business planning uva law

Register to save time now and in the future

The password must be 8-50 characters.

Can not include your user id. Must contain one character from three of the following groups:

• Upper case letter (A-Z),
• Lower case letter (a-z),
• Number (0-9),
• Special characters like ! # $ % & ' * + - / = ? ^ _ ` { | } ~ . @ .
• No spaces allowed.

Your cart is empty.

2024 Virginia Business Law Updates: Over 70 Key Legislative Changes

By Eric Geringswald | CSC Virginia legislators approved more than 70 amendments to the state’s business laws during the 2024 session of the Virginia Assembly, including changes that address annual reports, garnishments, service of process, as well as a new Title of the UCC regulating controllable electronic records, such as cryptocurrency and NFTs. These and other changes are captured in the 2024 edition of CSC’s Virginia Laws Governing Business Entities Annotated . A Table of Sections Affected provides a list of new and amended sections, and the Legal Analysis summarizes the changes.

What's New in the 2024 Edition

The 2024 edition also includes the latest case notes from state and federal courts interpreting the law. The Table of New Annotations lists case notes that have been added since the previous edition, and notes are marked with gray bars in the body of the text for fast identification. The publication also includes an up-to-date Fee Schedule listing fees for business filings, as well as online access to 100 Virginia forms for incorporation/formation, qualification, mergers, dissolution, and name reservation for all entity types via the LexisNexis® Store download center. A listing of forms and contact information for Virginia’s State Corporation Commission can be found in the book’s appendix.

Virginia Laws Governing Business Entities Annotated

As with CSC’s other annotated statutory collections, Virginia Laws Governing Business Entities Annotated is available as an eBook and is part of the LexisNexis Digital Library. To learn more about the 2024 Edition of Virginia Laws Governing Business Entities Annotated , call 1.800.533.1637 or visit us online at www.lexisnexis.com/csc .

COPYRIGHT © 2024 LEXISNEXIS

• Frost Brown Todd

Dealing with Excess Accumulated Earnings in a Qualified Small Business – A Section 1202 Planning Guide

Sep 04, 2024

Categories:

Publications Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) Tax Law Defined™ Blog

Scott W. Dolson

This article is one in a series of articles and blogs addressing planning issues relating to qualified small business stock (QSBS) and the workings of Sections 1202 and 1045. The C corporation has gained favor since 2017 as an entity of choice because of the 21% corporate tax rate and the potential for benefiting from Section 1202’s gain exclusion. Additional information regarding Section 1202’s eligibility requirements and Section 1202 and Section 1045 tax planning can be found in our  QSBS library.

Double taxation, dividend avoidance and excess accumulated earnings.

Section 1202 provides for a substantial exclusion of gain from federal income taxes if a stockholder transfers QSBS in a taxable sale or exchange. [1]  Section 1202 has a number of eligibility requirements, including the requirement that a corporation issuing QSBS must be a domestic (US) C corporation.  This requirement means that unlike many owners of closely-held businesses that operate as partnerships (LPs/LLCs) or S corporation (“Pass Thru Entities”), stockholders of qualified small businesses must cope with tax issues arising out of operating the business through a C corporation, including the potential for double taxation of distributed earnings.

When tax professionals refer to the potential for double taxation, they are referring to the fact that when operating through a C corporation, net corporate taxable income (whether it is capital gain or net income from operations) is taxed at a 21% corporate rate, and then if the net earnings are distributed to stockholders as a dividend, the distribution is taxed a second time at capital gains rates (often 20%), plus an additional 3.8% investment income tax amount. If $1,000 of net corporate taxable income is subject to double taxation, stockholders will have $601.98 in their pocket after the earnings run the gauntlet of double taxation, resulting in a combined effective tax rate of 39.8%. [2] Not surprisingly, stockholders seek to avoid double taxation by limiting the distribution of accumulated earnings to stockholders. But, as discussed more fully below, accumulating earnings in a C corporation (including a “qualified small business” as defined in Section 1202) can result in significant tax issues for both the corporation and its stockholders.

A plan for mitigating the accumulated earnings problem should be a consideration when deciding whether to operate through a C corporation in the first place. Of course, excess earnings can also spring up while operating through a corporation, and management must counter the problem with strategies for mitigating the potential tax impact.

This article first identifies the tax problems created by excess accumulated earnings and then suggests possible strategies to avoid the tax problems.

What are the potential tax problems associated with accumulating earnings in a C corporation?

Potential loss of QSBS eligibility . Section 1202 has a number of eligibility requirements, including the “active business requirement.” This requirement applies on an ongoing basis during a stockholder entire QSBS holding period. Section 1202(e)(1) sets forth one of the active business requirements – that at least 80% (by value) of a corporation’s assets must be used in the active conduct of qualified business activities (the “80% Test”). Section 1202(e)(6) elaborates on this requirement by providing that assets earmarked as working capital (money plus cash management assets) [3] count towards meeting the 80% Test only if held for the corporation’s reasonably required working capital needs. Cash and investment assets not meeting the requirements of Section 1202(e) count against meeting the 80% Test. If the aggregate assets not used in undertaking the corporation’s qualified business activities exceed 20% (by value) of the corporation’s assets (by value), the corporation will fail the “active business requirement” for the applicable period. And if the period during which the corporation fails the “active business requirement” exceeds 20% to 25% of a stockholder’s holding period for his QSBS, he will not be eligible to claim Section 1202’s gain exclusion. [4]

Section 1202(e)(6) further provides that once a corporation has been in existence for at least two years, if the aggregate of cash and cash management assets exceed 50% of the corporation’s assets (by value), the excess over 50% will count against meeting the 80% Test. In most cases, this limitation isn’t a problem since the 50% test is based on comparing the aggregate of money and cash management assets against the fair market value of all assets. But, this limitation can become an issue when original QSBS sales proceeds have been reinvested in replacement QSBS of a created start-up, and that corporation has not sufficiently spent down its up-front cash infusion by the second anniversary of operations.  Where a Section 1045 rollover is involved, Section 1202 doesn’t state whether Section 1202(e)(6)’s two-year period runs from the date of organization of the corporation issuing the original QSBS or the corporation issuing the replacement QSBS. We believe that the two-year period should start when the replacement QSBS is issued – otherwise situations would arise where the two-year period would have passed prior to the issuance of the replacement QSBS, leading to the requirement that 50% of the rolled over proceeds would need to be immediately spent on the qualified activity. Obviously, a critical part of maintaining a “qualified small business” is to avoid failing the 80% Test.

Potential exposure to the accumulated earnings tax . One of the benefits of operating in a C corporation is the low 21% corporate tax rate applicable to all corporate-level net income and gain. A key goal of QSBS planning is to minimize taxes during operating years and then knock the tax saving ball out of the park by claiming Section 1202’s gain exclusion when the QSBS is transferred in a taxable sale or exchange. Naturally, during the years between formation and sale there is a desire to minimize exposure to the double taxation regime which usually means avoiding the payment of dividends. [5] To discourage corporations from avoiding dividends and accumulating earnings, Section 531 and companion provisions (collectively, the “AET”) impose an additional 20% tax on a corporation’s “accumulated taxable income.” The AET applies to accumulations beyond a corporation’s reasonable future needs, but the burden of proof is on the taxpayer if challenged to establish that such accumulations are reasonable. [6] Obviously, exposure to a combined 39.8% tax on net corporate taxable income paid out as dividends isn’t a great result, but most business owners would rather suffer double taxation than expose earnings to the AET, which means that there is both a 21% tax on the accumulated earnings, plus an additional 20% tax on the accumulated earnings without an actual distribution. [7] If that isn’t enough, there would be an additional 23.8% tax if the earnings are distributed out as dividends in later years. Planning must include consideration of whether the corporation risks exposure to the accumulated earnings tax and ways to mitigate that risk.

Potential exposure to the personal holding company penalty tax . Section 541 imposes a 20% penalty tax on personal holding company (“PHC”) income. The penalty tax is imposed on any corporation that meets the ownership and income tests and is in addition to the 21% corporate income tax. A PHC is not subject to the accumulated earnings tax. A domestic corporation meets the “stock ownership test” if, at some time during the last half of the taxable year, more than 50% (in value) of the corporation’s outstanding stock was owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals. The “income test” is met if 60% or more of the corporation’s “adjusted ordinary gross income” is “personal holding company income” which is defined to include dividends, interest, rents, and certain royalties (excluding royalties that qualify as active business computer software royalties). [8] Personal holding company income does not include capital gains from the sale or exchange of property used in a trade or business or ordinary operating income.

In general, a corporation that engages in the “active conduct” of one or more activities for purposes of Section 1202 is unlikely to fall into the PHC trap. But if funds are rolled into a created start-up under Section 1045, it is possible that the corporation could fall within the scope of a PHC if the corporation is engaged in start-up activities and research and development and the corporation’s funds are invested in instruments that throw off personal holding company income (e.g., dividends and interest).  Also, a corporation that doesn’t generate net positive operating income could potentially fall into the PHC trap and be exposed to the 20% penalty tax.

Solving the excess accumulated earnings problem.

Before converting to a C corporation, consider whether it would make more sense to operate the business as a pass-thru entity (i.e., S corporation or partnership). There are some businesses that are expected to generate so much excess cash flow that planning for significant dividends payments should be considered a reasonable expectation (i.e., paying out all of the excess cash as compensation could be considered unreasonable from a tax standpoint or won’t work from a business standpoint). If the business is expected to accumulate excessive earnings, thoughtfully comparing the tax relative benefits of the C corporation versus the pass-thru entity makes even more sense as part of choice of entity planning. Of course, it will be difficult to put hard numbers on the potential associated with Section 1202’s gain exclusion, given the greater than five year holding period requirement and the risks that the stock won’t qualify or Section 1202 will be amended, but some assessment of the issue should be undertaken.

Once a business is operating as a C corporation, it is usually prohibitively expensive from a tax standpoint to convert back to a partnership, as the conversion triggers a deemed sale of assets subject to the 21% corporate income tax and a liquidating distribution treated as a taxable exchange. [9] An S corporation election is a possibility, but a corporation with partnerships (LLCs/LPs) or corporations as stockholders are not eligible to elect S corporation status, and there is a five-year “built-in gains” period where a corporate level tax would be imposed in connection with an asset sale. [10]

The optimal strategy is to reinvest earnings into qualified activities or use the funds to start-up or acquire additional qualified business assets. Business owners looking to benefit from Section 1202’s gain exclusion should want to maximize the value of their QSBS, which is usually accomplished by reinvesting earnings into the business to increase the value of the QSBS. A corporation following this strategy benefits from the low 21% corporate tax rate, avoids the potential for double taxation, and when the QSBS is sold, presumably maximizes Section 1202’s gain exclusion.  One possible approach would be to plan on acquiring additional assets (i.e., engaged in the same or different activities) within the corporation and potentially taking advantage of the tax benefits associated with structuring stockholder distributions as partial liquidations under Section 302(b)(4). [11]

Aggressively (but not unreasonably) pay deductible compensation . The concept of zeroing out of the income of a C corporation with compensation has been popular since Congress first enacted a corporate income tax.  But, over the decades, the IRS and courts have pushed back on this approach for avoiding double taxation. Today, compensation and bonus plans must be structured to avoid “unreasonable compensation” challenges by the IRS. [12] Section 162(a) permits a deduction for a “ reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered .” Treasury Regulation Section 1.162-7(b) provides that “ an ostensible salary paid by a corporation may be a distribution of a dividend on stock. . . . If in such a case the salaries are in excess of those ordinarily paid for similar services and the excessive payments correspond or bear a close relationship to the stockholdings of the officers or employees, it would seem likely that the salaries are not paid wholly for services rendered, but that the excessive payments are a distribution of earnings upon the stock .” [13]

For 2023, single individuals were taxed at 35% on taxable income from $231,251 to $578,125, and 37% for amounts above $578,125.  Plus, additional self-employment taxes start at 15.3% on the first $147,000 and 3.8% thereafter. Assuming that the corporation pays $1,000 in compensation, there will be a $210 deduction at the corporate level. Assuming that employment taxes have been paid on the first $147,000 of income, excess amounts would be taxed at rates up to 37%, plus an additional 3.8% payroll taxes – if we assume the applicable tax rates are 35% plus 3.8%, there would be $612 ($1,000 x (1 – (.35 + .038)) remaining in the stockholder’s pocket after tax.

Pay deducible management fees, license fees and/or rent payments . Another approach is to establish a structure where certain assets are held outside of the C corporation and leased or licensed to the C corporation (e.g., real estate, equipment or intellectual property). Further, it should also be possible to create a flow of income out of the C corporation through a management services structure (e.g., establishing a “typical” PE management services arrangement). The IRS might challenge any one of these arrangements as disguised dividends where the level of services or products delivered do not merit the fees paid.

Operate activities generating the excess earnings outside of the corporation. Another possible approach would be to separate out the activities that generate too much cash flow and operate them outside of the corporation. This approach won’t work in many cases, since the goal is to build up value in the corporation issuing the QSBS with the goal of maximizing the sale price of the QSBS. If the cash flow generating activities are where the value of the business resides in a sale process, then keeping those activities outside the corporation would be self-defeating when the QSBS and the equity of the outside Pass Thru Entities are sold. Another problem is that it might not be possible for the corporation (i.e., issuer of QSBS) to maintain “active conduct” of its activities if significant cash generating activities are undertaken outside of the corporate form. Nevertheless, this option should be explored as it may on case-by-case basis help solve or at least meaningfully mitigate the accumulated earnings problem,

Fund stock redemptions . Stock redemptions should work to reduce excess working capital for purposes of Section 1202(e)(6), but accumulations for the purpose of funding redemptions may run afoul of the AET.

Under Section 302, a redemption of stock can be treated as a dividend payment or as a taxable exchange (with gain eligible for Section 1202’s gain exclusion). But although there are no tax authorities addressing the issue, presumably cash accumulated to fund redemption payments would not be considered working capital used in qualified business activities for purposes of Section 1202. So, while the redemption itself would flush the funds out of the corporation and take the pressure off of satisfying the 80% Test, the period leading up to the redemption might suffer if the cash accumulation tips the corporation into the red in terms of failing the 80% Test.

The application of the AET to accumulations for redemption of stock has been dealt with inconsistently in a substantial body of court decisions. Whether the accumulation is subject to the AET has hinged on whether the redemption was driven by a valid business purpose. Buying out a dissident minority stockholder can be an acceptable reason for accumulation, but the retirement of preferred stock to benefit common holders was not considered a valid business purpose. [14] So, while the redemption of stock might be a good way to rid a corporation of excess cash, it may not qualify as a valid excuse for accumulating the cash in the first place. The analysis of whether funds should be accumulated for the purpose of funding redemptions will require consideration of the business purposes behind the redemption, along with careful consideration of the numerous applicable tax authorities.

Fund the corporation with loans instead of payment for stock. If a business intends to operate in a C corporation and there is the significant concern that excess earnings will be a persistent problem, one useful strategy might be to primarily fund the corporation with loans rather than as payment for stock or capital contributions. Loans permit the payment of interest, and more importantly, can be repaid out of the corporation’s earnings. Of course, this approach may not be optimal if the funds could instead have been used to purchase QSBS, paving the way for potentially utilizing Section 1202’s 10X gain exclusion cap. Strategies such as this one should only be undertaken if the funds cannot be gainfully reinvested into the corporation’s qualified business activities.

A popular strategy that generally doesn’t work – making stockholder loans with excess earnings. Stockholder loans can be an attractive tool, since a loan by a corporation to a stockholder generally won’t be treated as a taxable dividend.  Under Section 1202, it might be possible to make stockholder loans as a cash management tool if cash is genuinely earmarked for working capital purposes and established with market terms. But stockholders should be prepared to defend an argument by the IRS that a shareholder loan is dispositive evidence that the funds are not required for working capital purposes and count against satisfying the 80% Test. Stockholder loans are also often cited in an accumulated earning tax dispute as evidence that a company is accumulating earnings beyond the corporations reasonable working capital needs. [15]

Another strategy that generally doesn’t work – purchasing investment assets or investing in non-qualified business activities.  Investment assets count against meeting Section 1202’s 80% Test, unless they qualify as cash management assets held for working capital purposes under Section 1202(e)(6). Further, Section 1202(e)(5) provides that a corporation will fail the active business requirement for any period during which more than 10% of the value of its assets (in excess of liabilities) consists of stock or securities in other corporations which are not subsidiaries. Accumulating earnings to acquire non-qualified business assets and activities will help avoid the accumulated earnings tax but will count against meeting Section 1202’s 80% Test.

With respect to the accumulated earnings tax, the investment in assets having no reasonable connection with the corporation’s business is cited in Treasury Regulations as a fact evidencing the forbidden purpose of avoiding the income tax on stockholders. [16] On the other hand, investment for replacement and expansion of the business is generally not challenged by the IRS as evidence of accumulated earnings. Likewise, Treasury Regulations refer favorably and without qualification to accumulations to “ acquire a business enterprise through purchasing stock or assets .” [17]

Closing Remarks

Despite the potential for extraordinary tax savings, many experienced tax advisors are not familiar with QSBS planning. Venture capitalists, founders and investors who want to learn more about Sections 1202 and 1045 planning opportunities are directed to several articles on the Frost Brown Todd website, or reach out to the author,  Scott Dolson , of Frost Brown Todd’s  Tax Practice .

More QSBS Resources

• Section 1202 (QSBS) Planning for Sales, Redemptions and Liquidations
• Can Stockholders of Employee Leasing or Staffing Companies Claim Section 1202’s Gain Exclusion?
• Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) Guidebook for Family Offices and Private Equity Firms
• Conversions, Reorganizations, Recapitalizations, Exchanges and Stock Splits Involving Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS )
• Navigating Section 1202’s Redemption (Anti-churning) Rules
• A Section 1202 Walkthrough: The Qualified Small Business Stock Gain Exclusion
• Determining the Applicable Section 1202 Exclusion Percentage When Selling Qualified Small Business Stock
• Selling QSBS Before Satisfying Section 1202’s Five-Year Holding Period Requirement?
• Part 1 – Reinvesting QSBS Sales Proceeds on a Pre-tax Basis Under Section 1045
• Part 2 – Reinvesting QSBS Sales Proceeds on a Pre-tax Basis Under Section 1045
• Section 1202 Qualification Checklist and Planning Pointers
• A Roadmap for Obtaining (and not Losing) the Benefits of Section 1202 Stock
• Maximizing the Section 1202 Gain Exclusion Amount
• Dissecting 1202’s Active Business and Qualified Trade or Business Qualification Requirements
• Recapitalizations Involving Qualified Small Business Stock
• The 21% Corporate Rate Breathes New Life into IRC § 1202

[1] References to “Section” are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. This article addresses federal income tax issues. This article focuses on federal income tax treatment and does not address foreign, state and local tax issues.

[2] Again, it should be noted that the calculations deal only with federal income taxes. The corporate income and stockholder distributions may also be subject to state and local income and license taxes. This article generally assumes that the corporation making a distribution has the necessary earnings and profits (E&P) to support dividend treatment.

[3] Section 1202(e)(6) provides that assets held for investment must be reasonably expected to be used within two years for research and development or to fund increases in the corporation’s working capital needs.

[4] This article assumes that “substantially all” of a stockholder’s holding period means at least 75% to 80% of the applicable holding period, but to date there are no tax authorities interpreting “substantially all” for purposes of Section 1202. “Substantially all” could potentially be anywhere from around 70% to 95%, but 75% to 80% makes the most sense when reviewing non-Section 1202 tax authorities.

[5] Usually at a 23.8% tax rate – 20% capital gains rate, plus 3.8% investment income tax for an effective rate of 39.8% taking into account the corporate level tax and stockholder level tax (i.e., for each $100 in net income earned by the corporation, a stockholder would end up with $60.20 in his pocket after taxes.

[6] The AET regulations state that “ an accumulation of the earnings and profits (including the undistributed earnings and profits of prior years) is in excess of the reasonable needs of the business if it exceeds the amount that a prudent businessman would consider appropriate for the present business purposes and for the reasonable anticipated future needs of the business. The need to retain earnings and profits must be directly connected with the needs of the corporation itself and must be for bona fide business purposes ” and must be “ specific, definite, and feasible .” See the article by Scott Dolson on the Frost Brown Todd website: “ How Corporations May Run Afoul of the Accumulated Earnings Tax – A Section 1202 Planning Brief .”

[7] If the AET is imposed on retained accumulated income and held until QSBS is sold and Section 1202’s gain exclusion is claimed, at least for the portion of the gain that falls under Section 1202’s gain exclusion cap, the imposition of the AET means that the portion of the consideration paid for the QSBS representing the excess earnings of the corporation (perhaps through a distribution of that excess cash in connection with the stock sale), the excess earnings would have been taxed at the 20% AET rate, which essentially neutralized the benefits of Section 1202’s gain exclusion for the portion of the overall stock sale consideration. Not a great result, but also not a complete strikeout from a tax standpoint.

[8] “Adjusted ordinary gross income” excludes gains from the sale of capital assets or Section 1231 property (see Section 543 for more detail).

[9] The liquidating distribution is treated as a taxable payment of the stockholders’ stock under Section 331, triggering the stockholders’ right to claim Section 1202’s gain exclusion if all eligibility requirements are met.

[10] Section 1374.

[11] See the Scott Dolson article on the Frost Brown Todd website titled “ Section 1202 Planning for Sales, Redemptions and Liquidations .”

[12] See for example, Elliots, Inc. , 716 F.2d 1241 (9 th Cir. 1983) and Choate Construction Co. , T.C. Memo 1997-495 for examples of unreasonable compensation challenges.

[13] See H.W. Johnson, Inc. v. Commissioner , TC Memo 2016-95; Elliotts, Inc. v. Commissioner , 716 F.2d 1241 (9 th Cir. 1983); Aspro, Inc. v. Commissioner , 32 F.4 th 673 (8 th Cir. 2022); Pediatric Surgical Associates P.C. , TC Memo 2001-81.

[14] See Gazette Publishing Co. v. Self , 103 F Supp 779 (DC AR 1952); Trico Products Corp. , 137 F.2d 424 (2 nd Cir. 1943).

[15] See Treasury Regulation Section 1.533-1(a)(2).

[16] See Treasury Regulation Section 1.533-1(a)(2) and Northwest Ind. Tel. Co. v. Commissioner , 127 F.3d 643, 648 (7 th Cir. 1997) (forbidden purpose evidenced by use of accumulated earnings to “ fund other ventures of [shareholders’] family” ).

[17] Treasury Regulation Section 1.537-2(b)(2).

Before you send us any information, know that contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. We cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest with any existing clients. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any legal matter that involves you unless and until you receive a letter from us in which we agree to represent you (an "engagement letter"). Only after you receive an engagement letter will you be our client and be properly able to exchange information with us. If you understand and agree with the foregoing and you are not our client and will not divulge confidential information to us, you may contact us for general information.

Premier Estate Planning & Family Law Attorneys in Danville, CA

Virginia L. Ekelund

Virginia Ekelund is a litigator with over thirty years of successful advocacy for her clients in State and Federal courts throughout California. She is a graduate of U.C. Berkeley and received her law degree from Santa Clara University.  She also recently obtained an LL.M. in Taxation from Golden Gate University, graduating with Honors.

In addition to her work as a California State Bar Certified Specialist in Family Law, Virginia also successfully represents clients in a variety of litigation matters including  trust disputes and estate related matters, contract disputes, trade secrets, real estate, construction defect litigation, employment litigation, and personal injury matters.

Her diverse legal experience, which includes the representation of both plaintiffs and defendants, allows her to quickly identify legal issues and implement the strongest possible strategy to address them.  She strongly supports resolution of cases through Alternative Dispute Resolution processes such as mediation in order to reduce the costs of litigation wherever possible.

Virginia grew up in the Bay Area where she and her family reside. Virginia is an advocate of good nutrition and living a balanced lifestyle which includes the practice of yoga.

When she isn’t working, Virginia enjoys vacations involving the beach, snorkeling, scuba diving, bike riding and hiking with her family as well as skiing in the Winter.

Academic Achievements: Articles Editor of Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal American Jurisprudence Award in Criminal Law

Notable Cases: Strauch v. Eyring – A petition to compel arbitration may not be denied on the ground of fraud alleged in an unverified pleading, but only upon evidentiary support by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury submitted in opposition to the petition.

• LL.M., Taxation
• Honors: With Honors

Certified Legal Specialties

• Certified Family Law Specialist (CFLS), State Bar Board of Legal Specialization

Bar Admissions

Professional associations.

• Contra Costa County Bar Association, Family Law Section
• ACFLS (Association of Certified Family Law Specialists)

Representative Cases

• Strauch v. Eyring, 30 Cal.App.4th 181, 1994
• Williams v. Diablo, 2004 us.dist lexis 13790, 2004

Contact Me:

925-257-4936

Practice Areas:

• Litigation 50%
• Family Law 30%
• Trust and Estate Disputes 20%
• American Jurisprudence Award in Criminal Law

Past Positions

• Hawaii State Supreme Court, Intern

PROBATE ADMINISTRATION & LITIGATION

One goal of estate planning is to ensure that a person’s beneficiaries, already grieving the loss of their loved one, don’t have to suffer frustration, expense and delay with regard to their inheritance. Unfortunately, not everyone plans or plans well for the inevitable.

If your loved one has passed without a will, or if you see problems with the will, The Law Offices of Steven E. Springer can help. Our attorneys have more than 30 years of combined experience in probate administration and litigation. We provide prompt, thorough and affordable legal services to effectively resolve the issues surrounding your loved one’s estate.

THE ROLE OF PROBATE ADMINISTRATOR IN CALIFORNIA

When a person dies intestate (without having left a valid will), the probate court freezes the assets; no property can be dispersed until the estate “clears probate.” That process, known as probate administration, begins with the appointment of an administrator who must inventory the estate, pay its creditors and divide the remaining property according to California’s inheritance laws. How long that process takes depends on the size of the estate and the complexity of its finances. One major issue is the valuation of different types of assets, including stock portfolios, real estate and ongoing business enterprises.

The probate administrator does not have to be an attorney, but he or she must be someone whom all of the heirs can trust, since any one of them could challenge the appointment or, what’s worse, interfere throughout the process, causing waste and delay. The administrator must also be someone who has the training and experience to sort out the issues surrounding the estate’s assets and obligations, including tax liability and other consequences of liquidating assets for distribution.

The Law Offices of Steven E. Springer can guide your loved one’s estate through probate promptly and reliably. Our services are affordable because of our reasonable rates and efficient practices. Most importantly, we enjoy an impeccable reputation for integrity, which is essential to the task.

WORK WITH EXPERIENCED PROBATE ADMINISTRATION ATTORNEYS TODAY

How can a beneficiary contest a will in california.

Beneficiaries often raise will challenges when they feel personally slighted or honestly believe someone has used unscrupulous means to effect a change in the deceased’s intentions. Grounds for challenging a will in California include:

Mental capacity — Alleges that the testator was not of sound mind when he or she formed or amended the will.

Undue influence — Alleges that someone close to the testator took advantage of that access to pressure the testator into making or amending a will.

Fraud — Accuses some party of deliberately deceiving the testator or substituting a false will for the true one.

Defect information — Asserts that the creation of the will does not conform to legal requirements, such as the presence of witnesses

The Law Offices of Steven E. Springer has vast experience in the area of wills and trusts. In addition to drafting precise documents, we have the litigation skills necessary to challenge or defend wills for clients who are seeking a true resolution to a loved one’s estate.

PROBATE ADMINISTRATION & LITIGATION ATTORNEYS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA

The Law Offices of Steven E. Springer can speed your loved one’s estate through probate while managing any disputes that arise. To schedule a free initial consultation with an experienced probate lawyer. We recognize that detailed information and direct human contact with your lawyer go a long way to developing the confidence you need to see your situation through to a successful conclusion. That’s why we make every effort to engage with you personally, remain accessible, and deliver prompt results. Contact our firm for answers to all of your California probate law questions.

• Filing for Divorce
• Child Custody
• Child Support
• Child Visitation
• Contested Divorce
• Court Order Modifications
• Property Division
• Uncontested Divorce
• Spousal Support
• Gray Divorce
• Domestic Abuse
• Domestic Partnerships
• Legal Separation
• Prenuptial & Postnuptial Agreements
• Stepparent Adoptions
• Grandparents’ Rights
• LGBTQ+ Adoption
• Estate Planning
• Business Succession Planning
• Guardianship & Conservationship
• Probate Administration & Litigation
• How We Help
• Criminal Defense

• Newsletters

Atlantic City casino workers plan ad blitz to ban smoking after court rejects ban

Wayne Parry

Associated Press

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Nicole Vitola, a dealer at the Borgata casino, speaks at a rally in Atlantic City, N.J. on April 12, 2022, calling on state lawmakers to ban smoking in the gambling halls. (AP Photo/Wayne Parry)

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. – A group of Atlantic City casino workers seeking to ban smoking in the gambling halls will launch an advertising campaign featuring their children in response to a judge's rejection of a lawsuit that would have ended smoking in the nine casinos.

The workers, calling themselves Casino Employees Against Smoking Effects, said Wednesday the digital ads will target the districts of state lawmakers who have the power to advance pending legislation that would ban smoking in the casinos.

Recommended Videos

And a labor union that brought the unsuccessful lawsuit said it would withdraw from the state AFL-CIO over the issue, saying the parent labor group has not supported the health and safety of workers.

On Friday, a state judge rejected the lawsuit, ruling the workers' claim that New Jersey's Constitution guarantees them a right to safety “is not well-settled law” and that they were unlikely to prevail with such a claim.

The ruling relieved the casinos, which continue to struggle in the aftermath of the COVID19 pandemic, with most of them winning less money from in-person gamblers than they did before the virus outbreak in 2020.

But it dismayed workers including dealers, who say they have to endure eight-hour shifts of people blowing smoke in their faces or just breathing cigarette smoke in the air.

“I dealt through two pregnancies,” said Nicole Vitola, a Borgata dealer and co-founder of the anti-smoking group. “It was grueling. We're human beings. We have an aging workforce.”

Whether to ban smoking is one of the most controversial issues not only in Atlantic City casinos, but in other states where workers have expressed concern about secondhand smoke. They are waging similar campaigns in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Kansas and Virginia.

Currently, smoking is allowed on 25% of the casino floor in Atlantic City. But those areas are not contiguous, and the practical effect is that secondhand smoke is present in varying degrees throughout the casino floor.

The workers sought to overturn New Jersey's indoor smoking law, which bans it in virtually every other workplace except casinos.

The ad campaign will be titled “Kids of C.E.A.S.E.” and will feature the children of casino workers expressing concern for their parents' health and safety in smoke-filled casinos.

“I have two kids, aged 17 and 11,” said Pete Naccarelli, a Borgata dealer. “I want to be there for them when they graduate, when they get married, when they have kids. We do not want to be collateral damage for casinos' perceived profits.”

The Casino Association of New Jersey expressed gratitude last week for the court ruling, and it said the casinos will work for a solution that protects workers and the financial interests of the industry.

"Our industry has always been willing to sit down and collaborate to find common ground, but the smoking ban advocates have refused," said Mark Giannantonio, president of the association and of Resorts casino.

The casinos say that banning smoking will lead to revenue and job losses. But workers dispute those claims.

Workers called on state legislators to advance a bill that would ban smoking that has been bottled up for more than a year. It was released from a Senate committee in January but never voted on by the full Senate. It remains in an Assembly committee.

Sen. Joseph Vitale, a Democrat, promised the bill would get a full Senate vote “shortly.”

Also Wednesday, Dan Vicente, regional director of the United Auto Workers, said he will pull the union out of the AFL-CIO, saying the larger group has been insufficiently supportive of casino workers' health. The AFL-CIO did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Follow Wayne Parry on X at www.twitter.com/WayneParryAC

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Click here to take a moment and familiarize yourself with our Community Guidelines.

• How We Are Different
• Meet Gary Brainin
• Estate and Wealth Planning
• Elder Law and Medi-Cal Planning
• Business Planning
• Real Estate
• Seven Steps To Handling Your Loved One’s Estate
• Estate Planning Audit

Testimonials

Brainin Law Office is an innovative law firm dedicated to finding creative solutions to your family, investment, and business needs. We specialize in helping individuals and families in the San Francisco Bay Area enhance their lives today and secure their futures for tomorrow.

Our considerable legal expertise includes family and asset protection, estate planning, wealth preservation, business succession, and real estate investment, but more importantly, planning strategies for all those areas. We look forward to working with you to address your legal needs and to design a plan to achieve your goals today and for years to come.

I’ve known Gary for more than 25 years. Knowing him over this time has given me insight into his thinking, work ethic, professionalism, and character that I would not otherwise have. In regard to those traits, I am very sure you will also find him very easy to work with yet highly professional, knowledgeable, experienced, and a great legal problem solver.

My girlfriend and I hired him to create estate plans for us. We had some unique situations for which Gary’s deep thinking and detailed mind found legal solutions (not married, multiple homes, cats, two businesses, multiple assets of various types, normal and crazy relatives, friends, charities, etc.). From the start, he made the process easy. He provided detailed instructions on what we must do to provide him the inputs he needed to craft the estate plans that would do what we want. Subsequent to delivering the plans he guided us through the process of making changes (called “funding your trust”) to make the plans executable. I strongly recommend that you hire him.

– Rob D.

Thank you so much for helping us set up our Revocable Trust.  We greatly appreciated your very knowledgeable, courteous and professional service.  We are very grateful for your having a real interest in and concern for our family. Your prompt responses to our questions and desire and ability to educate us and walk us through the process were truly exceptional.  If we could give more than five stars out of five, we would do so.

– Nathan W.

I have had the pleasure of working with Gary Brainin at Chillag and Associates. He is extremely knowledgeable and he is able to take complex law and make it easy to understand. I recommend him for any of your business and estate planning needs.

– Jeremy L.

I used the services of Gary Brainin in 2012, when i had an eviction issue. It was a complex situation. I was so glad Gary helped with the resolution. He is knowledgeable, intelligent and focus.

– Marilyn M.

We were so lucky to have found Nancy originally, and now Gary. He is extremely knowledgeable without a doubt, and will go out of his way to find an answer to a question if he does not know the answer to something out of his expertise. He is always accessible and so easy to talk to. He helped us with our living trust after our daughter was born, and is currently helping us with my parents’ asset protection trust. It is comforting to know that we have excellent comprehensive counsel!

– Helen L.

I am privileged to have worked with Gary since 2012. It is most comforting to know that if I ever have questions or concerns regarding my estate plan, I can always call his office and get my questions answered and problems solved. I have never had such cooperation with other law offices. I can honestly say that Gary Brainin is most knowledgeable, accessible, and helpful in every way!

– Elizabeth F.

I wholeheartedly recommend Gary Brainin and his assistant, Patricia, for their expertise in handling trusts and estate plans. Their willingness to answer any questions and to help out in any situation is superb.

– R.K.

Q: Why did you enjoy working with our office? A: The very professional legal service and the patience with us meeting our milestone.

These testimonials or endorsements do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.

FREE BI-WEEKLY ADVICE FROM GARY

Sign up for Gary's acclaimed newsletter "Legacy Insights" plus, get your Free Report: "5 Ridiculous Myths About Estate Planning" ($47 value) absolutely free.

Legal Disclaimer

© 2015-2024 Brainin Law Office | 2855 Kifer Road, Suite 220, Santa Clara, CA 95051 | (408) 889-1290

San Mateo County Estate Planning Lawyer, Santa Clara County Estate Planning Lawyer, Estate Planning San Mateo County, Estate Planning Santa Clara County, Wealth Planning Attorney, Real Estate Attorney, Business Attorney, Real Estate Lawyer, Business Lawyer, Estate Planning Lawyer, Estate Planning Attorney, Wills & Living Trusts Law Firm, Asset Protection Attorney, Asset Protection Lawyer.

Brainin Law Office serves all cities in San Mateo County including Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Broadmoor, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, Woodside, Emerald Hills, Redwood Shores.

Brainin Law Office serves all cities in Santa Clara County including San Jose, Alum Rock, Cambrian Park, Willow Glen, East San Jose, Alviso, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale.