Tag: estate assets
I read an article in this week’s Maclean’s magazine that more and more of Canada’s "Super Rich" are drafting family value statements. According to the article, approximately $3 trillion (though the figure varies depending on the source) will be transferred in the coming decades to the next generation. The Super-Rich are particularly concerned that their children, as beneficiaries of this wealth transfer, will take the easy way out and decide not to work or give back to the community. Warren Buffet received a great deal of press when he stated publicly that he would not leave his fortune to his children. Instead, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the recipient of Mr. Buffet’s considerable largesse.
According to the article, a value statement spells out those values that are important to the family and can include values that speak to community, work ethic, and religion. Apparently, the Super Rich are willing to pay various consultants significant amounts of money to get the statement just right. Every family member is asked to participate so that everyone buys into the process and the statement withstands the test of time.
Whether the average Canadian family actually sits down and crafts a family value statement is debatable. However, most families will discuss informally, whether over dinner or around the campfire, the values that motivate them and help them navigate life’s many choices.
However it is done, it makes good sense for parents to sit down with their children to not only talk about the pending transfer of wealth, but their expectations (and aspirations) as to how their children will spend their inherited wealth. It is a truism that money has always been hard to handle.
Have a good weekend.
Last week the Globe and Mail reported on a $1.5 billion lawsuit launched against Barry Sherman, the founder of Apotex, and a trust company. The case offers an opportunity to question the duties of disclosure to beneficiaries.
The claimants are the beneficiaries of their deceased father’s estate. Their father died in 1965 and his estate was administered by the trust company. In 1999, the claimants learned that the trust company had sold one of their father’s corporations to Mr. Sherman in the late 1960s. The claimants later learned that the sale included terms that they were to be given an opportunity to work at the company upon turning 21 and the option of purchasing 5% of the company after 2 years of employment. These terms were subject to some important conditions, including that the company remain under control by Mr. Sherman.
However, Mr. Sherman sold the company in 1972 for a sizable profit.
The claimants now allege that Mr. Sherman and the trust company are liable for not advising them of the terms of the agreement, among other things.
An interesting catch is that the trust company passed its accounts in 1993 and no objections were raised at that time.
At issue in this case will be the trust company’s obligations to disclose all details about its dealings with estate assets, even when the information has not been requested, either at the time or when the accounts are passed.
Thanks for reading.
Recently, a client came to me regarding the purchase of a family cottage. The client was obviously excited about his new purchase, and wanted advice as to whether he should include his minor children on title. As his children would ultimately inherit the cottage, he thought it would be a good idea to include them on title from the start. My client knew that if his children were joint owners, they would continue to own the cottage after he died by right of survivorship. Not only would capital gains taxes be deferred (until the children ultimately disposed of the cottage), but the cottage would not be included as an estate asset for the purposes of calculating the estate administration tax (i.e. probate fees). It seemed like the perfect plan.
However, despite my client’s best intentions, my advice was not to put his children on title. The problem was that if the cottage had to be sold or mortgaged while his children were still minors, a court order would be required. Moreover, The Children’s Lawyer would have to be put on notice if such a court order were requested. Finally, the court would only grant an order when it was of the opinion that the sale or encumbrance of the cottage was necessary or proper for the support or education of the children, or would substantially benefit them. In the end, it was better for my client to simply wait until his children were adults before transferring his interest in the cottage to them.
When looking at the myriad of issues and problems that are created with succession planning for a family business, it is often forgotten that the family member who has been charged with (or readily accepted) the job of carrying on the family business is not him or herself particularly happy with the proposed division of the estate.
The question of "fair but not equal" is often a lifelong struggle for those who want to pass on a family business. In some cases, there is simply not enough money to fund a relatively equal division of the estate, as the core assets of the estate are tied up within the family business.
In certain situations, the non-participating family business members are treated in a "fair manner" by being given, for example, the proceeds of an insurance policy as opposed to the family business on death. The child who is charged with running the family business may not see that as being particularly fair. He or she may feel that for him or her to financially succeed, he will have to work in the business for the rest of his life, while the other siblings who are receiving fixed assets simply have to wait for the estate to fall in and they do not have the same lifelong work commitments to fulfill.