Most folks who will qualify to claim this new auto loan interest deduction will probably not have $10,000 of interest expense a year. Also, the phaseout level starts at low amounts for individuals who are likely to be able to afford a new car. And as mentioned, given the price differential between new and used cars, the tax-savings of deducting loan interest will probably not be enough to justify purchasing a new car just to claim the interest deduction.

With new estate planning strategies seemingly appearing each month, a settlor should be able to choose the governing law for any aspect of his/her trust. Hopefully, with a new, model conflicts-of-law act and Restatement on the horizon a more streamlined approach will exist to reduce future conflict-of-law situations when dealing with trusts.

At a time when the government seems to be backing away from financing social welfare programs, more individuals will be looking to local charities for help. It is not clear if charities will also suffer from these new charitable deduction rules if a donor has less incentive to engage in charitable giving.

when determining the benefits of a Roth conversion, now must be factored in the impact of the new senior deduction and the increase in the SALT deduction, or more accurately the impact of their phaseout rules. These deductions enhance the opportunity of a Roth conversion, but their phaseouts may put at risk larger Roth conversions for high earners.

While income taxes at the federal level might be less onerous over the next decade, the states will have to step forward and fill the ‘revenue void’ with increased state income rates to address the larger revenue burdens they will face going forward as the federal government steps back.

Exchanging assets of equivalent value with a grantor trust is a great way to obtain a step-up in income tax basis after the grantor’s exercise of the retained power. That said, the exercise of that power of substitution may run squarely into the trustee’s fiduciary duty to protect trust assets for the benefit of the trust beneficiaries.

We often learn the most from the mistake made by others. The very aggressive planning done in Fields within a few weeks of Ms. Fields’ death to claim very large valuation discounts using a limited partnership ‘wrapper’ is a good reminder that all too often creating valuation discounts on paper, is usually ‘too good to be true.’ When you consider that this type of aggressive estate planning, often motivated by greed of the heirs, can lead to a 20% penalty in addition to the higher federal estate tax liability, think twice before going ‘hog wild.’

The IRS’s assertion of the step-transaction doctrine is a tax trap that can be planned for, and around, with forethought and attention to details. When thinking about any transfer tax strategy that uses a lifetime gift, whether it is to a SLAT or any other transfer to an irrevocable trust, the potential assertion of the step-transaction doctrine always needs to be in the back of the mind of the planner and his/her clients. It can be avoided with advance planning, yet it is more apt to occur if there is haste in putting the plan in place. Time and following formalities are the best protection from the step-transaction doctrine.

Ever heard of a Ulysses Clause in estate planning? Admittedly, it is a rare provision sometimes found in either a will or a trust. With the world becoming more and more aware of elder abuse and the financial exploitation of the elderly, some individuals might consider the utilization of some type of a Ulysses Clause to provide both a defined procedure and more protection for their estate planning documents.

Equity looks at the substance of an undertaking, not to its form. Consequently, the equitable proceeding for a trust’s reformation can be a powerful remedy to use, especially now that the MCL 700.7415 permits such a reformation, even if the trust’s terms are unambiguous, and even if the mistake was in fact or in law, and whether the mistake was in expression or inducement. Less clear, so far anyway, is who has legal standing to assert the trust reformation remedy, now that courts are no longer strictly adhering to privity to the transaction. Probably more clear is that a trustee should not be filing any trust reformation proceedings in light of the trustee’s many fiduciary duties associated with the trust- as written.