story.) They alleged so many breaches of duty in the fiduciaries of that trust that the IRS swooped in, a book was written, there were death threats and even a suicide. But for our purposes, if you want to read about real life allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty, see or better yet, read the book by Samuel P. King & Randall W. Roth, Broken Trust: Greed, Mismanagement & Political Manipulation at America s Largest Charitable Trust (Univ of Hawaii Press 2006). The case included discussion of at least 63 issues with respect to trustee and attorney duties and liabilities 9:50 10:40 Financed Net Gifts: No-Hassle Asset Transfers Presenter: David A. Handler Reporter: Kimon Karas The speaker commenced the program by asking if people who are currently interested in Roth IRA conversions are willing in the appropriate circumstances to pay a current income tax for a future benefit. He suggested that in the right circumstances that a client should pay a current gift tax for a future transfer tax benefit. He stated the purpose of his talk was not to prefer one strategy over another but to bring alternative strategies to the client s attention. In the presentation the speaker compared the net gift to a sale to a grantor trust. The highlights of this presentation are as follows: The speaker used an example to illustrate the difference between the two strategies. Client created a grantor trust with $1M in assets. He then sells $9M of securities to the rust for a 9-year note paying the mid-term AFR at 5%. The note provides for annual interest payments with a balloon principal due at

3 maturity. Since the trust is a grantor trust the sale of securities to the trust is ignored for income tax purposes under RR Client owns a non-appreciating asset, note paying annual interest of $450,000, which is also not subject to income tax. If the trust realizes a 10% return, at the end of 9 years the trust will have $8,468,712 after debt repayment. However, $2,357,948 of this is attributable to the $1M initially held by the trust; the incremental benefit of the sale is $6,110,765. Benefits of sales to grantor trusts: No gain recognition since the grantor is treated as owner of the trust; Tax free transfers. Assuming the note is equal the fmv of the assets purchased and the note bears interest at the AFR the sale should not be a taxable gift; Cash flow. The income received by the trust will be used to satisfy the note which the grantor can use to pay towards the income tax liability from the trust; Non-appreciating asset. The note will not appreciate in grantor s estate. Risks and problems with sales to grantor trusts: Debt to equity ratio. The trust should have at least a 10% equity. If the debt to equity ratio is too high, IRS could attempt to argue the sale is in fact a gift to the trust with the grantor retaining an interest in the trust; Annual cash flow requirements. The trust must have cash flow to make interest and principal payment otherwise payments will need to be made in kind which creates its own valuation issues; Death before note is discharged. Since the trust will cease to be a grantor trust at death, although not totally clear, death could cause the estate to realize capital gains on the amount by which the debt exceeds the trust s basis in the assets; Investment performance risk. If the property declines in value or fails to appreciate at a rate greater than the note interest rate, the trust must dip into other assets to pay the note. The net gift alternative. A net gift is a gift in which the donor and donee agree that the donee will pay the resulting gift tax. A taxable gift is equal to the amount of property transferred less the amount of the gift tax the donee will have to pay. RR states: Gift tax paid by the donee may be deducted from the value of transferred property where it is expressly shown or implied that payment of tax by the donee or from the property itself is a condition of the transfer. The RR provides a formula for determining the gift tax to be paid by the donee. Assuming a gift of $1M and that donor has used his entire $1M exemption and is in the 45% bracket, results in a gift tax of $310,344. The net gift is $689,655. Stated another way a 45% gift tax on a net gift of 4689,655 is $310,344. Taking the prior example, instead of selling $9M of assets to the grantor trust, Client makes a net gift of $9M to the trust. About 31% (today s rate of 35% that rate is about 26%) of this amount is needed to pay gift tax and is not subject to gift tax, leaving a taxable gift of $6,206,897. The trust owes gift tax of $2,793,103 (45% rate) which it will pay next April using funds loaned by the Client(assume the client loans the funds but there is no obligation to do so). The note will bear interest at AFR (assumed to be 5% in example). If the trust realizes a 10% return, at the end of 9 years the trust will have $16,531,982 (after repayment of the debt) compared to the benefit of $6,110,765 from the traditional sale for a note. Benefits of a net gift: Tax-exclusive gift tax. The effective rate at a 45% estate/gift tax is 31% for the net gift;

4 Less cash flow required. Amount borrowed by the trust to pay the gift tax is about 2/3 less than the sale; No 9-1 ratio limit. Since the note will be about 31% of the value transferred the trust should have sufficient equity to support the note s bona fides; Smaller Sections 2702/2036 risks. In a net gift the donor receives nothing from the donee/trust other than the promise to pay the gift tax. Any loan to pay the gift tax, if any, would not be made until several months later; Lower investment risk. Since there is less leverage there is less investment risk; Gift tax portion of the net gift can be discounted. If the net gift consists of assets subject to valuation discounts, the benefit is even greater; Smaller revaluation risk. If IRS successfully argues the assets are worth more than reported, the additional value is a gift, triggering additional gift taxes. Disadvantages of net gifts: The payment of gift taxes that must be paid in cash resulting in less assets in the trust to invest; Potential gain. Unless transfer is made to a grantor trust, the donor recognizes capital gain on the amount by which the gift tax liability exceeds the donor s basis in transferred property. Compare a net gift versus a bequest of discounted assets. A recipient will end up with more wealth and receives it sooner. Additionally a net gift transfers wealth now for present use and enjoyment; the assets received in a net gift grow outside of the donor s estate; and net gift of marketable securities does not require a partnership, fees and costs associated with that. If the gift value is increased upon audit, the donee s assumption of liability for gift tax on a future valuation change should not be considered too speculative to have value and thereby preclude the additional gift from being a net gift. A net gift is treated as part gift/part sale for income tax purposes. Income is realized to the extent that the gift tax exceeds the donor s adjusted basis in the property. Diedrich v. Comm r. The transfer is treated as if the donor sells the property to the donee for less than the fair market value. The sale price is the amount of gift tax liability assumed by the donee; the balance of the value of the transferred property is treated as a gift. If gain is recognized, the basis of the property received by the trust is increased by the amount of such gain. In addition the basis of such property is also increased by the gift tax paid. Section 1015(d)(6). If the net gift is to a grantor trust, the deemed sale portion of the assets under Diedrich should not be taxable. The three year rule under Section 2035(b) applies to net gifts. Section 2035 (b) applies to gift taxes paid by the donee in a net gift situation. Also a net gift to an ESBT should not run afoul of the purchase restriction of the statute. A summary of the final ESBT regulations stated that a net gift of a beneficial interest in a trust where the beneficiary pays the gift tax would be treated as purchase, while a net gift to the trust itself where the trustee pays the gift tax, would not be so treated. 10:50 12:00 Applying What We ve Learned: From A(bendroth) to Z(ipse) in 70 Minutes or Less Presenter: Alan F. Rothschild, Jr. Reporter: Kimon Karas

5 The presenter provided an overview of the estate planning practice from where we have been, to where we are now, to looking into the future. This report will highlight the more significant parts of this thought provoking and informative presentation. Historically up until the 1960s estate planning was done by probate lawyers and it was not until the 1970s that the estate planning practice started to focus more on tax issues. With tax legislation, the emphasis started focusing on tax issues or tax driven estate planning. Although that opened new opportunities, other areas of business were reduced with standardization of the probate process and increased estate tax exemptions. Thirty five years ago, Houston practitioner Tom Eubank made a number of predictions about the profession that still ring true today. Amongst others, he stated: Increased estate tax exemption will reduce the need for sophisticated estate planning for all but wealthiest; There will be increased competition from non-lawyers for work traditionally was done by estate planning attorneys. He concluded that The future for estate lawyers is uncertain and perhaps bleak, unless the practice of estate law is changed significantly. The expansion he envisioned of additional services included, among others, corporate and partnership law, real estate law, income taxation, tax litigation, charitable giving, exempt organizations, divorce law, will contests probate litigation and elder law. The speaker would add to today s list international tax planning and asset protection planning. Emphasizing the point with a $3.5M exemption it is estimated that over 99% of adults dying in the U.S. will not be subject to estate tax. Next the speaker, while discussing current trends, addressed current societal and demographic trends. In addition to tax and industry trends, a multitude of external factors are impacting the delivery of estate planning services. Age. Aging population. Today, 1in 8 Americans is over age 65. Elder population is expected to exceed 40M people this year and to increase to 55M in this decade. A 65 year old today has a life expectancy of 19 years. The 85 and older population is expected to increase from 5.7M to 6.6M in this decade. Statistics reflect that those who reach 85, over 50% will suffer some cognitive impairment. Increased mobility and globalization of clients including multi-state practice issues and international concerns. Divorce and blended families. Growth of non-probate assets, i.e. retirement accounts. Increasingly litigious society. The speaker concluded with a look at the future. We as a profession will need to embrace the new technology more so than ever before. There will be more and increased competition from the do-ityourself estate planning sector. Additionally as a profession we need to revisit the billable hour as a traditional source of billing for services. The speaker cited a number of examples where estate planning attorneys are offering their clients alternative billing approaches, from the straight billable hour, to a choice between the billable hour and a flat fee, to a flat fee for document preparation and hourly charges for meeting time.

6 Wednesday, January 27, 2010 Special Sessions II 3:50 5:20 II-F Life Insurance and the Economic Downturn Applying Universal Truths to Variable Circumstances, the Whole (Life) Story Presenters: Lawrence Brody, Mary Ann Mancini, Charles L. Ratner and Randy L. Zipse Reporter: Gene Zuspann This program was part of the fundamental assets series. The description of the program in the Institute Schedule states that This program will explain what types of insurance products are available, how they work, their advantages and disadvantages, and how, working with a client s insurance professional, to develop a methodology to help a client design and select an appropriate product. The materials contain several outlines with lots of information that they did not have time to cover in the period allotted. This report will only cover the major highlights of what was presented. A major issue is whether the insured will expire first, or the insurance company. The panel started by discussing the types of policies and the risks involved with each. They focused on the decisions about who should be the owner and the amount of risk. They explained the difference between various policies and the risk involved with each. The focus initially was on traditional whole life, where the insurer accepts the risk, universal life and variable universal life, where the insured accepts the risk. Associated with this, there are a number of considerations that the client must decide on, supported by the advisor. Premium tolerance Premium duration Premium guarantees Flexibility Cash accumulation and distribution It was pointed out that the client must make the premium payments on time. Some companies will cancel the guarantees, even if the premium payment is one day late. Once the policy is in place, it needs to monitored on an annual basis to determine if it is performing as expected and still meets the clients needs. (Client - Is this something that I have to pay for?) One issue is not whether the policy is underperforming but whether it was underestimated. The advisor needs to obtain current and reduced assumptions and compare these against the projections received at the time the policy was purchased.

7 The panel spent some time discussing value for gift tax purposes. First look to the gift tax regs to see the rules. Some policies such as term insurance are easy to value. If a value cannot be established, then the advisor needs to contact the insurance company to get the interpolated terminal reserve. However, realize that the insurance company has a number of different reserves, depending on the rules applicable. For instance, there are different reserve values for tax and for book. The form needed is the IRS Form 712. However, some companies send several reserve values and will not opine on the appropriate value. It sometimes help to call the company and find what reserve value they are going to use. It is common that the perceived value of the policy and the reserve value from the insurance company are very different. When the insured is about to die, these values all go out the window. There are still some valuation discounts, but you cannot rely on the reserves or premium amount at this point. The big caution: Before you do a transaction, get the 712. Do not enter into the sale or other transaction and then get the 712. The result may not be satisfactory. Thursday, January 28, :00 9:50 Frozen Brain: Estate Planning Strategies for QTIP Trust Assets Presenter: M. Read Moore Reporter: John Warnick Listening to Read Moore s presentation reminded me of the movie Groundhog Day. Bill Murray starred in that film as a man who keeps repeating a day in his life until he gets it right and in the end he really does get it right. Read Moore, to our benefit, seems to have had a Groundhog Day experience with the planning considerations for QTIP Trust assets. He kept seeing these issues come up repetitively. And the more he studied the issues the more complicated he realized the issues were. Fortunately for us, he has boiled he experiences down into a marvelous presentation and outline. I highly recommend it. I will cover the more significant highlights here. Read started out the presentation noting that most of the planning techniques we hear about only work for people who own assets individually as opposed to those assets being held inside an irrevocable trust. In planning for a QTIP Trust a trustee is the legal owner, and that owner has fiduciary responsibilities to both the spouse and to the remaindermen. This makes the planning more challenging. There are three times as many planning options open to you if you can get the assets out of the QTIP Trust. So it is important to first examine whether you can get the assets out into the spouse s hands and the two primary suggestions are through distributions or powers of withdrawal. How Do You Get Assets Out of a QTIP Trust? You may be able to make discretionary distributions of principal out of the QTIP to allow the spouse to make gifts. Read s outline suggests ways in which we might enhance this opportunity through careful drafting. Power of Withdrawal A right of withdrawal that only springs forward a day after death rather than immediately upon death is another tool to consider in making your QTIP Trust more suitable for post-

8 mortem (first spouse) planning. If that power of withdrawal exists immediately upon the death of the decedent you have a general power of appointment trust rather than a QTIP. If you haven't been able to draft in anticipation of the opportunity to get assets out of the QTIP Trust, you may encounter a HEMS or Best Interests standard for principal distributions. The outline thoroughly dissects problems you will run into. Read has only found 5 or 6 reported decisions across the country which deal with the issue of whether a distribution to enable the surviving spouse to make gifts or to structure an estate plan are permissible inside of these discretionary standards. Most cases don t approve such distributions Estate of Council v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 594 (1975), raises a concern from a different angle. The distributions made in this case were not technically authorized by the trust document. The IRS sought to pull those assets back into the spouse s estate after she had received them and then disposed of them. That Tax Court disagreed with the IRS and ruled that so long as the trustee acted reasonably there was no basis to legally pull those assets back. While that may take the trustee off the hook and provide support for the proposed distribution, Read cautioned that you need to be mindful of the potential gift by remaindermen if they do not object to an unauthorized distribution to the surviving spouse. If You Can t Get the Assets Out, What Are the Alternatives? 2044 Read calls this the Payback Section. It is the price of the QTIP election. The back-up from a gift tax standpoint to 2044 is If the spouse disposes of her income interest she is deemed under 2519 to have disposed of all interests in that property other than the qualifying income interest. This can be a significant impediment to a gift of the QTIP income interest but it also opens up an opportunity and may be more attractive currently given the current climate of carryover basis and a 35% gift tax rate. Net Gift Treatment under the IRS has consistently taken the position in private letter rulings that a deemed gift of a remainder interest under IRC 2519 was a net gift for purposes of valuing the gift. The effect of net gift treatment is to reduce the amount of the IRC 2519 gift. Note: the calculations in Read s materials assume a flat 45% gift tax rate rather than the current 35% rate so the attractiveness of this technique might be even more powerful than the illustrations Read uses in his outline. How Do You Trigger a 2519 Gift -- As long as the will or trust does not have a spendthrift clause, the surviving spouse can simply release the income interest or transfer it to a third person. This is another area where creative drafting can be a huge leap forward in terms of facilitating planning with QTIP Trust assets. If there is a spendthrift trust that may, as a matter of state law, prohibit an assignment or release of the income interest. However, Restatement (Third) of Trusts takes the position that a beneficiary of a spendthrift trust can release his or her income interest. Another possible avenue to explore is whether the surviving spouse could make a nonqualified disclaimer under state law. It may also be possible for a surviving spouse to trigger IRC 2519 by entering into a transaction with the remainder beneficiaries, such as a sale of the spouse s income interest, the purchase of a remainder interest, or the commutation of the marital trust. The final alternative Read presented to overcome the internal hurdles in the document is a family settlement agreement. He mentioned the Estate of Halpern decision where gift distributions were effectuated through the execution of a family settlement agreement and multiple waivers and releases of the trustees. However, Reed cautions that the Tax Court did not address or even mention the gift tax implications associated with the execution of waivers by multiple members of a family.

9 All of these strategies will require careful consideration of its gift tax implications. What Freeze Transactions Work With QTIP Trusts? Read points out that often the surviving spouse may only want to give away the future appreciation in the QTIP. A loan, a sale or a recapitalization are all possible alternatives for freezing the future growth of the QTIP Trust. A practical difficulty with any of these three freeze techniques is the fiduciary duties of the trustee. The trustee owes duties to both the spouse and the remaindermen. The trustee s fiduciary duties constrain the trustee in a way that an individual seller would not be constrained. In addition to those fiduciary constraints, Read alerts us to the fact there may be another potential argument from the IRS if they feel the trustee has disposed of the property for less than FMV. Read reports the IRS has taken audit positions asserting that a spouse may be deemed to have disposed of her income interest under 2519 if a trustee fails to obtain fair market value for QTIP trust property in a sale or freeze partnership transaction. However, the IRS National Office has never embraced or advocated a constructive disposition rule in the 2519 context in any public or private ruling and there is no support for that position in the regulations. Perhaps the final hazard to navigate in the event of a loan, sale or recapitalization by the QTIP Trust is the effects of an imprudent investment decision by the Trustee. For instance, assume that the trustee sells QTIP Trust property for substantially less than its fair market value. The beneficiary and remaindermen would all have a claim against the trustee for breach of fiduciary duty. What happens if the spouse or a remainderman fails to pursue such a claim? Read cites ample authority for the proposition that if a taxpayer fails to enforce a valuable right, he or she will be deemed to have made a gift. What Valuation Opportunities Exist When You Are Working With a QTIP Trust? Read closed his presentation by stressing the importance of the Bonner case and its progeny when planning for a QTIP Trust. Assets includible in a surviving spouse s gross estate under 2044 are not aggregated with other assets includible in the surviving spouse s estate. Thus, there are lots of fertile planning opportunities to reduce the value of QTIP Trust assets by converting such property interests into fractional or minority interests prior to the surviving spouse s death. Despite the strong line of cases which Read suggests sanction the effort to reduce the estate tax valuation of a QTIP Trust asset, he cautions that it is advisable to do this planning sooner rather than later and, if possible, to be able to articulate a strong non-tax motivation for the planning steps. Technology Tidbits Estate Planning Systems - Another DAE Software Product Also exhibiting at Heckerling this year was Estate Planning Systems. This product is described as "more than just software that creates wills and trusts. Rather, it is a system that focuses on the special circumstances of the middle class, while streamlining your law firm to be more profitable and ensuring

10 that none of the details are forgotten." Some of the special circumstances this software supposedly deals with are grandchildren, blended families, bloodline trusts, special needs trusts, trusts for problem children, incentive trusts, caregivers, business owners, pet trusts, charities, vacation homes, non-traditional couples and non-citizen spouses. Developed and authored by attorney Thomas Begley Jr. of Begley & Bookbinder, P.C., under the name of REAL Automation Solutions, Inc., he has also developed a Medicaid calculation software called AP 1-2-3, REAL Probate Systems for New Jersey and Utah, a Probate Essentials Package, and a Medicaid Planning System. EPS runs on a HotDocs based platform, which will be familiar to many of us. It comes in three flavors: (1) Estate Planning System Basic, (2) Estate planning System Standard and (3) Estate Planning System Advanced. The prices for each package are on their Web site. For more information you can contact REAL Automation Systems at or by calling Crescendo - Crescendo Interactive, Inc. If you are looking for affordable and user friendly charitable calculation and illustration software for doing planned giving work, you need to look at the lower-end products that are offered by Crescendo and compare them to those offered by Brentmark and Leimberg. While Crescendo's flagship industrial heavy program is Crescendo Pro, Crescendo has wisely created some simpler and more affordable products for estate planning professionals. Those include Crescendo Lite, Crescendo Presents and Crescendo Estate. Crescendo Lite is a selection of popular gift plan scenarios. It is ideal for a charity's "on-the-road" staff, a charity just starting a planned gifts program and allied professionals needing the reliable calculation and client presentation tools of Crescendo. Price: $ ($150 Software + $150 Annual Service). Crescendo Presents gives gift planning professionals the ability to easily and quickly create presentations. Users simply enter basic donor information and Crescendo Presents creates an on-screen gift proposal presentation complete with dynamic charts and audio explanations. Price: $ ($150 Software + $150 Annual Service). Crescendo Estate focuses on the charitable tax planning concerns of the advisor, i.e. Attorney, CPA, Financial Planner or Underwriter. The 25 planning and presentation programs are backed by over 20 years of Crescendo time-tested leadership in the planned giving Industry. Price: $ ($300 Software + $300 Annual Service). For more information, go to their Web site at or call THE REPORTERS: Our on-site local reporters who will be present in Orlando this year are Gene Zuspann Esq. of Zuspann & Zuspann in Denver, Colorado; Joanne Hindel Esq. of Fifth Third Bank in Cleveland, Ohio; Kimon Karas Esq. of McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal and Liffman Co. LPA in Cleveland, Ohio; Bruce Stone Esq. of Goldman, Felcoski & Stone PA in Coral Gables, Florida; Craig Dreyer Esq., Attorney At Law, in Stuart, Florida; Carol Sobczak (Hood) Esq. of The Law Offices of Carol A. Sobczak in St. Helena, California; Mike Stiff Esq. of Stiff & Associates LLC, in Denver, Colorado; Herb Braverman Esq., Attorney At Law, in Orange Village, Ohio; John Warnick Esq. of Family Wealth Transitions & Solutions in Denver, Colorado; and L. Paul Hood Jr. Esq. of Napa, CA. The editor again this year will be Joseph G. Hodges Jr. Esq, a solo practitioner in Denver, Colorado, who also is the Chief Moderator of the ABA-PTL List.

11 GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT INSTITUTE: Inquiries/Registration: Philip E. Heckerling Institute on Estate Planning University of Miami School of Law Center for Continuing Legal Education P.O. Box Coral Gables, FL Telephone: / FAX: Web site: heckerling@law.miami.edu Headquarters Hotel - Orlando World Center Marriott 8701 World Center Drive Orlando, FL Telephone (407) , FAX (407)