In This Issue
Tax Treatment of Trust and Estate Settlement
Agreements and Modifications
Ian T. Richardson
Gleaves Swearingen, LLP
Eugene, Oregon
Estate planning, or the lack thereof, may produce results not desired by
beneciaries, and trust and estate beneciaries may seek to modify estate
planning outcomes by litigation or by agreement. As a result of changes in estate
tax laws over the past 15 years, many previously implemented gift and estate
plans now appear counterproductive, and long-term trust relationships are often
costly or stressful to maintain. The UTC has expanded opportunities to modify
the terms of a trust agreement as part of settling disputes among trust and estate
beneciaries, or otherwise altering benecial interests. As such modications
have become more common, understanding their tax consequences has become
more important.
Modification of beneficial interests in decedents’ estates.
Decedents’ estates are a common context for modication of benecial
interests, where interested parties may agree to reduce or defer the shares of
some beneciaries in order to increase or accelerate the shares of others or to add
omitted beneciaries. Any such agreement raises a fundamental tax question:
does the beneciary receiving the additional benet have an enforceable right
to that additional benet? If the beneciary has such an enforceable right the
additional benet may be taxed as an inheritance or gift from decedent (as the
beneciaries may expect), or as a payment of consideration from decedent or
a beneciary; if not, the additional benet may be taxed as a gift from other
beneciaries (as not expected by the beneciaries). The parties’ enforceable
rights are based on state law, but for tax purposes are ultimately determined by
federal courts.
As a general rule, in tax controversies the federal court is to give “proper
regard,” but not complete nality, to interpretation of a will or similar
documents by a state court in a “bona de adversarial proceeding,” unless
the court in such proceeding is a state supreme court, in which case the state
court’s ruling will be binding on the IRS and federal courts. Comm’r v. Estate of
Bosch, 387 US 456 (1967). The tax court will not follow state court judgments
that do not represent bona de disputes, such as when beneciaries collude
to obtain a court judgment supporting a desired settlement. Bath v. Comm’r,
34 TCM (CCH) 493 (1975). The same is true of a settlement resolving a bona
de lawsuit: the settlement agreement may be respected as a resolution of the
parties’ enforceable rights, even though the resolution does not involve a court
judgment. Ahmanson Found. v. United States, 674 F2d 761 (9th Cir 1981). If a
judgment or settlement agreement involving benecial interests in a decedent’s
estate is respected for tax purposes, estate assets passing to the various parties
to the dispute will generally be treated as transfers by decedent. However, if
some of the beneciaries have reduced or deferred their shares even though they
were not legally required to do so, those beneciaries will have made a gift, or
other form of payment, to other beneciaries who benet from the settlement.
A settlement agreement outside the context of active litigation may also be
respected for tax purposes, if the settlement agreement “is bona de, at arm’s
length, and free from any donative intent.” Treas Reg § 25.2512-8. However, the
Regulations do not require the IRS to accept the parties’ tax treatment of every
settlement of a bona de dispute, only settlements resulting in distributions
Oregon Estate Planning
and Administration
Section Newsletter
Volume XXXI, No. 1
January 2014
Published by the
Estate Planning
and Administration
Section of the
Oregon State Bar
1 Tax Treatment of Trust and
Estate Settlement Agreements and
Modications
5 Farewell
5 Practice Tip: Same Sex Marriages
5 2014OfcersandBoard
5 Estate Fundamentals - Putting the
“Fun” in Funding
8 Practice Tip: HIPAA Releases
8 Oregon Income Tax Credits
10 Practice Tip: Does Cover Oregon Cover
You After Age 65?
11 The Section Chair Says...
Estate Planning and Administration Section January 2014
Page 2
“properly reecting the substantive rights of the parties
under decedent’s [governing document].” PLR 9716011
(citing Estate of Hubert v. Comm’r, 101 TC 314 (1993)).
Example 1: decedent is survived by spouse of second
marriage and by child of rst marriage (who is an adult);
decedent intentionally makes no provision in her will for
her spouse, and leaves her estate 1/2 to charity and 1/2 to
child. The following additional facts produce the following
different tax results:
a. Spouse successfully sues under elective share statute
and receives his elective share, reducing the charity’s
share and child’s share accordingly. Unless the court
has erred, or the parties have colluded, the judgment
will be relied upon by the IRS as determining the
parties’ tax results, meaning that decedent is treated
as having passed spouse’s share to him and passing
the reduced amounts to charity and child. Because
child and charity have not given up anything they were
entitled to under law, they have made no gift or other
transfer to spouse. As a result, the distribution to spouse
should qualify for the estate tax marital deduction (see
Treas Reg § 20.2056(c)-2; Rev Rul 83-107, 1983-2 CB
159; Rev Rul 72-8, 1972-1 CB 309; PLRs 200417030,
9610018), and the distribution to charity should qualify
for the charitable deduction (Treas Reg § 20.2055-2(e)).
Note that on the above facts the estate’s charitable
deduction will be reduced, but would be offset by an
increase in marital deduction.
b. Spouse threatens to sue under elective share statute,
but has waived those rights under a binding pre-
nuptial agreement and will very likely lose; nonetheless,
charity and child settle with spouse giving him 1/3 of
the estate to avoid the cost, family strife, and donor
relations problems that would come with litigation.
The settlement will not be treated for tax purposes as a
transfer from decedent to spouse, because spouse has no
enforceable right to the payment. Instead, both charity
and child will be treated as having made gratuitous
transfers to spouse. See Rev Rul 77-372, 1977-2 CB
344; PLR 9308032. Those transfers, of course, will not
qualify for the marital deduction, even if paid directly
to spouse. See PLR 9101025. The decreased transfer to
charity will still qualify for the charitable deduction (in
reduced amount) because the charity was to receive the
distribution pursuant to decedent’s will (note, however,
that an increased charitable gift to which the charity is
not entitled under applicable law will not result in an
increased charitable deduction). See Burdick v. Comm’r,
979 F2d 1369 (9th Cir 1992).
c. Spouse sues under elective share statute, and will
clearly win, so charity and child settle and pay spouse
the elective share after discovery but prior to trial. The
settlement should achieve the same result as example
a. above, but a settlement without court judgment is at
greater risk of IRS attack, and parties should carefully
document facts supporting spouse’s right to the payment
under applicable law. See PLRs 200127027, 8902045.
Consider seeking declaratory judgment/judicial
instruction and/or private letter ruling in advance of
consummating the settlement (and consider making
settlement effective upon obtaining same). See PLRs
200350012, 200127027, 200032010.
d. Spouse threatens to sue under elective share statute,
and will clearly win, so charity and child settle and pay
spouse the elective share before any suit is led. Should
be same result as example c. above, but because it will
be more difcult to prove relevant facts and the parties’
rights under state law, a settlement outside the context
of litigation poses an even greater risk of IRS challenge.
Righter v. United States, 258 F Supp 763 (WD Mo 1966);
PLR 9716011. Again, consider declaratory judgment
and/or private letter ruling.
e. Same facts as example d. above, but instead of paying
spouse directly, child and spouse agree that spouse’s
share will be held as a bypass trust, remainder to child.
The tax result is similar to example d., to the extent that
spouse has the right to the payment under state law,
and charity and child are not treated as making a gift
to spouse. However, spouse was entitled to receive his
share of the estate outright, and by agreeing to instead
accept a life income interest spouse may be treated
as gratuitously transferring the remainder interest to
charity and child. Further, the transfer to spouse may
not qualify for the marital deduction, even if spouse’s
elective share rights are clear. PLR 9101025. Such
settlement cases must be decided on the facts and
circumstances of each case: federal courts and the
IRS recognize that disposition of claims pursuant to
litigation is not an exact science, that equitable remedies
are often applied by courts, and that the ultimate
outcome of litigation is hard to anticipate even when
parties’ rights appear clear; as a result federal courts
will respect a settlement for tax purposes if its terms are
“within a range of reasonable settlements considering
the state court decisions that address the issues.”
PLR 9716011; see PLRs 200032010, 9845015, 9812014;
Warren v. Comm’r, 981 F2d 776 (5th Cir 1993). If the
settlement terms are within that range the settlement
may not be treated as an inter-beneciary gift, but
instead as a bequest by decedent that qualies for the
marital deduction.
Modification of beneficial interests in trusts.
Example 2: as in Example 1 above, but assume instead
that decedent leaves her estate all to a bypass trust (non-
QTIP), to spouse for life, remainder to child.
f. Spouse has no elective share or other such right under
state law or otherwise to modify his benecial interest,
and child has no right to access income or principal or
accelerate her remainder, but to avoid the potential for
future disputes and the cost of maintaining the trust,
spouse and child agree to divide the trust corpus 50/50
and terminate the trust. The termination of a “split
interest” trust (such as a traditional bypass trust) is often
referred to as a “commutation” and for tax purposes
Estate Planning and Administration Section January 2014
Page 3
is treated as a sale of spouse’s income interest to the
remainder beneciary. Rev Rul 72-243, 1972-1 CB 233;
Rev Rul 98-8, 1998-7 IRB 24; PLR 200127023. As
such, spouse will recognize capital gain in the amount
of the assets he receives in settlement, at least up to the
value of his income interest at the time of settlement.
Note that if the amount spouse receives is more than the
value of the income interest spouse may have received
as a gift from child, and if the amount received is less
than that value, then child may have received a gift from
spouse (subject to the “range of reasonable settlements”
rule noted in example e.). PLR 199908033. The marital
deduction would have been allowed, up to the value
of spouse’s income interest, if the bypass trust were
a QTIP trust, but because the trust was a non-QTIP
bypass trust spouse never had the right to receive a
distribution that qualied for the marital deduction, and
therefore the marital deduction would likely be denied
as to spouse’s settlement distribution. Carpenter v.
IRS, 52 F3d 1266 (4th Cir 1995); PLR 9733017. Query
whether the distribution to child is treated as a sale
of her remainder interest (and if so, whether child has
sufcient basis in her remainder interest to avoid gain).
See PLR 200442019.
g. As in example f. above, but child receives 25% of
the trust assets at the time of settlement, and retains
a remainder interest in the 75% held in continued
trust. The answer may not be entirely clear, but under
Revenue Ruling 72-243, the transfer may be treated as
a partial commutation, and thus as a deemed sale of a
part of spouse’s income interest with spouse receiving
nothing as consideration, meaning that spouse will
have made a gift of a portion (here 25%) of his income
interest. This result may seem odd, and the settlement
may look like a distribution to spouse of 25% of the
trust assets followed by a gift of those assets to child
(which presumably would be a larger gift than a gift of
25% of spouse’s income interest). But consider that the
trust assets would ultimately pass to child free of estate
or gift tax on spouse’s death, and spouse really has
nothing to give but his income interest, so the tax result
may not be prejudicial to the IRS.
h. As in example f. above, but to avoid disputes spouse and
child agree that child will receive ½ of spouse’s income
interest. Spouse has made a gift of ½ the value of his
income interest. Treas Reg § 25.2511-1(e).
i. Spouse sells his lifetime income interest to child for
a single cash payment. Spouse recognizes capital
gain equal to the entire amount received from child
(spouse receives no basis in his income interest under
IRC §§ 1014, 1015, or 1041), at least up to the value
of the income interest. PLR 200442019; IRC §1001(e)
(2); Treas Reg § 1.1001-1(f)(1). As in example f. above,
spouse may have made a gift to child to the extent
the amount received on sale is lower than the present
value of the income interest. Because the income and
remainder interests “merge” in child’s hands, the result
is essentially a commutation as described in example f.
j. Child sells her remainder interest to a third party
for a single cash payment. Child recognizes capital
gain to the extent the amount received is greater
than child’s basis in the remainder interest, but the
remainder interest (unlike the income interest) should
have received substantial basis as a result of passing
from decedent. PLR 200442019.
k. Child assigns her remainder interest to her children,
in trust. Child has made a taxable gift of her remainder
interest. PLR 200442019; IRC § 2512(a).
l. Child makes a qualied disclaimer of her remainder
interest, by which the remainder interest passes to a
protective trust for her children. If child’s disclaimer
is qualied, the remainder passes to her children as
a transfer by decedent, not as a gift by child. IRC
§ 2518(a). What if the protective trust gave child a
limited power of appointment? If the disclaimant (even
a surviving spouse as disclaimant) has been granted a
power of appointment, limited or general, testamentary
or intervivos, over the corpus of the trust that will
receive the disclaimed assets, the disclaimer will not be
qualied; as a result child would be treated as having
made a taxable gift of the remainder, unless the
disclaimant also disclaims the power of appointment.
Treas Reg § 25.2518-2(e)(2).
QTIP trusts (IRC § 2519).
If the trust in examples f. through l. above is a QTIP
trust, the answers become slightly more complicated. In
particular, under IRC § 2519, if surviving spouse is treated
as having transferred any of his QTIP income interest, he
is also treated as having made a taxable gift in the amount
of all of the trust corpus, less the value of his QTIP income
interest (essentially meaning that spouse is deemed to
have made a gift of his entire remainder interest if he has
transferred any of his income interest). The deemed gift
of remainder may be a surprise to spouse and child (but
hopefully not to their tax advisors). However, consider
that, because of the QTIP election, all of the assets of the
trust passed to spouse estate tax-free under the marital
deduction. If those assets were to then pass from the QTIP
trust to child without gift or estate tax, decedent would
have accomplished a transfer to child, via spouse, free of
transfer tax under the marital deduction. The fundamental
tax concept is that for estate and gift tax purposes the assets
of the QTIP trust are treated as belonging to surviving
spouse, even if spouse does not have access to principal.
Under IRC § 2519 if surviving spouse were to transfer all
of his income interest to child, and if income and remainder
interests were to merge in child, spouse will have made a
taxable gift of the entire trust to child – the same result as
if spouse had received the trust assets outright and then
transferred them to child (technically a gift of the entire
income interest to child would be two gifts: one, under
IRC § 2519, of the trust corpus less the value of the income
interest, and another of the income interest itself).
Example 3: to illustrate the effect of IRC § 2519 on
examples f. through i. if the trust were a QTIP trust:
Estate Planning and Administration Section January 2014
Page 4
m. Example h. (transfer to child of ½ income interest).
If spouse has transferred any portion of his income
interest he is treated as having made a gift in the amount
of the entire trust corpus reduced by the value of his
income interest. If the total value of the trust estate is
$100 and the present value of spouse’s income interest
is $40, spouse is deemed to have made a taxable gift to
child in the amount of $60. IRC § 2519(a); Rev Rul 98-8.
Spouse’s gift does not qualify for the gift tax annual
exclusion. Treas Reg § 25.2519-1(c). In addition, spouse
has made a taxable gift to child of ½ of spouse’s income
interest (if the total income interest was worth $40, ½ of
the income interest would be worth $20).
n. Example f. (commutation of trust 50/50 to spouse and
child). As in example f., spouse is treated as having sold
his income interest for the amount of the distribution.
See Rev Rul 98-8. The sale of the income interest will
be taxed as would the sale of income interest in example
f.; however, because spouse has transferred some
(here all) of a QTIP income interest he is also deemed
under § 2519(a) to have made a gift of the entire value
of the QTIP trust estate less the value of his income
interest. Treas Reg § 25.2519-1(a). The commutation is
a “hybrid” tax event as to spouse, part gift and part sale,
all taxable. Query whether the $10 “overpayment” for
spouse’s income interest is treated as additional income
to spouse, as a gift by child to spouse (as noted in
example f. above), or as a reduction of spouse’s deemed
gift of remainder to child (presumably not, under Kite;
see Kite discussion below regarding termination of trust
by distribution of all trust assets to spouse).
o. Example g. (partial commutation by distribution to
child). Because the transaction is treated as a deemed
disposition of a portion of spouse’s income interest, §
2519 triggers a deemed gift of the entire trust corpus
reduced by the value of spouse’s entire income interest.
In addition, as in example g., the deemed disposition
of a portion of the income interest is a gift by spouse
(because spouse receives no consideration for that
portion of his income interest).
p. Example i. (sale of income interest). Again, it does not
matter whether the transfer of income interest is by
sale or gift; any transfer will trigger the deemed gift
of the entire remainder. FSA 199916025; Rev Rul 98-8.
Revenue Ruling 98-8 provides an interesting illustration
of how difcult it can be to avoid the application of
§ 2519 (purchase of remainder interest by spouse on
note followed by repayment of note with trust assets
distributed to spouse). Also note that the gift result will
be the same if the sale is to a third party. Rev Rul 98-8;
Treas Reg § 25.2519-1(g).
q. Permissible principal distributions, trust divisions.
If the trustee distributes trust principal to spouse as
permitted by the trust instrument, for health, education,
maintenance, and support under the ascertainable
standard, or under a broader standard, the distribution
will not trigger § 2519. Treas Reg § 25.2519-1(e).
Therefore, it may be possible to transfer a portion of
trust assets to spouse as a permissible distribution, and
then allow spouse to make a gift of different but equal
assets to child, thereby avoiding the deemed gift of the
entire trust corpus under § 2519. However, under the
broad scope of §§ 2511 and 2519, and under the examples
of Revenue Ruling 98-8 and Estate of Novotny, 93 TC
12 (1989), the IRS may consider such a transaction
a deemed partial commutation or otherwise seek to
apply § 2519. Some taxpayers have been successful in
rst splitting a QTIP trust and then commuting only
one of the portions, even though § 2519 applies even
to a transfer of a part of an income interest. PLRs
200723014, 199926019. Note, however, that even if the
distribution-gift plan (via split trust or otherwise) does
not trigger § 2519, the remainder of the non-commuted
portion will still be included in spouse’s estate at death,
so the gift/estate tax on the non-commuted portion is
only deferred, not avoided.
The tax court has recently addressed § 2519 in the
context of sales and distributions of assets of QTIP
trusts, in Estate of Kite v. Commissioner, 105 TCM
(CCH) 1277(2013) (and Rule 155 Order, Case No. 6772-
08, unpublished opinion, Oct. 25, 2013). Kite involved
the termination of a QTIP trust and the distribution of
all trust assets to surviving spouse beneciary (more or
less, after some complicated and creative transactions
involving trust assets). The court determined that surviving
spouse had made a disposition of her income interest in
the QTIP trust, and therefore had triggered the deemed
gift rule of § 2519, even though the assets were ultimately
distributed to spouse. The result seems plausible under a
strict reading of § 2519: the distribution of all trust assets
was apparently a termination of the trust, essentially a
commutation of the trust, and in any event a liquidation of
surviving spouse’s income interest. The court’s subsequent
Rule 155 opinion (Oct. 2013) found that the amount of
the § 2519 deemed gift was simply the value of all trust
assets less the value of the income interest. The transfer
tax result is unfortunate: surviving spouse is treated as
having made a gift of a signicant portion of the trust
assets to remainder beneciaries, but the assets subject
to the deemed gift remain in surviving spouse’s estate.
Worse yet, although apparently not addressed in Kite, the
payment of the remainder value to surviving spouse would
presumably be an additional taxable gift – in this case to
surviving spouse by remainder beneciaries. The tax result
appears punitive, rather than logical. It is possible that the
harsh consequences result from the complex asset transfers
preceding distribution. Nonetheless, the language of § 2519
includes no adjustment in relation to assets received by
spouse in excess of income interest value.
Trust and estate modications can provide efcient
solutions to difcult problems often unanticipated by
gift or estate documentation, but may have undesired tax
consequences if not carefully structured. As a review of
the above-referenced sources shows, as estate plans and
modications become more complex, the likelihood of
unintended tax consequences increases, and planners
focused on curing one tax problem must be careful not to
overlook others.
Estate Planning and Administration Section January 2014
Page 5
Farewell
Erik Schimmelbusch of Schimmelbusch Law Group,
P.C. has served as an editor for the Estate Planning and
Administration Section Newsletter for almost 15 years.
Erik made the difcult decision to leave the editorial board
to free up some time for his other volunteer positions. Erik
has also served as the Newsletter’s liaison to the Section
Executive Committee and has been a great asset during his
tenure. We are indebted to Erik for his years of service and
will miss his wit during our board meetings.
Practice Tip: Same-Sex Marriages
Vanessa Usui
Duffy Kekel LLP
Portland, Oregon
Effective January 1, 2014, all Oregon administrative
agencies will recognize valid out-of-state marriages
between individuals of the same gender. This is a temporary
rule effective until June 30, 2014. Impacted state agencies
are directed to implement program-specic administrative
rules before June 30, 2014.
One area that might be of interest to estate planners
involves the application of this rule to the Department
of Revenue. Now, same-sex couples who got married
in another state but reside in Oregon are considered
married for Oregon income and estate tax purposes. More
information can be found at http://www.oregon.gov/Pages/
Same-sex-Marriage.aspx.
2014 Section Officers and Board
At the annual meeting of the Estate Planning and
Administration Section of the Oregon State Bar on
November 15, 2013, the 2014 section ofcers and members
at large were elected as follows:
Officers
Chair Jeffrey M. Cheyne
Chair-Elect Matthew Whitman
Treasurer Erik S. Schimmelbusch
Secretary Melanie E. Marmion
Past Chair Marsha Murray-Lusby
Members at Large
Terms Ending 12/31/15 Terms Ending 12/31/14
Stuart B. Allen Amy E. Bilyeu
Eric R. Foster Janice E. Hatton
Philip N. Jones Amelia E. Heath
Jeffrey G. Moore Hilary A. Newcomb
Timothy O’Rourke Ian T. Richardson
Holly N. Mitchell Margaret Vining
EstatE FundamEntals
A Recurring Series
This is the rst in a recurring series of articles that
will focus on the fundamentals of estate planning and
administration. The most frequent request from Newsletter
readers is for articles that delve into the more basic aspects
of our practice area. Tom, thank you for authoring the rst
article in this series.
Putting thE “Fun” in Funding:
Four stEPs to CrEatE thE
r
EvoCablE living trust
F
unding PaPEr trail
Tom Noble
Oregon Legal Center
West Linn, Oregon
As an estate planner, you have probably encountered
this scenario in your practice: an elderly couple meets with
you to update their revocable living trust (“RLT”). You
review their trust and other estate planning documents—
and let’s assume, in this case, they look ne. Your next
question—or perhaps your rst question—to the couple
is, “What’s in the trust?” or “What does the trust own?”
At this point, the couple looks confused and has no idea
what is in the trust. You review the estate planning binder
or the envelope containing the legal documents and still do
not have an answer. Maybe you nd a Schedule A, which
is either blank (to be lled in at a later date, of course) or
lists their former residence, which you learn was sold 15
years ago.
Keeping track of how assets are titled for every client
can seem like an impossible task, but is actually an easily
achievable goal. Yes, being forced to interact with large
nancial institutions is time-consuming and byzantine.
Yes, the types and number of assets people own can be
varied and large. Yes, the client will usually not want to pay
large sums of money for the amount of time it will take the
attorney to actually complete and document the funding
process for the client. However, with drafting software, a
streamlined process for obtaining asset information, and
a simple framework for verifying the status of trust and
non-trust assets, the attorney can empower the client to
complete the client’s own funding inside a system that a
third party could easily understand.
While it’s difcult to nd any universal standards for
the funding of RLTs, simply adapting a few commonsense
approaches can allow the successor trustee or another
attorney to easily know the status of trust-owned and non-
trust-owned assets.
During my time in practice, I’ve spoken with several
attorneys about their process for funding RLTs. I quickly
learned that every practitioner has his or her own system
and that no two systems are alike. Many practitioners
have the client come to their ofce to sign the various
legal documents, then send the client off with the legal
Estate Planning and Administration Section January 2014
Page 6
documents in hand and several pages of instructions on
how to fund the RLT. Although the instructions are clear,
many clients lack the patience and fortitude to see the
funding process through and the RLT is never fully funded.
On the other end of the spectrum, the attorney or an
assistant (if the attorney is afforded this luxury) assists the
client through the trust funding process by preparing and
recording deeds, coordinating the change of ownership on
investment accounts with brokers or other nancial advisors,
and updating beneciary designation forms for retirement
accounts. While this method may be comprehensive, it is
time-consuming and labor intensive, and such a service
will inevitably increase the cost for the client. Also, there
are certain things that an attorney, or legal assistant, cannot
accomplish from the ofce. For example, the change of
ownership on a bank account may require the signing of
a new signature card at the branch where the account is
established. This will require the client to make at least
one trip to the bank. Furthermore, there is still the issue
of assets acquired after the trust is established. Are these
assets going to be properly transferred and documented?
If so, by whom? The client? The attorney? Clearly, this
approach also has drawbacks.
Your own practice as an estate planner may mirror
one of these approaches or fall somewhere in between.
The process described below is a systematic approach to
funding RLTs. The benet of this approach is that it not
only ensures the RLT is properly funded, but results in
a veriable paper trail showing the status of the client’s
assets. Thus, a third party, be it the successor trustee or
another attorney, can hit the ground running should trust
administration become necessary.
Some of you may have already created your own
system, but for other practitioners looking to harness
available technology, offer clients a valuable service, and
have a veriable approach to completing the RLT funding
process, the following four steps are easily adaptable.
1) Get all the necessary asset information from the
clientBEFOREsigningthelegaldocuments.
This can be broken down into a process using two
separate forms. For illustration, I will make reference to
Form 1 and Form 2. Using Adobe Acrobat Pro, a form can
be lled in by the client on a computer (or for the less tech-
savvy clients, printed out and lled in by hand). Form 1, in
addition to gathering biographical and family information,
asks simple questions about the assets a person or couple
owns. Do you own real estate? If so, how many parcels?
Do you have bank accounts? If so, how many? Do you own
vehicles? If so, how many … and so on. You get the idea.
The list of types of assets is invariably long and the
answer to many of the items on the list is “no”—most people
do not have stock options, stock certicates, or airplanes,
yet you might consider making the list of possible assets on
Form 1 as exhaustive as possible.
Form 2 is where the client is asked to provide more
detailed information about her assets.
1
Instead of sending
the client a massive form where she is asked to nd the
assets she owns and ll in the requested information, the
information provided on Form 1 allows you to reduce or
entirely remove extraneous categories. For example, if the
client said she has six bank accounts, Form 2 shows only
six spaces for her to ll in. This is done for all the assets
the client disclosed in Form 1. The modied Form 2 is then
converted into a writeable PDF and sent to the client to ll
in and return.
The asset information requested on Form 2 is relatively
basic. For real estate, ask for the property’s address, the
lender’s contact information, the mortgage account number,
and the approximate outstanding balance on the mortgage,
if applicable. For nancial accounts, life insurance, and
retirement accounts, ask for the contact information of
the institution or the broker that handles the account, the
account or policy number, and the approximate value of the
death benet. For other assets like business interests and
promissory notes, request copies of the relevant documents
to obtain the information necessary to formally transfer
to the RLT, and request approximate values. Instead of
asking for a list or inventory of tangible personal property,
consider requesting an approximate value.
Getting asset information prior to signing the legal
documents is important for several reasons. First, it helps
determine the size of the estate and the level of planning
needed. Second, it allows you to prepare the necessary
documents to transfer the assets to the RLT that can be
signed along with the other estate planning documents.
Finally, if you wait until after the legal documents are
signed to address funding the RLT, you risk the client never
returning because she assumes the job is done after the
legal documents are signed.
A strict interpretation may suggest that the appointment
to sign the trust documents is never scheduled until Form 2
has been completely lled out and returned to your ofce.
2) Design the RLT-funding process from the
perspective of the successor trustee.
From a logical standpoint, it makes sense to design the
funding portion of the RLT from the perspective of the
successor trustee. While the client likely has a good grasp
on her own assets, the successor trustee (typically a relative
or close friend) may not. Thus, it makes sense to design the
funding to assist the successor trustee in administering the
RLT as easily and efciently as possible.
Put yourself in the shoes of the successor trustee
(or perhaps you’ve already served in this role)—what
information would you want? First, you need all the legal
1 Note: When working with a client, unless absolutely
necessary, consider asking only for the last four digits
of account numbers and Social Security numbers. This
information alone is usually sufcient to identify the account
in question and limits the amount of sensitive information
in our possession that could potentially be compromised.
Moreover, the statutory requirements of the Certication of
Trust only call for the last four digits of the settlor’s Social
Security number. ORS 130.860(2)(h).
Estate Planning and Administration Section January 2014
Page 7
documents. Having the trust agreement, the pour-over
will, the certication of trust, the power of attorney, and
the advanced healthcare directive in one, easily accessible
place is obviously important.
Next, what assets did the trust own? Using the
information from Form 2, consider having a spreadsheet
that lists every asset, showing whether it will be put
in the trust or will remain outside the trust. Each asset
listed should have contact information, account or policy
numbers, and the approximate value. There should also
be a space for any miscellaneous notes and suggested
beneciary designations, where necessary.
While a list or spreadsheet is a good starting point,
there is more to creating an organized, readily accessible
system. Making sure the client obtains and includes written
verication about each asset is the lynchpin in creating
the funding paper trail. Otherwise, the successor trustee
will see that an asset was designated to be transferred to
the trust, but will not know if the asset was actually ever
transferred into the trust. Wouldn’t you prefer to know that
the real estate was actually deeded into the trust? Wouldn’t
you prefer to have a bank statement showing that the old
joint Chase bank account is now owned by the trust? If
a business interest is assigned to the trust, wouldn’t you
want the assignment to be kept in the binder? Of course
you would. Creating such a system for your own practice is
relatively simple.
For example, you could include a specic tab in the
estate planning binder devoted to the asset list that contains
the asset spreadsheet followed by an individual page for
each asset that corresponds to the assets listed on the
spreadsheet. Each individual asset page should be followed
by the verication that the asset was transferred into the
trust. For real estate, the original deed should follow the
specic asset page. For bank accounts, the rst page of a
bank statement showing the account is owned by the trust
should follow. For assignments of business interests or
promissory notes, the assignment should follow the specic
asset page.
3) Assist the settlor with transferring real estate
and assignment of interests; give instructions on
all other assets.
For most clients, their assets consist of real estate,
personal property, bank accounts, automobiles, brokerage
accounts, life insurance policies, and retirement accounts.
When dealing with real estate, the attorney can prepare the
deed transferring the interest into the trust. The attorney can
also draft assignments for personal property, promissory
notes payable to the client, and certain business interests.
For all other types of assets, the client is instructed to mail
or deliver to the various institutions form letters prepared by
the attorney. After the institution has transferred the asset,
the client is instructed to place a written verication that
the asset has been put in the trust following the individual
asset page for the account. The form of verication can be
either a letter from the institution saying the asset has been
placed in the trust or a subsequent monthly statement that
is addressed to the trustee or references the trust as the
account owner. This process is also repeated for insurance
policies and retirement accounts but instead has written
verication of the updated beneciary designations.
With the introduction and widespread use of so-called
“virtual assets” (e.g., Facebook, email, PayPal, etc.), clients
should be instructed to create a Virtual Asset Instruction
List (“VAIL”) and to keep the VAIL in either the estate
planning binder or a secure location accessible to the
successor trustee. The VAIL should include usernames and
passwords for all of the client’s virtual accounts and will
allow the designated representative access should the client
become incapacitated or die.
When the client completes the organization described
above, she has provided the successor trustee with a
snapshot of her assets as of the date of the signing of her
trust. Obviously, the client will acquire new assets and get
rid of others. The client should be instructed to keep the
schedule of assts up to date by crossing items off the list if
sold or if they are no longer in existence.
For later acquired assets, provide the client with a
blank spreadsheet—let’s call it the Later-Acquired Asset
List—where she can add assets that have been purchased
or acquired since the date of the trust signing. Spaces are
provided for information about the asset. The client should
be instructed to include the necessary verication that the
asset has been titled in the name of the trust similar to the
earlier process.
Thus, if the client completed the funding process and
diligently listed new assets on the Later-Acquired Asset
List and then dies or becomes incapacitated, the successor
trustee (or the attorney assisting the successor trustee)
will be able determine what assets are owned by the trust
or passing through beneciary designation. Of course, in
order to create the RLT funding paper trail, it is imperative
that the client understand and follow through with the
process described above.
Now you are probably thinking that most clients,
for whatever reason, will not successfully complete this
simple, yet time-consuming funding process if it is left up
to them, which leads to the…
4) Complimentary One-Year Trust Funding
Review
Consider developing a process so that when your clients
sign a RLT, the price charged includes a complimentary
one-year review of the trust funding. When the client
returns after one year, examine the binder as if she just
died. Did the client follow your instructions? Are the
proper verications in place? If they are in place, great!
If things are lacking, you can quickly and easily give her
feedback on what needs to be done. If the client chooses
not to follow the instructions, she is free to do so, but at
least you can sleep easily knowing you have provided the
tools and the framework for making sure the funding gets
completed and is veriable.
While these trust funding review meetings take only 30
to 45 minutes, the benets of these meetings are enormous.
First, as the client knows she will be returning in one year
Estate Planning and Administration Section January 2014
Page 8
to have you review the funding homework, she is more
likely to follow through the with the funding process.
Second, by not charging to answer questions about the
trust funding, the client is supported and feels like she is
receiving good value with the follow-up complimentary
visit. Third, these meetings allow you to discuss with the
client the current status of state and federal trust and estate
laws. Fourth, the client is compelled to review and examine
her estate plan on a regular basis. Finally, these meetings
maintain and strengthen the attorney-client relationship,
encouraging the client to refer friends and to use you for
any necessary additional legal work
Finding the system that works best for your practice:
The system described above is simply one approach.
This approach can also be streamlined by use of drafting
software such as Hotdocs to generate the spreadsheet, letters,
and asset pages. There are inevitably many approaches that
I have failed to consider or mention in this article. A great
resource and starting point for information and practice
tips is the subchapter “The Importance of Funding the
Trust” in BarBooks: Administering Trusts in Oregon.
We have several ideas for future articles for
this series. If you have a suggestion or would like to
write an article, please contact the Newsletter Editor.
Practice Tip: HIPAA Releases
Erik S. Schimmelbusch
Schimmelbusch Law Group P.C.
Lake Oswego, Oregon
Every estate planning lawyer is faced with the challenge
of helping to ensure that a client’s condential health
information is adequately protected from improper
disclosure, while ensuring that information is available to
appropriate persons in the event of the client’s incapacity.
Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), medical providers can face
penalties and nes for unauthorized release of “protected
health information.” As a result, doctors and other medical
providers are reluctant to release records to a person
designated under an unfamiliar document.
Under HIPAA, protected health information includes
anything created or received by a “covered entity” relating to
an individual’s physical or mental conditions or health care,
and that could be used to identify the individual. “Covered
entities” include health care providers, pharmacies, nursing
facilities, and insurance companies, as well as other health
care-related entities.
To ensure that appropriate health information is available
to appropriate persons, every estate plan should include an
effective HIPAA authorization. One question that often
arises is whether HIPAA authorization language that is
included in a trust or power of attorney is an effective
HIPAA release. The HIPAA regulations specically address
this issue: 45 CFR § 164.508(b)(3) (entitled “Compound
authorizations”) provides, with limited exceptions: “An
authorization for use or disclosure of protected health
information may not be combined with any other document
to create a compound authorization * * *.” The exceptions
set forth in that section do not include trusts, powers of
attorney, or other estate planning documents. Accordingly,
a separate HIPAA release should be prepared.
Careful consideration must be given to the preparation
of a HIPAA release. For a detailed discussion of the
preparation of a HIPAA release, including sample forms,
see William H. Soskin, “How To Be A HIPaa Lawyer,”
CA Prob Rptr (Apr. 2005), also publicly available at http://
www.actec.org/Documents/misc/SoskinHIPaaLawyer.pdf.
Oregon Income Tax Credits
John Sorlie
Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, PC
Bend, Oregon
Oregon has a number of tax credits that can be used by
Oregon income taxpayers to offset their Oregon income tax.
The Oregon Department of Revenue (“ODR”) recognizes
44 separate credits available in Oregon.
1
Some of these
credits are widely known and used. For example, the $183
personal exemption credit is available to each Oregon
taxpayer as an annual exemption from Oregon income tax.
2
The child and dependent care
3
tax credit provides a credit
against Oregon income tax much like the federal credit
with the same name provides a credit for federal income
tax. The political contribution tax credit allows each
Oregon taxpayer to donate up to $50 per year to a qualied
candidate, political action committee, or political party and
claim a corresponding credit against Oregon income tax.
4
Numerous other less well known credits are available
in Oregon. A signicant number of these credits address
matters the legislature has deemed socially benecial (such
as conservation, alternative fuels, and renewable energy)
5
1 See www.oregon.gov/dor/PERTAX/personal-income-tax-
overview/pages/credits.aspx for a list of the recognized
credits. Some of the credits listed there have expired and will
not be available in 2013 or 2014.
2 ORS 316.085.
3 ORS 316.078.
4 ORS 316.102.The political contribution tax credit is equal to
the contribution, but limited to $100 on a joint return or $50
on a single or separate return. The credit can be claimed for a
contribution to a candidate for federal, state, or local elective
ofce, or to the candidate’s principal campaign committee.
Taxpayers can also claim a credit for contributions to political
action committees (“PACs”) if certied by the Secretary of
State for statewide or regional elections, the county clerk for
county elections, or the city recorder for city elections. PACs
registered with the Federal Elections Commission may not be
required to register in Oregon.
5 See, e.g., tax credits for, among others:(a) residential energy,
ORS 316.116, which provides credits for purchasing certain
residential energy efcient appliances and other items;
(b) renewable energy resource equipment manufacturing
facility, ORS 315.341; (c) renewable energy development
contribution (auction), ORS 315.326; (d) biomass production/
collection, ORS 315.141, 315.144.
Estate Planning and Administration Section January 2014
Page 9
and others that are geared toward a limited number of
special circumstances (such as wolf depredation and sh
screening devices).
6
This article addresses a few of the Oregon income tax
credits that may be of interest to Oregon estate planning
professionals.
Significance of Tax Credits
Tax credits are particularly valuable for a taxpayer
because a tax credit offsets the actual income tax that
must be paid to the State of Oregon on a dollar-for-dollar
basis. In other words, a $1 tax credit reduces the amount
of Oregon tax by $1. This is different from, for example,
a donation made to a charity, which is a tax deduction. A
deduction will reduce the amount of income on which the
Oregon tax is calculated, but it generally will not result in a
dollar-for-dollar reduction in Oregon income tax.
Note that these Oregon tax credits are applicable only
as a credit against Oregon income tax and will not be a
credit against the federal income tax – although in some
circumstances there may be a corresponding federal tax
credit that will also be a credit against the federal income
tax.
Tax Credits to Promote Savings of Long-Term
Care Costs.
The State has adopted a number of tax credits devoted to
reducing long-term care costs that may otherwise become
the responsibility of the State. These include the following:
(a) Long-term care insurance premiums (ORS
315.610). Oregon allows a tax credit for long-term
care insurance premiums if the policy was issued
on or after January 1, 2000, and the taxpayer, or
the taxpayer’s parents or dependents, is named as
beneficiary. The credit is also available to employers
that pay for the long-term care insurance of their
employees.
The credit is either $500 or 15% of the premium paid
during the year, whichever is less. For employers, the
credit is the smaller of 15% of the premiums paid for
all covered Oregon employees or $500 multiplied by
the number of covered Oregon employees.
(b) Low-income caregiver (ORS 316.148). This
program is intended to reduce the number of people
going to nursing homes when there is a caregiver
who may provide the necessary services at home. A
taxpayer may be eligible for this credit if the taxpayer
pays the expenses for the care of a person 60 or older
that keeps the person from being placed in a nursing
home. The taxpayer can claim the credit only if the
taxpayer’s household income is less than $17,500 and
the following applies to the person receiving the care:
6 For example, see the tax credits available for Wolf
Depredation, Or Laws 2012, ch 65 (provides a credit for
livestock killed by a wolf); the credit for Fish screening
devices ORS 315.138; the credit for rural emergency medical
technicians, ORS 315.622; and, the credit for rural health
practitioners, ORS 315.613.
• is at least 60 years old;
• is not in a nursing home, rehabilitation facility, or
other long-term skilled care facility;
• does not receive medical assistance from the State;
• has severe problems with communication,
mobility, managing a household, nutrition, personal
relationships, managing money, health, or other
problems caring for oneself, and the problems must
be severe enough that the person might normally be
placed in a nursing home;
• does not receive services from Oregon Project
Independence including housekeeping, homemaking,
and home health care, and
• has household income of $7,500 or less.
The credit is equal to the smaller of $250 or 8% of the
qualifying expenses paid or incurred during the tax year.
Qualifying expenses include food, clothing, medical, and
transportation expenses paid by the taxpayer during the
year. The amount paid for lodging does not qualify.
Transportation expenses for medical and personal needs,
such as shopping, do qualify.
To claim the credit, the Oregon Department of Human
Services (“DHS’) must certify that the person being cared
for qualies. A form can be downloaded from the DHS
website to obtain this certication.
7
Credits for Directed Contributions.
Certain tax credits are available for a limited number
of charitable and special interest causes. By making a
contribution to one of the programs authorized to issue
tax credits, these contributions will partially offset the
taxpayer’s Oregon income tax, essentially allowing a
taxpayer to direct how their Oregon tax dollars are
used. Further, use of these credits can actually lead to a
reduction in the combined federal and State income tax of
certain taxpayers – especially those subject to the federal
alternative minimum tax.
Below are several examples of these credits:
(a) Oregon Cultural Trust (ORS 315.675). If an
Oregon taxpayer makes a donation to an Oregon
nonprofit cultural organization during the tax year,
the taxpayer can obtain a credit equal to 100% of an
additional matching donation made to the Oregon
Cultural Trust up to a maximum of $500 per taxpayer
($1,000 on jointly filed returns). Corporations can
claim a credit of up to $2,500 per tax year.
The program is administered by the Oregon
Arts Commission. For information about which
organizations qualify as a nonprofit cultural
organization go to its website at
www.culturaltrust.
org
.
7 The form is available at http://www.oregon.gov/dor/PERTAX/
docs/101-024.pdf. Part I of the form must be completed and
sent to Seniors and People with Disabilities, Department
of Human Services, 500 Summer St NE, E02, Salem, OR
97301-1073. The form will be returned showing whether the
person being cared for is certied.
Estate Planning and Administration Section January 2014
Page 10
(b) Oregon Production Investment Fund (ORS
315.514). For those taxpayers who would like to
target their tax dollars toward the promotion of film
and video in Oregon, the Department of Revenue, in
cooperation with the Oregon Film and Video Office,
conducts the annual Oregon Production Investment
Fund tax credit auction. Proceeds from the auction
go to the fund to promote film and video productions
in Oregon. Total credits certified by the Oregon
Film and Video Office for 2013 were $10 million.
Because this is an auction, the cost of each credit
varies depending on the bids placed for these credits,
but the cost averaged close to $0.97 for a $1 credit
in the last auction.
8
Incentives offered by this fund
were instrumental in bringing productions such as the
television shows Portlandia and Grimm to Oregon.
9
(c) Individual Development Accounts (ORS
315.271).Oregon allows a tax credit for charitable
contributions to the Neighborhood Partnership Fund
(“NPF”) that is used to fund the Oregon Individual
Development Account (“IDA”) Initiative. The
initiative matches contributions that qualified low-
income Oregonians make to a savings account from
which they later draw funds to apply toward a defined
goal. The idea is to teach financial management
skills so people can save funds toward educational or
professional development or the purchase of a home.
For every dollar saved by the participant toward
the participant’s goal the program contributes $3.
Participants must have a net worth under $20,000, so
it is targeted toward low-income Oregonians.
The credit is the smaller of $75,000 or 75% of the
donation made and can be carried forward three years.The
maximum annual gift to NPF for these credits is $100,000.
The State currently authorizes up to $10 million of these
credits each year. In 2012 all $10 million credits were
purchased before December 16, and staff at the Oregon IDA
ofce expects the 2013 tax credits to also sell out before the
end of the year so application should be made as early in
the year as possible.
10
This tax credit program is utilized by
relatively few Oregon taxpayers (500 in 2011).
In addition to qualifying as an Oregon tax credit,
contributions to the Oregon IDA Initiative may also qualify
the taxpayer for a federal charitable contribution deduction.
As a result, the combined federal and State tax savings can
be signicant.
11
(d) Child Care Fund (ORS 315.213).A taxpayer
who contributes to the Child Care Fund receives a tax
credit equal to 75% of the dollar amount donated.The
fund helps address child care affordability, provider
compensation, and quality assurance issues in Oregon.
8 Telephone conversation with Executive Director Vince Porter
of the Oregon Film ofce on December 6, 2013.
9 Id.
10 Telephone conversation with the Communications Director
with the Oregon IDA Initiative.
11 Details of the Oregon IDA Initiative can be found at http://
www.oregonidainitiative.org/donate/.
The Child Care Division of the Oregon Employment
Department administers the credits and issues a tax
credit certificate for qualifying contributions.
12
Auctions and Carryforwards.
The ODR conducts several auctions of tax credits each
year, usually at the end of the year. There may be minimum
auction bids for these credits. For example, the ODR
occasionally auctions Department of Energy tax credits that
benet the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Fund. The minimum bid
for a $500 credit certicate is $475.
13
The credit available for
the Oregon Production Investment Fund mentioned above is
also conducted as an auction, and the total amount of credits
in 2013 was limited to $10 million per year.
Some of the tax credits can be carried forward to future
years if the entire credit cannot be used in one year. For
further information about each particular tax credit, visit
the Oregon Department of Revenue’s website at http://www.
oregon.gov/dor/PERTAX/personal-income-tax-overview/
pages/credits.aspx. Many of the tax credits are also managed
by the State agencies that receive the benet of the funds
and issue the credits. Therefore, when seeking a particular
tax credit, contact the agency that issues the credit.
The programs and credits outlined here are just a few
of the many that do not get much attention but may benet
a client’s personal goals and values while also being tax
efcient.
Practice Tip: Does Cover Oregon
Cover You After Age 65?
Sheryl McConnell
Attorney at Law
McMinnville, Oregon
Cover Oregon is an online marketplace where Oregonians
can nd and purchase health insurance under the Affordable
Care Act. Cover Oregon offers health insurance to
Oregonians who are uninsured, currently buy insurance
on their own, or own a small business with 20 or fewer
eligible employees. The large volume of press coverage the
Affordable Care Act and Cover Oregon have received in
the last few months can cause confusion among our clients
The Cover Oregon web site has a great deal of information;
however, some obvious questions are not answered in the
Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) section.
A majority of estate planning clients are 65 years or
older. Because they are eligible for Medicare, Oregonians
who are 65 years or older are not eligible to purchase health
insurance through Cover Oregon. Additionally, Cover
Oregon does not include any type of Medicare Supplement
insurance. If Oregonians who are over 65 are still working
12 The Child Care Contribution Tax Credit Form is available
at http://www.oregon.gov/EMPLOY/CCD/docs/Tax_Forms/
CO-525.pdf.
13 Oregon Department of Revenue, Renewable Energy
Development Fund Tax Credit Auction, http://www.oregon.
gov/dor/PERTAX/Pages/credit-auction-info.aspx (last visited
Jan. 23, 2014).
Estate Planning and Administration Section January 2014
Page 11
for a small company (20 or fewer employees), they are
covered by Medicare. If they work for a larger company and
are covered by that company’s group plan, the group plan
will be supplemented by Medicare.
No one age 65 or older is eligible to purchase health
insurance through Cover Oregon. Information about who
is eligible to purchase health coverage through for Cover
Oregon can be found at: https://www.coveroregon.com.
The Section Chair Says . . .
Jeffrey M. Cheyne, Chairperson
Estate Planning and Administration Section
Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP
Portland, Oregon
2014 is a good year for the Estate Planning and
Estate Administration Section (“EPEA”). You have
an excellent team of committee members with broad
experience in estate planning, estate administration
and duciary litigation who will represent the section
this year.
One of the responsibilities of the executive committee
is to propose legislation to improve various Oregon
laws that we work with every day. We are currently
focusing on legislative projects for the 2015 legislative
session. Unfortunately, the time frame for submitting
the concepts of the proposed legislation is April 4,
2014. If you have any suggestions or legislative changes
you would like the executive committee to consider,
please submit them to Matt Whitman at mwhitman@
cart-law.com.
The Oregon Law Commission has established a
work group to review the Oregon Probate Code (ORS
Chapters 111 through 117) and then draft legislation.
The work group has started meeting on a regular
basis. From time to time you can expect to see emails
on the estate listserv discussing various issues being
reviewed by the work group. If you have any questions
or suggestions for changes to Oregon’s Probate Code,
please submit them to Susan Gary at sgary@uoregon.
edu.
The EPEA CLE Committee is planning an advanced
estate planning/estate administration seminar in May
and a basic estate planning/estate administration
seminar in November. If you have any suggestions for
seminar topics or seminar speakers, please contact Jack
Rounsefell at justyit2@yahoo.com.
The EPEA Newsletter Editorial Board is working
on articles that discuss current issues in estate planning
and estate administration. If you would like to write
an article or have a topic that you would like to
see in our newsletter, please contact Janice Hatton
at jhatton@luvaascobb.com or Sheryl McConnell at
smcconnellor@aol.com.
Melanie Marmion, an Executive Committee
member, has spent a substantial number of hours over
the last two years working on a draft ethics opinion
memorandum addressing joint representation of a
married couple concerning the spousal elective share
waiver. This memorandum has been given to the OSB
Ethics Committee for review. We will keep you posted
on the outcome.
The Oregon State Bar Board of Governors has
appointed a task force to review whether or not to
establish a licensing and regulatory program for non-
lawyers to obtain a Limited License Legal Technician
certication. The appointment of the Oregon taskforce
was prompted by the fact that the Washington State
Bar under the direction of the Washington Supreme
Court is already considering a licensing program. If
adopted in Oregon, the OSB would license non-lawyers
who have completed certain training requirements
to prepare simple legal documents. The goal of this
program is to provide greater access to justice and
reduce the cost for completing certain tasks. Estate
planning and estate administration is being considered
as one of the areas where simple legal documents could
be prepared by licensed technicians. But there are a
number of signicant legal and logistical issues as to
what type of tasks are simple enough to be performed
by a technician without an attorney’s supervision, and
who would be responsible for determining whether
or not a matter could be handled by the technician
or requires an attorney. If you have any thoughts,
comments or concerns on this issue, please contact
your local BOG representative or Bradley Maier at
bmaier@schwabe.com.
On behalf of the executive committee we look
forward to being of service to the members of the
EPEA Section. Please feel free to contact me or any
members of the Executive Committee if you have
questions or comments.
Best wishes to all of you for a successful year in
2014.
Oregon Estate Planning and Administration
NewsletterEditorialBoard
Janice Hatton Timothy R. Strader
Sarah Keane John Sorlie
Vanessa Usui
Questions, Comments or Suggestions About This
Newsletter?
Contact: Sheryl S. McConnell, Editor-in-Chief
Tel: (503) 857-6860
E-mail: [email protected]
Disclaimer
The articles and notes in the Oregon State Bar Estate
Planning and Administration Section Newsletter may
contain analysis and opinions that do not necessarily
reflect the analysis and opinions of the Newsletter Editor-
in-Chief, the Editorial Board, the Estate Planning Section
Board, or the membership of the Estate Planning Section.
