NAEPC Webinars:

Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 3:00pm - 4:00pm ET - The Future Client and the Future Advisor

Source: The Robert G. Alexander Webinar Series

DRead more

Demographic shifts are pushing advisors to serve an expanding and diverse client base. What are some of the trends advisors should be aware of and how can they effectively respond? This session aims to demystify the demographic trends of current and future clients, the journey to diversify the financial sector, and the concept of cultural competency.

In this conversational program, Assistant Professor of Philanthropy Dien Yuen and The American College of Financial Services President and CEO George Nichols III will walk us through the trends and lived experiences needed to build your practice.

George Nichols III currently serves as the 10th President and CEO in the storied history of The American College of Financial Services. His experience in the public and private sector included a 17-year stint at New York Life, where he held principal roles in sales, strategic initiatives, and public policy. He most recently served as executive vice president in charge of the Office of Governmental Affairs at the company.

Prior to joining New York Life, Nichols was Kentucky’s first African-American insurance commissioner and he was the first African-American president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (2000). Nichols was recently honored as one of “The Ten to Watch in 2021” by WealthManagement.com.

Nichols currently sits on the Boards of City Year, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Main Line Health, and Republic Bank, a regional bank originated in Nichols’ home state of Kentucky. He is also a member of the Board of Regents at one of his alma maters, Western Kentucky University.

Nichols received his Associate’s degree from Alice Lloyd College, a liberal arts school in eastern Kentucky, before earning his Bachelor’s degree from Western Kentucky University. He began his career in financial services after receiving his Master’s Degree from the University of Louisville.

 

Dien Yuen, JD/LLM, CAP®, AEP® holds the Blunt-Nickel Professorship in Philanthropy at The American College of Financial Services, where she teaches in the Chartered Advisor in Philanthropy (CAP)® program.  

Prior to joining the College, Professor Yuen served as Managing Director and Fiduciary Advisor for a wealth management firm assisting high net-worth individuals, families, and charitable institutions. Her former positions include Chief Philanthropy Officer at Give2Asia, Vice President and Senior Trust Officer at U.S. Trust, Executive Director of the IIT Bombay Heritage Fund, Vice President of the Asian Pacific Fund, and Planned Giving Director of the American Cancer Society. She is also the founder of a boutique social impact research and advisory firm serving clients in the U.S. and Asia.

Professor Yuen serves on the boards of the American Council on Gift Annuities (ACGA), The 1990 Institute, and Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation. She is on the advisory boards of GlobalSF, Asia Society of Northern California, Philanthropic Ventures Foundation, and Arowana Impact Capital Group.  

Professor Yuen holds the professional designations of Chartered Advisor in Philanthropy® (CAP®) from The American College of Financial Services and the AEP ® designation from NAEPC. She received her LL.M. in International Law at Golden Gate University, her Juris Doctorate (JD) from the University of Toledo College of Law, and her Bachelor of Arts (BA) in Political Science from Adrian College.

REGISTER HERE for the individual program. To purchase the 2021 webinar series, please click HERE.

Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 12:00pm - 1:00pm ET - A complimentary webinar co-hosted with the Society of Financial Service Professionals: Methods to Fund Buy-Sell Agreements

Source: The Robert G. Alexander Webinar Series

JRead more

Join us for this complimentary webinar co-hosted with the Society of Financial Service Professionals. Please note the special date and time. For complete event details and to register click here.

Program Overview

In this presentation you will get a review of the uses of buy-sell agreements and mechanisms for funding the actual purchase and sales event whether it be triggered by death, disability, departure, or discord. Alternatives to traditional insurance and the impact of the changes in business tax matters arising out of the 2017 Tax Act are discussed.

You Will Learn:

  • Workable/useful knowledge of buy-sell planning and how to use it in your practice
  • The different forms of buy-sell arrangements and when to use one versus another
  • An analysis of the most often used/important provisions in planning the disposition of closely-held business interests
  • The use of life insurance and alternative methods to fund/create the economics of buy-sell transactions

Featured Speaker:

James S. Aussem, JD, AEP is a shareholder in the Cleveland law firm of Cavitch Familo & Durkin, Co., LPA, as well as a member of its board of directors and Co-Chair of the Business Practice Group. Jim's practice is focused on succession planning, mergers and acquisitions, as well as estates and trusts. Jim was the 90th president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals (FSP) serving from September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2018; he received the 2019 Kenneth Black, Jr. Leadership Award from the Society in 2019, and has been active in the Cleveland Chapter FSP, serving as its President 2010-2011. He serves on the Planned Giving Committees of the Cleveland Museum of Art, University Hospitals and Baldwin-Wallace University. He is a member of the American, Ohio, and Cleveland Metropolitan bar associations as well as the Estate Planning Council of Cleveland. He has been chosen as one of America's Best Lawyers every year since 2009 and for the past 10 years he has been chosen in two categories, Corporate Law and Trusts and Estates. Jim is a frequent speaker, facilitator, and instructor for many professional organizations on topics such as business succession, buying and selling businesses, estate planning, insurance, trusts and estates. He has been designated an Accredited Estate Planner (AEP®) by the National Association of Estate Planners & Councils. Baldwin Wallace University in 2004 presented him with its Distinguished Alumni Award and The Cleveland Chapter of the Society of FSP named him its Financial Service Professional of the Year in 2013. He earned his Juris Doctor degree from the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. Jim began his legal career as a tax attorney with Ernst & Ernst (now Ernst & Young). He worked his way through undergraduate school employed in the securities industry, as well as in the trust department of the former National City Bank. He graduated from Baldwin-Wallace University with a Bachelor of Arts degree. Jim is AV® Preeminent Rated - Martindale-Hubbell.

Image result for register button

Thank you to the Society of Financial Service Professionals for their joint sponsorship of this program.

Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 3:00pm - 4:00pm ET - Well-Being Trusts — the Future of Imbuing Trusts with Positivity, Meaning and Purpose

Source: The Robert G. Alexander Webinar Series

IRead more

In this program, speakers, Ray Odom and Richard Franklin will provide ideas, examples and language to prepare trusts and other estate planning documents that are designed to improve well-being.  They will show how to build positivity, meaning and purpose into trusts, using positive psychology’s empirical research and other data to support family well-being and flourishing.  Ray will review positive, research based ways to spend that increase well-being (there’s a shocking absence of such information in trusts & estate literature) and share a “benevolence” model to consider in all wealth transfers. Richard will provide a model for trustees to use in building a well-being baseline and beyond. 

Richard focuses on estate planning, trusts and estate administration, and beneficiary and fiduciary representation.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and Florida Bars, a Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and serves on its Tax Policy Study Committee.  Richard has spoken at numerous estate planning programs around the country, including the University of Miami’s Heckerling Institute on Estate Planning, ACTEC, the American Bar Association, state and local bars, estate planning councils, and charities such as the Carter Center, to name a few.  He has also written extensively on estate planning topics for various publications including the ACTEC Law Journal, The Washington Lawyer, Trusts & Estates, Estate Planning, and the Bloomberg/BNA Estates, Gifts & Trust Journal.

 

 

REGISTER HERE for the individual program. To purchase the 2021 webinar series, please click HERE.

Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 3:00pm - 4:00pm ET - 529 Planning

Source: The Robert G. Alexander Webinar Series

DRead more

Details coming soon.

REGISTER HERE for the individual program. To purchase the 2021 webinar series, please click HERE.

Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 3:00pm - 4:00pm ET - Tax-Smart Charitable Giving, Especially with Retirement Assets

Source: The Robert G. Alexander Webinar Series

PRead more

Program details coming soon.

Christopher Hoyt is a Professor of Law at the University of Missouri (Kansas City) School of Law where he teaches courses in the area of federal income taxation, charitable organizations and retirement plans.

Previously, he was with the law firm of Spencer, Fane, Britt & Browne in Kansas City, Missouri. He received an undergraduate degree in economics from Northwestern University and he received dual law and accounting degrees from the University of Wisconsin.

Professor Hoyt is the Vice- Chair of the RPTE Charitable Group and he serves on the editorial board of Trusts and Estates magazine. He is an ACTEC fellow and has been designated by his peers as a "Best Lawyer". He was elected to the Estate Planning Hall of Fame by the National Association of Estate Planners & Councils.

 

 

REGISTER HERE for the individual program. To purchase the 2021 webinar series, please click HERE.

Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 3:00pm - 4:00pm ET - 2021 Income Tax Planning Strategies including IRA Strategies

Source: The Robert G. Alexander Webinar Series

DRead more

Details coming soon.

REGISTER HERE for the individual program. To purchase the 2021 webinar series, please click HERE.

 

 

 

Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 3:00pm - 4:00pm ET - Income Tax Planning for Real Estate Using Estate Planning Techniques

Source: The Robert G. Alexander Webinar Series

DRead more

Details coming soon.

REGISTER HERE for the individual program. To purchase the 2021 webinar series, please click HERE.

Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 3:00pm - 4:00pm ET - Planning for Business Owners and Trusts in Light of Changing Income Tax Rates

Source: The Robert G. Alexander Webinar Series

IRead more

In this intermediate level presentation, we will explore how changing income tax rates affect planning for business owners and trusts, with a view towards strategic estate planning/administration issues. Topics include:

  1. Compare the overall tax burden when a C corporation distributes none, half, or all of its earnings and how that stacks up against a pass-through entity. Consider how these issues affect planning for distributions and inform estate planning as well as what entities are best for your clients.

  2. If capital gain rates are repealed for high income taxpayers, that will be horrible for trusts that accumulate capital gains.  Review practical tools for passing capital gains from trusts to beneficiaries –much more flexibility exists than most people think.

  3. Potential big increases capital gain rates may make portfolio turnover becomes much more expensive.  Consider how variable life insurance may reduce that tax burden.

Steve Gorin practiced accounting for his first eight years after law school and continues to make income tax planning an integral part of his estate planning law practice.  Over 8,000 tax and estate planning professionals subscribe to his quarterly newsletter so that they can receive the most recent version of “Structuring Ownership of Privately-Owned Businesses: Tax and Estate Planning Implications,” over 2,800 pages of technical materials distributed without charge.  Steve enjoys working with planners throughout the country from all professions comprising NAEPC.

 

 

REGISTER HERE for the individual program. To purchase the 2021 webinar series, please click HERE.

Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:00pm - 4:00pm ET - The Impact of Testamentary Documents in a Divorce: a Divorce Attorneys' Perspective

Source: The Robert G. Alexander Webinar Series

DRead more

Details coming soon.

REGISTER HERE for the individual program. To purchase the 2021 webinar series, please click HERE.

Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 3:00pm - 4:00pm ET - Social Security Considerations in Estate Planning

Source: The Robert G. Alexander Webinar Series

TRead more

This session considers integrating Social Security retirement benefits into estate planning. Even with the high net worth client, this benefit is an important planning tool because of tax affects and longevity considerations. We will address issues such as how the system’s underfunding factors into projecting benefits, how to avoid the Social Security tax torpedo, retirement income bridging techniques that help defer and maximize retirement benefits, and coordinating OASDI payments with retirement drawdowns. Practical considerations are also included, such as how to help the client file for the benefit, using the benefit to pay for Medicare, and what to do about Social Security at death. 

Steve Parrish is a former practicing attorney and financial planner with over 40 years’ experience in financial services. He serves as Co-Director of the Retirement Income Center at The American College and as an adjunct estate planning professor at Drake University Law School. He is widely published in legal and financial journals, and is an ongoing Forbes contributor.   

 

REGISTER HERE for the individual program. 

To purchase the 2021 webinar series, please click HERE.

Issue 2 – July, 2007

Editor’s Column

Advanced Medical Directives

John (Jeff) Scroggin, J.D., LL.M., AEP, Editor
Email: JJS@scrogginlaw.com
Phone: 770-640-1101

“Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.” Justice Cardozo

The debate over the withdrawal of life support has been a long and costly legal and political conflict.1 The real fight begin in the early ’60s, when medicine had advanced to the stage that permanently unconscious clients could be kept alive even with little brain activity. As a result, debates began to occur about a patient’s “right to die.” The aging of the baby boomers and their parents is increasing the issues surrounding a client’s medical decision making.

In 1976, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided In Re Quinlan.2 The court decided that a heart/lung machine could be withdrawn from Karen Ann Quinlan, but required that intravenous fluids and nourishment must continue, even though Miss Quinlan had no brain activity. Although doctors had expected her to die after being taken off the heart/lung machine, she continued to breathe. She lived almost 10 more years on intravenous fluids and nourishment. Also in 1976, California became the first state to approve living wills. By 1992 all 50 states had adopted similar legislation.

In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health,3 the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition. The Supreme Court largely deferred to states to determine how this constitutional right would be exercised, particularly when the decision is made by surrogates or there was no written declaration. Missouri applied a “clear and convincing” evidence standard to determine whether such a refusal had been made by Nancy Cruzan. Although this evidence standard would necessitate a written medical directive in most cases, the Missouri courts found that Nancy Cruzan had made sufficient verbal declarations to permit withdrawal of nourishment. Eight years after the accident which rendered her permanently unconscious and without significant brain activity, Nancy Cruzan died.

In 1991 Congress passed The Patient Self-Determination Act,4 which requires health care providers (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes, hospice programs, home health care agencies and HMOs) receiving Medicaid and Medicare payments to ascertain the intent of patients about advance directives for health care and provide patients educational materials about their rights under state law.

In 1994 an Oregon referendum resulted in the adoption of a new statute, The Oregon Death with Dignity Act, Oregon Statutes section 127.800 et. seq., which permitted physician assisted suicide in certain circumstances. The implementation of the act was enjoined by the District Court in Lee. v. State of Oregon.5 The injunction was lifted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Lee v. Oregon, 107 F3d 1382 (9th Cir. 1997).The plaintiff’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.

In Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington, 79 F3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a Washington statute which made physician assisted suicide a criminal act. The Ninth Circuit found a due process constitutional right to physician assisted suicides. One month later, in Quill v. Vacco 6, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a New York statute which prohibited physician assisted suicide. The Second Circuit ruled that the law violated the equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

On June 26, 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned both Circuit Court decisions in Washington v. Glucksberg,7 and Vacco v. Quill.8 The U.S. Supreme Court left it up to the states to determine whether to prohibit physician assisted suicide. The Court could find no constitutional right for terminally ill patients to obtain a physician’s assistance in ending their lives. The battle over physician assisted suicides has continued around the country. In 39 states, it is a criminal act to assist in any suicide.

In April 1998, President Clinton signed into law The Assisted Suicide Funding Restrictions Act of 1997, which prevents the federal governments from reimbursing costs associated with physician assisted suicide. The bill also provided for the funding of programs to reduce the rate of suicide by persons with disabilities or terminal or chronic illnesses.

As demonstrated by the Terri Schiavo debacle, the legal, medical and moral controversies over euthanasia and the right to die can be intense and conflict-laden. We as estate planning advisors have a responsibility to make sure clients have at least addressed how they want medical decisions to be made if they become incapacitated.

Most people would prefer to decide who will make medical decisions for them and, in some cases, restrict how the decisions can be made. Failing to do so breeds both additional costs and the potential for family turmoil. For example, a 1992 study in the Archives of Internal Medicine reported that having a living will or medical power of attorney saved almost $65,000 per patient in the final stay in the hospital.9 The average cost from 1990 through 1992 of persons without medical directives was $95,305 versus $30,478 for those who had medical directives. Since 1992 medical care costs have increased at a significant rate.

There are some traps for the unwary in this area, including:

  1. Failing to Plan for the Young. Much of the focus on Advanced Medical Directives has been on the need for the elderly to plan for this incapacity. However, it is interesting that Karen Ann Quinlan, Nancy Cruzan and Terri Schiavo were all young women in their late 20s and early 30s—people who you would not expect to need an advanced medical directive. This failed assumption has proven true in my own family. In August of 2006, my twenty-year old son sustained a serious brain injury. Even though he was getting ready to go to Iraq, I had never considered the need for a Living Will or Medical Power of Attorney for him—now each of my three children have signed advanced medical directives.
  2. Differences in Law. Pursuant to the Cruzandecision, Supreme Court has largely left it up to the state to determine how medical decision making will be made for incapacitated individuals. Unfortunately, the rules vary widely from state to state and clients moving from one state to another, should make sure local counsel reviews their existing documents when they change states of residence. Moreover, as shown by the article on Europe’s rules on Medical Directives in this NAEPC Journal, the rules governing medical decision making vary widely throughout the world.
  3. Only Having a Living Will. During the Terri Schiavo case, the media talked a lot about the need for a living will. The living will has two major flaws. First it only deals with life sustaining treatment. It does not deal with who makes other medical issues for a disabled client. Second, the final decision makers with living will are the physicians. Most clients would prefer to turn that decision process over to trusted family members or friends. The reality is that the Medical Power of Attorney or similar advanced directive is the more important document.
  4. Marriage and Divorce. Some states provide that unless the power of attorney expressly provides otherwise, a subsequent marriage acts as an automatic revocation of the designation of any person to serve as power holder other than the principal’s spouse.10 More problematic, is that many divorced couples fail to remove their ex-spouse from their medical power of attorney—do you really want that estranged ex-spouse to decide what pain killers you are going to receive?

It is also important for clients to leave information for family members on the types of decisions they want to be made if they become incapacitated. For example, “I want to be kept at home as long as possible.” Clients may want to consider executing “ethical wills” in which they discuss their thoughts on receiving life sustaining treatment and other philosophical perspectives. Barry K. Baines, The Ethical Will: Reviving a Biblical Tradition and Applying it to Retirement Planning, Journal of Retirement Planning, June 1999. This article provides practical advice in writing an ethical will. See also, Kathleen M. Rehl, Help Your Clients Preserve Values, Tell Stories and Share the “Voice of Their Hearts” Through Ethical Wills, J. Prac.Est.Plan., July 2003; Josephine Turner, Estate Planning: Ethical Wills, found athttp://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_FY536; Robert Flashman, Melissa Flashman, Libby Noble and Sam Quick, Ethical Wills: Passing on Treasures of the Heart, found atwww.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pub/1998/wills.html.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Books On Medical Decision Making
  • Living Wills Made E-Z: Includes Power of Attorney for Healthcare (Made Ez Products, 2001)
  • Kessler, David, The Needs of the Dying (Quill 2000)
  • Kuhl, David, What Dying People Want (Public Affairs 2003)
  • Lieberson, Alan D., Advance Medical Directives(West 2004)
  • Meisel, Alan and Cerminara, Kathy L., The Right To Die (Aspen Publishers 2003).
  • William Molloy, Let Me Decide: The Health and Personal Care Directive That Speaks for You When You Can’t (Biblio Distribution 2003)
Websites On Aging And Critical Care Issues
Internet Resources For The Elderly
Articles Discussing the Moral, Ethical and Religious Issues of Medical Directives

Notes

1 See Peter G. Filene, In the Arms of Others: A Cultural History of the Right to Die in America, Chicago: Dee 1998; Alan Meisel and Kathy L. Cerminara, The Right to Die, The Law of End-of-Life Decision Making, (Aspen 2003).
2 355 A2d647 (N.J.), cert denied, 429 U.S. 922 (1976).
3 497 U.S. 289 (1990),
4 Public Law 101-508; 42 U.S.C. �1395cc(a)
5 819 F. Supp 1429 (D Or 1995).
6 80 F3d 716 (2nd Cir 1996),
7 521 U.S. 702 (1997),
8 521 U.S.793 (1997).
9 See C.V. Chambers, J.J. Diamond, R.L. Perkel and L.A. Lasch, Relationship of Advance Directives to Hospital Charges in a Medicare Population, Archives of Internal Medical, March 1994, Volume 154. See also, P.A. Singer and F.H. Lowy, Rationing, Patient Preferences and Cost of Care at the End of Life, Archives of Internal Medical, March 1992.
10 c.f. the Georgia statute: O.C.G.A. Section 31-36-6(b).