Rogers & Tartaro Business Litigation Blog

Build a Better Mousetrap - or a Safer Hot Dog

Beverley Rogers — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:53:33 -0500

Last week, we posted about confidentiality agreements, referencing a recent case involving English muffins.

Now hot dogs are the hot topic.

The American Academy of Pediatrics released a policy statement this month, reporting that hot dogs cause about 17 percent of food-related asphyxiations in children. The Academy is proposing that hot dogs be redesigned to prevent choking.

For those caregivers who do not cut their children’s food into safe-sized pieces, or heed choking warnings, this is a life-saving solution. However, according to Eric Hummel of Hummel Brothers Meat Products in New Haven, Connecticut, “it would be virtually impossible to make [a hot dog] in really any other shape.” If it could have been done, it probably would have by now.

But if a food scientist did discover how to bypass the grinding-emulsifier-casing process, the new design would undoubtedly involve confidential, proprietary information. Yes, anyone can try to duplicate a new shape. But the process for producing the shape could be proprietary and subject to confidentiality agreements or to other protections for intellectual property.

In the meantime, Mr. Hummel recommends that families with young children purchase skinless hot dogs in the thinnest form.

There are other solutions for small children: alternative foods like eggs, sliced turkey, whole grains…. But, being lawyers and not dietitians, we have to leave the matter to individual adults to decide, including those who "relish" their hot dogs.

Never Tell Tales out of School (or secret recipes from work)

Beverley Rogers — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:12:50 -0500

One of America’s most closely guarded secrets sits in an undisclosed location in Louisville, locked away in a safe. Very few people know its location, let alone the information contained in that vault. The select few who do know are obligated to strict confidentiality by contract. The information contained therein are not military codes or emergency instructions. It’s Colonel Harland Sanders’ secret formula for his Kentucky Fried Chicken.

A recent Law.com post reported the case of Bimbo Bakeries USA Inc. v. Botticella. Mr. Botticella was one of a handful of executives who knew the secret “nooks and crannies” formula for Thomas’ English Muffins. Botticella had surreptitiously accepted a position at rival Hostess. Bimbo Bakeries (the company that makes the muffins) successfully sought an injunction to block Botticella from joining Hostess and possibly exposing their trade secrets.

In our practice, we frequently get asked about non-compete and non-disclosure agreements. Often a client will ask: Why me? Some employees can’t believe that they acquired any knowledge so critical to their employer that it justifies stringent intellectual property restrictions . Well the answer is: There are plenty of things can be highly confidential and proprietary, even the nooks and crannies of a muffin or the recipe for the coating on fried chicken. More commonly, the concern is about customer lists, unique methodologies or technical information.

Frank Steinberg of the New Jersey Employment Law Blog explains inevitable disclosure as a doctrine of trade secret law that proceeds from the premise that an ex-employee of one company who knows trade secrets, and takes a job with a competitor, simply will not will not be able to keep his mouth shut in his new job.

Dan Schwartz of the Connecticut Employment Blog commented on the muffin case with both humor and insight. He notes that the judge concluded, in the case of Mr. Botticella, that the disclosure of trade secrets would be inevitable. Dan suggests that employers who seek to use the doctrine of “inevitable disclosure” should realize the limits of the doctrine, and use it carefully and sparingly.

All these gentlemen should be on the lookout for Todd Wilbur. The former journalist has a website and series of success books called “Top Secret Recipes: creating original clone recipes of America’s Favorite Foods.” We don’t know whether he found out the true secrets or did some “reverse engineering” in order to get close. Can you tell?

photo courtesy Wikimedia

Social Media Policies at Work

Beverley Rogers — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:27:46 -0500

The other night I was watching an episode of “The Office.” The company of the title, Dundler Mifflin, had recently been acquired by a large corporation. Much to the horror of the DM employees, the new company sent an IT manager in to remove access to any questionable websites and social networking arenas, including Twitter and Facebook.

Apparently this is not just material for television. According to the National Law Journal, more than half of surveyed companies said they prohibit employees from visiting sites such as Twitter, Facebook and MySpace. In fact, the article says, 76 percent of companies are actually blocking employees' use of social networking.

It stands to reason that employers can prohibit activities not related to their work. Legally, employers have the right to institute such policies. However, company policy about such things should be done in a way that doesn’t humiliate employees or create resentment. After all, social media is here to stay, and can actually benefit companies. As Daniel Schwartz of the Connecticut Employment Law Blog says, developing a social media policy and practice should be part of many companies' overall strategy.

A Canadian woman might have fared better with these regulations in place. A recent Law.com post reported that the woman is fighting an insurance company's decision to cut her benefits after an insurance agent found photos of her vacationing, at a bar and at a party.

She posted them on Facebook.

Ladies (and Men) Who Lunch: Congratulations to Ridgefield Chamber

Angelo Tartaro — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 09:21:37 -0500

Bev and I had the pleasure of attending the Ridgefield Chamber of Commerce Inaugural Luncheon today. The beautiful Le Chateau restaurant was filled with town leaders, service providers, business owners, and local government officials. It was a dynamic, optimistic environment which reinforced the “small town, big possibilities” feeling of Ridgefield.

Amongst the speakers was Mike Critelli, former CEO of Pitney Bowes. The Ridgefield Patch describes Mr. Critelli, who is now retired, as “a widely sought-after business leader and public speaker because of his engaging stories and insightful lessons on business.” He left us with some interesting ideas on how each of us can grow our business, even in a challenging economy.

Our congratulations and gratitude to Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Marion Roth, her staff, and the Board for keeping the Chamber an important, relevant, and amenable part of Ridgefield.

Yes, Virginia, there is an Estate Tax

Beverley Rogers — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:07:40 -0500

According to Investment News, Virginia became the first state to pass a law requiring that estates be treated as if it is still 2009 -- unless Congress acts first.

Why would Virginia do that? Many wills include formulas that are based on the existence of an estate tax. This article points out how the formulas can distort the intentions expressed in someone’s will - - to the extent of leaving one’s children nothing instead of $3.5 million.

Of course the issue does not apply at all to most estates because they are too small to be taxed in the first place. There was no tax on small estates in 2009, and there is none in 2010.

In our practice, for estates that might have been taxable, we have been using “disclaimer” provisions that allow a surviving spouse to decide whether tax-minimizing steps are necessary. The “disclaimer” technique is not a cure-all for an uncertain tax environment, but it works in many cases.

It would be better if Congress simply decided to end the uncertainty and pass some kind of estate tax law.

Does Conan Have Contract Conflicts?

Angelo Tartaro — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:48:59 -0500

The New York Times recently ran an informative article about NBC’s late night television woes. Low ratings and pressure from affiliates have made NBC move Jay Leno from 10 pm to 11:35 pm, thereby bumping Conan O’Brien’s The Tonight Show to 12:05 am (actually, wouldn’t that be tomorrow?)

Mr. O’Brien issued a respectful but witty statement expressing his thoughts and disappointment. He also remarked on the speculation that a rival network is wooing him. But the Times suggests that O'Brien's contract with NBC includes a non-compete clause that could prevent him from jumping to another network.

Time to call in the lawyers.

As an attorney, I don’t practice in entertainment law but I find the story raises some interesting general contract issues. Of course, the terms of the contract are not public, so I can only draw some general inferences. Mr. O’Brien signed a contract with NBC to take over The Tonight Show. According to the Times, although the contract did not specifically state that the show will begin at 11:30 pm, for 60 years it has immediately followed the local nightly news. In order for O'Brien to extricate himself from the contract, he would have to show that the time change constitutes a breach. Or, he could leave and possibly breach the contract.

The article states that NBC executives are confident they have not breached Mr. O’Brien’s contract, since he still will be the host of The Tonight Show.

What does this story teach us about contracts? First, a decision to breach a contract is usually a business decision, not a moral one. But, if a contract is enforceable, the breach is going to cost. The question is whether the cost of the breach is greater than the cost of faithfully carrying out the contract.

Secondly, a contractual right provides certain protections. But, it doesn’t protect individuals or a management team from sabotaging their own interests. As I’ve told clients numerous times, it may seem attractive to play “hardball,” but it’s not always the best alternative.

A case in point is the subplot mentioned in the article concerning the Fox network. I’m curious as to whether Fox, which, according to the article, has the contractual right to impose a new late-night program on its affiliates, would actually enforce its contractual right if that action jeopardized its long-term relationship with the affiliates. Those "Seinfeld" re-runs are reportedly very lucrative.

Finally, aggrieved employees should follow Mr. O’Brien’s example and take the high road. Don’t burn any bridges or publicly lash out at those you believe wronged you.

Incidentally, another Celebrity vs. Network case was put to bed today. The AP reports that New York's top court rejected Dan Rather's bid to reinstate his $70 million breach-of-contract lawsuit against CBS. Apparently, the court ruled that since he was paid, there was no breach of contract.

Order in the Court (Appointments)

Beverley Rogers — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:32:18 -0500

For the record, I’m not a big fan of Justice Antonin Scalia. But he certainly is provocative, as the Wall Street Journal Law Blog pointed out recently.

According to the Journal post, Justice Scalia is concerned that there aren’t more people with varying professional backgrounds being nominated to the Supreme Court. At the time of his nomination, there were three justices with no prior judicial experience. Today there are none. An AP story quotes Justice Scalia as saying, “Every aspect of your career broadens your outlook and gives insights that you wouldn’t have in some other aspect of the legal practice.”

The Justice raises a good question: should the judges of the highest courts (he talks about US Supreme but the question could apply to the highest state court) be exclusively judges, or should there be a mix of backgrounds?

Ironically, in the debate over the last Supreme Court appointment (Justice Sonia Sotomayor) there seemed to be a big issue over whether the law should be followed closely or informed by the judge’s background. Many seemed to be against the application of non-legal insights into a legal decision. Now, none other than Justice Scalia implies that background matters.

Here’s my take: In principle, a variety of backgrounds would be best. But, the highest courts almost exclusively decide questions of law, not questions of fact. Thus, if the role of the justices is to tell us “what the law is,” should that be done by a non-lawyer of any background? Also, wouldn’t a non-lawyer become even more dependent on his or her law clerks (lawyers) than the lawyer-judges already are?

Reversal of Fortune: The Estate Tax Law Update

Angelo Tartaro — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:59:43 -0500

As of January 1, the federal estate tax went away for a year. Under current law, it’s scheduled to return at a higher rate next year. Personally, I’m surprised that Congress allowed the estate tax law to lapse, and I'm curious to see the ramifications.

According to the Wall Street Journal, families facing end-of-life decisions in the immediate future are finding that the change is making one of life's most trying episodes only more complex. Beneficiaries stand to inherit a lot more for a death this year than a death after December 31, 2010. The ethical dilemma is clearly significant.

Of course, what Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away. As discussed in the Journal article, the repeal of the federal estate tax is accompanied by reinstatement of the capital gains tax on property passing to beneficiaries. Previously, when property passed to beneficiaries, the property received a “step up” in basis, wiping out the capital gains tax. The net result is that many estates, including smaller estates, will be taxed anyway but it just won’t be called an estate tax.

The Journal says that the uncertainties of the new tax law (will it be changed? will it be retroactive?) are “forcing family legal advisers to craft various provisional financial-planning strategies that can be undone later if the rules do change.” According to the article, at least one person has added the prospect of euthanasia to his estate-planning mix. That might be a little extreme.

For a more conventional planning environment, we look forward to some kind of retroactive resolution.

For Auld Lang Syne...

Beverley Rogers — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:16:59 -0500

As the last days of December wind down, it is traditional to look back on the past year’s triumphs and tribulations.

Fortunately, Law.com has compiled The Top 'Top-10' Lists of 2009, including Law Central’s list of the weirdest cases of 2009. The case of the man who was prosecuted for dialing 911 when his local Burger King ran out of lemonade proves that sometimes justice really is served (no pun intended).

Thanks to the Blog Herald for giving us top legal issues to look forward to in the coming year.

Closer to home, our own town of Ridgefield enjoyed an interesting year. Several real estate transactions occurred on Main Street, with tenants moving in, moving out, or just moving across the street. First Selectman Rudy Marconi declared his consideration of a run for governor.

We wish all of our neighbors, friends and clients a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year.

Update: COBRA Subsidy Extension

Angelo Tartaro — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:26:31 -0500

According to Workforce Management, on December 19, Congress approved -- and the President signed -- a military spending bill that includes the extension of federal COBRA health insurance premium subsidies for unemployed workers.

The article states that the legislation will provide another six months of subsidized coverage for beneficiaries whose nine-month COBRA 65% premium subsidy has run out. It also gives beneficiaries whose subsidy expired and who didn’t pay the full premium the opportunity to receive retroactive coverage. The legislation also requires employers to notify current and future COBRA beneficiaries of the new 15-month premium subsidy.

COBRA is simple in concept but complex in implementation. More information can be found on the Department of Labor website, and of course, you can consult a professional.

Surviving Litigation and the Recession: Lessons from "Rocky"

Angelo Tartaro — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:52:53 -0500

We often tell clients that going through litigation is like the movie Rocky: the parties will batter each other emotionally and financially until the last one standing wins. This analogy draws on popular culture and helps to manage clients’ expectations, while promoting the advantages of reasonable negotiated settlements. It also makes a serious point with a touch of humor.

Little did I know that even more nuanced life lessons are to be found in one of the sequels, Rocky III.

In this installment, Rocky has lost the championship and is trained by his former arch-opponent for a comeback.

But, there’s more to it. Rocky, in fact, has to learn new skills. Specifically, he has to be quicker, more agile, and learn to move rhythmically. He also has to package his new skills into a whole new fight strategy. But first, he has to pick himself up emotionally.

I think this is a good metaphor for surviving the recession. Businesses that may have lost their “championship” standing may need to pick themselves up, learn new skills and package them into a whole new business strategy.

Actually, learning new skills should be part of a continuous process, and business strategies should be continually reevaluated and refreshed. Then, the business would be well-positioned to survive adversity -- even a really bad recession. Personally, we have always been prepared to shift the focus of our practice within appropriate areas of our expertise and to selectively implement new technologies to deliver services more effectively.

So, I learned about litigation from Rocky and about management from Rocky III.

To think that I could have saved all that time going to business school and law school if I had only paid more attention to Rocky.

image courtesy allposters.com

Sorry may be the hardest word, but is it legal?

Angelo Tartaro — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:06:41 -0500

As children, we’re taught that if you do something wrong, you’re supposed to apologize. For some people, though, it’s not just a suggestion, it’s the law. According to a recent Law.com post, Ontario recently became the fourth Canadian province to enact “apology legislation.” Law.com also reports that most Australian states and more than 30 states in our own country have similar legislation.

The Act provides that an apology, made by or on behalf of a person, does not constitute an admission of fault or liability by the person and is not admissible in any civil or administrative proceeding.

That being said, I still wouldn't advise a client to apologize before a case has been tried or resolved (even if there were such an act in NY and CT -- and I haven’t checked to see if there is). I would not take the suggestion in the Law.com post to use the apology as a dispute resolution tool - - at least not while a trial or hearing may be in the parties’ future.

My reason is related to the old trial lawyer’s cliché: you can’t unring a bell. I was watching an old Jimmy Stewart movie, “Anatomy of a Murder.” Stewart plays the defense lawyer. Over and over he says something he shouldn’t, and the judge tells the jury to disregard it. Ben Gazzara’s character, the accused, asks him, “Can they really disregard it?” And the Stewart character casually says, “Of course not.”

My point is, once you’ve apologized and it becomes public, act or no act, how can anyone disregard the apology, or not "take it into account"? Judges and juries are human.

We don’t practice in medical malpractice or personal injury where, according to Law.com, there is a lot of interest in this "tool." There is, however, one aspect of this issue that is of some interest to me: should an apology be part of a settlement (after the parties have given each other releases from liability)? How often I hear, “It’s not the money, it’s the principle.” If that’s the case, I would ask, will you settle if I can get you only an apology and no money?

That situation, to me, is different from one in which the apology might precede a trial or hearing. Of course, it would take some negotiating skill to suggest an apology can be part of a settlement without admitting an apology is in order.

The growth of this legislation shows its increasing popularity. However, in my own experience, I don’t think such an act can be very effective.

Let us know what you think.

(not a legal document)

Why Football is Different from the Law

Angelo Tartaro — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:14:54 -0500

Recently, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, applying yet another sports and law analogy, asked: Why aren’t instant replays reviewed de novo? That is, why is “conclusive” or “indisputable” proof required to reverse a call on the field? Why not take a fresh new look at the play when reviewing video?

I’m probably in a very small minority, but I think the question answers itself: because sports plays need to be called 100% impartially, not necessarily 100% accurately. The officials on the field are human. Absent bias (say, towards the home team) or outright corruption, a call should not be reversed unless the video evidence is “conclusive.”

So, to some extent, I take issue with the analogy applied in the WSJ article. However, the post is actually quite educational and presents the subject matter in a clever way. I’d also consider it helpful, since the role of the appellate courts is not well-understood among non-lawyers.

I just wouldn’t take any similarity between the courts and football - - or any sport - - too far.

Follow-Up Info: Inheritance Tax

Angelo Tartaro — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:32:54 -0500

As we have mentioned before, under current law, the federal estate tax is scheduled to temporarily disappear next year before returning in 2011 at an even higher 55 percent rate. During the year without an estate tax, all estates would be subject to capital gains taxes that they now avoid.

The House approached a vote Thursday on permanently extending a 45 percent inheritance tax on estates larger than $3.5 million, canceling a one-year repeal of the tax set to begin next month.

According to an article in the Hartford Business Journal, under the House bill, estates smaller than $3.5 million would continue to be exempt from the tax, and married couples, with a little estate planning, could exempt a total of $7 million.

Under current law, the estate tax would return in 2011 with a $1 million exemption and top rate of 55 percent, unless Congress acts.

We will continue to keep you updated.

Congress Examines Age Bias (court cases, that is)

Beverley Rogers — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:09:44 -0500

The Supreme Court has not been historically sympathetic to age discrimination cases. A recent New York Times editorial post stated that Congress is considering overturning a court ruling about age discrimination (Gross v. FBI Financial Services, Inc.) The ruling said that older workers must show that age was the decisive factor in their firing — not merely a contributing factor.

In 1967 Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), but the courts have made age discrimination suits very difficult. According to the Times piece, in 1993, in one of its most damaging rulings, the Court decided that if employers fire workers whose pension costs or salaries are high, they are not discriminating — even if the overwhelming number of people fired are older workers.

In our practice, we often see age discrimination that is subtle, with other factors involved. In those cases, we help negotiate a severance package and advise the client to move on.

What’s surprising is that there are still instances where it’s blatant and systemic (as pointed out by the Times article). Clients with the emotional -- and financial --resources may then choose to take a stand. But the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Gross v. FBI Financial Services (the case that Congress is thinking about reversing) said when there are mixed motives, the plaintiff has to prove age was the “but for” reason. This doesn’t work in terms of fairness and is inconsistent with the way other forms of discrimination are treated.

Interestingly, one blog reporting on this case rightly points out that the Supreme Court opinion states that Congress neglected to provide for a “mixed motive” analysis in age discrimination cases. On one level, as citizens, we might find it annoying that Congress and the Supreme Court are engaged in finger-pointing on an important issue. On another level, it shows that if Congress does act to reverse the rule in this case, it is not necessarily repudiating the Supreme Court but accepting the message that the law requires correction.

Costly Comments: The $6 Million Verdict

Beverley Rogers — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:07:22 -0500

A recent verdict in Pennsylvania awarded plaintiffs $6.2 million for age discrimination. This was before attorneys’ fees and possible enhancements. The New Jersey Employment Blog summed up the key “take-away” for employers exceedingly well:

“Downsizings are difficult on many levels. Companies need to be sure that their age-related analysis of the impact of the employees selected is done fairly and honestly, and not merely to justify management's desire to get rid of age-protected employees.”

Law.com mentions another interesting aspect of this case. There were several pre-trial motions in which the parties battled over whether managers’ comments should be admitted as evidence. Some were considered hearsay, having been overheard in hallway conversation, others were comments made in a deposition. According to Law.com, the defendants won some and lost some. But, apparently, the ones they lost were costly.

Sometimes, comments are unfairly taken out of context or distorted. Nonetheless, there is little excuse for straying from a strictly professional approach when discussing age, downsizing and other sensitive issues.

Ridgefield Chamber Event: Economist Seminar

Angelo Tartaro — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:20:27 -0500

As I’ve said before, I am not an economist but occasionally play one on this blog (though I’m always conscious of my amateur status in the field).

Imagine my pleasure, therefore, of attending the informal “seminar” conducted by a REAL economist, Nicholas Perna, at the Ridgefield Chamber’s “Rise & Shine” breakfast earlier this week. Dr. Perna was able to side-step ideology and talk “real” economics, not only in an understandable fashion, but also with humor.

Our law practice, like any small business, is directly impacted by key economic trends. We also have to manage our practice around those trends. For example, last year, there was a drop in real estate transactions, while there was an increase in employees contacting us to review severance agreements. In Big Law, outright layoffs and the rescinding of job offers to graduates were even better evidence.

So, in addition to being informative and entertaining, the Rise and Shine breakfast was directly on point. My thanks to Dr. Perna and the Chamber.

Keeping Current: Law Practice and Business Management

Angelo Tartaro — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:23:33 -0500

A healthy business requires appropriate and effective attention to the process of staying in business. A law practice is no exception. Keeping up with developments in the law is a “given,” but with respect to our business processes, we share many of the concerns, issues and shortcomings of any business, including the current pressures of the economy.

(For me, interest in business processes comes naturally. I became a lawyer in mid-career; my pre-law credentials include an MBA and project management experience developing business software and “back office” procedures for insurance and financial organizations.)

Last week I attended the Sixth Annual Law Practice Management Symposium of the New York City Bar.

Don’t stop reading. This is not “inside baseball” for lawyers.

So, very briefly, here are my highlights of the symposium:

Cash Flow – Considering the economic environment, what business is not interested in improving cash flow? Merchant banking (credit card processing) services for our business have become really sophisticated and not only improve cash flow, but also automate some of the strict controls over attorney escrow accounts that we otherwise handle manually. For example, clients can now pay by credit card via e-mail and the terminals are “virtual,” that is, online.

Financial Services – A few banks have focused on attorneys as a market niche and have developed expertise on how to handle escrow accounts (such as organizing statements to facilitate reconciliation). Generalizing to other businesses, why not work with a financial institution that actually understands your business?

Marketing – All the buzz in marketing was about social networking sites on the internet. Here, my “take-away” was pick and choose carefully. However, two important points were raised, applicable to any business: (1) a down economy is not the time to save on marketing, and (2) businesses that don’t cut back on marketing tend to increase market share in a down economy.

Information Management – Practice management systems for lawyers have evolved and are now truly impressive. They tend to be sold on the promise of capturing more billable time and increasing revenue for lawyers. That’s not good news if you’re a client. Take heart. My “take-away” is that they are not likely to increase revenue significantly but they are likely to organize information so as to save lawyers from loads of “administrativia” and free up lots of time for real work or for (is it possible?) leisure.

And, incidentally, it’s a myth that lawyers gain by wasting time on clients’ work to boost billable hours - - actually, getting the work out efficiently and effectively leads to a more profitable practice and is a win-win with clients.

Balance of Work and Leisure – This is as much an issue for lawyers as it is for other professions and occupations. My take-away is that if you organize your practice (or business) so that it functions effectively, life balance becomes a more manageable issue.

And, as a parting point, my primary criterion when evaluating business processes is effectiveness rather than efficiency. I think that applies to any business and more specifically to law practice management.

Ridgefield Playhouse Concert: Keb' Mo'

Beverley Rogers — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:14:44 -0500

Our blog’s mission statement permits us to go off-topic occasionally for various and sundry purposes, including recognition of the cultural assets of the communities in which we practice and live.

There was a great concert last night by blues artist Keb’ Mo’ at the Ridgefield Playhouse. The show included an opening performance by special guest, Kristina Train. Keb’ Mo’s music is, in the words of the program notes, “a contemporary link to the seminal Delta blues tradition that traveled the Mississippi River and across the expanse of America.”

We’ve praised the virtues of the Playhouse before and hereby do so again, including the somewhat undervalued feature of being able to enjoy a top-quality performance -- and be home within minutes afterwards.
Artist Keb' Mo'

Gift Tax Exclusion Remains $13,000 in 2010

Beverley Rogers — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:07:00 -0500

The Tax, Trusts and Estates Law Monitor recently reported that the Gift Tax Exclusion Amount, indexed to the cost of living, will remain $13,000 in 2010.

As explained by TTELM: “The annual exclusion permits a taxpayer to gift $13,000 annually to any beneficiary without being required to use his or her $1 million lifetime gift exemption amount.”

The gift tax exclusion amount is an important estate planning tool since the amount can be doubled in the case of a married couple and applies to any number of persons. Less well-known, other excluded gifts may be made for tuition expenses and health care provided payments made directly to the educational institution or provider.