ADVANCED ESTATE AND TAX STRUCTURES

BUSINESS SUCCESSION AND ESTATE PLANNING GAPS AND TRAPS

Myth #1: The Giustina Case: Why Your LLC Is a Roadblock, Not a Shield, Against Probate (IRC §2033)
Myth #2: The Strangi Case: You Transferred Your Business to a Trust, But the IRS Still 'Clawed It Back' (IRC §2036)
Myth #3: The True v. Commissioner Case: Why a "Dusty" Buy-Sell Agreement Won't Save You from the IRS (IRC §2703)
Myth #4: The Maggos Case: Your "Freeze" Technique Backfired—Here's Why (IRC §§2036, 2038)
Myth #5: The Eddy Case: A Missed 9-Month Deadline Cost This Estate Millions in Taxes (IRC §2032)
Myth #6: The Anderson Case: Why a Lack of Valuation Can Cost an Estate Millions (IRC §2031(b))
Myth #7: Your Will Is a Map to Probate, Not a Way to Avoid It (UPC §3-101)
Myth #8: The Family Business Case: Your Family Has No Authority to Run Your Business Without This Document (UPC §3-307)
Myth #9: The ILIT Audit: How Your "Tax-Free" Life Insurance Could Still Be Taxed (IRC §2042)
Myth #10: The Church & Giselman Cases: The IRS Knows About Your Gifts, Even If You Didn't File the Paperwork (IRC §2511)
Myth #11: The Steinberg Case: An Improperly Structured LLC Can Lead to Probate (UPC §2-101)
Myth #12: The Dorn Case: Your "Phantom Equity" Isn't Invisible to the IRS (IRC §§2036, 2038)
Myth #13: The Robinson Case: Procrastinating on Your Valuation Cost an Estate Millions (IRC §§2031, 2032)
Myth #14: The Church v. U.S. Case: Gifting Property, Not Just Cash, Can Trigger Tax Penalties (IRC §2511)
Myth #15: The Littick v. Comm. Case: An Internal Price Agreement Won't Fool the IRS (IRC §2703)
Myth #16: The Klauss Case: The IRS Can Reject Your Valuation and Apply Its Own (IRC §2031)
Myth #17: The True v. Commissioner Case: Why a "Dusty Document" Is Worthless in an Audit (IRC §2703)
Myth #18: The Maxine Robinson v. Comm. Case: A Missing "Death Clause" Caused a Valuation Dispute (UPC §2-101)
Myth #19: The S-Corp Case: How a Will Can Accidentally Cause Your S-Corp to Lose Its Tax Status (IRC §1361(b) (1) (B))
Myth #20: The Thompson v. Comm. Case: Registering IP in an LLC Doesn't Protect It from Estate Tax (IRC §§2036, 2038)
Myth #21: The Joint Bank Account Case: Joint Accounts Don't Grant Legal Control of a Business (Uniform Probate Code)
Myth #22: The IRS v. Coinbase Case: Your Crypto Is Trackable, Taxable, and Easily Lost Forever (IRC §2031)
Myth #23: The Estate of German Case: Your Revocable Trust Avoids Probate, But Not Estate Tax (IRC §2038)
Myth #24: The Estate of Gallo Case: No Plan Means Family Fights That Cost Millions in Legal Fees (UPC §3-112, IRC §2031)
Myth #25: The Estate of Linton Case: The IRS Will Tax a Paper-Only Gift (IRC §2511)
Myth #26: The Estate of Wheeler Case: Deathbed Transfers Are a Red Flag for the IRS (IRC §2035(a))
Myth #27: The Estate of Powell Case: Serving as a Trustee of Your Own Irrevocable Trust Puts Your Assets at Risk (IRC §§2036, 2038)
Myth #28: The S-Corp Case: A Will Can't Transfer S-Corp Shares to Just Anyone (IRC §1361)
Myth #29: The Hackl v. Commissioner Case: Don't Assume Your Gifts Are Under the Exclusion Limit (IRC §2503(b))

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Myth #30: The Thompson v. Comm. Case: Your "Personal" IP Is Part of Your Taxable Estate (IRC §2031)
Myth #31: The Steinberg v. U.S. Case: Registering Your IP Is Just Step One to Avoiding Estate Tax (IRC §2031)
Myth #32: The Estate of Prince Case: A Lack of Planning Can Freeze Your IP Rights and Royalties for Decades (IRC §2033)
Myth #33: The Thompson v. Commissioner Case: Your Personally Owned Patent Isn't Licensed to Your Business by Default (IRC §2036)
Myth #34: The Powell v. Commissioner Case: An LLC Won't Protect Your IP If You Retain Control (IRC §2038)
Myth #35: The Estate of German Case: Your Revocable Trust Won't Remove IP Value from Your Estate (IRC §2038)
Myth #36: The Michael Jackson Estate Case: Don't Underestimate the Value of Your IP (IRC §2031)
Myth #37: The Estate of Cecil v. Commissioner Case: The IRS Will Assign a Value to Your Trademark (IRC §2031(b))
Myth #38: The Estate of Steinberg Case: The IRS Can Include Future Royalties in Your Estate's Valuation (IRC §§2031, 691)
Myth #39: The Church v. U.S. Case: Informal Gifts of IP Are Ignored by the IRS (IRC §2511, §2701)
Myth #40: The Whitney Houston Estate Case: Intangible IP is Not Safe from Estate Tax (IRC §2031)
Myth #41: The Aretha Franklin Case: How a Handwritten Will Led to Chaos Over an $80M Estate
Myth #42: The King of Random Case: A Digital Empire Can Be Lost Without a Trust
Myth #43: Your Will Won't Protect a Real Estate Business from Probate
Myth #44: The Thompson Case: Your Personal Brand Can Get Stuck in Probate, Freezing Ad Revenue
Myth #45: The Bob Marley Estate: Why a Lack of a Will Led to Decades of Legal Battles Over a Multi-Million Dollar Estate
Myth #46: The Jimi Hendrix Estate: Planning Isn't Just for Large Estates
Myth #47: The Heath Ledger Estate: How Outdated Documents Can Result in Poor Asset Distribution
Myth #48: The Robin Williams Case: Your Name and Likeness Are Property That Must Be Assigned
Myth #49: The Amy Winehouse Case: Why Delaying Estate Planning Is the Enemy of Your Legacy
Myth #50: The Philip Seymour Hoffman Case: Why Outdated Documents Can Be as Bad as Having No Documents at All

LIFE INSURANCE
Myth #51: The Estate of Kurihara Case: Retaining Control Over a Life Insurance Policy Triggers Estate Inclusion (IRC §2042(c))
Myth #52: The Estate of Becker Case: The 3-Year "Look-Back" Rule Is Real and Can't Be Ignored (IRC §2035(a))
Myth #53: The Kurihara Case: Paying Premiums for an ILIT from a Personal Account is a Red Flag for the IRS (Treas. Reg. §20.2042-1(c)(2))
Myth #54: The ILIT Trustee Case: Serving as Your Own Trustee Is a "Red Flag" for the IRS (Treas. Reg. §20.2042-1(c)(2))
Myth #55: The Corporate Policy Case: Why a Policy Owned by Your Corporation Still Counts in Your Estate (IRC §§2036, 2038)
Myth #56: The Crummey Case: Waivers Are Not Enough—Beneficiaries Must Have a Real Withdrawal Right (IRC §2503(b))
Myth #57: The Whole-Life Policy Case: Your Policy's Cash Value Can Trigger Estate Inclusion (Treas. Reg. §20.2042-1(c)(2))
Myth #58: The Spouse Case: Paying Premiums for a Spouse-Owned Policy Still Counts (IRC §2042)
Myth #59: The Split-Dollar Case: Retaining Any Right to a Loan or Dividend Can Kill Your Plan (Treas. Reg. §20.2042-1(c)(2))
Myth #60: The Physician Case: Even Small Policies Can Push Your Estate Over Tax Thresholds (IRC §2042)
Myth #61: The Levine Case: A Split-Dollar Arrangement Can Still Trigger Estate Inclusion (IRC §§2036, 2038)
Myth #62: The Connelly v. United States Case: The Supreme Court Just Ruled That Corporate-Owned Insurance Can Be Included in Your Estate (IRC §§2036, 2038, 2703)
Myth #63: The Estate of Levine Case: The IRS Taxes the Entire Benefit Stream of a Split-Dollar Deal, Not Just the Receivable (IRC §§2036, 2038, 2042, 2703)
Myth #64: The Kurihara Case: The Timing of Your Transfer Can Overrule the Formal Documents (IRC §2035(a))
Myth #65: The Kurihara Case: The IRS Can Attribute a Trustee's Actions to You (Treas. Reg. §20.2042-1(c)(2))
Myth #66: The Levine Case: How the IRS Disregarded a Trust and Taxed a Split-Dollar Receivable (Treas. Reg. §1.61-22, IRC §§2036, 2038, 2703)
Myth #67: An ILIT Modification Can Resurrect a Dead Tax Problem (IRC §§2035(a), 2038)
Myth #68: The Kurihara Case: Retaining the Power to Change Beneficiaries Is a Red Flag for the IRS (Reg. §20.2042-1(c)(2))
Myth #69: Heirs Paid Tax on "Income in Respect of a Decedent" (IRC §691)
Myth #70: The Connelly v. United States Case: How One Policy Can Trigger Multiple Tax Penalties (IRC §§2036, 2038, 2042)

HIGH-VALUE INVESTMENTS, DIGITAL ASSETS, STOCKS, AND ESTATE PLANING
Myth #71: U.S. v. Estate of German Case: A Revocable Trust Avoids Probate, But Not Estate Tax (IRC §2038)
Myth #72: The Estate of Fick Case: A Will Is a Roadmap to Probate, Not a Way to Avoid It (UPC §2-502)
Myth #73: The Estate of Littick Case: Stocks Are Frozen at Death Without This Simple Document (IRC §2031)
Myth #74: The IRS v. Coinbase Case: Your "Invisible" Crypto Is Trackable and Taxable (IRS Notice 2014-21)
Myth #75: The Estate of Young v. Commissioner Case: Joint Tenancy Is a Death Trap, Not a Solution (IRC §2040)
Myth #76: The Estate of Braman Case: Why Your Vacation Home Can Trigger a Second Probate in Another State
Myth #77: The Estate of Strangi v. Commissioner Case: The IRS Disregarded a Family Partnership for Retained Control (IRC §2704)
Myth #78: The Estate of Giustina v. Commissioner Case: A Business Real Estate LLC Is Not Protected from Probate (IRC §2031, UPC §2-101)
Myth #79: The Giselman v. Comm. Case: No Paperwork, No Gift—The IRS 'Clawed Back' Business Interests (IRC §2511)
Myth #80: The Estate of Thompson Case: "Common Sense" Won't Save Your Business from a Legal Freeze
Myth #81: The Estate of Fick Case: The Best Will Can't Fix a Title Mismatch (UPC §3-101)
Myth #82: The Estate of Littick Case: Probate Delays Can Lead to a Higher Tax on Your Stock Portfolio (IRC §2031)
Myth #83: The Estate of Steinberg Case: Your IP Needs a Trust, or It Will Get Frozen in Probate (IRC §2033)

ADVANCED ESTATE AND TAX PLANNING + IRS DIRTY DOZEN SCAMS
Myth #84: The Badgley v. United States Case: Dying During a GRAT Term Voids the Entire Plan (IRC §2036(a) (1))
Myth #85: The Estate of Petter v. Commissioner Case: How Defined-Value Clauses Made a Sale to an IDGT a Success (IRC §675(4) (C))
Myth #86: The Syndicated Easement Case: The IRS Is Disallowing Trusts and LLCs for Lacking Business Substance (IRC §§2703, 2036, 2038)
Myth #87: The Conservation Easement Case: Aggressive Easements Are Facing Massive IRS Penalties (IRC §170(h))
Myth #88: The CLAT Case: The IRS Ruled This Trust Invalid for Lacking "Economic Effect" (IRC §642(c))
Myth #89: The QPRT Case: If You Die During the Term, Your Home Is Right Back in Your Estate (IRC §2036(a) (1))
Myth #90: The Strangi Case: Layering FLPs and GRATs Together Can Increase Your Audit Risk (IRC §§2036, 2038, 2703, 2035)
Myth #91: The Valley Park Ranch LLC v. Commissioner Case: One Bad Clause Can Sink Your Entire Conservation Deduction (Treasury Reg. §1.170A-14(g) (6) (ii))
Myth #92: The Family Charitable Trust Case: Retaining Control Over Charity Powers Can Trigger Estate Inclusion (IRC §§2036, 2038, 674(b) (4))
Myth #93: The Estate of Elkins Jr. Case: Don't Count on Big Valuation Discounts for Fractional Interests (IRC §2031(b))
Myth #94: The Rothko Estate Case: Gallery Contracts and Misconduct Can Strip Control of Art from Heirs (IRC §2031)
Myth #95: The Bacon & Rothko Estates: A Will Is Not Sufficient for Valuables Like Art (UPC §3-101, IRC §2031)
Myth #96: The Reciprocal Trust Case: How Mirror SLATs Can Be a Legal Trap for Spouses (IRC §§2503, 2013, 2014)
Myth #97: The SLAT Case: Distributions to a Spouse Can Be Taxed Again in Their Estate (IRC §2035, §2511)
Myth #98: The Syndicated Easement Case: Aggressively Valued Easements Can Lead to IRS Penalties (IRC §170(h), §2031)
Myth #99: The Estate of Littick Case: Stocks Outside a Trust Are Not Safe from Probate (IRC §2031)
Myth #100: The Multi-State Property Case: Fractional Ownership Won't Save You from Multiple Probates
Myth #101: The Stacked Freeze Case: Combining Complex Trusts Can Invite IRS Scrutiny (IRC §§2036, 2038, 674, 170)

16 ESTATE AND TAX MISTAKES AND MYTHS COVERING

COMPLEX ESTATE AND TAX STRUCTURES

MYTH #84: “GRATs reliably remove growth from my estate tax.”

🔹 Issue: If the grantor dies before the GRAT term ends, everything—including growth—returns to the estate.

🔹 Code: IRC § 2036(a)(1) applies if the grantor retains income or possession; property not fully divested.

🔹 Doctrine/Test: Retained interest/string test—if benefit persists at death, inclusion follows.

🔹 Case: In Badgley v. United States, the court upheld IRS inclusion of full date-of-death GRAT value under § 2036(a), despite annuity structure. Gudorf Law Group, LLCInvestopediastout.com+3info.wealthcounsel.com+3epj.us+3

✅ Conclusion: For successful GRAT transfers, “zeroed out” properly, timed to term-end, and avoid sudden death during term.

MYTH #85: “IDGTs are safe because I continue paying income taxes.”

🔹 Issue: While income-tax treatment helps, poor structuring or sales fallback can undo the freeze.

🔹 Code: IRC § 675(4)(C) (reacquisition); §§ 2036/2038 if retained benefit.

🔹 Doctrine/Test: Split-entrepreneur/estate-freeze must be clean and enforceable.

🔹 Case: In Estate of Petter v. Commissioner, an IDGT structured with LLC sold to trust and defined-value clauses successfully excluded asset growth from estate. epj.usNAEPC Journal

✅ Conclusion: Use defined-value clauses, no reacquisition rights, arm’s-length sale, and maintain annual income‑tax payments.

MYTH #86: “QLLPs and DSTs avoid estate traps just like trusts.”

🔹 Issue: Delaware Statutory Trusts and LLC structures must meet economic substance and third-party tests.

🔹 Code: IRC §§ 2703 (restrictions), 2036/2038 (control).

🔹 Doctrine/Test: Substance-over-form and genuine ownership tests—a shell fails.

🔹 Case: Syndicated conservation easements used DSTs to claim charitable deductions; IRS recently disallowed multiple cases for overstating value and lacking real conservation purpose.

✅ Conclusion: DSTs or LLC-based filtering must show independent management, arms-length structure, and true purpose—not simply tax motive.

MYTH #87: “Conservation easements guarantee a deduction and protect assets forever.”

🔹 Issue: Aggressive or syndicated easements often fail IRS scrutiny and face massive penalties.

🔹 Code: IRC § 170(h) — must protect conservation purpose in perpetuity; meet extinguishment/valuation regs.

🔹 Doctrine/Test: Permanence and proportional proceeds clauses; accurate FMV valuation.

🔹 Case: U.S. Tax Court disallowed syndicated easement deductions, imposed 40% accuracy penalties for overstated values and non‑compliant easement terms. Wiggam Law+1Current Federal Tax Developments

✅ Conclusion: If using easements, ensure perpetuity language, valid appraisals, independent conservation organization, and stay clear of syndications.

MYTH #88: “Charitable lead trusts (CLATs) avoid estate tax and serve purpose.”

🔹 Issue: Provisions must have economic effect independent of tax; IRS may ignore superficial provisions.

🔹 Code: IRC § 642(c); Treas. Reg. §§ 1.642(c)‑3(b)(2), 1.643(a)‑5(b)

🔹 Doctrine/Test: Economic substance test—charity lean must be genuine, not tax-centric.

🔹 Case: IRS ruled CLAT provisions invalid when charity payments sourced from principal without real economic diversion.

✅ Conclusion: Ensure your CLAT is structured with real charitable benefit—not reversible at will—and documents economic effect beyond tax motives.

MYTH #89: “A QPRT removes my home without gift tax.”

🔹 Issue: If the grantor dies during the QPRT term, property value re-enters the estate under § 2036.

🔹 Code: IRC § 2036(a)(1), retention of life estate.

🔹 Doctrine/Test: Retained interest/death during term inclusion.

🔹 Case: (Common Tax Court rulings) Courts include homes in estates when the grantor doesn’t outlive the QPRT term and retains life use.

✅ Conclusion: Consider making QPRT terms long enough to survive likely lifespan or fund with younger-generation life expectancies.

MYTH #90: “Family LLC or FLP plus GRAT = magic combo to escape estate tax.”

🔹 Issue: Combining techniques increases audit risk if not properly documented, funded, and appraised.

🔹 Code: IRC §§ 2036/2038 (control), § 2703 (restrictions), § 2035 (timing).

🔹 Doctrine/Test: Layered substance-severity test—IRS examines last person standing.

🔹 Case: In Strangi, the IRS pierced FLP discounts—and adding GRAT layers resulted in both inclusion and denied valuation. info.wealthcounsel.com+2epj.us+2

✅ Conclusion: Each structure must stand alone; avoid synthetic stacking without third-party validation or economic substance.

MYTH #91: “If an easement is challenged in court, my plan is invalid entirely.”

🔹 Issue: Some easements survive IRS challenges when deed language valid, but many fail if syndicated language or valuation fails.

🔹 Code: Treasury Reg. § 1.170A‑14(g)(6)(ii) vs. invalidation when IRS rules perpetuity clauses faulty.

🔹 Doctrine/Test: Validity of regulation vs statute test; taxpayer-right-to-proceeds clause must comply.

🔹 Case: Valley Park Ranch LLC v. Commissioner — court ruled relevant IRS regulation invalid, allowed taxpayer deduction.

✅ Conclusion: Marathon review of deed language, local law, and statutory compliance is essential; one bad clause can sink the deduction.

MYTH #92: “A family charitable trust avoids taxable estate forever.”

🔹 Issue: If the trust is treated as a grantor trust beyond what charity deserves, inclusion may occur.

🔹 Code: IRC §§ 2036/2038; § 674(b)(4) (charity power triggers grantor status).

🔹 Doctrine/Test: Income interest retention or power to change charity triggers grantor trust rules.

🔹 Case: IRS audits CLATs modifying charity powers—and include full corpus if donor retains too much control. epj.us

✅ Conclusion: Set charity provisions irrevocably, minimize grantor powers, and avoid income-loophole triggers.

MYTH #93: “Fractional interests in my art or real estate will get big valuation discounts.”

🔹 Issue: Courts rarely allow large discounts for fractional ownership when heirs are likely to consolidate holdings.

🔹 Code: IRC § 2031(b); Reg. § 20.2031‑1(b)

🔹 Doctrine/Test: “Blockage” and ‘undivided interest’ discount limited to realistic sale scenarios.

🔹 Case: In Estate of James A. Elkins Jr., Tax Court allowed only a ~10% discount on fractional art holdings—even when estate argued for 50–80%. 5th Circuit later reversed allowance of bigger discounts.

✅ Conclusion: Don’t rely on big discounts. Plan to own appraised, consolidated interests via trusts or buyouts.

MYTH #94: “My art collection will pass intact to heirs automatically.”

🔹 Issue: Contracts, gallery relationships, and consignment agreements can override testamentary plans.

🔹 Code: IRC § 2031; state probate law.

🔹 Case: Rothko Estate (Matter of Rothko) — gallery consignment agreements and executor misconduct stripped control and art from heirs. Courts invalidated executor contracts; estate fought for rightful valuation and control. Wikipedia+1

✅ Conclusion: Document provenance; assign full legal title to trust. Ensure auctions, galleries, and consignment agreements allow seamless trustee access.

MYTH #95: “Leaving my art in a will is sufficient planning.”

🔹 Issue: Wills trigger probate and public administration delays; title consistency is critical.

🔹 Code: UPC §3-101; IRC § 2031 valuation upon death.

🔹 Case: Malpractice in art estates often stems from mismatched title and vague will terms. Big estates (e.g., Bacon, Rothko) experienced costly delays. NAEPC Journal+5Carr, Riggs & Ingram+5Wiggin and Dana LLP — Attorneys At Law+5Perkins & CoVanity Fair

✅ Conclusion: Deed art to a funded revocable or irrevocable trust. Avoid relying on wills alone for valuable assets.

MYTH #96: “SLATs let spouses bypass estate taxes while still using assets indefinitely.”

🔹 Issue: Spousal Lifetime Access Trusts (SLATs) allow gifting assets now to reduce estate value—but can trigger reciprocal trust scrutiny or loss of indirect access if spouse dies/divorces.

🔹 Code: IRC §§ 2503, 2013/14 (gift/estate exemption); reciprocity doctrines.

🔹 Doctrine/Test: Reciprocal trust doctrine—similar trusts by spouses can combine and be treated as self-benefiting.

🔹 Case & Outcome: Financial regulators warn of SLAT drafting errors and divorce scenarios; caution increasing around reciprocal design. NAEPC Journal+9Wealthspire+9naepc.org+9

✅ Conclusion: Create asymmetric "caveman SLATs" (one spouse outsources exemption to other, but trusts differ) and avoid mirror trust risks. Document differences clearly and retain independence.

MYTH #97: “My SLAT gifting can continue indefinitely.”

🔹 Issue: Distributions into SLAT by beneficiary spouse become taxable in their estate if they die holding assets.

🔹 Code: IRC § 2035 inclusion of gifts; IRC § 2511 gift tax rules.

🔹 Doctrine/Test: Gift and estate inclusion layered: distributions reduce trust value but create future estate exposure.

🔹 Detail: Wealthspire warns that distributions to beneficiary spouse bring assets back into their estate. NAEPC Journal+3naepc.org+3Greenleaf Trust+3NAEPC Journal+9RSM US+9becker.com+9

✅ Conclusion: Limit SLAT distributions to essential needs. Plan asset freeze through generation-skipping or dynasty trusts post-spouse death.

MYTH #98: “Conservation easements on real estate always preserve legacy and reduce estate value.”

🔹 Issue: Syndicated or aggressively valued easements face IRS penalties and audit risk.

🔹 Code: IRC § 170(h); § 2031 valuation rules

🔹 Doctrine/Test: Validity requires genuine preservation purpose, independent grantee, and perpetual language.

🔹 Case: IRS disallowed syndicated easements for inflated values, citing failure of perpetual language or real conservation intent. Wikipedia

✅ Conclusion: True conservation documentation, solid appraisals, and local nonprofit grantee compliance are non-negotiable.

MYTH #99: “Publicly traded real estate or stock is automatically excluded from probate via trust.”

🔹 Issue: Only assets retitled into a trust avoid probate. Securities held externally remain probate property.

🔹 Code: IRC § 2031 valuation; state trust/fund title law.

🔹 Case: Estate of Littick again serves as caution—stock left outside trust was fully valued at death.

✅ Conclusion: Transfer all equities, REITs, and digital securities into properly funded trust accounts to avoid probate freeze.

MYTH #100: “Fractionally owned property across states avoids multiple probates.”

🔹 Issue: Multi-state real estate triggers separate ancillary probates per jurisdiction.

🔹 Code: State probate/ancillary statutes.

🔹 Case: Estates with vacation homes or fractional LLC interests in multiple states triggered separate court-appointing costs and delays.

✅ Conclusion: Use a multi-asset trust or national LLC to wrap all properties. Title and fund all assets in one entity.

MYTH #101: “Estate freezes and charitable remainder hybrid trusts are safe if structured as SLATs.”

🔹 Issue: Combining SLATs, GRATS, and charitable remainder schemes can create reciprocal or grantor trust issues.

🔹 Code: IRC §§ 2036/38; § 674 grantor trust rules; § 170 charitable clauses.

🔹 Doctrine/Test: Stacking freeze tools invites IRS scrutiny—control, revocability, and substance tests applied cumulatively.

✅ Conclusion: Each tool must stand alone. Use independent legal review for layered structures. Avoid cross-over powers or reciprocal language.

Don't make the business, estate, and tax mistakes that can destroy 10-50% of your wealth

Get a complimentary evaluation to explore the hidden legal and tax traps and blind spots in your estate & tax plans before it's too late...

You are NOT going to be here to pay the tax and court bills, explain your situation or intentions, and will be leaving it to your loved ones to deal with the mess.

We can help you gain clarity on how to navigate these complex, shark-invested, legal and tax waters with confidence.

CONNECT WITH US

Terms | Privacy Policy | Disclaimers | DMCA

IMPORTANT: LEGAL DISCLAIMER

The information contained on this page does not constitute legal, tax, of financial advice and is strictly for educational and entertainment purposes only. Please consult an attorney or advisor in your area to get a second opinion on legal matters. We are a consulting firm that houses attorneys, accountants, and other licensed professionals who who execute strategies for our clients. No attorney-client relationship is formed by scheduling a call, filling out forms, attending workshops, participating in the Hotline, or by sending us an email.