.jpg)
The Certified Professional Guardian Board recently published its 32-page 2009 annual report (pdf). The CPG is appointed by the Washington State Supreme Court and regulates the certification of professional guardians in Washington.
As a guardian - or if you work with guardians - you may find the report to be of interest.
.jpg)
Samuels Yoelin Kantor Seymour & Spinrad LLP is pleased to announce that we are moving our office to downtown Portland’s US Bancorp Tower at 111 SW Fifth Avenue. The firm’s new office will be located on the 38th floor, and the lease commences February 1, 2011. The new space, which totals 10,845 square feet, is about one-third larger than our current space in John’s Landing—plenty of room to accommodate the growth we expect in the months and years ahead!
The move to “Big Pink” signals the firm’s return to downtown Portland. When Hy Samuels founded the firm in 1927, it was located downtown—in the Ladd Carriage House, and then at Standard Plaza. The firm has been located in John’s Landing for the last 30 years, and while we have all loved the scenic, riverside setting, we’re excited about the firm’s return to an urban, dynamic environment.
The new office will be centrally located and therefore easily accessible for “green” commuting via public transit. In addition, we’ll be within close proximity to the downtown clients and professional service and legal firms that we work with on a regular basis.
Also effective February 1, 2011—and coinciding with the move—the firm is shortening its name from Samuels Yoelin Kantor Seymour & Spinrad LLP to Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP. Over the years, most law firms have shortened their names to provide better branding and marketing opportunities. The new name will certainly be easier to say and to remember, and it reflects the last names of the three longest-serving partners of the firm.
Stay tuned for more details on our upcoming move and open house. In the meantime, Happy Holidays!
Retired National Football League coach Bill Parcells often assessed his teams’ performances by telling media members, “You are what your record says you are”. A recent decision from the Appeals Court of Oregon reminds us that the same premise holds true when assessing property transfers made pursuant to estate planning: most of the time, your property is what the record says it is. Recording your transactions properly is the best way to tell a court what your intentions are for the property being transferred.
In Connall v. Felton, the Appeals Court of Oregon was presented with a deed that was transferred from a mother to her step-son, while both were alive. The deed contained a phrase that the mother had copied directly from a friend’s deed, which read, “The true and actual consideration paid for this transfer is $-0-; estate planning”. The step-son argued that the deed transferred the entire property interest to him (and him alone) at the moment the deed was signed. The other children asked the court to force the step-son to transfer the property to the mother's estate, so that it could be enjoyed by all of the transferee’s children equally in accordance with the terms of her will.
The court was asked whether to admit external evidence (conversations the transferee had with family members, the transferee’s Last Will) to show that the transfer was intended to merely as a tool to avoid probate, with the intent that the property be shared among all of the transferee’s children. The court ruled that this evidence was inadmissible because the will was signed years before the deed was recorded and the family conversations happened after the deed was recorded. Because none of the evidence presented was related to statements made at the time of the deed’s execution, the court held that the evidence could not be used in determining the mother’s intent at the time of the transfer.
The court pointed to the clear and unambiguous language of the deed and decided that the deed did transfer the asset and an estate planning benefit was derived from the transfer (the asset did avoid probate). Since there was no (admissible) evidence to show the mother intended anything other than to give the property to her step-son, the Appeals Court held in the step-son’s favor.
Remember, your property is what the record says it is. You should consult an attorney any time you are considering re-titling or transferring assets for estate planning purposes, as properly executed estate planning and transfer documents can properly spell out your intentions and help prevent expensive arguments about the transfer of your assets.
Because of a recent court decision, perhaps Oregon government agencies will begin to meaningfully consider the economic impact of state regulations on small Oregon businesses.
In Oregon Cable Telecommunications Association v. Department of Revenue the Oregon Court of Appeals invalidated a property tax regulation affecting cable and internet service providers. The court invalidated the rule because it failed to provide a legally sufficient small business impact statement.
Since 2005 all Oregon government agencies subject to the Administrative Procedures Act who adopt, amend or repeal any rule must as part of the rule making process satisfy the following steps:
If the cost of compliance with the proposed rule has a significant adverse effect on small business, the agency, to the extent consistent with the public health and safety purposes of the rule, must reduce the economic impact of the rule on small business. [ORS 183.540]
This law defines “small business” as an independently owned and operated corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship or other legal entity with 50 or fewer employees. [ORS 183.310(10)]
This ruling represents a victory for small businesses in Oregon, as it aids in providing protection against the adoption of agency rules which fail to adequately consider the impact on small businesses.
This case invalidated a rule adopted by the Oregon Department of Revenue, but the holding applies to all Oregon governmental agencies when they adopt rules affecting small businesses.
Hopefully, these agencies will communicate more meaningfully with small businesses and consider the economic impact of their regulations before adopting their rules.
“Lame Duck” is often used to refer to a politician who is known to be in his or her final term of office, when constituents and colleagues look toward a successor. The historical origin of the term is attributed to eighteenth-century England where the term was used to refer to an investor who could not pay his or her debts. Both usages are apropos when referring to the current dilemma facing Congress with the extension of the “Bush Tax Cuts,” also know as Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (often informally referred to as “EGTRRA”).
In my article in this blog last May, I posed the question “What if Congress Does Nothing.” It’s almost seven months later and Congress has, in fact, done nothing with regard to the many provisions of EGTRRA that will expire on midnight on December 31, 2010.
Congress returned from the holiday break this week and congressional leaders met with President Obama yesterday to discuss the tax expiration dilemma. Each side has appointed several negotiators to try to find a compromise. Those negotiations are taking place against the backdrop of a still-divisive post-election climate with and federal deficits continuing at an unprecedented level.
What will happen now? While my guess here is akin to a blind bet at a Vegas gaming table, I believe that Congress may agree on a compromise proposal to extend all of the EGTRRA tax cuts for another two years. As to the estate tax, a similar compromise could be made to reinstate the estate tax exemptions and rates at 2009 levels (i.e. with a $3.5 million exemption and a 45% top rate). However, a slightly less likely possibility is that Congress will simply do nothing and pass the “tax baton” to the next Congress to deal with in early 2011.
Enter keywords:
