A different kind of joint problem

Parents who intend to transfer their assets into joint names with some or all of their adult children need to carefully consider that decision before implementing the transfers.  A series of recent Court cases in Western Canada highlight the need for careful legal advice when parents are considering such transfers in the context of estate planning or family business operations.

In Canada, ownership of property as a joint tenant carries with it the right of survivorship. In simple terms, it means that the joint owner who survives the longest stands to inherit the entire asset.  However, in 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed a general rule that when parents transfer property into joint names with adult, independent children without receiving any consideration in return, the law presumes that on the parent’s death, the child holds the property on a resulting trust for the parent’s estate.  If the surviving child (who stands to inherit the whole property by right of survivorship) can show that the parent’s intention at the time of the transfer was actually to gift the property to that child, then they can overcome the presumption.  If the child is unable to rebut the presumption, he or she would have to distribute it in accordance with the parent’s will or the applicable intestacy rules.

While there are some useful reasons why a parent may want to hold property with an adult child in such a manner, there are a number of potential pitfalls and problems, which the cases below illustrate:

  1. Coates v Coates, 2017 SKQB 303: a mother placed a series of properties in joint names with her four children as part of the family’s estate plan. One of the children was financially irresponsible and had a judgment against him for various debts.  The creditors registered the judgment against title to the family property, which was ultimately sold to pay out the son’s judgment.  Seeing the potential for similar actions in the future, the mother asked the children to transfer the properties back to her name alone.  All but the financially irresponsible child agreed, and the mother was forced to sue him on the basis that he held the property on resulting trust for her.The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench confirmed that in that province, the Land Titles Act had abolished the presumption of resulting trust.  However, the mother had sufficient documentary evidence to prove that she had not intended to immediately gift the property to her children when she placed their names on title.  Rather, the intention was for them to inherit the beneficial title to the property only upon her death.

    In this case, there was sufficient and detailed written evidence of the mother’s estate plans in the form of a will and a testamentary agreement with her children.  In most cases we see, that is not the case, and the Court and the parties are left to piece together various bits of circumstantial evidence to determine the transferor’s intention.

  2. Heebner v Heebner, 2017 SKQB 343: this case also concerned parents who were suing their son after they transferred title to a number of properties into joint names with him as part of an estate plan. The parents brought a summary judgment application to direct the transfer of the lands back into their names.  The Court ruled there was insufficient evidence to grant the judgment at this stage, but made a number of procedural orders and directed that the matter return for a hearing after further evidence was adduced.
  3. Kyle Estate v Kyle, 2017 BCCA 329: this was a dispute between siblings about the proceeds of a bank account placed into joint names by their deceased father and one of the children, C. The trial judge found that the presumption of resulting trust applied and that C’s evidence was insufficient to rebut it.  The judge concluded that it was the father’s intention to provide C with funds which would be shared equally to all four children upon his death.On appeal, the court reviewed the principles set out in the Pecore case and did not find a reviewable error.  The Court of Appeal found that it was open to the judge to draw the conclusions he did based on the evidence at trial and confirmed that the funds in the joint bank account were held on resulting trust for the father’s estate.
  4. Finally, in Alberta, the Court of Queen’s Bench just released a decision in Pohl v Midtal, 2017 ABQB 711, yet another illustration of the dangers of transferring property to children as joint owners. The case was initially litigated years ago, and in 2014 the Court found that the daughter had rebutted the presumption of resulting trust and had established the parents’ intention to gift the right of survivorship. The parents then tried to sever the joint tenancy under the procedure set out in the Land Titles Act.The Court concluded that the when the parents had transferred the property, they had irrevocably gifted the right of survivorship to their daughter.  That meant they had given up their ability to now try and sever the joint tenancy.

    While the Court limited the decision to the facts of this case, it is an important reminder that at the end of the day, the evidence will determine the result.  Had the parents in this case obtained proper legal advice, they may have been able to document their intentions more clearly (like in the Coates case above) to avoid the finding of an irrevocable intention to gift.

If you are a parent contemplating transferring your property into joint names with some or all of your children, or the adult child who will be receiving the property, we would be happy to begin the discussion about the potential consequences of the transfer.

Thank you for reading and have a great weekend!

The devil is in the drafting: is an estate entitled to spousal support payments?

The recent Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decision in Marasse Estate (Re), 2017 ABQB 706 is yet another reminder that drafting legal documents must be done carefully and with a view to their long-term effect. The main issue in this case was whether the surviving ex-spouse was obligated to continue paying spousal support to his deceased ex-spouse’s estate.

Justice Mah found that, based on the wording of the parties’ specific Separation Agreement, the husband was obligated to continue making spousal support payments to the deceased former wife’s estate.

By way of background, as part of their separation, the former spouses entered into a Separation and Property Agreement.  Both were represented by counsel.  Both parties knew that the wife had been ill for several years.  Under the Separation Agreement:

  • The husband agreed to pay monthly spousal support of $3,000 for 5 years;
  • The parties gave up their right to review or vary the entitlement, quantum and duration of spousal support even if there was a material change in circumstances of either party;
  • The husband was required to secure payment of the support through an insurance policy;
  • The agreement contained a relatively standard clause that it was binding upon and would enure to the benefit of the parties’ heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns

While the Separation Agreement dealt with the division of property should one spouse predecease the other, it was silent on how the spousal support payments would be treated if the wife died before all of the payments had been made.

The wife died about 8 months after signing the Separation Agreement.  According to its terms, the husband was still responsible for 52 monthly payments, equivalent to $156,000.  The wife’s daughter, who was her personal representative (and presumably a beneficiary), applied to the Court to enforce the Separation Agreement on behalf of her mother’s estate.

The husband sought to vary the agreement.  He argued that with the wife’s death, she no longer had an economic need for support.  The Court disagreed, finding that while contractual spousal support could reflect the theoretical bases of compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, the parties did not have to adhere to those theoretical objectives when entering into separation agreements.

The husband also argued that spousal support was a personal right, which could not pass to an estate.  However, Justice Mah distinguished cases where spousal support was ordered by the Court, versus those cases where the parties agreed to pay support in a contract.  He considered the enurement clause, the non-reviewability clause and the comprehensive nature of the Separation Agreement to conclude that the Separation Agreement created a juristic reason to continue the support payments.  There was no reason to vary the Separation Agreement under the test set out in Miglin v Miglin as applied in Alberta.  The Court declared that the husband’s obligation continued notwithstanding the wife’s death.

In conclusion, individuals negotiating separation agreements should recognize the potential long-term effects of contractual spousal support payments on their estates.  Carefully consider your intentions and ensure that your separation documents truly and clearly reflect those intentions.

Thank you for reading!

-Predrag

It’s your funeral, but who calls the shots?

If you have a will, you may have spelled out your detailed wishes for your funeral in the document.  Would you be surprised to know that your personal representative does not have to follow them?  You may have also heard that funeral expenses get paid out from an estate in priority to all other expenses.  So, who actually has legal responsibility for arranging and paying for the funeral?  And what should you keep in mind at the outset when the question of funeral arrangements comes up?

 

Who has the legal duty for funeral arrangements?

In Alberta, it is well-settled that the personal representative named in a will has the sole legal responsibility and authority for making funeral arrangements.  That authority is confirmed by the Estate Administration Act, the Funeral Services Act, the Cemeteries Act and their respective regulations.  That means the personal representative does not have to follow funeral instructions in a will, though the vast majority do.

If there is no will or the personal representative is unavailable or refuses to give burial instructions, then the law gives the following people priority: spouse, adult child, parent, guardian, increasingly more distant relatives, with the Minister of Human Services being a decision-maker of last resort.  Where there are two or more individuals of equal rank, the right devolves on the eldest.  The Court has the discretion to vary the order of priority among all of the above categories.

 

Who has to pay for the funeral?

In Chernichan v Chernichan (Estate), 2001 ABQB 913, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench confirmed that the deceased’s estate has the primary responsibility to pay for the funeral expenses.

In that case, the deceased’s brother paid for the funeral out of his own pocket.  The personal representative used estate funds to pay out other estate debts before paying the brother back for the funeral expenses, leaving the estate insolvent.  The brother claimed that he should have been paid back in priority to all other creditors, including Canada Revenue Agency.

The Court conducted an in-depth review of the law and concluded that where the estate is insufficient to cover the funeral expenses, a secondary responsibility falls on the person responsible in law for supporting the deceased.  Therefore, a surviving spouse, adult interdependent partner or a parent of a minor child may have to make up the shortfall.  The residual responsibility to pay for the funeral rests with the Minister of Human Services.

In Chernichan, the Court also held that funeral expenses are entitled to a priority over other estate administration expenses and liabilities, except for the expenses of proving a will.  The personal representative, being the deceased’s wife, was ordered to pay the expenses to the brother.

 

What is a reasonable funeral?

The liability of the estate, the personal representative, and the responsible survivors for funeral expenses is limited to reasonable expenses.  There is no universal answer as to what is reasonable.  The analysis will depend on the deceased’s station in life, size of the estate and cultural background.  For example, in Lopushinsky Estate, 2015 ABQB 63, the Court held that a $26,000 funeral was reasonable given the deceased’s highly respected status in his community (the funeral required overflow seating and a video link to the service because of the number of attendees), the fact that he spent a similar amount on his wife’s funeral a year before, and the size of his estate.

 

Things to keep in mind at the start

On the planning side, pre-paid funeral arrangements may decrease family disputes about the type of funeral you want and will make the job easier for your personal representatives.  They also eliminate the risk of there being inadequate assets to pay for the funeral.

Whether you are an executor or a family member who is making funeral arrangements, always consider the reasonableness of the cost of the funeral in light of the deceased’s station in life and expressed wishes before making the final arrangements.

While personally paying the funeral expenses may be a generous gesture, one would be well advised to consider the likelihood that estate assets will be sufficient to reimburse those expenses.  Finally, ensure that your intentions with respect to the payment are documented at the outset – is the payment meant to be a gift or simply a short-term loan to the estate?

Funeral arrangements have the potential to set the tone for the rest of the estate administration.  Taking care to make the right decisions at the start is important and personal representatives and family members should not rush into decisions during the difficult and emotional time immediately following a loved one’s death.

 

Let us know if you have any questions or comments and thank you for reading.

-Predrag

My last will and textament

What would you look for in a document to determine if it was a legally valid will?  An Australian man’s estate recently made headlines when the Queensland Supreme Court admitted an unsent text message into probate as his valid last will.

The deceased created the following text message on his cell phone shortly before he committed suicide:

“Dave Nic you and Jack keep all that I have house and superannuation, put my ashes in the back garden with Trish Julie will take her stuff only she’s ok gone back to her ex AGAIN I’m beaten . A bit of cash behind TV and a bit in the bank Cash card pin 3636

MRN190162Q

10/10/2016

My will”

The message was addressed to the deceased’s brother and purported to leave the estate to him and a nephew.  The deceased was also survived by his wife, though the marriage was apparently tumultuous and short-lived, and an estranged son.  The unsent message was found in the drafts folder.

The judge considered the detail of the deceased’s instructions about the disposition of his assets (like providing the PIN to his bank account, location of cash).  Other evidence, such as the deceased’s strained relationship with his wife and estranged son, contrasted with a close relationship with his brother and nephew, the fact his phone was found next to him and that he concluded the text with the words “My will” further solidified the Court’s analysis that he intended the text message to operate as his will.  You can read the full Court decision here: Re Nichol, Nichol v Nichol [2017] QSC 220.

Could this happen in Alberta?

A simple text message like the one in the Nichol estate would likely not qualify as a valid will in Alberta.  However, like the Queensland law at the centre of that case, Alberta law gives the Court leeway to validate a document that does not comply with all of the requirements for a valid will if there is sufficient evidence to convince the Court the deceased intended the document to act as his or her will.

To start, how do you make a valid will in Alberta?  The Wills and Succession Act requires a will to be:

  • in writing;
  • signed by the testator;
  • in the presence of two witnesses;
  • both of whom are present at the same time; and
  • each of whom signs the will in the testator’s presence.

Alberta law also allows “holographic” wills: wills which are written entirely in the deceased’s handwriting and signed by the deceased, in which case no witnesses are required.

If the deceased doesn’t comply with those requirements, the Court could consider two sections of the Wills and Succession Act to validate the document:

  • section 37: the Court can dispense with the formalities if satisfied on clear and convincing evidence that the writing sets out the testamentary intentions of the testator and was intended by the testator to be his or her will. One thing the Court cannot dispense with under this section is the requirement of a signature.  Therefore, it would be of little help with a text message; or

 

  • section 39: the Court could rectify a document by inserting a signature only if satisfied that the deceased intended to sign the document and give it effect as a will, but failed to do so because of “pure mistake or inadvertence.” This is meant to be used in narrow circumstances, and given the facts in Nichol, likely couldn’t have saved the text message without more – on those facts, the failure to sign was probably not a result of mistake or inadvertence, but a deliberate decision.

These powers are relatively new in Alberta and have not been widely considered by our Courts.  While there are a handful of reported decisions, none have considered the level of departure from the formalities found in Nichol.  However, we will likely see attempts to push the boundaries in the years to come as people change the way they manage and create their legal documents.

Contact us if you are unsure whether you are dealing with a proper will.  Even if it doesn’t have all of the formalities, an Alberta Court may recognize it as a valid testamentary document, which may drastically alter the administration and distribution of an estate.

Thank you for reading,

-Predrag

PS – Our friends at Hull and Hull also recently wrote about this case from an Ontario perspective.

(Don’t) live together, love together

A frequent area of estate litigation involves claims by adult interdependent partners against the estates of their deceased partners.  An adult interdependent partner is roughly the Alberta equivalent of a common law spouse, but may include other types of relationships.

To qualify as an adult interdependent partner, two people must cohabit in a relationship of interdependence continuously for at least 3 years, unless they have a child together or have entered into a written partner agreement.  Where there are no children or agreements, one of the first things we will want to see is evidence of the length of cohabitation.  This is a complex analysis which requires more than a review of the couple’s address history during the last three years of the deceased’s life.

In the recent case of Wright v Lemoine, 2017 ABQB 395, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench confirmed that cohabitation does not necessarily mean living under the same roof.  Courts in Ontario, British Columbia and even in Tasmania have arrived at the same conclusion.

In Wright v Lemoine, Ms. Wright sought adult interdependent partner support from Mr. Lemoine.  One of the key issues was whether the couple lived together continuously for at least three years. Due to his work schedule, he was frequently away in remote locations.  When he was not working, the couple spent time together in hotels or at his home in Saskatchewan.  Shortly after the relationship began, Mr. Lemoine purchased a trailer in which the couple resided when he was in town.  Sometimes Ms. Wright joined him at his work locations and they went on several extended vacations together.  When Mr. Lemoine was away, Ms. Wright stayed with her mother.  In the three years prior to their separation, 26 days was the longest time the two spent apart.

Mr. Lemoine asserted that as a result of frequent interruptions of their co-residence, the parties did not cohabit continuously for three years.  He also pointed to the fact that Ms. Wright kept her mother’s residence as her mailing address for the duration of the relationship.

Following an extensive review of the evidence and the existing case law, Justice Nixon held that the couple cohabited for the necessary period, and confirmed that the requirement for cohabitation did not equate to co-residence.  The judge reiterated that a flexible approach was necessary and that the couple’s intention was a key factor for determining whether they have cohabited for the purpose of the legislation.  Mr. Lemoine’s unique work schedule was not enough to displace the couple’s intention to live together when he was back from work.

A different illustration of the same principle can be found in this very recent decision of the Full Court in Hobart, Tasmania.  In that case, the deceased and his alleged common law spouse had not cohabited for much of their 23-year relationship because the deceased was a hoarder and his spouse had found it unbearable to live in the same residence as him.  Nonetheless, there was sufficient evidence that they saw each other almost every night, that they had an exclusive sexual relationship and were considered in the community as a couple.  The judge concluded that despite the daily separation, the relationship was significant and continuous for the amount of time required by the relevant legislation, such that the spouse was entitled to the whole of his estate.

In Alberta, a finding that a person was the deceased’s adult interdependent partner could have a significant impact on an estate.  It may entitle the surviving partner to a significant portion of the estate if there is no will, a right to make a claim for maintenance and support even where there is a will, and the priority to administer the estate.

We have experience with analyzing the required elements of the legislation together with the factual matrix to advise whether someone meets the legal definition of an adult interdependent partner.  Feel free to contact me if you think someone’s status may have an impact on an estate you are dealing with.

Thank you for reading!

-Predrag (Peter) Tomic

You can ask for advice and directions

Acting as an executor or personal representative is a challenging job.  A personal representative is expected to follow the terms of a will, trust document or Court order and to do so prudently and competently.  Sometimes, the testator or the settlor of a trust adds to an already difficult job by creating an unclear will or trust document which leaves the personal representatives guessing as to the deceased’s true intentions.  Other times, what the beneficiaries want conflicts with the instructions in the will or trust.  Since personal representatives may be personally liable for decisions made in the course of their administration, they should ensure they are making the correct decision.

Fortunately, a personal representative who is faced with an unclear and confusing document or a situation not contemplated by the document can seek advice and directions from the Court.  Generally, if the Court provides directions and the personal representative follows them, they will not be personally liable even if the decision leads to a loss to one or more beneficiaries.

In Alberta, authority for seeking the Court’s advice and directions is found in several statutes.  Personal representatives can turn to the

  • Estate Administration Act, which allows a personal representative to apply to the Court for advice and directions on any question respecting the management or administration of an estate.  The personal representative is shielded from liability if he or she follows the Court’s direction on the particular issue.

 

  • Surrogate Rules, which give the Court a very broad discretion to consider applications for directions by personal representatives or persons interested in the estate regarding practice, procedural or other issues and questions and ways to resolve them and “any other matter that may aid in the resolution or facilitate the resolution of a claim, application or proceeding or otherwise fairly or justly resolve the matter for which direction is sought.”

 

  • Trustee Act, which has a similar provision to the Estate Administration Act, allowing trustees to apply for advice and direction and absolving them of liability when acting on the opinion, advice or direction of the Court as long as there is no fraud or misrepresentation by the trustee.

A Court will not make a personal representative’s decision or exercise discretion for him or her.  Therefore, a personal representative should come to Court with a particular plan of action, which the Court can approve, deny or modify.  Most often, the Court will give directions on the steps to be taken to bring about a desired result or to move a matter forward.  However, the Court can also make determinations of fact and substantive rights of one or more parties.  Courts have in the past given advice and directions to:

  • break a deadlock among personal representatives;
  • determine if a particular individual qualifies as a beneficiary;
  • determine if a charitable gift fails where a charity has been incorrectly described or no longer exists;
  • determine if it was prudent for a personal representative to pursue collection of certain assets by way of litigation, or whether it was prudent for the personal representative to use estate assets to defend a claim; and
  • set down litigation plans to ensure that a contentious matter begun under a related Act or under the Surrogate Rules proceeds efficiently and in a timely fashion.

This is not an exhaustive list and the broad discretion given to the Court makes the application for advice and direction a powerful tool to advance the administration of an estate or a trust.

If you are a personal representative in Alberta who needs some clarity on an estate or trust administration matter, Field Law can help.  Do not hesitate to contact me to discuss in more detail: ptomic@fieldlaw.com or 403.260.8511.

Thank you for reading.

Define your children in your will

Clarity matters when preparing your will and estate plan in Alberta.  Even a seemingly simple direction to divide your estate equally between your children may run into unexpected problems if you have a complex family structure and are not clear enough about your wishes in your Will.  In recent Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decision, the question arose whether a foster child was included in the definition of “children” in the deceased’s Will.  While it was not at issue in this case, the same kind of issue could arise in the context of step-children.

Briefly, the deceased died in early 2016 with a Will.  She was survived by three biological daughters, a legally adopted son and a foster child.  All of the individuals were adults at the date of the deceased’s death. Her Will stated that the residue of the estate was to be divided equally between her children.  Other than the personal representatives, the Will did not refer to anyone else by name.  The biological daughters brought a Court application seeking a judicial interpretation of the residuary gift clause.  Specifically, the issue was whether the foster child was included in the definition of “children” and entitled to a share of the residue.

The Justice first considered the applicable legislation and the wording of the Will itself.   He determined that they were of little assistance in this case.  The significant conclusion about the applicable legislative provision was that generally, a reference to children in a Will must be interpreted to include biological children of the testator, unless a contrary intention could be found in the Will.  In contrast, the legislation does not automatically exclude non-biological children from that definition.

The Justice then turned to external evidence of the deceased’s intentions at the time she signed her Will.  In Alberta, such evidence is admissible to interpret a will in a manner that gives effect to the intent of the testator.

The key evidence before the Court was that the deceased signed a Power of Attorney and a Personal Directive on the same day as the Will.  She appointed the foster child as one of her attorneys and agents, respectively.  In both documents, the deceased specifically referred to the foster child as “my daughter”.  The deceased named one of her biological daughters as the other attorney and agent and also referred to her as “my daughter”.  That evidence was sufficient for the Court to conclude that the deceased intended to include the foster child as one of her children in the Will.

The Court considered other evidence, both in support of, and adverse to, the foster child provision, including a prior Will that specifically named the children in the residue clause and included the foster child.  For the Court, none of the additional evidence undermined the conclusion that the deceased intended to include the foster child in the definition of her children at the time she made her last Will.  The foster child was thus entitled to an equal share of the residue.

Your Will is your chance to specify how you want your estate to devolve after your death.  The takeaway point from the above case is that the drafting of the Will should be as clear and unambiguous as possible, particularly if you have a complex family structure, to avoid the risk of future disputes between the beneficiaries.

Thank you for reading.

The King of Pop on death and taxes

Today is the eighth anniversary of the death of Michael Jackson, the undisputed King of Pop. Albertans preparing wills and estate plans should look beyond the sensational headlines about the singer’s life and the circumstances of his death and consider the issues faced by Jackson’s estate when creating their own estate plans. Using Jackson’s estate as an illustration, this blog post will focus on general tax considerations for estate planning in Alberta.

The Jackson Estate’s tax troubles

This is a highly simplified summary of the issues that Jackson’s estate faced following his death. The King of Pop passed away unexpectedly on June 25, 2009. He left behind a will which established a testamentary trust for the benefit of his mother and three children. It was alleged that Jackson died with significant debts, such that the estate was essentially worthless. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disagreed and identified a lengthy list of allegedly incorrect valuations and deficiencies by the personal representatives of the estate. The IRS took the position that Jackson’s name, likeness and other intangible assets were worth $434 million. With penalties, arrears and legal fees, it was estimated that tax-related estate administration costs would approach $1 billion. The matter went to trial in February 2017, and as far as we have been able to uncover, the decision is still pending. In the meantime, Jackson’s executors managed to generate significant income within the estate by monetizing his catalogue, name and image.

What does this mean for me?

In Canada, when someone passes away, the Income Tax Act deems them to have disposed of all of their assets at fair market value. Those deemed dispositions are reported on the Terminal Tax Return, which has to be prepared and filed by the personal representatives of the estate.

If you pass away while employed, with a business, investments or other assets that appreciate over time, there is a strong likelihood that your estate will have to pay some tax. However, there are a number of ways to plan during your lifetime to either minimize the tax your estate will have to pay, or at least to ensure that your estate will have sufficient resources to pay the tax after your death. A full review is beyond the scope of this blog post, but below is a list of things to consider when updating your estate plan:

  • If you gift property to your spouse or common law partner, the tax that your estate would have otherwise owed can be deferred to the death of the second spouse or partner
  • RRSPs and RRIFs can be rolled over to spouses and common law partners, minor children or disabled adult children who are your dependants, so that the tax is deferred until their deaths
  • A beneficiary of an RRSP or RRIF typically receives those proceeds directly outside of the estate. If you designate someone other than a spouse, common law partner, minor child or disabled adult child, no tax deferral is available, and your estate will pay the full tax on that asset. If the beneficiaries of the RRSP/RRIF are different from the beneficiaries of the residue under your will, you may be giving a windfall to one set of beneficiaries to the detriment of the others
  • If you have multiple properties, consider claiming the principal residence exemption on the property with the highest capital gain
  • If you own a family business, it may be appropriate to implement an estate freeze at a time that you are prepared to transition the growth in the business to the next generation – an estate freeze will allow you to crystallize your tax liability on the business assets so that you can plan for its payment accordingly
  • If you own property in multiple jurisdictions, make sure to organize your affairs so that your estate is not paying tax in both jurisdictions
  • Consider purchasing life insurance in a sufficient amount to cover the estate’s anticipated tax liabilities. Properly document your wishes with respect to the life insurance proceeds so that they are used in the manner in which you envisioned
  • If you are a creative individual who has tangible or intangible assets such as copyrights, trademarks, artistic works and licensing agreements, those assets carry a fair market value and will need to be addressed as part of your planning process

These are only some examples of the tax planning considerations that you may wish to consider or access in your estate plan. The best results usually arrive from a competent team of professional advisors including your accountant, lawyer and financial/insurance advisor who work together and with you to achieve your objectives.

Estate planning is an important task at any stage of adult life. If you are thinking about implementing your first estate plan or updating your existing one, Field Law can help you identify your needs and implement a plan that gives effect to your wishes. Give us a call at 403.260.8511 or email to ptomic@fieldlaw.com to start the discussion.