<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Law Offices of David L. Silverman, J.D., LL.M.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nytaxattorney.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nytaxattorney.com</link>
	<description>Lake Success, NY -- Tax and Trusts &#38; Estates Attorney; (516) 466-5900  dsilverman@nytaxattorney.com</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:16:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Modifying or &#8220;Decanting&#8221; Irrevocable Trusts by nytaxatty2</title>
		<link>http://nytaxattorney.com/2010/06/05/modifying-or-decanting-irrevocable-trusts/#comment-159</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nytaxatty2]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:16:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nytaxattorney.com/?p=358#comment-159</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While I agree that an attorney could subvert the intention of the settlor by improperly decanting, I think that this could occur even without the ability to decant a trust.  I think that the ability to decant can be a valuable tool with which the attorney or trustee can actually carry out the original intent of the settlor, by allowing such modifications to meet changing circumstances.  However, your point is well taken.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I agree that an attorney could subvert the intention of the settlor by improperly decanting, I think that this could occur even without the ability to decant a trust.  I think that the ability to decant can be a valuable tool with which the attorney or trustee can actually carry out the original intent of the settlor, by allowing such modifications to meet changing circumstances.  However, your point is well taken.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Modifying or &#8220;Decanting&#8221; Irrevocable Trusts by Pat</title>
		<link>http://nytaxattorney.com/2010/06/05/modifying-or-decanting-irrevocable-trusts/#comment-158</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pat]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Mar 2011 21:31:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nytaxattorney.com/?p=358#comment-158</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It would seem that the ability to decant an irrevocable trust, to end it, or to transfer its proceeds (by raiding it) would fall into the category of embezzlement or theft in the right circumstances, and that it would be an outright breach of Fiduciary standard if the Trustee is held to the ascertainable standard therein. Of course, if no one is looking, including the IRS, it would seem that attorneys may interpret their prerogatives any way they like, and since no one is the wiser, may make such &quot;adjustments&quot; to their liking, or for their own self enrichment. That they may create such &quot;new ventures&quot; would seem to be unethical from the start by the intent to defeat the wishes of the Irrevocable Trust settlor regardless of how long the trust has been in operation. With designs on the assets, however, that are held, how can attorneys reach such assets except through revision and reconstruction within new revocable trusts set up by survivor-beneficiaries?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It would seem that the ability to decant an irrevocable trust, to end it, or to transfer its proceeds (by raiding it) would fall into the category of embezzlement or theft in the right circumstances, and that it would be an outright breach of Fiduciary standard if the Trustee is held to the ascertainable standard therein. Of course, if no one is looking, including the IRS, it would seem that attorneys may interpret their prerogatives any way they like, and since no one is the wiser, may make such &#8220;adjustments&#8221; to their liking, or for their own self enrichment. That they may create such &#8220;new ventures&#8221; would seem to be unethical from the start by the intent to defeat the wishes of the Irrevocable Trust settlor regardless of how long the trust has been in operation. With designs on the assets, however, that are held, how can attorneys reach such assets except through revision and reconstruction within new revocable trusts set up by survivor-beneficiaries?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Like Kind Exchanges of Real Estate Under IRC Section 1031 &#8212; Treatise by Like Kind Exchanges of Real Estate Under IRC Section 1031 &#8230; &#171; Tax explained to you.</title>
		<link>http://nytaxattorney.com/2010/07/30/like-kind-exchanges-of-real-estate-under-irc-section-1031/#comment-85</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Like Kind Exchanges of Real Estate Under IRC Section 1031 &#8230; &#171; Tax explained to you.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Aug 2010 19:44:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nytaxattorney.com/?p=277#comment-85</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] more: Like Kind Exchanges of Real Estate Under IRC Section 1031 &#8230; Related Posts:Like Kind Exchanges, Taxes and Real Estate: The Rules of Boot in a &#8230;NHBR &gt; [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] more: Like Kind Exchanges of Real Estate Under IRC Section 1031 &#8230; Related Posts:Like Kind Exchanges, Taxes and Real Estate: The Rules of Boot in a &#8230;NHBR &gt; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Like Kind Exchanges of Real Estate Under IRC Section 1031 &#8212; Treatise by Like Kind Exchanges of Real Estate Under IRC Section 1031 &#8230; &#171; 1031 exchange questions answered</title>
		<link>http://nytaxattorney.com/2010/07/30/like-kind-exchanges-of-real-estate-under-irc-section-1031/#comment-77</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Like Kind Exchanges of Real Estate Under IRC Section 1031 &#8230; &#171; 1031 exchange questions answered]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:58:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nytaxattorney.com/?p=277#comment-77</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] posted here: Like Kind Exchanges of Real Estate Under IRC Section 1031 &#8230; &#160;    No [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] posted here: Like Kind Exchanges of Real Estate Under IRC Section 1031 &#8230; &nbsp;    No [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Asset Sales to Grantor Trusts: Antidote to New Estate Tax? by Steven Gates</title>
		<link>http://nytaxattorney.com/2010/06/25/asset-sales-to-grantor-trusts-antidote-to-new-estate-tax/#comment-76</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steven Gates]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:58:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nytaxattorney.com/?p=1740#comment-76</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This treatment of the subject is thorough, articulate, and useful.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This treatment of the subject is thorough, articulate, and useful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Estate Planning in 2010 by Mike</title>
		<link>http://nytaxattorney.com/2010/02/14/estate-planning-in-2010/#comment-32</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:02:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nytaxattorney.com/?p=182#comment-32</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m wondering what is going to happen with this estate tax for 2010. My Mom past away 1/ 5 /10 and she had a trust]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m wondering what is going to happen with this estate tax for 2010. My Mom past away 1/ 5 /10 and she had a trust</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Revision of New York Power of Attorney Law Takes Effect by Bob Peterson</title>
		<link>http://nytaxattorney.com/2010/03/23/revision-of-new-york-power-of-attorney-law-takes-effect/#comment-28</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bob Peterson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:33:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nytaxattorney.com/?p=316#comment-28</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I understand a SMGR is required only with the short form because it limits gifts to $500. Thus a SMGR is required to override that provision. I also understand that if the short form is not used, such as with a Quicken POA gifting over $500 can be granted in the POA itself.Correct?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I understand a SMGR is required only with the short form because it limits gifts to $500. Thus a SMGR is required to override that provision. I also understand that if the short form is not used, such as with a Quicken POA gifting over $500 can be granted in the POA itself.Correct?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Asset Protection; Avoiding Fraudulent Transfers by K. Leperi</title>
		<link>http://nytaxattorney.com/2010/03/15/asset-protection-avoiding-fraudulent-transfers/#comment-24</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[K. Leperi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:41:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nytaxattorney.com/?p=827#comment-24</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Excellent article that addresses issues with scant coverage.  Would like to see more on challenging trusts drawn up to avoid assets being revealed during divorce.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent article that addresses issues with scant coverage.  Would like to see more on challenging trusts drawn up to avoid assets being revealed during divorce.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

