9/16 - 22nd Annual Estate & Charitable Gift Planning Institute (multiple locations)

Sponsored by
Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  September 16, 2014 

New Paradigms in Estate and Charitable Planning

Estate planning is constantly changing as income taxes increase, estate taxes are reduced, portability takes hold, and the economy recovers.  Explore traditional and new planning techniques designed with flexibility in mind to address the new paradigm.  Please join us as we discuss:
 - Recent tax developments and case law updates
 - Plans for small, medium and large estates
 - Business advice for succession planning
 - Effective and efficient charitable strategies
 - Ethical considerations in representing families and their entities

Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Time (local time): 10:30 am  - 4:30 PM Eastern time (except where noted below)
      Check-in: 9:30 am - 10:15 am (Eastern Time)

Credit hours: 5.0 CLE (pending)

Cost:
$35 - Early Bird Registration (August 12)
$50 - Regular Rate

There are no refunds for cancellations or no-shows.

Live Webcast Locations:
North

   Fort Wayne
   Marion
   Warsaw

Central
   Indianapolis
   Lafayette

South
   Bloomington
   Columbus
   Evansville (9:30 am - 3:30 pm Central Time; check-in begins 8:30 am Central Time)
   Madison
   New Albany
   Terre Haute

Provider: The Salvation Army Indiana Division

Contact information:
Molly Barr
Phone (317) 224-1038
Molly_Barr@usc.salvationarmy.org
https://giftandestate14.eventbrite.com/

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT