The Best of The Blunt Bean Counter - Inheriting the Cottage/Cabin/Chalet –The Great Estate Planning Challenge

This summer I am re-posting the "best of" The Blunt Bean Counter blog while I work on my golf game. Today, I am posting a November, 2014 blog titled "Inheriting the Cottage/Cabin/Chalet - The Great Estate Planning Challenge. While this post is almost eight years old, it is still relevant today and what better time to contemplate the future use of your cottage than while you are spending time there. 

This blog post was written by my most popular guest poster, Katy Basi. Katy has guest posted such BBC favourites as Qualifying Spousal Trusts - What are They and Why do we Care?, a three part series on new will provisions for the 21st century dealing with your digital life, RESPs and reproductive assets and Alter Ego Trusts and Joint Partner Trusts - A Primer. Without further ado, here is Katy!

Inheriting the Cottage/Cabin/Chalet –The Great Estate Planning Challenge 

By Katy Basi

From my lovely vantage point on the dock at my dad’s cottage, looking around the lake at all of the other family cottages, I’m reminded that every cottage, cabin and chalet has a story. Some have been in the same family for generations, with or without accompanying drama. Too many more were sold to a third party against the expectations of the family, often as a result of poor estate planning.

 

The family vacation home can be the Cyanean Rocks against which an estate plan crashes and sinks. (The Cyanean Rocks, aka the Symplegades, were a pair of rocks at the Bosphorus that moved, causing major problems to boats in the area until Jason and the Argonauts defeated the rocks). There are many factors that make planning for this property more challenging than for other assets. For example:

1. Often the legal ownership of a cottage does not reflect the practical reality of the cottage situation (for the remainder of this blog, I will refer to the “cottage” as this is the term commonly used in Ontario, but no disrespect is intended to owners of cabins and chalets - many of the same principles and problems will apply!) Due to the inter-generational history of many cottages, cottage ownership is often just not as simple as ownership of a primary residence. I have seen cottage ownership being shared between siblings, or divided among parents and all of their adult children. Sometimes a child is on title “but everyone understands that the cottage belongs to mom”. A parent may own only a “life interest” in the cottage, with adult children holding the “remainder interest”. Other times, ownership was transferred to a trust in the misty reaches of time. If a trust owns your cottage, you’ll want to read my companion blog next week entitled “Cottage Trusts” to ensure that you are aware of some nasty tax traps with the cottage trust structure.


2. If an owner spends any time at a cottage with his/her family, the cottage will qualify as a matrimonial home for family law purposes, and may therefore be shareable upon a later separation or divorce of the owner (unless there is a marriage contract in place which addresses this issue). Let’s say, for example, that in your Will you leave your cottage to your son Adam and your daughter Beth as 50/50 tenants in common (not as joint tenants, as you want Adam’s children to be able to inherit his 50% interest if Adam so chooses). You shuffle off of this mortal coil, so that Adam becomes a co-owner of the cottage. Adam spends a week a year at the cottage with his wife and two children. Adam then separates, and his wife makes a claim for 50% of Adam’s 50% interest in the cottage on the basis that it is a matrimonial home. Will Adam be able to pay 25% of the value of the cottage to his ex as part of the settlement? Will he need to sell his interest in the cottage to Beth to provide the funds for this payment? If Beth cannot afford to buy Adam’s share, this issue may result in the sale of the cottage to a third party. Leaving the cottage to your beneficiaries in a cottage trust created in your Will may be helpful in this respect if marriage contracts are not doable (this planning technique is discussed in more detail in my “Cottage Trusts” blog).


3. Cottages are expensive to maintain. Not every beneficiary who wants the cottage can afford the upkeep, and not every beneficiary who can afford the upkeep wants the cottage.


4. Family members often have strong emotional attachments to the cottage. Leaving the cottage in your Will to the child with the financial resources to maintain the cottage may be the smart choice from a monetary perspective, but if this decision leads to lifelong conflict between the cottage child and the non-cottage child, it may not be the best plan taking all considerations into account.


5. Cottages are not divisible in the same way as financial assets. Cottage owners who intend to leave the cottage to more than one person need to ask themselves what the practical implications are of each beneficiary inheriting only a share of the cottage. For example, co-ownership agreements are strongly recommended whenever more than one person or family shares ownership of a cottage. These agreements can provide for the payment of maintenance expenses and utilities associated with the cottage, allocation of time at the cottage, “shared time” (everyone is welcome!) versus “private time” (my family only please…), policies on having pets/friends over to stay (allergies? replenishment of beverages required?), bringing household items to/taking household items from the cottage, etc.


6. If the cottage owner has owned the cottage for a number of years, there is often a large accrued capital gain on the cottage that is triggered upon the owner’s death. If the owner does not have sufficient liquid assets to pay the tax, and the beneficiaries do not have the funds, the cottage must often be sold simply to pay this tax bill. Insurance on the life of the owner is often recommended, where available at an affordable premium, to backfill this monetary gap. Sometimes a beneficiary is given the cottage in the Will upon the condition that the beneficiary pays the related capital gains tax, saving the other beneficiaries of the estate from bearing part of this burden. The calculation of the capital gain is often complex due to shoeboxes of receipts, collected over decades, which may or may not affect the adjusted cost base ("ACB") of the cottage, as well as principal residence issues (sometimes a cottage may be designated as a principal residence for certain years of ownership….and sometimes not!)

If you own a cottage, it is strongly recommended that you speak with a professional to ensure that your cottage estate plan is optimized. My sisters and I spent lots of idyllic summers at my dad’s cottage as children, and we’re very lucky to still be able to enjoy the cottage, and the memories it holds for us, to this day. I hope that I’ve helped my family create an estate plan whereby my children, and my nieces and nephews, will be just as fortunate, and I wish the same for you.

Katy Basi is a barrister and solicitor with her own practice, focusing on wills, trusts, estate planning, estate administration and income tax law. Katy practiced income tax law for many years with a large Toronto law firm, and therefore considers the income tax and probate tax implications of her clients' decisions. Please feel free to contact her directly at (905) 237-9299, or by email at katy@basilaw.com. More articles by Katy can be found at her website, http://www.basilaw.com/

Other Cottage Blog Posts by The Blunt Bean Counter 

Over the years I have written a couple other blog posts on cottage related topics. They include: 

 

Cottages - Cost Base Additions, are they a new CRA Audit Target?

Transferring the Family Cottage - Part 1,  Part 2, Part 3

The above blog post is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice or an opinion of any kind. Readers are advised to seek specific legal advice regarding any specific legal issues.

 

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

Alter Ego Trusts and Joint Partner Trusts – An Example

Way back on March 9th, I posted a guest blog post by Katy Basi on the basics of Alter Ego Trusts and Joint Partner Trusts. Who would have thought it would be 8 weeks later before I was able to publish Part 2 of this excellent series by Katy?

In Part 2, Katy uses an example situation to reflect the benefits of these trusts and some of the complicated tax issues that can arise when utilizing these trusts. I thank Katy for her excellent blog posts.

_________________

By Katy Basi

Our previous blog provided a simplified explanation of Alter Ego Trusts (AETs) and Joint Partner Trusts (JPTs) and set out some pros and cons of using these types of trusts. The following is a sample fact situation illustrating why and how an AET or JPT can be useful – your advisors would be able to let you know if you are a good candidate for this type of planning.

Let’s take the example of John, a 72-year-old debt-free widower with two adult children. John owns his home in Ontario, having a value of $1.2 million, and he is planning to live in his home for the remainder of his life (he will leave his home feet-first, in his words). He also owns a non-registered portfolio of listed stocks and bonds worth $600,000 (cost base is $350,000) and a $500,000 RRIF. John sits down with his advisors (investment counsel, accountant and estates lawyer) and they all recommend that he set up an AET. Why?

In John’s case, this recommendation relates to the 1.5% estate administration tax in Ontario (aka probate tax) that would otherwise be payable on the value of John’s home and investment portfolio upon his death. Having an AET created to be the new owner of these assets results in a probate tax savings of approximately $27,000, so the recommendation is certainly worthy of consideration – who doesn’t like to save on taxes? John’s RRIF cannot be transferred to the AET, but he has named his two children as equal beneficiaries of the RRIF. As a result, there will be no probate tax on the RRIF as long as at least one of his children survives him.

As noted in our prior blog, an AET can be created when the settlor (John in our example) is 65 years of age or older. An AET is a living trust, meaning that it is created while John is alive (as opposed to a testamentary trust, which would usually be created in John’s will, taking effect only upon his death). John can transfer assets to the AET without triggering capital gains tax on these assets, unlike the result with other living trusts. Upon John’s death, the assets owned by the AET are deemed by the Income Tax Act (the “ITA”) to have been disposed of by the AET at fair market value, potentially triggering capital gains tax at that time (but no probate tax).

An AET is subject to income tax at the highest marginal tax rate. Hence, as a practical matter, while John is alive the net income earned by the AET on the investment portfolio (after expenses are deducted) would usually be paid or allocated to John by the AET by the end of every calendar year. John would then include this income in his tax return, allowing John’s marginal tax rate to apply (the AET deducts the income allocated to John in its tax return, leaving the AET with no income after the allocation). If John does not need the after-tax income, he can gift it to the AET if desired. The net result is that John effectively pays the tax on the investment income in the same manner as before the creation of the AET – the paperwork is just more complex.

John and his advisors must consider the income tax that will be triggered by John’s death in determining whether an AET is helpful. Thankfully, an AET is permitted to claim the principal residence exemption (unlike most other types of trusts), so any capital gain accrued on John’s home that is triggered by John’s death will not create a tax obligation (provided that the AET’s tax return is prepared and filed properly – professional accounting advice is a necessity here). However, the AET will be taxable on the capital gain triggered on the investment portfolio. Capital gains are only half taxable, but the taxable half of the capital gain will be taxed to the AET at the highest marginal tax rate (53.53% in Ontario). John’s RRIF is fully taxable upon his death, but the RRIF is included in John’s terminal return (the personal tax return filed for John from January 1 of John’s year of death to his date of death). (We note that either John’s children could pay the tax on the RRIF, or the funds in the AET could be used to pay this tax. In either case, the tax rules relating to graduated rate estates will need to be considered carefully in order to ensure that this payment does not create a tax problem.)

Let’s compare this result with the outcome if John did not have an AET. Upon his death, John’s RRIF and the taxable capital gain from his investment portfolio are included in John’s terminal return. John’s RRIF is large enough to soak up all of John’s marginal rates of tax (we reach the highest marginal tax rate in Ontario at an income level of $220,000). Therefore. a sizeable chunk of his RRIF, and the taxable capital gain from the investment portfolio, are subject to tax at the highest marginal rate. This is the same result as with the AET, so the income tax effects of having an AET are neutral for John. This is not always the case, however, and the income tax implications should be carefully considered by anyone who is looking at AET planning.

John has decided that the AET works for him. He has considered the cost of having his estates lawyer draft the deed creating AET and other documents (e.g., trust resolutions), and the cost of having a real estate lawyer transfer title of his home to the AET. John’s investment counsel has assured him that there is no cost to transfer his investment portfolio to the AET. John understands that he will be required to file annual tax returns for the AET, and has an idea from his accountant as to the annual fee for this service. (AET tax returns are due by March 31 – March 30 in a leap year – so earlier than John’s personal tax returns.) John is comforted by the fact that he is a trustee of the AET and has been given complete control of the AET while he is mentally capacitated to manage his financial affairs. He has concluded (somewhat pessimistically) that his life expectancy is such that while he will incur costs to set up and administer the AET, these costs are substantially outweighed by the probate tax savings provided by the AET.

If John has a spouse or common law partner, as defined under the ITA, he could create a similar trust, being the JPT. If both John and his spouse (Joanne) are 65 years of age or older, they can both transfer assets to the JPT without triggering capital gains tax. (If Joanne is younger than 65, she will have to wait until she turns 65 to transfer assets to the JPT on a rollover, or tax-free, basis.) All income generated by the JPT will need to be allocated to either John or Joanne (care must be taken here to ensure that the attribution rules under the ITA are considered – no shifting of income from one spouse to another is allowed). The JPT continues until both John and Joanne are deceased, at which time the tax results are as detailed above.

If you think that AET or JPT planning may be helpful, be sure to reach out to your advisors for their views on your particular situation. AETs and JPTs are far from simple planning - professional advice is an absolute necessity.


Katy Basi is a barrister and solicitor with her own practice, focusing on wills, trusts and estates. Katy practised income tax law for many years with a large Toronto law firm, and therefore considers the income tax and probate tax implications of her clients' decisions. Please feel free to contact her directly at (905) 237-9299, or by email at katy@basilaw.com. More articles by Katy can be found at her website, basilaw.com.

The above blog post is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice or an opinion of any kind. Readers are advised to seek specific legal advice regarding any specific legal issues and for their specific province.

The content on this blog has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. The blog cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained therein without obtaining specific professional advice. Please contact BDO Canada LLP to discuss these matters in the context of your particular circumstances. BDO Canada LLP, its partners, employees and agents do not accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information on this blog or for any decision based on it.

Please note the blog posts are time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation.

BDO Canada LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership, is a member of BDO International Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, and forms part of the international BDO network of independent member firms. BDO is the brand name for the BDO network and for each of the BDO Member Firms.

Alter Ego Trusts and Joint Partner Trusts – A Primer

Readers have offered me several suggestions for topics over the last few months. The three most popular requests have been: (1) an update on Tax On Split Income (“TOSI”), which was covered off in late February; (2) a discussion on gifting and leaving money to grandchildren, which you can look forward to in the next month or two; and (3) a discussion on what exactly Alter Ego and Joint Partner Trusts are and the benefits of these trusts.

Your requests are my direction and today I present a primer on Alter Ego and Joint Partner Trusts, by Katy Basi. In two weeks, I will post another blog by Katy, which uses a sample situation to reflect when these types of trusts may be helpful. It will also discuss some of the income taxes associated with these trusts.

If you are a reader of this blog, Katy needs no introduction. If you are a new reader of the Blunt Bean Counter, check out Katy’s past guest posts, including Power of Attorney for Personal Care – Mental Capacity and Medical Assistance When Dying, Estate planning for Extended Families, New Will Provisions for the 21st Century - Your Digital Life, and Cottage Trusts.

I thank Katy for her assistance with this blog post.

_________________

By Katy Basi

Alter Ego Trusts (“AETs”) and Joint Partner Trusts (“JPTs”) are relative newcomers to the estate planning scene, having been introduced into the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “ITA”) effective January 1, 2000. As the popularity of AETs and JPTs has increased over the last few years, we thought it would be helpful to provide a simplified description of these trusts and some of the circumstances in which they can be useful.

An AET is generally set up for the benefit of one person: a JPT, for the benefit of spouses or common law partners. (In this post when we refer to “spouse” we mean “spouse or common law partner.”) These are inter vivos trusts, meaning that they are set up during a person’s lifetime, unlike testamentary trusts, which are created as a result of the death of a person, generally by being incorporated into the person’s will. (For more on trusts in general, see this great explainer piece.)

The conditions

AETs and JPTs allow a transfer of capital assets to the trust on a tax-deferred basis. In order to obtain this deferral, the ITA sets out a number of conditions.

Some of the key conditions are:

1. The settlor, meaning the person who transfers assets to the trust, must be at least 65 years of age at the time the trust is created. A JPT sometimes has two settlors being the two spouses.
2. For an AET the settlor must be entitled to receive all of the trust’s income before death.
3. For a JPT, the settlor and/or their spouse must be entitled to receive all the trust’s income prior to the surviving spouse’s death.
4. No one apart from the settlor or, for a JPT, the settlor and their spouse, is entitled to receive any assets from the trust prior the settlor’s death (or the death of surviving spouse in the case of a JPT).
5. The settlor(s) must be Canadian.
6. A majority of the trustees must be Canadian, as the trust must be a Canadian resident trust.

Why use an AET or JPT?

AETs and JPTs are not income splitting vehicles and are subject to income attribution. Hence when spouses both contribute assets to a single JPT, it is important to track the income derived from each spouse’s contribution, in order to ensure that the tax reporting is accurate. (In the case of contributed investments, often a JPT would have separate investment accounts for the purpose of tracking the income attributable to the assets originally belonging to each spouse.)

However, AETs and JPTs offer some other important benefits, including the following:

1. Probate is not required for assets held by AETs and JPTs. For several provinces — notably Ontario, British Columbia, and Nova Scotia — this can save an estate thousands of dollars in probate fees or taxes. Other provinces, such as Quebec and Alberta, have minimal to no probate fees or taxes, and thus AETs or JPTs would not generally be used to avoid these fees.
2. Wills that are probated are documents available in the public domain; however, an AET or JPT is not submitted for probate and remains private (provided that no litigation ensues requiring production of the AET or JPT deed in court).
3. These trusts can save substantial professional costs that can be associated with probating and administering an estate, such as legal fees and executor compensation.
4. As probate is not required for assets owned by an AET or JPT, upon the settlor’s death these assets are available to the trustees on a fairly quick timeline (it is critical to ensure that the settlor is not the only trustee named in the trust deed).
5. The settlor is often one of the trustees of an AET or JPT. If the settlor becomes incapacitated, the trust deed is usually drafted to permit the other trustees to manage the trust assets. These trusts can therefore be viewed as an alternative to a financial power of attorney.

The downside of AETs and JPTs

You should watch out for several challenges when using an AET or a JPT:

1. There are upfront legal setup costs and ongoing accounting and tax administration expenses.
2. There are issues where U.S. persons or U.S. assets are involved or there are potential U.S. estate tax concerns.
3. AETs and JPTs can restrict the tax benefits of charitable giving, both during a settlor’s lifetime and upon their death.
4. Losses realized by a settlor personally may not be able to be utilized against gains realized by an AET or JPT, and vice versa.
5. Capital gains exemptions may be left unclaimed as capital gains realized on assets in the trust will not qualify for the exemption.

If this blog has piqued your interest, check out our next AET/JPT blog in a couple of weeks, which will set out a sample fact situation where an AET or JPT could be a helpful planning tool.

Katy Basi is a barrister and solicitor with her own practice, focusing on wills, trusts and estates. Katy practised income tax law for many years with a large Toronto law firm, and therefore considers the income tax and probate tax implications of her clients' decisions. Please feel free to contact her directly at (905) 237-9299, or by email at katy@basilaw.com. More articles by Katy can be found at her website, basilaw.com.

The above blog post is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice or an opinion of any kind. Readers are advised to seek specific legal advice regarding any specific legal issues and for their specific province.

The content on this blog has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. The blog cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained therein without obtaining specific professional advice. Please contact BDO Canada LLP to discuss these matters in the context of your particular circumstances. BDO Canada LLP, its partners, employees and agents do not accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information on this blog or for any decision based on it.

Please note the blog posts are time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation.

BDO Canada LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership, is a member of BDO International Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, and forms part of the international BDO network of independent member firms. BDO is the brand name for the BDO network and for each of the BDO Member Firms.

Power of Attorney for Personal Care – Mental Capacity and Medical Assistance When Dying

While I still act as a corporate accountant, I am spending more and more of my time providing wealth advisory services to my current and new clients, which allows me to utilize my tax, estate planning and general accounting background. When I combine these technical aspects together with the experience I have gained in respect of understanding the nature of people in relation to their families and their wealth, I am able to provide a comprehensive plan for their current, retirement and estate planning.

In providing these services, I always ensure my clients have up to date wills and powers of attorney (“POA”) for their finances and personal care (health). In many cases, the POAs are either very old or not even in existence. When discussing POAs for personal care, I advise my client that there have been many changes in the law in respect to heroic measures and medical assistance in dying and depending upon their personal and religious views, they need to review these issues with a very qualified estate lawyer.

I thought today, I would do a bit of a Q&A on some of these issues and specifically the mental capacity required to make these decisions. I thus turned to my resident estate and wills expert, Katy Basi, for some direction.

Please note Katy's answers are specific to Ontario, if you live in another province, you will need to confirm that province’s legislative provisions.

If you are a reader of this blog, Katy needs no introduction. If you are a new reader of the Blunt Bean Counter, check out some of Katy’s guest blogs from estate planning for extended families to New Will Provisions for the 21st Century – Your Digital Life to Cottage Trusts among many other posts.

I thank Katy for her assistance with this blog post.

Power of Attorney for Personal Care and Medical Assistance When Dying

Below is a summary of the responses to my questions from Katy. I was personally very surprised at some of her answers to my questions, but given this complex, controversial and still evolving area of law, I guess in retrospect, I should not be surprised.

Questions and Answers:

Mark: Katy, a concern for all of us as we age is mental capacity. How does mental capacity affect POA‘s for health?

Katy: “First we need to appreciate that a POA for personal care is only relevant and effective when the person in question does not have the mental capacity to make their own health care decisions. I am asked fairly commonly by my clients to include provisions regarding medical assistance in dying in their powers of attorney for personal care. This request usually comes on the heels of a discussion about whether or not to include a “no heroic measures” clause in their document. I have to tell my clients that the legislation does not allow a mentally incapacitated person to have medical assistance in dying. This is the case even if the person requested this assistance, when they were capacitated, in writing via their power of attorney for personal care.”

Mark: So, are you saying that even where you have requested medical assistance in dying in your POA for personal care, if you do not have mental capacity when the medical assistance is desired, that request is essentially voided?

Katy: “There is a clear distinction in the medical assistance in dying legislation between a person who has the capacity to make their own personal care and health care decisions, and a person who does not have this capacity. The former can request medical assistance in dying if all of the other conditions of the legislation are met, and the latter cannot. As a person’s power of attorney for personal care is only effective upon the person losing their capacity to make personal care and health care decisions, by definition the document is only relevant upon incapacity. At that time medical assistance in dying is off the table as an option".

Katy clarifying note to Mark: "This exclusion only relates to medical assistance in dying – your most recent verbal or written instructions, made while capacitated, otherwise govern your personal care and health care".

Mark: This provision seems unfair?

Katy: “So under one view the legislation is discriminatory – people with capacity can obtain this assistance, and those without capacity cannot. So, I guess that if I have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, which is another requirement under the legislation, I hope that I at least have capacity, as otherwise I cannot receive medical assistance in dying. If I am mentally incapacitated, with a grievous and irremediable medical condition, my power of attorney for personal care can request that all heroic measures stop at this point, and that lots of morphine and other pain relief be administered. But that’s it – medical assistance in dying cannot be given, and I will have to die on my own, when my body finally gives up”.

Mark: So, is there anything that can be done in case of mental incapacity?

Katy: “For some clients we include a clause in their power of attorney for personal care that indicates their desire for medical assistance in dying if they are in a situation where the other conditions of the legislation are met, in the event that the current requirement to have capacity is amended by future legislative changes. A bit of a Hail Mary, but why not?”

I thank Katy for her insights on this complex topic.

Katy Basi is a barrister and solicitor with her own practice, focusing on wills, trusts, estates, and income tax law (including incorporation's and corporate restructurings). Katy practiced income tax law for many years with a large Toronto law firm, and therefore considers the income tax and probate tax implications of her clients' decisions. Please feel free to contact her directly at (905) 237-9299, or by email at katy@basilaw.com. More articles by Katy can be found at her website, basilaw.com.

The above blog post is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice or an opinion of any kind. Readers are advised to seek specific legal advice regarding any specific legal issues and for their specific province.

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

Estate Planning for Disabled Beneficiaries – Henson Trusts

I have received several requests to write about tax and estate planning for disabled individuals. Thus, this week I have enlisted the help of Katy Basi, my resident wills and estate planning contributor, to write about Henson  trusts, an estate planning opportunity for disabled beneficiaries. Next week Howard Kazdan, a tax specialist with BDO Canada LLP, will write about Registered Disability Savings Plans ("RDSP's").

As Henson trusts are complex, I appreciate Katy providing a detailed analysis of the important issues to be considered in whether or not to use such a trust. So without further ado, here is Katy.

Estate Planning for Disabled Beneficiaries - Henson Trusts

By Katy Basi

It is fairly common for a client to come to me and say "my child has a disability and I've been told I need a Henson trust in my will - whatever that is...." My usual answer is "maybe - let's discuss your situation" - typical lawyer-speak but true nonetheless!

What is a Henson Trust

A Henson trust is a trust created in a will, or by way of a free-standing trust deed, which is completely discretionary and has a disabled beneficiary who is not also a trustee of the trust. “Completely discretionary” means that the trustee will have all decision making power with respect to the timing and amount of all payments made out of the trust. The benefit of having a Henson trust is that the disabled beneficiary’s interest in the trust is not considered to be an asset for purposes of the rules surrounding disability benefits in Ontario and in some other provinces (the “asset test”, in particular, limits the value of assets a recipient of disability benefits may own – further discussed below).

The term “Henson trust”, while common, does not have legal meaning in and of itself, but is generally taken to mean a trust having the attributes set out in the above paragraph. These trusts are called “Henson trusts” due to a court case in Ontario involving a father (last name being Henson) who established a trust of this nature for his disabled daughter. Her right to claim disability benefits was challenged (the government’s position was that her beneficial interest in the trust was a valuable enough asset to disqualify her). The Hensons won the case, based on their position that the beneficial interest in the trust did not have any value due to the discretionary nature of the trust. As the trustee could choose not to pay any of the trust funds to or for the benefit of the daughter, the beneficial interest was held not to have value for purposes of the disability benefit rules.

Planning Using a Henson Trust

In order to ascertain whether a Henson trust is appropriate planning for a client, I will usually ask about the nature of the disability, as this may impact:

• the child's ability to eventually make capacitated financial and or health care decisions for him or herself,
• their prospects of getting married and having children,
• their life expectancy,
• their ability to be financially independent,
• their care requirements at various life stages, and
• other factors that are relevant to their parent’s estate plan.

I will ensure that my client has investigated whether the disability tax credit (“DTC”) is available in relation to their child. We then discuss whether the child is likely to start claiming provincial disability benefits when they attain age 18, as the value placed on the availability of disability benefits varies greatly from parent to parent and affects whether Henson trust planning is appropriate.

Some disabled beneficiaries have good employment prospects, now or in the future, in which case disability benefits are really not relevant. When a disability does not affect the financial acumen of a beneficiary, and they are a relatively high functioning adult, the beneficiary may even receive an outright inheritance (i.e. not in any form of a trust, Henson or otherwise).

Some parents have a large estate, and want their child to have more access to their inheritance than would be permitted by Henson trust planning. These clients find the rules surrounding disability benefits very limiting and essentially assume that their child will not apply for benefits, which in turn makes other estate planning options available.

If disability benefits are important, then we discuss whether the child should inherit by way of a Henson trust set out in the parent’s will. Unfortunately, inheritances received in any way other than a Henson trust usually result in the recipient being cut off from disability benefits (for having access to assets valued at greater than $5,000 (the “asset test”)).

A Henson trust is, by necessity, limiting. As noted above, in order to have the Henson trust assets excluded from the asset test, the Henson trust must be drafted as a fully discretionary trust and the beneficiary cannot be the trustee. Essentially, the beneficiary cannot have the right to demand trust assets at any time, but must rely on the good judgment of the trustee. I have had a few clients decide against Henson trust planning for this reason alone.

When a Henson trust is a good choice, the selection of the trustee, and alternate trustees, is very important given their broad powers. The trustee has the fairly onerous task of managing the trust funds to optimize the quality of life of the disabled beneficiary, without cutting them off from disability benefits – like walking on a tightrope, with significantly more reading and longer telephone calls to the government.

Also, a beneficiary in addition to the disabled beneficiary is usually named in the Henson trust in the event that the trust lasts longer than 21 years. (After 21 years, all trust income must be distributed by an Ontario trust to or for the benefit of a beneficiary. Without an alternate beneficiary, this rule could force a trustee to allocate income to a disabled beneficiary, and disability benefits could potentially be lost.) Sometimes the alternate beneficiary is a charity, and sometimes a family member such as a sibling.

When, as commonly happens, a sibling is both the trustee and alternate beneficiary, there can be a conflict of interest, and the parent needs to be very sure that the sibling will “do the right thing” and not profit personally from the Henson trust unless absolutely necessary. In addition, Henson trusts are often drafted to last for the lifetime of the disabled beneficiary unless the trustee decides to wind up the trust early. (In the latter case, common planning is to require the trust funds to be paid to the disabled beneficiary, which may, or may not, be appropriate under the circumstances.)

Upon the death of the disabled beneficiary, there is often a distribution of remaining Henson trust funds to the siblings of the beneficiary. If a sibling is also the trustee, we can have a conflict of interest, as minimizing distributions for the benefit of the disabled beneficiary during their lifetime maximizes the funds potentially received by the sibling/trustee upon the death of the beneficiary. Obviously, the trustee must be a very trustworthy, morally upstanding sibling!

We also generally ensure that the Henson trust terms specifically permit the trustee to make contributions to a Registered Disability Savings Plan (“RDSP”) set up for the disabled beneficiary in order to optimize the payment of government grants and bonds. We usually advise that the trustee exercise some caution here, as any funds left in the RDSP upon the death of the disabled beneficiary flow in accordance with the disabled beneficiary’s will (or the law of intestacy if there is no will). This may, or may not, be the result desired by my client…

Finally, as of 2016 it will be helpful, from an income tax perspective, if a Henson trust meets the “qualified disability trust” (“QDT”) definition. QDTs are one of the few remaining trusts able to access the graduated rates of tax on income. (All trusts other than QDTs and graduated rate estates pay tax at the highest rate). For a Henson trust to qualify as a QDT, the disabled beneficiary must receive the DTC and elect with the trustee that the Henson trust is their one and only QDT. One issue (yet to be resolved) is that a recovery tax is applicable if anyone other than the disabled beneficiary receives capital from the trust. As noted above, this can easily happen upon the death of the disabled beneficiary. Another issue is that many disabled beneficiaries are not sufficiently mentally capacitated to sign the QDT election form for themselves, and have no court-appointed guardian to sign the election form for them. (Contrary to common belief, parents are not automatically the guardians of an incapacitated adult beneficiary, at law). To ensure QDT status, it may be necessary to apply to the court for a formal appointment of a guardian for the incapacitated beneficiary – which is, of course, costly and time consuming.

The good news is that careful estate planning can ensure that disabled beneficiaries are well cared for their entire lives, even after their parents are deceased, giving peace of mind to the entire family.

Please note that as I am licensed to practice law in Ontario only, this post is based on Ontario law. If you live outside of Ontario, it is strongly recommended that you consult with an estates lawyer licensed to practice in your province – the member directory of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (“STEP”) at step.org is a good place to begin.

Katy has written numerous popular estate planning posts for this blog over the years including Estate Planning for Blended Families, Qualifying Spousal Trusts - What are They and Why do we Care? and a three part series on new will provisions for the 21st century dealing with your digital life, RESPs and reproductive assets, the family cottage and a very well received post titled, An Estate Fairy Tale.

Katy Basi is a barrister and solicitor with her own practice, focusing on wills, trusts, estates and income tax law (including incorporations and corporate restructurings). Katy practiced income tax law for many years with a large Toronto law firm, and therefore considers the income tax and probate tax implications of her clients' decisions. Please feel free to contact her directly at (905) 237-9299, or by email at katy@basilaw.com. More articles by Katy can be found at her website, basilaw.com. 

The above blog post is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice or an opinion of any kind. Readers are advised to seek specific legal advice regarding any specific legal issues.

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

Estate Planning and the Black Sheep Child

In November, Adam Mayers of The Toronto Star reviewed my book, Let’s Get Blunt About Your Financial Affairs. In his article, he discussed some of the comments I made in my book on inheritances.

123 REF-Tomas Marek

My observations elicited some very interesting emails to my inbox. Some of the emails provided tragic and sad details of children being left out of their parents' lives and consequently their wills for various reasons. One reader, who is gay, asked me if he could be left out of a will solely for that reason.

This question is far outside my area of expertise. I thus enlisted my wills, trusts and estates expert Katy Basi, to answer his question and discuss in general, the consequences from both the parents and child's perspective, of leaving a black sheep child out of the will.

Please note: Katy and I use the term "black sheep" colloquially and the term is not meant to be demeaning in any manner.

Estate Planning and the Black Sheep Child

By Katy Basi

Many families have one (or more) black sheep children, and estates lawyers commonly deal with two categories of questions regarding these shunned family members. In this blog post I will refer to our sample unfortunate as Cain (though most black sheep are not guilty of fratricide!). The two situations are as follows:

1. If the client is not Cain - can I cut Cain out of my will? If I do, will he be able to challenge my will? 
2. If the client is Cain – can my family members cut me out of their wills?

The Parent is the Client

If you plan to cut Cain out of your estate plan, I typically have three pieces of advice for my clients:

(1) Explain in the will why Cain is being treated differently than other family members of the same degree of family connection. For example, if a child is being cut out of a will because they have chosen not to have contact with their parents for two decades, the will should state that very relevant fact. Otherwise, Cain could argue that the lawyer made a drafting error by leaving him out, or this omission could be used as evidence of the parents’ lack of capacity to make the will(s) in question (i.e. the argument then goes “Clearly the fact that they “forgot about me” indicates that they had lost their marbles!”).

(2) Consider leaving a set dollar value legacy to Cain, and then having a clause that takes the legacy away if Cain challenges the will for a reason other than a valid interpretation issue. This is known as an “in terrorem” clause and needs to be very carefully drafted by an estates lawyer in order to be legally effective.

(3) Arrange for a capacity assessor to interview the testator before the will is signed (though not too far in advance of signing). The capacity assessor should then write a letter or report of some kind confirming that the testator has the capacity to make the will in question (presuming that this is the case, of course). This is particularly helpful if the testator is elderly or ill, or if there are any other factors which could lend strength to a “lack of capacity” argument by a disappointed beneficiary. I have seen a capacity assessment stop estate litigation in its tracks.

Cain is the Client

When I am advising Cain, my first piece of advice is to consult an estates litigator (I am an estates solicitor, and therefore a major part of my job, in my view, is to help clients plan their estates in such a way as to discourage litigation). After that disclaimer, my counsel generally flows along these lines:

(a) We are lucky (in my view) to have testamentary freedom in Ontario, subject to certain limitations (other provinces such as British Columbia have enacted laws limiting testamentary freedom to some extent).

(b) One exception to testamentary freedom is the ability of certain family members (e.g. minor and adult children, parents and siblings) to make a support claim against the estate. For example, if Cain is an adult child who was financially supported by his parents, and was not left a sufficient inheritance by them (as determined by a court) Cain may make a support claim against the estate. Support can include providing accommodation at lower than fair market value rent.

(c) Where no financial support has been provided, Cain’s usual recourse is to try to have the will that cuts him/her out declared invalid, usually on the basis of a lack of testamentary capacity (as alluded to above) or undue influence (e.g. “my sister pressured my mom into cutting me out of her will”).

(d) Either of these claims will require solid evidence to be successful in court.

(e) A successful will challenge is not helpful if the prior will also cuts out the challenger, presuming that the prior will is valid.

(f) While in the old days most of the costs associated with estate litigation were borne by the estate in question, the courts have shifted their approach in recent years. These days, courts do not hesitate to order an unsuccessful will challenger to pay, not only their own costs, but also the costs of the estate relating to the challenge. Litigation is very, very expensive and time-consuming, so launching a will challenge due to feeling left out, without a good evidentiary case, is just not a good idea.

(g) However, if the will challenger has been cut out of the will for a reason that is against public policy, then litigation may be successful even if the testator had capacity and was not unduly influenced. If Cain can prove in court that he/she was cut out of an estate plan due to discrimination on a basis not permitted under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for example due to their sexuality, or because they married outside of his/her race/religion etc., then Cain may have a valid claim. The evidentiary mountain here can be steep to climb, but in a recent case the claimant was successful in overturning her father’s will on the basis that her father had cut her out as she had a mixed-race child. She was successful despite the fact that there was no reference to this discrimination under the terms of the will. There was, however, substantial external evidence as to the discriminatory reason behind her father’s estate plan.[Note: Just prior to the publication of this blog post, the decision of the lower court was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal, reinstating the father's original estate plan. It would be very helpful to have guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding this issue if the daughter decides to ask for leave to appeal].

My discussions with clients about cutting out, or being, the black sheep tend to be fraught with sadness, anger and frustration. My experience is that clients do not cut out a black sheep lightly, and in many cases would usually be overjoyed to reconcile, knowing that there will need to be apologies and compromise on both sides. By the time I am counselling a black sheep about being cut out, it’s clear that no amount of litigation will heal the hurt feelings.

Bloggers Note: Katy has written numerous guest posts for this blog. Many of her articles have proven to be very popular with readers. If you want to read more from Katy, the best way to review her previous blog posts is: go to the search function on the top right hand side of the blog and type in her name.

Katy Basi is a barrister and solicitor with her own practice, focusing on wills, trusts, estates, and income tax law (including incorporation's and corporate restructurings). Katy practiced income tax law for many years with a large Toronto law firm, and therefore considers the income tax and probate tax implications of her clients' decisions. Please feel free to contact her directly at (905) 237-9299, or by email at katy@basilaw.com. More articles by Katy can be found at her website, basilaw.com.

The above blog post is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice or an opinion of any kind. Readers are advised to seek specific legal advice regarding any specific legal issues.

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

Blended Families are Twice the Estate Planning Fun…What, No Marriage Contract?

Blended families add complexity to any estate plan. Last week, my special guest contributor, Katy Basi, addressed situations in which married spouses entered into a valid marriage contracts with each other, thus waiving all potential claims against each others estates. Today Katy discusses what happens when there is no such contract is in place.

Blended Families are Twice the Estate Planning Fun…What, No Marriage Contract?
By Katy Basi

 

Upon the death of a spouse, the surviving spouse has the right to inherit from the deceased at least the amount that the surviving spouse would have received as a “property equalization payment” if the spouses had separated or divorced (assuming that no marriage contract is in place waiving this right). The calculation of this amount can become fairly complex, and there are a number of rules to be followed. In addition, only married spouses have the right to make this equalization claim – common law spouses are left out in the cold.

You may remember married spouses Kurt and Brigit from my blog post last Monday. In order to meet his contractual obligations under his separation agreement with his ex-wife Amber, Kurt has acquired a $500,000 term life insurance policy on his own life and has made Amber the beneficiary of the policy. Upon Kurt’s death, Amber will receive the $500,000 life insurance proceeds. As life insurance proceeds are “excluded property”, this amount would not be included in the calculation of any equalization claim made by Brigit against Kurt’s estate. Therefore, life insurance is a fairly safe way to provide for a beneficiary like Amber. Kurt should also, of course, ensure that the remainder of his estate is large enough to provide for Brigit and their children.

John and Olivia’s situation is far more complex. Olivia has minor children with John and a minor child from her first marriage. She is legally obligated to support all of these children.

Let’s assume that Olivia wants to leave her estate to her children in equal shares, in trust as they are minors. John does not inherit any part of Olivia’s estate, but he is named as the trustee of the funds held in trust for their children, and Olivia’s sister is named as the trustee of the funds held in trust for Olivia’s child from her first marriage. Olivia figures that John is self-supporting, and that he will benefit financially from having his support obligations for their children reduced by the funds he holds in trust for them under the provisions of her will.

In this case, John would have the right to make an equalization claim against Olivia’s estate. The calculation of the amount of the claim requires a fair amount of investigation and information. Depending on the facts, the amount of the claim can be as high as half of the value of the Olivia’s estate (in the unusual case where John owns no property and none of Olivia’s property is “excluded property” (e.g. certain gifts and inheritances)). Similarly, if John wants to leave his entire estate to his children, Olivia may have the right to make an equalization claim against John’s estate.

Equalization claims are costly, create uncertainty, and delay the administration of an estate. Therefore, in this scenario an estates solicitor would normally recommend that a client leave a carefully considered inheritance to their spouse. The amount of the inheritance should be calculated to ensure that the spouse would likely not receive more if they made an equalization claim against the estate. This amount is a constantly moving target, as asset values are always changing, so the estate plan should be reviewed on a regular basis.

In my practice, I have had a few clients who have wanted to cut out the spouse and leave their entire estate to their children. After explaining the potential for an equalization claim to be made by the disinherited spouse, a common client response is “oh, he/she would never do that….” I then point out that, while that may currently be the case:

1) the disinherited spouse may feel very differently once my client is deceased, or

2) the disinherited spouse’s new partner may encourage the claim to be made, or

3) if the disinherited spouse is mentally incapable of making financial decisions when my client dies, the attorney for property of the disinherited spouse may feel legally obligated to make the equalization claim, as part of the attorney’s obligation to act in the best interests of the disinherited spouse.

Finally, while it is common for spouses to see an estates lawyer together to make their estate plans (known in the law biz as a “joint retainer”), this arrangement does not always work well in blended family situations. In a joint estate planning retainer we have a “triangle of confidentiality” (the three points of the triangle being the two spouses and the lawyer). While no one outside of the triangle has the right to hear about any information or decisions, there are no secrets within the triangle. If one spouse wants the lawyer to keep something secret from the other spouse, the lawyer cannot comply with that request. Therefore, it is fairly common in blended family scenarios that each spouse retains their own estates lawyer to advise them and to draft their will and powers of attorney. While two lawyers are clearly more expensive than one, the higher level of confidentiality and privacy and the benefits of having a lawyer completely “on your side” are often worth the extra fees.

If you enjoyed this post by Katy, just type her name in the "Search This Blog" box on the right side under the Hire The Blunt Bean Counter badge and you will find numerous excellent blog posts she has contributed on wills and estates.

Katy Basi is a barrister and solicitor with her own practice, focusing on wills, trusts, estates, and income tax law (including incorporations and corporate restructurings). Katy practiced income tax law for many years with a large Toronto law firm, and therefore considers the income tax and probate tax implications of her clients' decisions. Please feel free to contact her directly at (905) 237-9299, or by email at katy@basilaw.com. More articles by Katy can be found at her website, basilaw.com.

The above blog post is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice or an opinion of any kind. Readers are advised to seek specific legal advice regarding any specific legal issues.

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation.

Blended Families are Twice the Estate Planning Fun…Even with a Marriage Contract

I have received numerous requests to write about estate planning for blended families. I thus asked Katy Basi, my resident wills and estate planning contributor, to write about this topic. Katy has graciously provided a two part post on estate planning for blended families. Today she writes about situations where there are marriage contracts in place and next week she discusses the issues that arise when you do not have a marriage contract. So without further ado, here is Katy!

Blended Families are Twice the Estate Planning Fun…Even with a Marriage Contract 

By Katy Basi

 

In any list of situations that create complexity in an estate plan, “blended families” are near the top. Given the number of potential issues involved, this post will address situations in which the currently married spouses have entered into a valid marriage contract with each other waiving all potential claims against each other's estates. My blog post next Monday will address cases in which no such contract is in place.

Note: All discussion is based on Ontario law – the relevant law in other provinces may be different.

Even in the simplest blended family situation, where there are no children from past marriages or common law relationships, the provisions of any contracts or court decrees relating to the prior relationships must be taken into account in creating the estate plan for the current spouses. Let’s take the example of married spouses Kurt and Brigit. This marriage is the first for Brigit, but Kurt was previously married to and divorced from Amber, and has ongoing support obligations to her due to Amber’s inability to work.

There are no children from Kurt’s first marriage. Kurt and Brigit want to leave their entire estates to each other, failing which to their children. However, Kurt has forgotten about the provision of his separation agreement with Amber requiring him to maintain a $500,000 term life insurance policy for her benefit. He used to have such a policy in place, but inadvertently let it lapse a number of years ago.

Kurt’s estates lawyer advises him that unless he reinstates the policy, Amber will have a $500,000 claim against his estate. This claim would greatly reduce his current family’s inheritance and lead to additional complexity, delay and cost in the administration of his estate. Kurt therefore puts an insurance policy in place for Amber’s benefit as soon as possible.

Now let’s take the example of John and Olivia, both of whom have children from their first marriages. John’s children from his first marriage are self-supporting adults who have finished their post-secondary education. Olivia’s child from her first marriage is still a minor, and she is required by her separation agreement to pay child support. This support obligation lasts until the child is 18 years of age, or, if the child is still in school, until the child attains age 25. John and Olivia also have two minor children together.

As John and Olivia have a marriage contract, each is free to create an estate plan without worrying about a claim by the other against their estate (it is also assumed that each of John and Olivia is self-supporting, and therefore would not be able to make a claim for spousal support against the estate of the other).

Olivia is therefore free to split her estate among her minor children from both marriages, if she so desires. She is under a legal obligation to provide for her child from her first marriage, as that child is a dependent of hers and could otherwise make a “dependent’s relief” claim against her estate through a litigation guardian.

John is under no such obligation with respect to his adult children, as they are not financially dependent on him. However, John may wish to leave part of his estate to his adult children, and he is free to do so as long as his estate plan provides for his minor children from his current marriage.

My next blog post will address these scenarios where there is no marriage contract. If we think of these testators as having a number of estate planning balls to juggle, failing to have a marriage contract adds a flaming torch into the mix!

Blunt Bean Counter Note: As per this post on recent changes in legislation in relation to the taxation of trusts, the new legislation can impact on estate planning for blended families. Thus, you may wish to confirm with your estate lawyer, that your will does not need to be amended in light of these tax changes.

If you enjoyed this post by Katy, you may wish to check out some of her prior guest posts such as: Qualifying Spousal Trusts - What are They and Why do we Care? and a three part series on new will provisions for the 21st century dealing with your digital life, RESPs and reproductive assets. She has also posted on the family cottage and wrote a very well received post titled, An Estate Fairy Tale.

Katy Basi is a barrister and solicitor with her own practice, focusing on wills, trusts, estates and income tax law (including incorporations and corporate restructurings). Katy practiced income tax law for many years with a large Toronto law firm, and therefore considers the income tax and probate tax implications of her clients' decisions. Please feel free to contact her directly at (905) 237-9299, or by email at katy@basilaw.com. More articles by Katy can be found at her website, basilaw.com. 

The above blog post is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice or an opinion of any kind. Readers are advised to seek specific legal advice regarding any specific legal issues.

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation.