Archive for March, 2009

Finally, NJ Introduces a Middle Class Friendly Tax Law

Friday, March 27th, 2009

Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq., an Estate Planning Attorney

Pending in the NJ Legislature is a bill to amend the New Jersey transfer inheritance tax to eliminate the tax on brothers and sisters of a decedent for transfers made on or after January 1, 2009.  Presently, transfers to brothers and sisters of a decedent are taxed according to the rate imposed on “Class C” beneficiaries, or at a rate of 11 to 16 percent depending on the amount transferred, with the first $25,000 exempt from taxation.  This bill would effectively treat transfers to a brother or sister of a decedent on par with transfers to other immediate family members, including the spouse, domestic partner, civil union partner, father, mother, grandparent, or child of a decedent.

Fredrick P. Niemann, a Freehold, Monmouth County attorney with significant credentials in estate planning and asset protection offered a supporting statement, “I have counseled families for over a decade about the benefits of strategically avoiding NJ’s punitive, oppressive and grossly unfair tax estate structure on middle and upper middle class families by use of lawful estate planning techniques.  NJ must do more to make this state friendly to what remains of its’ productive and wealth generating residents.  Otherwise, I tell everyone to move to Florida, the southern states or out west where residents are not taxed to death.”

For further information and advice in any elder law matter, do not hesitate to contact me at 732-863-9900 Ext. 101 or 105, or fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.

IRS Clarifies Recent Law Waiving Account Distribution Rules for 2009

Friday, March 27th, 2009

Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq., an Elder Law Attorney

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued guidance to financial institutions clarifying the new law that allows seniors to avoid making required withdrawals from depleted retirement accounts in 2009.

Taxpayers over 70 ½ years old generally must begin withdrawing a certain percentage of the balance of retirement accounts like IRAs and 401(k)s each year or pay, in addition to income tax, a 50 percent excise tax on the amount that should have been withdrawn but was not. While tax payers who turned 70 ½ in 2008, can delay the 2008 distribution until April 1, 2009, the guidance makes clear that those seniors must still take their withdrawals because the new law only suspends required withdrawals for the 2009 tax year.

Some beneficiaries must deplete an IRA by the fifth anniversary of the IRA owner’s death. The guidance explains that if a beneficiary must take required minimum distributions under the five-year rule and the fifth year is 2009, the beneficiary has an extra year (until 2010) to liquidate the account.

Finally, according the guidance, the IRA trustee is not required to give the IRA owner a notice detailing the required withdrawal for 2009. Instead, the trustee may, if it wishes, send a statement that the required distribution is zero or a statement showing what the required distribution would have been and an explanation of the waiver.

For further information and advice in any elder law matter, do not hesitate to contact me at 732-863-9900 Ext. 101 or 105, or fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.

The Benefits of Fixed Annuities

Friday, March 27th, 2009

Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq., an Asset Protection Attorney

If you are looking for a steady stream of income in retirement, an immediate fixed annuity may be the answer. An immediate fixed annuity isn’t flashy and doesn’t promise big gains, but with the stock market so uncertain, sometimes steady is better.

When you purchase an immediate fixed annuity you give a lump sum to an insurance company. The insurance company then pays you a set amount each month for the rest of your life. There are several different types of annuities, but the immediate fixed annuity has two key elements. The annuity is immediate — meaning the insurance company starts making payments right away. This is in contrast to a deferred annuity, which begins making payments at a later date. In addition, the annuity is fixed. Unlike a variable annuity, which can fluctuate with the stock market, the amount you get with a fixed annuity stays the same each month. It is sort of like having your own personal pension plan.

The benefit of an immediate fixed annuity is a steady stream of income for life. This can be helpful if payments from Social Security and your pension or 401(k) don’t cover your needs. Immediate annuities can also be used to make up missed income if you retire early.

Immediate annuities are also useful for Medicaid planning. Purchasing an immediate annuity is a way for people with assets in excess of Medicaid’s limits to turn the assets into an income stream while avoiding a penalty for transferring the assets.

Immediate fixed annuities do have some downsides and are not for everyone. First, you must have accumulated some savings to use for the annuity premium payment. Another issue is that payments are not adjusted for inflation, so over time the money you receive is not worth as much. In addition, the money in the annuity is not liquid, so if you need a large sum of money for a medical or other emergency, it will not be available. Because of the lack of liquidity, experts advise putting not more than 20 to 30 percent of your assets into a fixed annuity.

If you are planning on purchasing an immediate fixed annuity, be wary of sales agents who try to convince you to purchase a variable annuity. Many companies have come under scrutiny for unscrupulous sales tactics with regard to annuities. In addition, because the payments are meant to last a lifetime, you want to be sure the insurance company you pick will still be around. Make certain that the insurer is rated in the top two categories by one of the services that rates insurance companies, such as A.M. Best, Moodys, Standard & Poor’s, or Weiss.

For further information and advice, do not hesitate to contact me at 732-863-9900 Ext. 101 or 105, or fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.

Supreme Court Says Deceased Employee’s Ex-Wife Can Get His Pension Benefits

Friday, March 13th, 2009

Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq., a Probate and Estate Administration Attorney

A new Supreme Court decision illustrates the importance of making sure your beneficiary designations are up-to-date. The Court has unanimously ruled that an employer must distribute a deceased employee’s retirement benefits to his ex-wife even though she had renounced the benefits in their divorce. Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Sav. and Investment Plan (U.S., No. 07-636, Jan. 26, 2009).

William Kennedy worked for DuPont Co. and had a retirement plan through the company. His wife, Liv, was the designated beneficiary of the plan. In 1994, William and Liv divorced and the divorce decree stated that Liv waived the right to any of William’s retirement plans. However, William never changed the beneficiary designation on his retirement plan. When William died, his daughter, who was the executor of his estate, asked DuPont to distribute the plan to the estate. But DuPont relied on William’s beneficiary designation and instead distributed the plan benefits, totaling $402,000, to Liv.

William’s estate sued DuPont under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), claiming that in signing the divorce decree, Liv had voluntarily relinquished, or waived, her right to the plan benefits. A U.S. district court ordered DuPont to pay the value of the plan to the estate. Liv appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling, holding that Liv had not waived her right to the plan benefits. DuPont then appealed.

In an opinion written by Justice David Souter, the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the Court of Appeals and holds that according to ERISA, DuPont had to follow William’s instructions on the original document and distribute the retirement benefits to Liv. The Court notes that William had an easy way to change the beneficiary designation, but he chose not to.

If you have any questions, contact Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq. at 732-863-9900, or fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.  He is happy to answer your inquiries.

The Risk of Going Through Medicaid Application Process Alone

Friday, March 13th, 2009

Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq., NJ Medicaid Application Attorney

When money is running out and the family is faced with the need to apply for Medicaid to pay for long term care the question becomes “should we do this ourselves or should we hire an elder law attorney to help?”  Sometimes the hospital or the nursing home tells the family they will qualify without too much difficulty.  Many places strongly encourage families to hire an experienced Medicaid attorney.  So they try to do it themselves.

The pitfalls of going it alone are many and varied, especially since the latest round of Medicaid changes effective February, 2006 made the laws and regulations in this area much more complicated.  Timing is critical.  By that, I mean to say, that when you spend down assets and what assets you have at a certain point in time will have an impact on qualifying for benefits.  Let me illustrate by way of example.

John and Mary were in their 80’s and living in their home, which they owned.  They had other countable assets of approximately $50,000.  John and Mary had done no planning for their long term care needs.  John became ill in October, was admitted to the hospital and then to a nursing home for rehabilitative services.  His condition was such, that he could not go home and needed to remain in the nursing home on a long term basis, at a private pay cost of $10,000 per month.

Mary was told by various personnel at the hospital and the nursing home that based on their level of assets “John would qualify for Medicaid” in January and they arranged for her to meet with a Medicaid caseworker to make an application for benefits.  Being stressed out by the reality that John would not go home and uncomfortable with the complicated process she did not understand that for John to qualify she would have to spend down a portion of their assets to get below a certain dollar amount.  In her case that number was $27,000.  The caseworker explained this to her at the interview but, quite frankly, she was receiving so much information that she really didn’t fully understand how important that was.

She waited for medical and nursing home bills to come in.  She figured she owed the money so it was as good as spent.  In other words, in her mind she didn’t have $50,000.  They owed $28,000 so she had $22,000 left.  Not true under Medicaid rules.  Until she wrote those checks, John and Mary were “over-resourced”, Medicaid’s term for having too much money to qualify for benefits.  If you are over-resourced by even $1.00 you won’t get Medicaid for that month.  You will never get Medicaid for that month.

Had she paid those bills right away John would have qualified for benefits in January.  Instead, she didn’t write those checks until June, meaning John didn’t qualify for Medicaid until July.  Great, so Medicaid picked up the nursing home bill in July.  There was one small problem.  Who was going to pay the nursing home bill for January through June?  The answer was John and Mary, and at the private pay rate of $10,000 per month that was $60,000.  The shame is that this didn’t need to happen.

This example illustrates the pitfalls of going it alone.  The rules are quite complicated and timing is critical.  You don’t want to be left with a huge nursing home bill which you can’t pay.  The nursing home doesn’t really want to be in the position of suing their residents.  Having a knowledgeable elder law attorney representing you can save huge dollars and huge amounts of stress.

For further information and advice in any elder law matter, do not hesitate to contact me at 732-863-9900 Ext. 101 or 105, or fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.