Estate Planning, Probate & Elder Law Attorneys

» Americans warily optimistic about economy

» Real Estate Transfer Taxes

Real estate transfer taxes vary greatly in the Chicagoland area. Here is a list (in PDF form). Note, however, that this list doesn't include any changes since July of 2007. For instance, it's missing the recent change (effective 4/1/08) to Chicago's transfer taxes. Traditionally, Chicago's tax was unique in that it was assessed only against buyers -- most transfer taxes are paid by sellers. Chicago now has a transfer tax for buyers AND sellers, at the following rates:

For buyers: $7.50 per $1,000.00 of purchase price

For sellers: $3.00 per $1,000.00 of purchase price (this is in addition to the combined county and state transfer tax of $1.50 per $1,000.00 of purchase price)

According to this article, Chicago now has the highest transfer taxes in the nation!

I used to recommend (somewhat facetiously) moving from Chicago to Oak Park, as Chicago only taxed buyers and Oak Park only taxed sellers. The result would be a pretty huge savings on the opposite move (from Oak Park to Chicago -- Oak Park taxes sellers at a rate of $8 per $1,000.00):

Transfer Taxes (prior to 4/1/08)

assuming sale of $400,000 home and purchase of $500,000 home

Sale in Chicago, Purchase in Oak Park: $600.00 (just county and state transfer tax on sale)

Sale in Oak Park, Purchase in Chicago: $7,550.00 ($3,800 for sale plus $3,750 for purchase)

That's a difference of almost $7,000! Of course, the difference is now smaller -- the tax hit for a "sale in Chicago, purchase in Oak Park" scenario as of 4/1/08 is $1,800.00.

Note that you can still find "bargains" from a transfer tax perspective, as municipalities like La Grange and Hinsdale have no transfer taxes whatsoever. You can use the above list and a little research to check on the municipality to which you are planning a move.

» John McCain: The Prenup President?

This short blog entry on Slate regarding John McCain's income taxes is interesting. Not for what it says about Senator McCain's income, but for the following:

John McCain’s released two years of tax returns today to little fanfare. We learn that he earned $405,000 in 2007. We learn that he’s giving his ex-wife $17,000 a year in alimony. What we don’t learn, though, is how much he’s getting from his current wife. That’s because the returns don’t include the assets of Cindy McCain, whose beer fortune is estimated at more than $100 million—a reminder that McCain would be the first president to have signed a prenuptial agreement.

The post goes on to wonder if voters might object to Senator McCain because of the prenup:

Then there’s the moral aspect. In a race that has feature the thrice-married Rudy Giuliani, McCain’s marital situation doesn’t seem particularly controversial. But some Americans might look askance at a prenup, commonly considered leaving the door open for divorce.

I'm not sure about that. A recent poll (results here) doesn't seem to indicate that Americans hate the idea of prenups:

The Thomson West survey found that when asked if they would sign a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, American adults said: -- Yes, definitely (14%) -- Yes, maybe (27%) -- No, probably not (21%) -- No, definitely not (20%) -- Not sure (18%)

While the question is "would you sign a prenup?" and not "would you vote for a presidential candidate who signed a prenup?", I don't see anything here indicating animosity for prenups per se. Only 20% said "no, definitely not," and I'd imagine that only those who feel the strongest about that "no" vote would view Senator McCain's prenup as a deal-breaker.

To me, Senator McCain's marital situation DOES seem like it might be a little bit controversial to social conservatives. The prenup isn't the problem -- the divorce of wife #1 in order to marry (younger, richer) wife #2 might be. The prenup only reminds social conservatives of the prior divorce.

» MBIA, Evercore and Stifel

» Nabokov's Laura and the Disobedient Executor

I've talked before -- most recently, here -- about executors who don't obey the wishes of decedents, and refuse to burn their works. Vladimir Nabokov's case (which involves this scenario) has been in the news lately, in a two-part series in Slate entitled The Fate of Nabokov's Laura:

Part 1

Part 2