- WHY would a plaintiff lawyer agree to an additional expense affecting their client’s recovery in establishing a single-claimant qualified settlement fund for funds designated for a structured settlement, where there are no restrictions on the selection of structured annuity companies, and then consent to having the structured settlement broker designated by the insurer funding the qualified settlement fund or to segregating the assets?
- WHY would a plaintiff’s lawyer state on the record to a judge that the “holding trust” will have no tax consequences for an infant, whom both the judge and the attorney are duty-bound to protect, when it is known that income from such trusts is taxable at the highest rate imposed by the United States government?
- WHY would a competent settlement planner or plaintiff’s attorney provide Court-ordered single claimant qualified settlement fund documents stating that “no plaintiff or other payee shall have constructive receipt, as defined in 26 C.F.R. Section 1.451-2(a), or economic benefit, as defined in common law, of any of the assets of the plaintiff’s qualified settlement fund while they are under the control of the Administrator”?
Does a Court Order with such language trump the IRS or the Tax Courts?
If it was as simple as a state court judge being the final arbiter on tax disputes, why, over 5 years ago, did the Society of Settlement Planners, solicit its members to pitch in so they could hire the very expensive law firm Skadden Arps to request guidance from the Treasury Department on single claimant 468B qualified settlement funds? That guidance is yet to be obtained.
Leave a Reply