For those who believe that the estate tax will be repealed, or the exemptions substantially increased, we are unaware of any pronouncements from the President elect, or the members of both Houses, that such will be the case especially in a time of unprecendented federal deficits.  Remember, an estate tax was enacted in 1797, repealed in 1802; enacted in 1862, repealed in 1890; enacted in 1898, repealed in 1902; enacted in 1916, then reformed in 1930, 1976-1993, 1997, and 2001.

To circumvent the resulting loss of revenue when the Federal Government increased the personal exemption at least 25 states have already enacted tax laws designed to replace the lost estate tax revenues, with more states likely to follow in the near future.

With the current federal exemptions of $2,000,000 per person ($4,000,000 per couple with proper planning), certain individuals feel that there is no serious need for comprehensive estate planning.  However, there are numerous reasons other than taxes for implementing a properly drafted estate plan, such as:  (1) avoidance of the time-consuming, privacy-invading and costly probate procedure;  (2) providing for family members who now have, or who may have in the future, special needs;  (3) protection from future creditors of a surviving spouse, children and grandchildren;  (4) protecting the estate from challenges launched by greedy and/or power-hungry heirs and/or their spouses;  (5) providing for an efficient distribution of assets to family members; and (6) providing for succession involving a family business.

EXPANDED HARASSMENT/DISCRIMINATION LIABILITY EXPOSURE

In a recent case, the New Jersey Appellate Division drew upon new federal decisions to change the legal landscape for employers.  This change is expected to make it easier for plantiffs to avoid pretrial dismissal of their suits, and to present their discrimination and harassment claims to a jury.

In Kwiatkowski v. Merril Lynch the court adopted the "subodinate bias" theory that several federal courts have applied in Title VII cases.  Often described as the "cats paw" or "rubber stamp" theory of liability, the subordinate bias theory holds that an employer may be found liable for a facially nondiscriminatory employment action of the decision-maker may have been influenced - even unknowingly - by a biased subordinate employee.  In such a case, the biased subordinate provides an illegal taint to the decision maker's action by selectively reporting, or even fabricating, information in his communications with her.  Thus, the employer can still be held liable even though the decision maker herself was unbiased, or not even aware that the plaintiff was in a protected class, or had previously complained of discrinimation or harassment.