2025/2026 Legislative, Case Law, and Related Updates and How They May Impact Your Estate Plan

II. One Big Beautiful Bill Tax Act

On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act aka the Big Beautiful Tax Bill (the “Bill”). The Bill extends many of the provisions in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) and adds additional income tax and business tax provisions. The Bill eliminates the previously anticipated January 1, 2026 sunset of the increased TCJA Exemption (which, prior to the Bill, was scheduled to decrease from the current $13.99 Million (or a total of $27.98 Million per couple if married) to approximately $7 Million (or a total of approximately $14 Million per couple if married) by permanently incorporating the higher Exemption framework (as further adjusted for inflation under current law). As a result, clients are not pressured to make full use of their estate and gift tax Exemption before the end of this year or lose about one half of its benefit as would have been the case without the Bill.

Nevertheless there are still significant benefits to using the Exemption (to the extent clients have not already done so) to make gifts to irrevocable trusts to insulate such assets from creditors and freeze the value of gifted assets, especially where there is a possibility that the gifted asset could substantially appreciate in the near future or benefit from discounts for lack of marketability or minority interests in businesses, real estate, and other assets.

A summary of some Bill provisions that clients may be most interested in is provided below. Many comprehensive summaries of the Bill can be found online.

1. Rate Continued: The Bill maintained the 40% estate tax rate for estates over the Exemption (over $15 Million reduced by prior use of the Exemption). Accordingly, if an unmarried individual dies with a taxable estate in excess of $15 Million in 2026 or a couple (assuming a portability return was filed upon the death of the first spouse) dies with a taxable estate in excess of $30 Million in 2026, then only the excess above the unused Exemption will be subject to estate tax at 40%.

2. Step Up in Basis Maintained: The Bill did not eliminate “step up” in income tax basis available at death. Thus, assets owned by a decedent at death and included in their gross estate will receive a step up in income tax basis to date of death fair market values. As a result, beneficiaries of such assets will have no capital gains tax on pre-death appreciation. If the inherited assets are sold shortly after death for fair market value, capital gains tax will likely be minimal.

III. Planning Implications

The Bill allows for the continuation of current planning strategies and does not require immediate action before year end as previously feared to take advantage of the TCJA Exemption amounts. Nonetheless, clients who have not already utilized their Exemptions should consider gifting strategies so that the appreciation on such gifted assets pass estate and generation skipping transfer tax free to trust beneficiaries. This can be done through the following strategies, which are not comprehensive (Note: These strategies are fact specific and require individualized advice):

1. SLATs, Dynasty Trusts, and Other Irrevocable Trust Gifts: Married clients should consider creating one or more Spousal Limited Access Trusts (“SLATs”) (irrevocable trusts created by one spouse primarily for the other spouse that utilizes the gifting spouse’s lifetime exemption and freezes the value of the gifted assets). Clients, whether married or single, should consider Dynasty Trusts for children and/or grandchildren (typically SLATs for the benefit of a spouse during the spouse’s lifetime are also drafted to be Dynasty Trusts upon the death of the beneficiary spouse). Assets that have growth potential should be considered for such gifts as the appreciation will pass estate and GST tax free to the beneficiaries.

However, irrevocable trust planning should be weighed against the loss of the “step up” in income tax basis at death that is provided under current law for assets included in a person’s estate (which excludes properly drafted and administered SLATs and other Dynasty Trusts). Irrevocable trusts often provide the settlor with a “substitution power” which is a technique that can be utilized to allow the settlor to swap assets held by the settlor for assets of equivalent value held by the trust so that upon the settlor’s death, the settlor’s estate includes mostly assets that have significant appreciation and benefit from the step up in income tax basis at death and the SLAT or Dynasty Trust has mostly high income tax basis assets.

2. GRATS: Another popular and effective technique is a grantor retained annuity trust (“GRAT”) that allows a settlor to make an irrevocable gift to a trust and retain the right to receive back assets based upon the initial value of the GRAT gift over a period of typically two years or more and convey most post-gift appreciation gift-tax free to children or other remainder beneficiaries. Congress has considered repealing the IRS Code statutory provisions that permit GRATs due to the incredible tax advantage they provide when the assets gifted to the GRAT have significant appreciation, and the limited use of Exemption when GRATs are created. Clients who are confident of rapid appreciation of an asset (such as where it is possible, but not definitive, that a business or real estate will be sold in the future at a price significantly greater than current value) have received tax savings if the asset, in fact, appreciates and have little to lose (aside from costs to establish the GRAT and obtain appraisals) if the anticipated appreciation does not occur.

3. Annual Exclusion Gifting: Clients should consider annual exclusion gifts to family members (or others). The annual exclusion for the years 2025 and 2026 is $19,000 per person or $38,000 if a split-gift election is made among spouses (or if both spouses each make a gift to the beneficiary).

4. 529 Plan Account: Clients should consider funding 529 education plans for their children and/or grandchildren. Clients can contribute 5-years’ worth of contributions in one year to a 529 account, provided they file a gift tax return reflecting such, but then must delay until the sixth year to make an additional tax free 529 gift or annual exclusion gift to the beneficiary of the 529 plan. Those who take advantage of the 5-year advance gift can make a 5-year prepayment gift of $95,000 to a 529 plan in 2025 or 2026 for a child or grandchild if no other gifts were made in the current year to such beneficiary. Such gift will be considered as made ratably over the 5-year period beginning with the calendar year of such gift.

If spouses contribute as well to a child or grandchild’s 529 plan in 2025 or 2026 and have not made prior gifts to such child or grandchild during the year (and have not made an advance 529 payment in the past that is deemed to be a taxable gift in the current year), then the total amount both spouses can gift to such 529 account for each child or grandchildren free of gift tax is $190,000 in 2025 and 2026. 529 accounts are also generally protected from the owner’s and beneficiary’s creditors under Florida law if the owner (as to claims against the owner) and the beneficiary (as to claims against the beneficiary) is a Florida resident.

The Bill revised the definition of qualified higher education expenses, now allowing 529 accounts to be used for an expanded range of K-12 expenses, including books and other curriculum materials, some testing fees, and some educational therapies for students with disabilities. In addition, the tax-free withdrawal limit for K-12 expenses increased from $10,000 to $20,000 per year. It is also important to note that effective January 1, 2024, certain unused 529 plan funds can be rolled into the beneficiary’s Roth IRA without a tax penalty, subject to restrictions including, but not limited to, a lifetime limit of $35,000 and the requirement that the 529 plan must have been maintained for the beneficiary for at least 15 years.

IV. Other Important Considerations

1. Donor Advised Funds: Clients who have or may create charitable donor advised funds (“DAFs”) in the future should review Barry and Cassandra’s DAF article (estatetaxlawyers.com/2023-11-lisi330-donor-advised-funds). The article explains why donors of DAFs must consider how their DAFs will be administered after their death or incapacity as Barry and Cassandra encountered many DAF agreements for their clients by charitable or financial sponsors that may not satisfy the client’s charitable objectives once the client passes away or becomes incapacitated. A comprehensive DAF agreement should: (i) list successors to the donors who may suggest charitable distributions (e.g., the donor’s children, by majority, can make such requests) and (ii) specify the donor’s default charitable beneficiaries (or specify that a stated percentage of DAF gifts continue to be made to specified charities or causes). Otherwise, if there are no remaining persons authorized to request charitable distributions, the DAF charitable sponsor may have the authority to direct DAF assets to charities in the DAF charitable sponsor’s discretion as compared to charities desired by the DAF donor.

2. Owners of Golf Cart, Electric Bikes, Electric Scooters, Micromobility Devices, and Watercraft Vessels Should Beware of Huge Potential Liability: Clients who own golf carts should review Barry and Cassandra’s article (estatetaxlawyers.com/florida-golf-cart-owners-beware-of-liability) and be aware that lending their golf cart (or other vehicle that does not qualify as a motor vehicle pursuant to Florida Statute Section §324.021(9)(b)3)) to others could, based upon a September 19, 2023 Miami-Dade County Circuit Court ruling, result in damages in excess of $50 million to the owner under Florida law, even if the owner was not the driver who negligently caused significant injuries. This exposure could also result from electric bikes, electric scooters, micromobility devices, and watercraft vessels. A comprehensive periodic liability insurance review is critical to make sure that claims against the owner or driver of such “toys” are significantly covered, and clients should consider increasing their liability umbrella policy to cover unexpected liability exposure. Clients who consider converting their traditional golf carts to “street-ready” golf carts should be aware of the risks associated with such and should determine whether the conversion would result in such golf cart being considered a motor vehicle for purposes of the owner’s automobile insurance.

3. Tenants by the Entirety: Clients domiciled in Florida who own their accounts jointly with their spouse should confirm that such accounts (other than community property accounts) are properly titled as tenants by the entirety as opposed to joint tenants with right of survivorship. We have noticed that many clients who have relocated to Florida or who use national financial institutions do not focus on the benefits of titling financial accounts between spouses as tenants by the entirety (which accounts are generally protected under Florida law from creditor’s claims if only one spouse is a debtor) as compared to joint tenants with rights of survivorship (which provides no protection as to the joint tenants creditor’s). Not all states have tenants by the entirety protection, and as a result, advisors in other states who have clients that have relocated to Florida, may not be aware of the benefits of titling accounts as tenants by the entirety.

Further, for married clients whose accounts are titled as joint tenants with right of survivorship, retitling the account may not be sufficient to obtain tenants by the entirety protection. Florida courts are not consistent in determining how to establish an effective tenants by the entirety account. Florida common law requires that to create an effective tenants by the entirety title various unities are required – one of which is the unity of time. In other words, the account, upon creation, must be established as tenants by the entirety. As a result, if married clients have accounts titled as joint tenants with right of survivorship, they should open a new account, titled as tenants by the entirety, and transfer the joint tenants with right of survivorship assets into the new tenants by the entirety account, with a new account number.

• a. In Loumpos v. Bank One, No. SC2024-1256 (rev. granted Dec. 3, 2024). DCA decision: 392 So.3d 841 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024), the Second District held that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates, 780 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2001), did not eliminate the common law unities requirements for creating a tenancy by the entirety account even where the account’s signature card expressly designates the account as a tenancy by the entirety. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, addressed whether a bank account designated as a tenancy by the entirety on its signature card can qualify as an entireties account despite the absence of certain common law unities. The court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the unities of time and title are still necessary to establish a tenancy by the entirety, rejecting the appellant’s claim of exemption from garnishment. This case reinforces the need to open a new account with a new account number when trying to change a joint tenants account or an individually owned account to a tenants by the entirety account. Loumpos is pending before the Florida Supreme Court and practitioners should stay tuned for possible further clarification.

• b. However, in Storey Mountain v. Del Amo (In re Del Amo), No. 24-13216, slip op. (11th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the “Eleventh Circuit”) ruled that a debtor’s bank account was protected as tenants by the entirety even when the bank signature card said “Joint accounts are owned as joint tenants with right of survivorship.”

  The co-owner of the bank account filed for bankruptcy and listed the bank account as an exempt asset. The creditor said the account was not exempt because the signature card stated that the account was owned as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Florida Statute Section 655.78(1) provides: “Any deposit or account made in the name of two persons who are husband and wife shall be considered a tenancy by the entirety unless otherwise specified in writing.”

  The Eleventh Circuit concluded that Florida Statute Section 655.79(1) did not change Florida’s common law rule, which is: “a joint account of a married couple is owned by the married couple as a tenancy by the entirety unless the married couple expressly disclaims that the account is not held as a tenancy by the entirety.” The Eleventh Circuit concluded that Florida Statute Section 655.79(1) requires an explicit statement in writing that the married couple expressly disclaims that the account is tenants by the entirety (i.e., based upon In re Del Amo, a joint bank account owned by a married couple in Florida is treated as tenants by the entirety unless there is an express written disclaimer specifically stating that the couple did not intend tenancy by the entirety).

  Key points from the holding are as follows:

  * (i) Florida’s common law rule from Beal Bank (which held that a married couple’s joint bank account is presumed to be owned as tenants by the entirety unless they expressly disclaim that ownership form in writing) remains in force; * (ii) The 2008 amendment to Florida Statute Section 655.79(1) which added “unless otherwise specified in writing” does not abrogate Florida’s common law rule from Beal Bank, such that a clear and explicit disclaimer of tenants by the entirety status is required; * (iii) The signature card in this case did not contain an express disclaimer (the signature card stated the account was a “joint account” and “joint accounts are owned as joint tenants with rights of survivorship,” but did not state that tenants by the entirety was excluded, and accordingly such language did not defeat entireties status; * (iv) Because the account was considered owned as tenants by the entirety, Storey Mountain (a creditor of only one spouse) cannot reach the funds and the bankruptcy exemption stands.

4. Revocable Trust Funding

a. General: Revocable Trusts do not provide clients with asset protection and are includible in the settlor’s/grantor’s taxable estate, but assets owned by a Revocable Trust avoid probate on death. Probate can cause court delays in access to liquidity, and additional legal expenses. We provide a trust funding memorandum when our clients execute their Revocable Trusts, but on occasion, we are advised that their Revocable Trusts were not funded, or were only partially funded, upon the settlor’s/grantor’s date of death.

For single clients or clients who are married, but do not own their home or other assets jointly with their spouse, Revocable Trust funding is an important consideration. Not every asset is appropriate for transfer to Revocable Trusts, and some business or real estate interests require approvals before title of assets are conveyed. Single clients or married clients who prefer to hold title to their homestead in only one spouse’s name (such as those in second marriages with prenuptial agreements where their spouse waived homestead) should consider conveying their Florida homestead to their Revocable Trust to avoid probate court orders for transfer of such Florida residence upon death.

Clients, whether single or married, must carefully review these issues with their real estate attorney before taking any action to retitle their homestead and advise their insurance company (homeowner’s insurance and liability umbrella coverage) of the transfer to maintain insurance coverage. Before any deed transferring ownership from the client to the client’s Revocable Trust is recorded, the client should confirm with their real estate attorney, and possibly also the Property Appraiser’s office, that such transfer will not result in loss of their homestead exemption or Save Our Homes Cap. Furthermore, it is important that clients confirm with their advisors that proposed transfers to the client’s Revocable Trust will not accelerate existing mortgage debt on homesteads.

b. Revocable Trust Funding for Unmarried Clients: Single clients should consider funding their Revocable Trust (other than with retirement assets, annuities, and life insurance) to avoid probate on such assets upon death.

c. Revocable Trust Funding for Married Clients: Clients who do not own assets as tenants by the entirety or jointly with their spouse should also consider funding their respective Revocable Trusts (other than with retirement assets, annuities, and life insurance) to avoid probate on such assets upon death.

d. Transfer of Homestead to Revocable Trust: Clients transferring homestead to a revocable or irrevocable trust must avoid loss of homestead status or the Save Our Homes Cap. Our firm’s practice is to contact the relevant Property Appraiser’s office prior to recording the deed, provide them with a copy of the unrecorded deed and the trust instrument, and obtain written confirmation that such transfer will not have any adverse homestead or property tax consequences. If the homestead is encumbered, the lender should be notified in advance of the change in title to confirm no acceleration of the mortgage. We also recommend that the insurer be notified and the Revocable Trust be added as an additional insured. Not all property tax assessors will provide the advance written confirmation described above.

• i. Clients who own their Florida homestead jointly with their spouse may consider a Community Property Trust, as described in the next section below. If such clients are not inclined to proceed with a Community Property Trust for the reasons described in the next section below, we believe such married clients who own their Florida homestead jointly with their spouse, as tenants by the entirety should generally retain such title until the death of the first spouse, at which time the homestead should be conveyed to the surviving spouse’s Revocable Trust. Jointly owned homestead between spouses passes by operation of law to the surviving spouse without any concerns that a minor child will have an interest as would be the case if the homestead is owned by one spouse or a Revocable Trust of one spouse.

5. Married Clients With No Minor Children Should Consider Community Property Trust for Homestead but Not Other Assets if Asset Protection is an Important Objective

Chapter 736, Part XV, the “Community Property Trust Act,” (effective July 1, 2021), allows the creation of a trust, referred to as a “Community Property Trust”, which may result in the property held in such trust receiving a full step up in income tax basis upon the death of the first spouse rather than a 50% step up in income tax basis, which would result upon the death of the first spouse if the homestead was jointly owned by spouses.

The benefit of receiving such full step up in income tax basis to fair market value at the date of the first spouse’s death is that the surviving spouse can then sell such homestead (shortly after dare of death at the homestead’s fair market value at death of death) without incurring capital gains tax on the entire appreciation that occurred prior to the deceased spouse’s death (as compared to only one-half (1/2) of such appreciation that occurred prior to the deceased spouse’s death under the tax law where a property is owned jointly between spouses).

Note on Asset Protection: As a result of asset protection concerns, we suggest Community Property Trusts hold only Florida homestead and no other assets, such as stocks or bonds because assets, other than homestead titled in a community property trust, are not protected from creditor’s claims.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we do not recommend Community Property Trusts hold Florida homestead if one or both settlors/grantors have minor children due to Florida’s restrictions on devise. Our concern is that if Florida homestead is devised to a Community Property Trust, then upon the death of the first spouse if survived by a spouse and one or more minor children, the surviving spouse would receive a life estate in one-half (1/2) of the homestead and the decedent’s children would have a vested remainder.

Further, our Community Property Trusts are drafted to provide that upon the death of the first spouse, the surviving spouse receives the deceased spouse’s one-half (1/2) interest in the homestead outright, which can then be added to the surviving spouse’s revocable trust, and the surviving spouse’s one-half (1/2) interest in the homestead shall be added to the surviving spouse’s revocable trust, to be administered as provided therein, to avoid any potential argument the one-half (1/2) interest of the deceased spouse passing to the surviving spouse does not qualify for the estate tax marital deduction and because if a decedent is survived by a spouse and no minor children, Florida law limits the homestead owner to gift the homestead to the surviving spouse (not specifically a revocable trust).

a. It should be noted that some tax commentators have expressed concern as to whether a state statute that effectively allows property owners to “elect” community property status will be respected by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). If the IRS takes the position that the full (“double”) step up in income tax basis upon the death of the first spouse is not permitted, the taxpayers should not be in any worse of a position, other than the transaction costs to create the Community Property Trust and potential audit costs, if the community property trust and associated double step up in income tax basis upon the death of the first spouse is challenged, including possible interest as to the late payment of income tax when the property is sold and possible late payment penalties.

b. Those with mortgage debt on their homestead need to review their mortgage and note documents with their real estate attorney and confirm: (i) there will be no acceleration on the mortgage, especially a low interest mortgage, and (ii) there will not be unanticipated state transfer taxes when the homestead is deeded to the Community Property Trust.

6. Review Existing Life Insurance and Retirement Plan Beneficiary Designations

Clients should review their current life insurance policies, including the primary and contingent beneficiaries thereof, to make sure such adequately satisfies their objectives and to determine whether modifications should be made to such policies. In addition, clients should review their retirement plan beneficiaries (both primary and contingent) to ensure they meet their current objectives.

For beneficiaries designating more than one individual as primary or contingent beneficiaries, clients should reach out to their administrator to determine how such assets pass in the event the named individual predeceases the account owner or insured. Clients with charitable intentions should consider gifts of their retirement plan assets to charity as part of their planning due to the fact that non-Roth retirement plan assets are subject to income tax and estate tax if such assets are left to individual beneficiaries. Clients with children or grandchildren with disabilities may find that a gift of retirement assets to a special needs trust for such beneficiary is a great way to expand the duration of the retirement plan required minimum distributions that currently is 10 years or less unless the beneficiary is a spouse or a disabled beneficiary.

V.Warren Buffett’s Last Letter to Shareholders

On November 10, 2025, Warren Buffett released what is widely described as his last annual shareholder letter as the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway (the “Berkshire Letter”). We believe some of the observations in the Berkshire Letter may be of interest to many planning their estates. We included quotes from the Berkshire Letter and our “takeaways” below:

1. Warren Buffett’s three children have three alternate trustees in the case the serving trustee dies or is disabled.

“My children have three alternate trustees in case of any premature deaths or disabilities. The alternates are not ranked or tied to a specific child. All three are exceptional humans and wise in the ways of the world. They have no conflicting motives.”

• Nelson & Nelson, P.A. Takeaway: Clients should review their successor trustees periodically and determine whether any changes should be made. Clients frequently change their successor trustees. Allowing a child to select from a list of alternatives is a creative approach for those who are comfortable with their beneficiaries making the selection from a list of options.

2. “One unpleasant reality: Occasionally, a wonderful and loyal CEO of the parent or a subsidiary will succumb to dementia, Alzheimer’s or another debilitating and long-term disease. Charlie and I encountered this problem several times and failed to act. This failure can be a huge mistake. The Board must be alert to this possibility at the CEO level and the CEO must be alert to the possibility at subsidiaries…. Directors should be alert and speak up is all that I can advise.”

• Nelson & Nelson, P.A. Takeaway: We are all subject to potential diminished capacity and practitioners should look out for the signs of such with their clients. If a client visits an attorney’s office with another individual, whether a caregiver, child, new spouse or significant other, and requests significant modifications to his or her estate plan, the attorney should be on alert. In our practice when such scenarios have occurred, we have requested that the client be tested by a geriatric psychiatrist to ensure that the client has testamentary capacity and is not being unduly influenced.

• Our office also recommends that clients have Trusted Contact Person forms, authorized under Florida Statutes Section 415.10341, that designate one or more people as Trusted Contact Persons, with their financial institution so that their advisor may contact those designated in the event they suspect the client is being subjected to financial exploitation. Trusted Contact Persons cannot withdraw funds but will only be advised if the financial institution is concerned the client is subjected to possible financial exploitation so that if the client’s family member, caretaker, friend, lover, etc. is acting improperly with respect to the client, others will be also contacted who may step in to resolve the situation. In the event there is a request for an unusual transaction or withdrawal, the financial institution will be authorized to contact specified individuals and notify them of such.

3. Warren Buffett’s letter emphasizes the importance of kindness and respect with the following sentences:

a. “Kindness is costless but also priceless.”

b. “Keep in mind that the cleaning lady is as much a human being as the Chairman.”

Warren Buffett’s philosophy on giving has often been referenced in our practice – “parents should leave their children so they can do anything but not enough that they can do nothing.” While we understand that not every client will agree with Warren Buffett’s philosophies, we wanted to share them with our clients for their consideration.

HOPE THIS HELPS YOU HELP OTHERS MAKE A POSITIVE DIFFERENCE!

CITE AS: LISI Estate Planning Newsletter #3258, December 8, 2025 at http://www.leimbergservices.com. Copyright 2025 Leimberg Information Services, Inc. (LISI). Reproduction in Any Form or Forwarding to Any Person Prohibited – Without Express Permission.

Our agreement with you does not allow you to use or upload content from LISI into any hardware, software, bot, or external application, including any use(s) for artificial intelligence technologies such as large language models, generative AI, machine learning or AI system.

This newsletter is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information regarding the subject matter covered. It is provided with the understanding that LISI is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional advice or services. If such advice is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Statements of fact or opinion are the responsibility of the authors and do not represent an opinion on the part of the officers or staff of LISI.

December 11, 2025 Update to Loumpos v. Bank One: On December 11, 2025, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Florida Statute Section 655.79, which was amended in 2008 to remove the time and title requirements under common law, controls (and not Beal Bank), and that the bank account originally opened by one spouse (pre-marriage) and later changed to a joint spousal account with a new signature card designating the account as tenants by the entireties was exempt and not subject to garnishment by the creditor of only one spouse.Federal bankruptcy courts are required to apply state law when adjudicating matters governed by state statutes, such as exemptions under bankruptcy proceedings. In Florida, bankruptcy courts interpret state exemption laws in the same manner as Florida state courts, relying on the Florida Supreme Court’s definitive interpretations if available. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida explicitly stated in In re Mendoza, 597 B.R. 686 (2019), that when interpreting Florida state law, it is bound to follow Florida Supreme Court precedent.

We encourage clients to schedule an “estate planning checkup” every three to five years or sooner, if personal or financial circumstances materially change. While we address matters we believe are of interest to many in this year-end letter, there are an infinite number of year-end planning options that are not discussed.

Disclaimer: This information has been prepared for educational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. Use of this information without careful analysis and review by your attorney, CPA, and/or financial advisor may cause serious adverse consequences. We provide absolutely no warranty or representation of any kind, whether express or implied, concerning the appropriateness or legal sufficiency of this information as to any individual’s tax and related planning.