Probate fees: These two ways to avoid it also bring pitfalls

Finances are the last item on people’s minds when a loved one dies. Between grieving for the loss of a family member and caring for other members of the family, people worry more about feelings than finances.

Eventually family finances do kick in, primarily in the form of the deceased’s wishes for their assets. Taxes play a large role in the estate, but less known are the probate fees assessed by the courts as part of the estate probate.

This week Jeffrey Smith explains what probate fees are and why two strategies to avoid them are more complicated than they first appear. Jeff is a Manager in BDO’s Wealth Advisory Services practice, based in Kelowna, BC.

_________________

By Jeffrey Smith

Probate fees are the estate administration fee charged by the courts to administer probate—which is the process to confirm that the will of the deceased is valid. If a will isn’t validated by the courts, third-party interests on assets such as banks or land titles will not transfer ownership to the estate. Any assets that transfer through the will to the deceased’s estate will be probated. If the will is not probated, there will be little success with transferring assets of the deceased to the beneficiaries of the estate, such as bank accounts, real estate, and investments.

Each province assesses its own probate rates. When looking at provinces where probate is more expensive, B.C., Ontario and Nova Scotia have rates ranging from 1.4% to 1.65% on estate assets exceeding a minimum - $50,000 in B.C. and Ontario, and $100,000 in Nova Scotia.

Let’s look at B.C. as an example. Someone with an estate worth $2 million would be subject to probate totaling $27,450: no fee for the first $25,000, then $150 for the next $25,000, followed by $1400 per additional $100,000.

As probate fees are significant, people try to plan appropriately to reduce it where possible. They or their estate may be subject to significant taxes on their death, before paying probate fees. However, some of these strategies create additional challenges.

Let’s examine a couple of the strategies used to avoid probate fees and the pitfalls that sometimes arise as a result. As you learn about these strategies, consider whether the benefits outweigh the costs for your estate.

Making a child joint owner of your home

People often wonder whether they should add their child to the title of their home. The thought is to allow the home to pass directly to the child, and not form part of the estate for probate. With properties in Canada having potentially very significant value, it becomes an appealing option to save on probate. However, there are potential disadvantages of making your child a joint owner of your home:

• May allow your child to borrow against or use the equity in the home as collateral for a loan without your consent
• Opens the value of the home to creditors of your children
• May form part of family property for division if your child goes through a separation
• Could potentially lose principal residence exemption on the portion of your home if your child owns a home themselves. This would create a future taxable event for your child, or even a loss of the exemption for the parents if the child wants to claim another home as a principal residence.
  

A possible alternative to transferring part of your home to a child is to place your home in a trust. This is complicated and should be discussed with your tax and legal advisors, but where structured correctly, the trust ownership may avoid probate on the home entirely. Alter ego and joint partner trusts will typically work to prevent probate fees and allow for the principal residence exemption. Again, this is complex and should be reviewed with your professionals in light of your provincial rules as it may not work in each province. 

Naming direct beneficiaries of your RRSPs or RRIFs

By naming direct beneficiaries of your registered accounts, you allow the value to bypass your will and avoid probate.

While naming a direct beneficiary avoids probate fees, the estate is still subject to tax (unless you have named your spouse as the beneficiary of your RRSP/RRIF, in which case, the transfer should be tax-free). The full value of your RRSP or RRIF at the time of death is taxable on the deceased’s terminal return. For example, if the RRIF had $500,000 of value and assuming that it is taxed at BC’s highest rate of 53.50%, there would be $267,500 of personal taxes due on the terminal return.

This presents two challenges. For one, if the estate had no other liquid investments or cash and taxes are payable, the executor of the will may struggle to come up with the cash. The beneficiaries of the RRSP or RRIF have the cash and the estate owes the tax owing on the RRSP or RRIF ($267,500 using the above example). If the beneficiaries do not want to fund the tax liability related to the RRSP or RRIF, it becomes an estate issue - i.e., the estate has the $267,500 tax obligation and the beneficiaries get the RRSP or RRIF value tax-free, an unfair result.  

Bloggers Note: There was a recent case in Ontario where the judge found a beneficiary son was not the RRIFs ultimate beneficiary (as there was not sufficient evidence to prove the father’s intention) and the court held the son was holding the RRIF in trust for the deceased’s estate. Legal advice should be sought regarding how this decision applies.

Secondly, if dealing with a large estate and testamentary trust planning is being used, any funds that flow outside of the estate, in this case the RRSP or RRIF account, would not be included in the testamentary trust. This could reduce the overall benefits of will planning that was previously completed.

When looking at implementing a probate savings strategy, it is important to discuss your goals, family situation, tax planning and net worth details with your financial advisor and tax and legal professionals. In doing so, you can weigh the benefits and costs for each specific asset type and make proper decisions in your estate planning, so that your probate planning decisions are not made in isolation. 

Jeffrey Smith, CPA, CA, CFP, CLU - is a Manager in BDO's Wealth Advisory Services practice. He can be reached at 250-763-6700 or by email at jrsmith@bdo.ca.

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.

The Best of The Blunt Bean Counter - Probate Fee Planning- Income Tax, Estate & Legal Issues to Consider

This summer I am posting the "best of" The Blunt Bean Counter blog while I work on my golf game. Today, I am re-posting a June, 2011 blog post on Probate Planning that has had over 27,000 page views, making it one of my most popular.

It has been my experience, that many people are so concerned with minimizing their probate fees, that they often inadvertently create substantial income tax and/or legal issues that dwarf the benefits from the probate savings. So be careful and obtain professional advice when undertaking probate planning.

Probate Fee Planning - Income Tax, Estate & Legal Issues to Consider

Planning to reduce or eliminate probate taxes requires one to navigate a minefield of income tax rules, joint tenancy and right of survivorship issues and legal precedents. Questions of legal versus beneficial ownership of property and evidence of intention often come into play. The scary thing is, that this type of planning is often done by the uninformed.

When I started writing this post months ago, my objective was to provide probate planning techniques. However, as I wrote and researched, I realized the legal concepts were extremely complex and beyond my area of expertise. Consequently, this blog post became more conceptual in nature than initially planned. After reading this blog, I hope it becomes clear to you that you need to consult a tax or estate lawyer when undertaking any significant probate planning.

Probate Fees in Ontario

In Ontario, probate fees (technically called the “estate administration tax”) are levied on a deceased taxpayer’s estate at the rate of $250 on the first $50,000 of assets and $15 per $1,000 thereafter. Consequently, if a person were to die with assets of $1,000,000, the estate would have a probate fee liability of $14,500. An estate of $5,000,000 would have a probate fee liability of $74,500. For the other provinces, see this summary.

Two of the more common strategies to minimize probate fees are making gifts and transferring assets to joint tenancy. While these techniques may reduce or eliminate probate fees, they can create significant income tax and estate issues if not done properly.

Gifts to children and your spouse

If cash gifts are made during a person’s lifetime, they will reduce the value of his or her estate for probate purposes. If the gift is made to a child under 18 years of age, the income earned on the gifted property (i.e.: interest and dividends) will be attributed back to the person making the gift for income tax purposes. Where a cash gift is made to a spouse, the income earned on these assets (i.e.: interest and dividends as well as capital gains and losses) is attributed back to the person making the gift for income tax purposes. Cash gifts made to children who have attained the age of 18 do not invoke the income attribution rules in the Income Tax Act. So, you can make a gift to an 18 year old child which will reduce probate fees and not create any income tax problems.

Where non-cash gifts of capital property (such as gold or stocks) are made to a person other than your spouse, the property is deemed to be sold at its fair market value for income tax purposes. Thus, if a mother were to gift 1,000 shares of BCE having a total cost of $10,000 and fair market value of $30,000 to her 20 year old son, she would realize a capital gain for income tax purposes of $20,000, even though the shares were not sold and no money was received.

In an effort to avoid probate fees, some families seek to “add” the names of children to the title of a surviving parent’s home. This is done by transferring the title to the house from the surviving parent (“original owner”) to the children and surviving parent, as joint tenants (the “new owners”). Upon the transfer, the original owner/parent is treated for income tax purposes as having sold a portion of the transferred house based on the number of new owners. For example, if the new owners were parent and two children, each new owner will be treated as owning a one third interest. This means the original owner/parent in this example will be considered to have disposed of a 2/3 interest in the house. The 2/3 sale would be tax-free due to the principal residence exemption. However, 2/3 of any increase in value from the date of the gift until the house is ultimately sold will not be eligible for the principal residence exemption (assuming that the children have their own principal residences). If you are into horror stories, check out Jim Yih's blog for a nightmare of a story of a parent that put a child on title to her principal residence.

Situations such as the above may be avoided in certain circumstances where a lawyer knowledgeable in tax and/or estate law separates legal from beneficial ownership before the transfer. The Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) has stated that where there is a change in legal ownership without a corresponding change in the beneficial ownership (the real value is in beneficial ownership), there is not a disposition of the asset for tax purposes. What could be accomplished in the above scenario is a transfer of legal title only, without changing beneficial ownership. This would have no income tax implications but would assist in dealing with probate issues.

A further problem with transfers to joint tenancy (such as the home above) arises because with a joint tenancy, the entire title will pass to the last person alive which often is not the intent of the parent. For example, if a bank account belonging to Mom is transferred into a new account in the names of Mom, Son and Daughter, as joint tenants with right of survivorship, and Mom and Son die together, Daughter would become the “owner” of the entire account. This was not likely the intent of Mom, who likely wanted the split the account between her two children (or her grandchildren if one of her children passed away) – if not for trying to save probate fees, Mom would have never done this.

Joint Tenancy can be problematic-The Pecore Case

If property is held as joint tenants with a right of survivorship, on its face, the property will pass automatically to the surviving joint owner and is therefore not subject to probate fees. I have seen many cases where parents put their adult children’s names on bank accounts and investment portfolio accounts. The parents consider these accounts to now be exempt from probate, yet the parent continues to report the income earned on these investments in their own name for income tax purposes. As noted above, it is the CRA’s view that if beneficial ownership has not changed there is no disposition for income tax purposes, which is in accordance with the parents plan above. However, in the CRA's opinion, the probate transfer will not be effective, thwarting the parents plan above (Note: I have had various estate lawyers tell me that are not concerned with CRA's view on probate, since they do not administer this legislation).

Many parents fail to look past the probate issue and their intention in regard to the funds is unclear, i.e., is it the parent’s intention that the funds held jointly with one child belong to that child or do they belong to all their children and there is an understanding that the child on the account will share with their siblings?

This issue was addressed in Pecore v Pecore , a 2007 Supreme Court case where the court addressed these two potentially conflicting intentions. Legally, these two intentions are known as the presumption of a resulting trust and the presumption of advancement. The presumption of resulting trust means that when a parent dies, the transferred assets form part of their estate and will be passed on to the beneficiaries of the will, typically all their children. The presumption of advancement presumes any transfer to a specific child belongs to that child. The potential for conflict is rife where a parent transfers assets into joint tenancy with one child for ease of administration.

In the Pecore decision, the Supreme Court stated that where assets are transferred without consideration (such as to a child to avoid probate) that the presumption of resulting trust will operate in almost all cases save transfers from a parent to a minor child. This means that where a parent transfers assets into a joint account with one child, there must be evidence of the intention to make a gift to that specific child. As I am not a lawyer, I cannot state what counts as irrefutable evidence, but from what I have read, a written document is a minimum requirement.

A good summation of the various legal concepts discussed above is found here in this article by lawyer James Baird.

If done correctly and carefully, gifting, creating joint tenancy arrangements and separating legal from beneficial ownership can result in the reduction or elimination of probate fees. However, as discussed above, probate planning can lead to unintended income tax and estate implications. It is thus essential that you engage a lawyer who is comfortable in dealing with these issues, most likely a tax or estate lawyer when undertaking any significant probate planning.

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.

The Two Certainties in Life: Death and Taxes

We have all heard the famous quote “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”. Did you know the person who uttered this profound statement was none other than Benjamin Franklin?

This blog post and the two follow-up posts, will share with you the income tax consequences of Benjamin's second certainty, the always popular subject of dying.

Deemed Disposition

Ignoring the fact that the U.S. Income Tax Code in the 1700's may have been slightly different than today, Franklin's view on death and taxes was that of an American. This distinction is very important. The U.S. tax system taxes you on the value of your estate upon death, while Canada deems you to have disposed of your property at death, at its fair market value, which triggers income tax on any unrealized capital gains (paper gains).

I will explain this “deemed disposition” in greater detail later on, but simply put, if you own shares in say Bell Canada that are worth $40 upon your death, that you purchased for $15, you/your estate are deemed to have a $25 ($40-$15) capital gain per share, if your assets are not left to your spouse.

Probate Fees

Depending upon the province in which you live, you may also be subject to probate fees (Estate Administration tax in Ontario) on the value of your estate at death. However, notwithstanding people plan around probate fees, often to their detriment; these fees/taxes are typically fairly immaterial to an estate in Canada (1.5% versus 40% Estate tax in the U.S. or higher, depending upon the state and size of your estate). Here is a summary of the probate fees for each province. For purposes of this blog, and the two follow-up blog posts I have written, I am just going to focus on the “deemed disposition” upon death and ignore probate fees.

Personal vs Corporate

 

It has been my experience that most people are not clear about how the income tax system works upon their death. In particular, shareholders of private corporations are often surprised when I inform them that any increase in value of the shares of their private corporate shareholdings are subject to income tax upon their death (they often think the yearly corporate tax they pay has covered this liability). This does not even account for the fact that without proper tax planning, there could be double taxation in respect of their corporate shareholdings.

In order to deal with the distinction between the personal and corporate income tax consequences, I have made this topic a three-part blog series. Next week, I will deal with the personal income tax consequences of you dying, and the following week, I will discuss the income tax consequences of dying when you own shares in a private corporation.

Just Die First

 

You can avoid all these messy income tax complexities upon death by just dying first☺ if you are married or in a common-law relationship. This is because if you leave your property to your spouse or common-law spouse, the property passes to them at the adjusted cost base of the property and the capital gain is deferred until the surviving spouse or common-law partner dies, or they sell the property during their lifetime.

Consequently, the deemed disposition rules typically only apply in the following three situations:

(1) Your estate elects out of the automatic transfer to your spouse (this can be done on a property by property basis).

(2) You are the last to die spouse.

(3) You leave your property to your children or other beneficiary, instead of your spouse.

Next week, I will discuss in greater detail, the personal income tax consequences of passing away. 

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.

Ontario Probate- You may want to plan to Die in 2012

I have discussed probate fees, now known in Ontario as the Estate Administration Tax (“EAT”) in several blogs. Probate Fee Planning is now a cottage industry in Canada, as Canadians strive to minimize this provincially mandated tax.

The EAT (what an appropriate acronym) is paid on the value of a deceased person’s estate when their executor(s) apply for a certificate of appointment of estate trustee (better known as “letters of probate”). Anyone who has had the unfortunate experience of being an executor can attest that without these letters of probate, you have no authority and the various financial institutions will not even to talk to you.

In Ontario, upon applying for the certificate of appointment, the executor must provide a list of the deceased’s assets and their fair market value and pay the EAT on those assets. In Ontario these fees are $250 on the first $50,000 and $15 per $1,000 of assets thereafter. Thus, the EAT on $100,000 would be $1,000 and on an estate of $1,000,000, the fees would be $14,500 . 

Although executors spend hours upon hours compiling the list of assets for the application to get the certificate, the Ontario government often accepts the tax paid without question and often does not follow up or audit the list and valuation of the deceased’s assets.

I recently attended the Ontario Tax Conference where there was some discussion about changes to the EAT legislation. These changes are summed up in this newsletter published by the law firm Cassels Brock titled “Taxed to Death: Heightened Audit for Ontario Estate Administration Tax”.  In this newsletter, the authors Ambie K. Edgar-Chana and Lindsay Ann Histrop discuss the audit and verification powers, as well as assessment powers, that the Ontario Ministry of Revenue will have beginning January 1, 2013. Ontario estate auditors will now have four years from the date the EAT is payable to assess or reassess the tax.

As a consequence of the increase in verification powers, the valuation of assets disclosed in the application will be subject to far greater scrutiny. Executor(s) will be required to assist the Ontario Ministry of Revenue and answer questions regarding the valuation of the estate’s assets. Executors will have to be extremely diligent in obtaining and documenting how they came to the valuation of assets reported on the application. In addition, beginning in 2013, executors will have to be extremely cautious in distributing assets before the end of the four year period, as they could be held liable for any additional probate taxes owing.

The heightened audit requirements in 2013 will likely result in increased liability for executors and will likely be a catalyst for even more probate planning to ensure the value of the estate is minimized for the EAT.

The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice; as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific. Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any of the information contained in one of the blogs.

Probate Fee Planning- Income Tax, Estate & Legal issues to consider

Planning to reduce or eliminate probate taxes requires one to navigate a minefield of income tax rules, joint tenancy and right of survivorship issues and legal precedents. Questions of legal versus beneficial ownership of property and evidence of intention often come into play. The scary thing is, that this type of planning is often done by the uninformed.

When I started writing this blog months ago, my objective was to provide probate planning techniques. However, as I wrote and researched, I realized the legal concepts were extremely complex and beyond my area of expertise. Consequently, this blog became more conceptual in nature than initially planned. After reading this blog, I hope it becomes clear to you that you need to consult a tax or estate lawyer when undertaking any significant probate planning.

Probate Fees in Ontario

In Ontario, probate fees (technically called the “estate administration tax”) are levied on a deceased taxpayer’s estate at the rate of $250 on the first $50,000 of assets and $15 per $1,000 thereafter. Consequently, if a person were to die with assets of $1,000,000, the estate would have a probate fee liability of $14,500. An estate of $5,000,000 would have a probate fee liability of $74,500. For the other provinces, see this summary.

Two of the more common strategies to minimize probate fees are making gifts and transferring assets to joint tenancy. While these techniques may reduce or eliminate probate fees, they can create significant income tax and estate issues if not done properly.

Gifts to children and your spouse

If cash gifts are made during a person’s lifetime, they will reduce the value of his or her estate for probate purposes. If the gift is made to a child under 18 years of age, the income earned on the gifted property (i.e.: interest and dividends) will be attributed back to the person making the gift for income tax purposes. Where a cash gift is made to a spouse, the income earned on these assets (i.e.: interest and dividends as well as capital gains and losses) is attributed back to the person making the gift for income tax purposes. Cash gifts made to children who have attained the age of 18 do not invoke the income attribution rules in the Income Tax Act. So, you can make a gift to an 18 year old child which will reduce probate fees and not create any income tax problems.

Where non-cash gifts of capital property (such as gold or stocks) are made to a person other than your spouse, the property is deemed to be sold at its fair market value for income tax purposes. Thus, if a mother were to gift 1,000 shares of BCE having a total cost of $10,000 and fair market value of $30,000 to her 20 year old son, she would realize a capital gain for income tax purposes of $20,000, even though the shares were not sold and no money was received.

In an effort to avoid probate fees, some families seek to “add” the names of children to the title of a surviving parent’s home. This is done by transferring the title to the house from the surviving parent (“original owner”) to the children and surviving parent, as joint tenants (the “new owners”). Upon the transfer, the original owner/parent is treated for income tax purposes as having sold a portion of the transferred house based on the number of new owners. For example, if the new owners were parent and two children, each new owner will be treated as owning a one third interest. This means the original owner/parent in this example will be considered to have disposed of a 2/3 interest in the house. The 2/3 sale would be tax-free due to the principal residence exemption. However, 2/3 of any increase in value from the date of the gift until the house is ultimately sold will not be eligible for the principal residence exemption (assuming that the children have their own principal residences). If you are into horror stories, check out Jim Yih's blog for a nightmare of a story of a parent that put a child on title to her principal residence.

Situations such as the above may be avoided in certain circumstances where a lawyer knowledgeable in tax and/or estate law separates legal from beneficial ownership before the transfer. The Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) has stated that where there is a change in legal ownership without a corresponding change in the beneficial ownership (the real value is in beneficial ownership), there is not a disposition of the asset for tax purposes. What could be accomplished in the above scenario is a transfer of legal title only, without changing beneficial ownership. This would have no income tax implications but would assist in dealing with probate issues.

A further problem with transfers to joint tenancy (such as the home above) arises because with a joint tenancy, the entire title will pass to the last person alive which often is not the intent of the parent. For example, if a bank account belonging to Mom is transferred into a new account in the names of Mom, Son and Daughter, as joint tenants with right of survivorship, and Mom and Son die together, Daughter would become the “owner” of the entire account. This was not likely the intent of Mom, who likely wanted the split the account between her two children (or her grandchildren if one of her children passed away) – if not for trying to save probate fees, Mom would have never done this.

Joint Tenancy can be problematic-The Pecore Case

If property is held as joint tenants with a right of survivorship, on its face, the property will pass automatically to the surviving joint owner and is therefore not subject to probate fees. I have seen many cases where parents put their adult children’s names on bank accounts and investment portfolio accounts. The parents consider these accounts to now be exempt from probate, yet the parent continues to report the income earned on these investments in their own name for income tax purposes. (As noted above, it is the CRA’s view that if beneficial ownership has not changed there is no disposition for income tax purposes, which is in accordance with the parents plan above, however, at least from the CRA's perspective, they have some issue with whether probate transfer is effective, which is not in accordance with the parents plan above). However, many parents fail to look past the probate issue and their intention in regard to the funds is unclear, i.e., is it the parent’s intention that the funds held jointly with one child belong to that child or do they belong to all their children and there is an understanding that the child on the account will share with their siblings?

This issue was addressed in Pecore v Pecore , a 2007 Supreme Court case where the court addressed these two potentially conflicting intentions. Legally, these two intentions are known as the presumption of a resulting trust and the presumption of advancement. The presumption of resulting trust means that when a parent dies, the transferred assets form part of their estate and will be passed on to the beneficiaries of the will, typically all their children. The presumption of advancement presumes any transfer to a specific child belongs to that child. The potential for conflict is rife where a parent transfers assets into joint tenancy with one child for ease of administration.

In the Pecore decision, the Supreme Court stated that where assets are transferred without consideration (such as to a child to avoid probate) that the presumption of resulting trust will operate in almost all cases save transfers from a parent to a minor child. This means that where a parent transfers assets into a joint account with one child, there must be evidence of the intention to make a gift to that specific child. As I am not a lawyer, I cannot state what counts as irrefutable evidence, but from what I have read, a written document is a minimum requirement.

The best summation of the various legal concepts discussed above that I have found is an article by a lawyer James Baird who attempts to explain these complexities.

If done correctly and carefully, gifting, creating joint tenancy arrangements and separating legal from beneficial ownership can result in the reduction or elimination of probate fees. However, probate planning can lead to unintended income tax and estate implications as discussed above that far outweigh the probate tax savings. It is thus essential that you engage a lawyer who is comfortable in dealing with these issues, most likely a tax or estate lawyer when undertaking any significant probate planning.

The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice; as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific. Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any of the information contained in one of the blogs. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.