The Washington Report: – Wealth Transfer Edition

“The shrinking market for stand-alone long-term care (LTC) insurance has increased the popularity of pairing life insurance with a qualified LTC (“QLTC”) benefits rider, which can provide more comprehensive coverage to the insured often for a lower premium. But placing these “hybrid” policies into an irrevocable life insurance trust (“ILIT”) requires juggling competing goals: keeping death benefits outside of the insured’s estate while also managing the insured’s LTC funding concerns. For successful ILIT planning with hybrid policies, additional steps are required to preserve LTC planning goals while also maintaining the ILIT’s intended estate tax planning benefits.”

Click here to read the full report. 

The Washington Report: – Wealth Transfer Edition

SYNOPSIS: Tax practitioners and estate planning professionals are closely watching developments in Elcan v. Commissioner, a Tax Court case involving the administration of grantor retained annuity trusts (“GRATS”), which could reshape high-net worth tax planning strategies and practice for years to come.  While the regulations do not appear to support the IRS’s current position in Elcan, the case is another reminder for clients and advisors that GRAT planning requires diligent administration throughout the GRAT term to ensure compliance with all statutory requirements.

Click here to read the full report.

The Washington Report: – Special Edition

“California has a ballot proposal that would amend its constitution and impose a so-called “Billionaire’s Tax” on certain residents.  For taxpayers whose wealth is tied to a privately held business, the billionaire tax could present significant cash flow problems, forcing owners to potential divest of their businesses, or parts thereof, at inopportune and/or inefficient times. This could significantly disrupt long-term planning and investment at non-public companies. More broadly, if California passes a wealth tax along these lines, it could create momentum for a similar or analogous tax at the federal level.  Polling from February 2026 shows anywhere from 48% to 60% of Californians support the proposal. However, many politicians in CA, including the Democratic governor, oppose the measure.”

To see the full report, click here.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

How often do you get a love letter from your favorite life insurance professional?  From today’s New York Times, I picked out the following piece.  As a planner who works with the best planners in the country, I asked myself is there anything more important that we can do for our clients than to help them do “this” for the people they love?

“In 2010 my husband was diagnosed with cancer and given six months to live. Unbeknown to me, in between his treatments, he planned my life without him. Every little detail: where I should live, how to control finances by setting up payments, my health concerns. Everything. That is how he left me to go on without him. That is a romantic gesture.”  Bryan Murphy, 76, London

To read the full article, click here.

“Five Financial Blind Spots That Burden Grieving Spouses – Surprise Debt, Locked Out of Accounts, Invisible Credit Records, New Budgets, Higher Tax Brackets.”

Forget the silly number-crunching.  Forget the extra point or two of return if we recommend putting the money elsewhere.  Forget estate taxes.  Forget all of the sophisticated planning machinations and tell me why a significant income tax-free cash infusion to a surviving spouse isn’t a good idea.  Whether it is $1 Million or $10 Million (the size of the estate is relative), I’ve never seen an estate in which a significant cash infusion didn’t make a difference.  Cash buys time, provides liquidity, and comforts at a most uncomfortable time.  Yet, throughout the entirety of my career, I’ve seen very few instances where advisors have considered the benefits.  A personally owned life insurance policy’s death benefit is one of the cleanest and most cost-effective ways to provide cash when needed (or wanted).

A Question – If we were sitting here today and the client had died last night what would we be discussing?  I suspect having enough sustaining cash would be near the top of the list.

The WSJ article can be found by clicking here.

I wonder if it is any different for a lawyer, accountant, or financial advisor….or business owner?

“A few years ago, a colleague called to tell me our friend and fellow psychiatrist had collapsed at home and died of a cardiac arrest. She was in her early 70s, without any previously known medical illness. Within hours, a group of shocked and grief-stricken psychiatrists gathered at her home office, faced with a predicament: We had no idea who her patients were, much less how to contact them….Therapists are largely unprepared for the impact of their death or sudden incapacity…. Every licensed therapist should have a will for his or her professional life, updated at least twice a year, that sets out provisions to care for his or her patients in the event of death or sudden incapacitation.”

To read the full article, click here.

“Quick Summary”

• The billable hour, prevalent since the 1960s, is becoming untenable for professional services due to accelerating AI capabilities.
• AI systems can perform tasks like contract review and document drafting in minutes or seconds, making time-based billing illogical.
• Alternative pricing models, such as value-based pricing or subscriptions, are emerging as AI shifts focus to outcomes and continuous service.”

“When an AI system can review thousands of contracts in minutes rather than weeks, draft complex documents in seconds rather than hours or generate strategic analyses near-instantaneously, the time component becomes almost meaningless…. In any case, the premium will be on human insight and connection, not the hours logged.”  

The WSJ article can be found by clicking here.

“Surprise! You have a $100 million trust fund.  That is the message at “trust reveal” meetings hosted by wealthy families and advisers around the country. These days, business is booming.  Wealthy families are increasingly holding “trust reveal” meetings to inform heirs of substantial inheritances.”

The WSJ article can be found by clicking here.

I had a luncheon conversation in Toronto with one of Canada’s top tax attorneys. I asked, “What’s more important the hard, math side of estate planning or the soft, emotional side of estate planning?” Quickly and unequivocally, he answered that it was the soft, emotional side of estate planning that was more important and that one can always hire a “calculator” to crunch numbers. What’s it all about? Number crunching should only support what clients are truly trying to achieve. Are we leading planning conversations by asking the right questions and helping clients understand what is really important? I hope you find this “challenging” WSJ article thought-provoking.

The WSJ article can be found by clicking here.

From the article: “As a personal finance expert, I give advice on how to maximize wealth. At the end of my mother’s life, I realized there’s a more important question: What is our money for?  I have spent much of my career as a personal finance expert preaching how to save more, spend less and minimize taxes. It made me realize that I had book knowledge in a situation that demanded street smarts. Not much discussion of financial planning is geared toward how to take care of other people and how to make it possible for them to care for you. The people who reach out to me for advice want to talk about optimizing rates of return and navigating market risks, about Roth conversions and when to claim Social Security. I had always been right there for these discussions, but now this sort of strictly financial maneuvering seems to miss the most important question: What’s it all for?”

Someone shared the story below with me.  We really don’t need to make our client conversations or planning any more complicated.

Two Business Owners. Two Stories. One Critical Difference.

Last year, two small business owners, Mark and James, passed away unexpectedly within months of each other. Both had run successful companies for decades, each employing dozens of people and supporting their families through the enterprise they had built from scratch.

Mark had planned carefully. Years earlier, he worked with his advisor to purchase a well-structured life insurance policy tied directly to his business succession plan. When tragedy struck, the death benefit funded a buy-sell agreement. His family received fair value for his share of the company. His business partner used the proceeds to keep operations stable, pay off debts, and reassure employees and customers. Within weeks, the company was back on track. Mark’s vision lived on—and his family’s financial life remained secure.

James’s story was different. He had always said, “We’ll figure it out” when the topic of insurance arose. When he died, his family had no way to access the company’s cash flow or negotiate a buyout. The business struggled with leadership gaps, creditors became anxious, and key employees left. Within a year, the company folded. His family lost both the paycheck and the equity value. The ripple effects reached suppliers, clients, and employees across town.

The difference wasn’t in their work ethic or success—it was in their planning. Life insurance gave Mark’s business and family a future. The lack of it left James’s legacy vulnerable.

Sometimes it takes a real story to remind us why our work matters.