2014
Showing 433–448 of 740 results
-
Estate Planning Red Flag – You hold joint title to property with a relative or friend
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Estate Planner
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 308
Abstract: Owning assets jointly with one or more children or other heirs is a common estate planning “shortcut.” But like many shortcuts, it can produce unintended — and costly — consequences, such as unnecessary taxes, creditor claims, and loss of control. This article notes that one or more properly drafted trusts can avoid each of these problems without the need for probate.
-
Preservation effort – A “stretch IRA” can maximize your IRA’s benefits
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Estate Planner
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 749
Abstract: Structuring an IRA as a “stretch IRA” can preserve its benefits for many years — and can benefit both one’s estate and retirement plans. This article takes a closer look at the ins and outs of stretch IRAs, showing how the beneficiary can enjoy tax advantages by having distributions based on his or her own, presumably longer, life expectancy, rather than the distribution period that applied to the deceased. To avoid having the beneficiary immediately empty the account — thus defeating the purpose of a stretch IRA — a “conduit trust” can be set up.
-
Should you keep your trust a secret?
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Estate Planner
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 564
Abstract: Worried that the prospect of a large inheritance might harm their children’s work ethic, some people establish “quiet trusts,” also known as “silent trusts.” In other words, they leave significant sums in trust for their children; they just don’t tell them about it. But this article lists several disadvantages of this approach. It argues that an “incentive trust,” which is known to the beneficiaries and which specifies conditions they must meet to be eligible for distributions, can do a better job of encouraging a sense of responsibility.
-
Valuing LLC interests: How to lose in Tax Court
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Estate Planner
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 937
Abstract: After the IRS determined that an estate had underreported the value of its interest in a limited liability company (LLC), it assessed an estate tax deficiency. The estate responded with a new appraisal, prepared by another professional appraiser, which valued the LLC interest at a figure that was lower than what was reported on the estate tax return. The estate sought a refund. While the Tax Court seemed sympathetic to part of the estate’s argument, it ultimately refused to admit the second appraisal into evidence at least partly because the second appraiser wasn’t available to testify in support. This article emphasizes the importance of having a valuation supported by a qualified valuation expert. A sidebar discusses how LLCs and family limited partnerships (FLPs) can save taxes.
-
How excess earnings fits into an appraiser’s toolkit
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Viewpoint on Value
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 437
Abstract: Critics of the excess earnings method call it subjective, ambiguous and outdated. Yet the method remains a viable tool, especially when valuing small professional practices for divorce purposes. Because of its perceived simplicity, the excess earnings method can also serve as a meaningful sanity check for other methods. This article explains how it works.
-
5 steps to valuing a business
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Viewpoint on Value
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 621
Abstract: Valuators use a variety of analytical techniques and possess different qualifications. But a common denominator is the process that everyone uses to value a business. This article describes the five steps a valuator undergoes: 1) agreeing on engagement parameters, 2) requesting documents, 3) undertaking fieldwork, 4) preparing the report, and 5) providing expert testimony.
-
Key people: Hard acts to follow, hard risks to measure
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Viewpoint on Value
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 627
Abstract: The loss of a “key person” from a business could disrupt day-to-day operations, alarm customers, lenders and suppliers, and drain working capital reserves. But how do valuators quantify the value of key people? This article looks at the factors they consider when evaluating a key person discount and how they judge the ability of others to take over a key person’s responsibilities and relationships. It also discusses the three valuation methods they generally choose from.
-
Facts and figures you need before closing – Valuators minimize stress on both sides of the deal
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Viewpoint on Value
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 878
Abstract: An appraisal can be useful when buying or selling a business, for both sides of the deal may have unrealistic expectations. This article describes how a valuation professional brings some objectivity and concrete transaction data to the negotiating table. It explains how valuators can help both buyers and sellers put a price tag on synergies and how they allocate the purchase price for book and tax purposes. A sidebar explains why buyers generally prefer an asset sale and sellers a stock sale.
-
Discovering e-discovery
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 408
Abstract: In today’s digital age, the ubiquity of “electronically stored information” (ESI) has profoundly changed the way litigants conduct discovery — so much so that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to address the specific issues surrounding ESI. This brief article reviews several of these amendments and their implications, including the concept of discovery requests designed not to elicit relevant ESI, but to elicit information about the procedures or methods a party used to search for responsive ESI. Ruiz-Bueno v. Scott, No. 2:12-cv-0809 (S.D. Ohio 11/15/201
-
Ownership transition – Valuation is key to succession planning
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 719
Abstract: Business owners planning succession face the difficult decision of whether to sell, dissolve or transfer their business to family members. The article notes the many ways valuators can help guide the succession planning process by looking at such factors as the company’s expected cash flows, perceived risk, expected growth and marketability. In addition, a valuator can show how the purpose of the valuation affects the value itself.
-
Supporting a punitive damages claim – Does the punishment fit the crime?
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 629
Abstract: Punitive damages may represent a significant portion of a plaintiff’s recovery — in some cases dwarfing compensatory damages. But in recent years, the courts have found that punitive damages may offend constitutional due process protections if they are “grossly excessive” in relation to the government’s legitimate interest in punishment and deterrence. This article uses several cases to help readers understand the factors that support punitive damages, the constitutional limits on those damages, and the relationship between punitive and compensatory damages. BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Co., No. B234271 (Cal. App. Dist. 2, 8/29/2013)
-
What a difference a valuation date makes
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 797
Abstract: The valuation date can have a dramatic impact on the outcome of a valuation dispute. To illustrate this point, this article looks at the case Wisniewski v. Walsh, a shareholder oppression lawsuit that dragged on for 18 years. The article outlines the history of the case and how the valuation date, while not the only factor, became central in the appellate court ruling. The ruling shows that, though the presumptive valuation date is typically the date the complaint was filed, a later date might be appropriate if using the presumptive date would be unfair. The article goes on to note several circumstances under which an alternate valuation date may be appropriate. Wisniewski v. Walsh, Nos. A-0825-10T4 and A-0826-10T4 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2013)
-
Taking a contractual approach to an FMLA claim
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 619
Abstract: When a trucker returned from a leave stemming from issues with substance abuse, he was required to sign a Return to Work Agreement (RWA) proscribing drugs and alcohol. When he relapsed and was terminated, he claimed ADA and FMLA violations. The district court ruled in favor of the employer, and so did the appeals court. This article discusses how the contractual power of the RWA prevailed. Ostrowski v. Con-Way Freight, Inc., No. 12-3800, Oct. 30, 2013 (3rd Cir.)
-
Seventh Circuit puts finer point on adverse employment actions
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 653
Abstract: When a police officer charged his employer with race discrimination and retaliation, his claims were dismissed on technical grounds. When he offered the appeals court an amended complaint that omitted a previous charge that he’d been denied a shift-change request because of race, the defendants argued that he’d failed to allege specific facts indicating an adverse employment action. This article explains why the court disagreed, finding that his allegations were sufficient to plead that a denial of transfer was a materially adverse employment action in this instance. Lavalais v. Village of Melrose Park, No. 13-1200, Oct. 24, 2013 (7th Cir.) Cheek v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., No. 93-1840, Aug. 1, 1994 (7th Cir.) Oest v. Ill. Dep’t of Corrs., 240 F.3d 605, 612–13, 2001 (7th Cir.)
-
Intent to retire – Decision maker looms large in ADEA case
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 808
Abstract: When a school board eliminated the position of a long-serving African-American janitor, it attributed the decision to the employee’s stated intent to retire, as well as a budgetary shortfall. The employee believed this was pretextual and sued. As this article describes, the district court granted the board’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that, regardless of the supervisor’s knowledge or intent, the board genuinely — even if mistakenly — believed that the plaintiff wanted to retire. But the appeals court overruled, maintaining that the superintendent’s discriminatory animus could be imputed to the board because of her influence on its adverse employment action. Harris v. Powhatan County School Board, No. 12-2091, Oct. 22, 2013 (4th Cir.)
-
Is that enough? How an age discrimination claim can move forward
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 910
Abstract: Two lauded employees, each with over 20 years of experience, were passed over for higher positions. They alleged age discrimination, but because they introduced the idea that personal friendship played a role in the matter, the trial court determined that they were unable to show the “but-for” causation necessary to prevail. However, as this article explains, an appeals court decided that their claim could withstand a motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, a sidebar discusses a previous, related case in which the Supreme Court seemingly made it more difficult for employees to allege age discrimination against employers. Leal v. McHugh, No. 12-40069, Sept. 26, 2013 (5th Cir.) Gross v. FBL Financial Services, No. 08-441, June 18, 2009 (Supreme Court) Smith v. City of Jackson, No. 03-1160, March 30, 2005 (Supreme Court) Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, No. 91-1600, April 20, 1993 (Supreme Court)