The Tax Court adopted the IRS's valuation of a revocable trust's interest in a business with mostly liquid assets, finding that the taxpayer's
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois held that a debtor's explanation of estate planning as a rationale for asset transfers made prior to bankruptcy is sufficient to survive the Bankruptcy Trustee's motion for summary judgment.
On December 17, 2010, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (the "2010 Act") was signed into law, making significant modifications to the estate, gift and generation-skipping transfer ("GST") taxes.
Nevada Senate Bill 405, which was signed into law by the Governor on June 16, provides that a “charging order” is the exclusive remedy of a judgment creditor against interests in Nevada limited liability companies, limited partnerships and corporations.
On May 31, 2011, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed into law H.B. 253, which amended Florida Statutes 608.433 to explicitly provide that a charging order is the “sole and exclusive remedy” against limited liability company (“LLC”) membership interests.
On June 24, 2010, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Shaun Olmstead, et. al., v. Federal Trade Commission holding that a court may order an owner of a single-member Florida Limited Liability Company (“LLC”) to surrender its ownership interest in an LLC to satisfy an outstanding judgment.
In Pierre v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2010-106 (May 13, 2010), the Tax Court held that the step transaction doctrine applied to collapse the taxpayer's gifts and sales of LLC membership interests to trusts.
In this Advisory Opinion, New York State determined that a non-resident decedent's interest in a revocable trust that owned interests in several limited liability companies ("LLCs") that held New York real property was not subject to New York State estate tax.
A U.S. District Court in Indiana found the transfer of interests in a LLC to children did not qualify for the annual gift tax exclusion because the interests were considered “future” rather than “present” interests in property due to operating agreement restrictions on the children’s rights relating to the property.