<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Shane Henry &#38; Associates, PLLC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:39:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Pray for positive result: adoption hearing!</title>
		<link>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/pray-for-positive-result-adoption-hearing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/pray-for-positive-result-adoption-hearing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:39:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>henry_shane</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Adoptions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/?p=1741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Say a pray for a legal hearing happening in Kansas this morning.  The results affect a local Arkansas couple and our efforts to adopt a baby boy from Kansas.  A complex series of events has put us in a tight spot, but we know all things work together for good. Thank you, Shane A. Henry]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Say a pray for a legal hearing happening in Kansas this morning.  The results affect a local Arkansas couple and our efforts to adopt a baby boy from Kansas.  A complex series of events has put us in a tight spot, but we know all things work together for good.</p>
<p>Thank you,</p>
<p>Shane A. Henry</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/pray-for-positive-result-adoption-hearing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>One bad method used to avoid probate!</title>
		<link>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/one-bad-method-used-to-avoid-probate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/one-bad-method-used-to-avoid-probate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 04:40:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>henry_shane</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Estate Administration / Probate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wills & Trusts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/?p=1739</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have witnessed and have been told about many families trying to protect their real property from probate without using a revocable trust.  If you think it is a clever idea to add your children as joint owners to your real property in order to avoid probate, please think again. Problems. 1. Homestead Exemption.  Everyone [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have witnessed and have been told about many families trying to protect their real property from probate without using a revocable trust.  If you think it is a clever idea to add your children as joint owners to your real property in order to avoid probate, please think again.</p>
<p>Problems.</p>
<p>1. Homestead Exemption.  Everyone has a constitutional protection called the homestead exemption that provides you the ultimate protection against your home (up to a certain value).  Simply put, no one can kick you out of your home because you owe them money (except a bank may foreclose on property you&#8217;ve collateralized but that&#8217;s a different topic for another day).  Because your children likely cannot call your home their primary residence, the homestead protection is not available to them.  Therefore, they could lose part of your home to a divorcing spouse or creditor.</p>
<p>2. Control.  Use of the above mentioned method gives ownership rights to your children.  Therefore, you are now at their mercy to some degree.  You must have your children sign away their rights anytime you want to sell, lease, or mortgage your property.  It is even possible for angry or resentful children to have the surviving parent removed from the home.</p>
<p>3. Probate.  Thinking this method avoids probate is correct, but only if you die before your children.  If you have several children, then hopefully this would never be a problem, but a real interpretation of this method is that it is a temporary fix.</p>
<p>Alternatives.</p>
<p>1. Revocable Trust.  This instrument will provide you and your spouse complete control during your lifetime, it will keep your property out of probate, and keep your property free of any civil judgments against your children.</p>
<p>For more free information about creating a revocable trust (or living trust) in Arkansas, please give us a call or write to us today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/one-bad-method-used-to-avoid-probate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another Arkansas Adoption</title>
		<link>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/another-arkansas-adoption/</link>
		<comments>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/another-arkansas-adoption/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:17:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>henry_shane</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Adoptions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/?p=1727</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today is just another typical day in the courts of Arkansas. However, it is a very special day for at least one family in particular who will become a forever family today upon the successful completion of their adoption hearing. If you would like more information or help with an adoption please contact us today.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today is just another typical day in the courts of Arkansas. However, it is a very special day for at least one family in particular who will become a forever family today upon the successful completion of their adoption hearing.</p>
<p>If you would like more information or help with an adoption please contact us today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/another-arkansas-adoption/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>3 different criminal attorneys stabbed by client</title>
		<link>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/3-different-criminal-attorneys-stabbed-by-client/</link>
		<comments>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/3-different-criminal-attorneys-stabbed-by-client/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 04:26:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>henry_shane</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Adoptions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arkansas NonProfit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Social Security Disability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Estate Administration / Probate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wills & Trusts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/?p=1723</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CRIMINAL JUSTICE Defendant Loses Right to a Lawyer After Allegedly Stabbing 3 of Them with Pencils or Pens in Court Posted Nov 2, 2011 5:55 AM CST By Debra Cassens Weiss Updated: A man has been convicted of drug charges after a judge in Washington state declared that pencil-and-pen-packing defendant Joshua Monson forfeited his right to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<h4>CRIMINAL JUSTICE</h4>
<h1>Defendant Loses Right to a Lawyer After Allegedly Stabbing 3 of Them with Pencils or Pens in Court</h1>
</div>
<div>
<p>Posted Nov 2, 2011 5:55 AM CST<br />
By <a title="View this author's information" href="http://www.abajournal.com/authors/4/">Debra Cassens Weiss</a></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><strong>Updated</strong>: A man has been convicted of drug charges after a judge in Washington state declared that pencil-and-pen-packing defendant Joshua Monson forfeited his right to counsel because of three attacks on his lawyers during court hearings.</p>
<p>None of the lawyers was seriously hurt. In <a title="the first two incidents" href="http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/inmate_who_stabbed_lawyer_with_pencil_accused_of_repeat_assault_on_new_coun/">the first two incidents</a>, which occurred less than a week apart, Monson was accused of stabbing two different lawyers with pencils he smuggled from jail, <a title="HeraldNet.com" href="http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20111101/NEWS01/711019837#Writing-utensil-wielding-defendant-allegedly-stabs-yet-another-lawyer">HeraldNet.com</a>reports. On Tuesday, Monson grabbed the pen being used by his defense lawyer, Jesse Cantor of Everett, Wash., and stabbed Cantor in the head, witnesses said.</p>
<p>The attack occurred Tuesday as prosecutors gave opening statements in Monson’s felony drug trial in Snohomish County. Corrections officers set off an electric stun cuff on Monson’s leg as he lunged for the pen and then piled on top of him, the story says. The first person to reach Monson was a police officer seated at the prosecution table.</p>
<p>Judge David Kurtz said Monson would have to defend himself without a lawyer and would be strapped to a special chair for the rest of the trial. Kurtz advised jurors to ignore the incident, the restraints and the lawyer&#8217;s absence.</p>
<p><a href="http://heraldnet.com/article/20111103/NEWS01/711039866/-1/news01">HeraldNet.com</a> reported that Monson was convicted of drug possession Thursday while in the restraint chair. &#8220;A standby defense attorney from King County sat through the hearings to answer Monson&#8217;s legal questions,&#8221; HeraldNet.com wrote. Monson was not allowed to sign court documents with a pen or pencil.</p>
<p>HeraldNet.com also notes that Monson will be back in court again to face second-degree murder charges and, separately, two fourth-degree assault charges for the alleged attacks on his attorneys.</p>
<p><em>Updated Nov. 4 to report that Monson was convicted.</em></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/3-different-criminal-attorneys-stabbed-by-client/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>World&#8217;s Youngest Judge?</title>
		<link>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/worlds-youngest-judge/</link>
		<comments>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/worlds-youngest-judge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 04:23:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>henry_shane</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Adoptions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arkansas NonProfit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Social Security Disability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Estate Administration / Probate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wills & Trusts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/?p=1721</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[LAW IN POPULAR CULTURE Indiana Lawyer Who Started His Legal Career as a 17-Year-Old Judge Gets the World Record Posted Oct 31, 2011 4:30 AM CST By Debra Cassens Weiss Indiana lawyer Marc Griffin has claimed the title once held by a Texas man: Guinness World Records has declared that Griffin holds the record for being the world’s [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<h4>LAW IN POPULAR CULTURE</h4>
<h1>Indiana Lawyer Who Started His Legal Career as a 17-Year-Old Judge Gets the World Record</h1>
</div>
<div>
<p>Posted Oct 31, 2011 4:30 AM CST<br />
By <a title="View this author's information" href="http://www.abajournal.com/authors/4/">Debra Cassens Weiss</a></p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Indiana lawyer <a title="Marc Griffin" href="http://marcgriffin.com/">Marc Griffin</a> has claimed the title once held by a Texas man: Guinness World Records has declared that Griffin holds the record for being the world’s youngest judge.</p>
<p>Griffin was an enterprising 17-year-old high school graduate in 1974 when he persuaded county commissioners to appoint him to fill a vacancy for justice of the peace. Griffin later won re-election to the job that included presiding over some civil and criminal cases, as well as performing weddings. “I was marrying people, throwing people in jail, and fining people,” he recalls.</p>
<p>Griffin managed to snag the job at such a young age because of his realization that his township had a long-time vacancy for a justice of the peace. The last justice of the peace had died some 50 years before, and the position was never filled. Cases for the township were being handled by other justices of the peace in the county.</p>
<p>“I discovered this justice of the peace thing,” Griffin recalled in an interview with the ABA Journal, “and I thought, &#8216;Wait a minute, we need another court and I’m qualified.&#8217; ” He requested a meeting with the county’s three commissioners, and persuaded them to recommend his appointment. The state’s governor concurred and gave him his commission.</p>
<p>Griffin learned of the vacancy because of his interest in the law while still in high school. “I knew I wanted to be a lawyer,” Griffin says, “so I used to sit and read statutory law. Some people read novels, some people read sports magazines. I would just sit and read Indiana law.”</p>
<p>Speeding tickets were a big part of Griffin’s docket because the highway speed limit had recently dropped from 70 to 55 miles an hour. He held court at all hours of the night when police needed authority to lock up suspected domestic abusers. But it was the weddings he performed and an attorney general’s opinion that garnered national news coverage. Griffin was marrying people even though he was himself too young to marry without parental consent, a fact noted by critics.</p>
<p>The state attorney general opined that Griffin was too young to hold office. An Associated Press “fun-sy” story reporting on the decision questioned whether the people Griffin had married were “living in sin” because their weddings were illegal, Griffin says. The legal dispute was put to rest when a circuit court found Griffin qualified to hold office, paving the way for a short-lived judicial career.</p>
<p>The state eliminated justice of the peace courts a year or two later. Griffin finished his education and got a law degree from Indiana University School of Law. He has a niche practice representing banks and insurance companies that obtain liens on properties through tax sales.</p>
<p>Griffin contacted Guinness after he read an article at <a title="ABAJournal.com" href="http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/dallas_man_credited_as_worlds_youngest_judge_still_on_the_bench_20_years_la/">ABAJournal.com</a> about a Texas man who held the record for winning election as a justice of the peace at the age of 18. Griffin supplied Guinness with evidence verifying his appointment at age 17, and learned last Thursday that he is the new world record holder. A press release dispatched to the ABA Journal the same day announced his achievement.</p>
<p>Griffin says in the press release that he contacted Guinness 37 years after the fact because he didn’t realize the publication covered judicial records. “I thought they were just records of stunts, like doing the most jumping jacks,” he says in the release.</p>
</div>
<div id="related-topics"></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/worlds-youngest-judge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No insurance and no money &#8211; how to get medical treatment for my disability case?</title>
		<link>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/no-insurance-and-no-money-how-to-get-medical-treatment-for-my-disability-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/no-insurance-and-no-money-how-to-get-medical-treatment-for-my-disability-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:43:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>henry_shane</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Social Security Disability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/?p=1703</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Medical records and medical treatment are a critical component to your disability case.  Shane Henry &#38; Associates has a databse of free or income based clinics all over Arkansas.  Additionally, we have contact information for key people at certain medical facilities which can provide free or income based treatment. If you find yourself without insurance [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Medical records and medical treatment are a critical component to your disability case.  Shane Henry &amp; Associates has a databse of free or income based clinics all over Arkansas.  Additionally, we have contact information for key people at certain medical facilities which can provide free or income based treatment.</p>
<p>If you find yourself without insurance or funds to get treatment, do not hesitate to contact us.  It is very common for disability claimants to be in that position because you have not worked in months or years in many cases.</p>
<p>Please call or email today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/no-insurance-and-no-money-how-to-get-medical-treatment-for-my-disability-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Importance of your treating physician in your disability case.</title>
		<link>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/importance-of-your-treating-physician-in-your-disability-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/importance-of-your-treating-physician-in-your-disability-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:42:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>henry_shane</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Social Security Disability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/?p=1701</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Social Security Disability Determination process requires a legal conclusion to be drawn from medical evidence.  Without documented and available medical evidence, you have no case.  The rules do not allow Social Security to make a disability determination based solely on statements by you or by your appearance no matter how obvious your medical conditions [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Social Security Disability Determination process requires a legal conclusion to be drawn from medical evidence.  Without documented and available medical evidence, you have no case.  The rules do not allow Social Security to make a disability determination based solely on statements by you or by your appearance no matter how obvious your medical conditions may be.</p>
<p>Therefore, one of the most critical people on your winning team will be a doctor.  Especially a doctor who will take time to write down their opinion about your functional ability.</p>
<p>Good records and results from tests are critical, but without your doctor writing down his or her opinion about your functional capacity (how much you can lift / how long you can sit / how far you can walk / can&#8217;t use hands repetitively) then Social Security will have their own doctors who have never met you make a determination about your functional capacity.  Obviously you are going to want the doctor who knows you and has treated you to give their opinion.</p>
<p>Please write or call if we can provide more information on this topic.  We assist all our clients with very short and simple, yet very effective, forms for their doctors to complete.</p>
<p>501-329-3889.  Or disability@shafirm.com.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/importance-of-your-treating-physician-in-your-disability-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Keys to a disability hearing.</title>
		<link>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/keys-to-a-disability-hearing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/keys-to-a-disability-hearing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:40:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>henry_shane</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Social Security Disability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/?p=1699</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you are waiting for your disability hearing, then you have been in the disability minefield for a minimum of 6-8 months with no income and often times without insurance benefits any longer.  Critical to every case is medical documentation.  The hearing is a step in your disability process where an attorney is often times [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you are waiting for your disability hearing, then you have been in the disability minefield for a minimum of 6-8 months with no income and often times without insurance benefits any longer.  Critical to every case is medical documentation.  The hearing is a step in your disability process where an attorney is often times necessary.</p>
<p>You must remember this Social Security Disability program in Arkansas is not just a &#8220;disability&#8221; program &#8211; it is a work insurance program.  You are hurt, sure, but we need to be able to show under the law that your particular medical evidence demonstrates functional limitations.  You can only sit or stand or walk for a limited amount of time, or only lift a certain weight, etc.</p>
<p>Remember, the attorney only gets paid if you get paid so you really have nothing to lose.  We provide free, no pressure consultations for every disability case.</p>
<p>Call or email today: disability@shafirm.com  or 501-329-3889.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/keys-to-a-disability-hearing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arkansas NonProfits and 501(c)3 Federal Form 990 Update</title>
		<link>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/arkansas-nonprofits-and-501c3-federal-form-990-update/</link>
		<comments>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/arkansas-nonprofits-and-501c3-federal-form-990-update/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:52:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>henry_shane</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas NonProfit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/?p=1692</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Form 990 Requires Diligence and Thoroughness &#160; The IRS has issued final regulations related to the recently redesigned Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), which is required for most tax-exempt entities. Not surprisingly, the final regulations generally follow guidelines established by proposed regulations in 2008. The sweeping changes approved by the final [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p align="center"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial Black; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial Black; font-size: medium;"><strong>Form 990 Requires Diligence and<br />
Thoroughness</strong></span></span></strong></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The IRS has issued final regulations related to<br />
the recently redesigned Form 990 (<em>Return of Organization Exempt From Income<br />
Tax</em>), which is required for most tax-exempt entities. Not surprisingly, the<br />
final regulations generally follow guidelines established by proposed<br />
regulations in 2008. The sweeping changes approved by the final regulations take<br />
effect on September 7, 2011, and generally apply to tax years beginning on or<br />
after January 1, 2008.<br />
</span></span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<table width="242" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8" align="right">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#dfffc1">
<p align="center"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial Black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><strong>New Form IRS 990 Digs Deep</strong> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">The new Form 990 is designed to increase transparency<br />
of tax-exempt organizations. It requires extensive reporting about governance<br />
and management policies, as well as the <img src="http://www.bizactions.com/content/images/IRS_logo_smaller.jpg" alt="" align="right" border="0" hspace="6" vspace="2" />organization&#8217;s<br />
relationship with board members, officers and key employees.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">Currently, the entire Form 990 must be filed for an<br />
organization with gross receipts of $200,000 or more and total assets of<br />
$500,000 or more. An organization that fails to file Form 990 for three<br />
consecutive years will lose its tax-exempt status.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">The information an organization must obtain from<br />
board members, officers and key employees includes answers to these<br />
questions:</span></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Did any of their family members engage in<br />
business transactions with the organization?</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Did they (or their families) own <em>more than<br />
35 percent</em> of entities and engage in business transactions with the<br />
organization?</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Did they do business, other than as a member<br />
of the general public, with another board member, officer, or key employee? Or<br />
did they do business or with an entity of which another board member, officer,<br />
or key employee is a director, officer or more-than-35 percent<br />
owner?</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Did they have a family relationship with any<br />
other director, officer or key employee of the organization?</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Are they a director, officer, or greater than<br />
10 percent owner <em>of an entity of which another</em> of the organization&#8217;s<br />
directors, officers, or key employees is a director, officer or more-than-10<br />
percent<br />
owner?</span></span></li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial;">Here are some of the key areas addressed by the new final<br />
regulations (TD 9549), and how they compare with the earlier proposed<br />
regulations:</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong>Advance ruling process -</strong><br />
Previously, an organization seeking to be recognized by the IRS as a publicly<br />
supported charity had to complete a two-step process. First, the organization<br />
was required to declare that it expected to remain publicly-supported on a<br />
consistent basis. Second, after five years had passed, the organization had to<br />
file Form 8734 (<em>Support Schedule for Advance Ruling Period</em>) showing<br />
that it had satisfied this test. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial;">The proposed regulations treated an organization as a<br />
publicly supported organization in its first five years if it could show on its<br />
application that it reasonably expected to receive the required public support<br />
during this period. Now the new final regulations follow suit. This effectively<br />
eliminates the advance ruling requirement. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong>Public support test -</strong> This test requires an<br />
organization to receive more than one-third of its support each tax year from<br />
qualified gifts, grants, contributions or membership fees, or gross receipts<br />
from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial;">The proposed regulations changed the period for determining<br />
public support from the four years prior to the tax year being tested to the<br />
five years ending with the tax year being tested. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial;">Under the final regulations, an organization that fails the<br />
public support test for two consecutive tax years will be treated as a private<br />
foundation for limited tax purposes. The organization will be treated as a<br />
private foundation for all tax purposes beginning on the first day of the third<br />
consecutive tax year.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong>Accounting methods -</strong> One of the goals of<br />
redesigned Form 990 is to provide consistent tax and financial reporting.<br />
Accordingly, if an organization computes its public support and reports the<br />
information on Schedule A (<em>Public Charity and Public Support</em>), the<br />
proposed regulations required it to use the same accounting method to report the<br />
information on Form 990. The final regulations continue this treatment.<br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong>Reliance -</strong> As with the proposed<br />
regulations, the new final regulations allow donors to rely on an organization&#8217;s<br />
determination letter that it is a public charity unless the donor was<br />
responsible for, or aware of, any action resulting in the loss of the status.<br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial;">The final regulations also restore language that was<br />
inadvertently deleted from the proposed regulations giving limited grantor and<br />
donor reliance based on a written statement from the organization.<br />
</span></p></blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial;">Compliance with the new final regulations is essential for<br />
tax-exempt groups. Filing Form 990 can be a complicated process and it requires<br />
diligence and thoroughness. Your tax adviser can provide assistance and more<br />
information about how the regulations affect your<br />
organization.</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/arkansas-nonprofits-and-501c3-federal-form-990-update/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Auxiliary benefits to children &#8211; effect on child support</title>
		<link>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/auxiliary-benefits-to-children-effect-on-child-support/</link>
		<comments>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/auxiliary-benefits-to-children-effect-on-child-support/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:23:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>henry_shane</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Social Security Disability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/?p=1687</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here is persuasive caselaw that may be applicable in Arkansas: &#160; ANDERSON v. ANDERSON TODD A. ANDERSON, Appellant,v.SHAUNA ANDERSON, Appellee. &#160; No. 47A01-1104-DR-159. Court of Appeals of Indiana. &#160; October 12, 2011. THOMAS M. FROHMAN, TRACY T. PAPPAS, Indiana Legal Services, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT. GREGORY F. ZOELLER, Attorney General of Indiana, ELIZABETH [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here is persuasive caselaw that may be applicable in Arkansas:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h1></h1>
<p><center><strong>ANDERSON v. ANDERSON</strong></center></p>
<h1></h1>
<div><center><strong><strong>TODD A. ANDERSON, Appellant,</strong></strong><strong><strong>v.</strong></strong><strong>SHAUNA ANDERSON, Appellee.</strong></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p></center></div>
<h1></h1>
<p><center><strong>No. 47A01-1104-DR-159.</strong></center></p>
<h1></h1>
<h1></h1>
<p><center>Court of Appeals of Indiana.</center></p>
<h1></h1>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><center>October 12, 2011.</center></p>
<h1></h1>
<div><span style="font-family: Garamond;"><a href="				LeagleKontact.aspx			">THOMAS M. FROHMAN</a>, <a href="				LeagleKontact.aspx			">TRACY T. PAPPAS</a>, Indiana Legal Services, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Garamond;"><a href="				LeagleKontact.aspx			">GREGORY F. ZOELLER</a>, Attorney General of Indiana, <a href="				LeagleKontact.aspx			">ELIZABETH ROGERS</a>, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE.</span></div>
<hr width="96%" />
<div>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div>
<div><center><span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong>OPINION</strong></span></center></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">FRIEDLANDER, Judge.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">Todd A. Anderson (Father) appeals the trial court&#8217;s denial of his request to credit against his child support obligation Social Security benefits Shauna Anderson (Mother) received on behalf of their child, D.A., prior to Father&#8217;s petition to modify child support. Father presents that ruling as the sole issue on appeal.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">We reverse.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">The relevant facts are undisputed. Father and Mother were divorced by decree of dissolution in 1995. At the time, they had one child, D.A., who was born in 1994. Father was ordered to pay $25.00 in weekly child support. Father became disabled and in 2001 began receiving $771.00 monthly Social Security disability benefits (SSD). On November 16, 2010, Father filed a &#8220;Petition to Modify Support Obligation and Apply Credit.&#8221; <em>Appellant&#8217;s Appendix</em> at 22. The matter proceeded to a hearing on February 28, 2011. Later, Father submitted the following Verified Statement of Evidence summarizing the evidence presented at that hearing relevant to this appeal:</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">The parties have one child, [D.A.], born March 1, 1994. Todd Anderson is disabled with chronic pancreatitis and receives $771.00 per month in Social Security disability insurance benefits. He has been receiving benefits since May 2001. He applied for disability benefits in 2001 and was approved for benefits within three months.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">[D.A.] has also been receiving benefits off of Mr. Anderson&#8217;s disability account. Her benefits started the same time her father&#8217;s benefits started. She currently receives $68.00 per month off of her father&#8217;s disability account. From 2001 until the date Mr. Anderson filed his modification petition, she received a total of $9,314.00 in benefits off of her father&#8217;s account, $240 of which was in a lump sum paid in 2001. She has received the rest of the benefits on a monthly basis from 2001 on.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><em>Id.</em> at 7-8.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">At the hearing, Father sought a modification of his support, including, among other things, to have the $9,314.00 in SSD benefits paid to D.A. since 2001 credited against his child support arrearage. The trial court issued the following order relative to that request:</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">The Court, having taken this matter under advisement, hereby modifies Petitioner&#8217;s ongoing support obligation as follows: $19.00 per week, effective November 16, 2010.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">Pursuant to Child Support Guideline 3.G.5.b, Petitioner&#8217;s arrearage as of February 28, 2011 is calculated at $12,838.23. This calculation credits Petitioner with the $240 lump sum Social Security disability benefit received by the child.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><em>Id.</em> at 6. Father appeals the determination that he is not entitled to credit the entire amount of disability benefits received by D.A. since 2001 against his support arrearage.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">When the issue presented is a pure question of law and there are no disputed facts, we apply a de novo standard of review. <em>Reese v. Reese,</em> <a href="				xmlcontentlinks.aspx?gfile=696 N.E.2d 460">696 N.E.2d 460</a> (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). &#8220;`A pure question of law is one that requires neither reference to extrinsic evidence, the drawing of inferences therefrom, nor the consideration of credibility questions.&#8217;&#8221; <em>Id.</em> at 462 (quoting <em>Indiana Ins. Co. v. Allis,</em> <a href="				xmlcontentlinks.aspx?gfile=628 N.E.2d 1251">628 N.E.2d 1251</a>, 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), <em>trans. denied.</em>) In the instant case, the facts are undisputed and the determination of whether Father is entitled to credit the entire amount of periodic SSD payments received by D.A. against his child support arrearage is a pure question of law. We therefore review the trial court&#8217;s ruling de novo. <em>See id.</em></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">Mother contends this case should be resolved in her favor by our Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in <em>Brown v. Brown,</em> <a href="				xmlcontentlinks.aspx?gfile=849 N.E.2d 610">849 N.E.2d 610</a> (Ind. 2006). In <em>Brown,</em> a parent sought credit for a lump-sum SSD payment against an accumulated child support arrearage and also sought to credit his monthly SSD benefits against his future support obligation. Our Supreme Court denied that request, holding: &#8220;lump-sum payments of retroactive Social Security disability benefits to children cannot be credited against child support arrearages that are accumulated before the noncustodial parent has filed a petition to modify based on the disability.&#8221; <em>Id.</em> at 615. Also in <em>Brown,</em> the Supreme Court clarified that a disabled parent &#8220;with respect to whom Social Security disability benefits are paid to the parent&#8217;s child is entitled to petition the court for modification of the parent&#8217;s child support to reflect a credit for the amount of the payments. <em>The credit takes effect as of the date of the petition.</em>&#8221; <em>Id.</em> at 614 (emphasis supplied). Thus, according to <em>Brown,</em> SSD payments to a dependent may not be credited against a support arrearage that accumulated before the filing of a modification petition — i.e., they may not be applied retroactively.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">Effective January 1, 2010, Indiana Child Support Guideline 3 was amended to specifically address the subject of SSD payments. In relevant part, it affirmed the Supreme Court&#8217;s determination in <em>Brown</em> that SSD payments to a child may be credited against a noncustodial parent&#8217;s child support obligation. <em>See</em> Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5)(a)(2)(ii). On the other hand, the amended Guideline 3 effectively overruled <em>Brown&#8217;s</em> holding that lump-sum SSD payments could not be applied retroactively to arrearages accumulated prior to the filing of a petition for modification. With regard to arrearages and SSD payments, Comment 3(G) provides, in relevant part: &#8220;A lump sum payment of retroactive Social Security Disability benefits shall be applied as a credit against an existing child support arrearage if the custodial parent, as representative payee, received a lump sum retroactive payment, without the requirement of a filing of a Petition to Modify Child Support.&#8221; Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5)(b)(1). The Commentary to Guideline 3 clarifies that &#8220;[t]he Guidelines now allow the courts to apply the lump sum SSD benefits toward an existing child support arrearage if the custodial parent, as representative payee, receives a lump sum payment. This credit is appropriate without the requirement of a filing of a Petition to Modify Child Support.&#8221;</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">Read in conjunction with <em>Brown</em> and Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5)(b)(4),<sup><a id="FR_1" href="#FN_1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup> this commentary clearly indicates that lump-sum SSD payments to a custodial parent on behalf of the child may be applied against a support arrearage that predated the filing of a petition to modify support. It is silent, however, with respect to the issue presented here, i.e., whether <em>periodic</em> SSD payments may be applied against a support arrearage that accumulated before the filing of a petition to modify support. The parties advocate different interpretations of this silence.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">Mother contends that a petition to modify support is still required in order to apply an SSD payment against an arrearage because &#8220;the Commentary to the Guidelines, when discussing the holding in <em>Brown,</em> do not indicate that the addition of section 5 was intended to change the effect of the holding in <em>Brown.</em>&#8221; <em>Appellee&#8217;s Brief</em> at 7. Indeed, Mother argues that had it so intended, &#8220;the Guidelines would have stated that the holding with respect to filing a petition to modify set out in <em>Brown</em> was also superseded.&#8221; <em>Id.</em> Regardless of whether the relevant section of Commentary to Guideline 3 states it, the fact remains that the text of the Guideline itself overturns <em>Brown</em> in this regard, viz., &#8220;[a] lump sum payment of retroactive Social Security Disability benefits shall be applied as a credit against an existing child support arrearage if the custodial parent, as representative payee, received a lump sum retroactive payment, <em>without the requirement of a filing of a Petition to Modify Child Support.</em>&#8221; Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5)(b)(1) (emphasis supplied).</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">Father, on the other hand, contends in effect that the modified Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5) was intended primarily to overrule <em>Brown</em> on the issue of whether lump-sum SSD payments apply retroactively to arrearages accumulated prior to a petition to modify that was based upon SSD payments. Father contends:</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">Under the rationale given in the new guidelines and under existing case law, there is no reason to treat regular monthly payments any differently than a lump-sum payment that is merely the accumulation of regular monthly payments that the Social Security Administration did not pay earlier because of a delay in finding the person to disabled [sic]. In fact, those regular monthly payments present an even clearer case of &#8220;payments that do not technically conform to the original support decree&#8221;, Commentary to Child Supp. G., but for which a credit must be given.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><em>Appellant&#8217;s Brief</em> at 11. We find ourselves in agreement with Father.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">The Commentary to Guideline 3(G) notes that <em>Brown</em> recognized that the SSD benefits paid to a child were recognized as earnings of the disabled parent, and therefore &#8220;[i]t follows &#8230; that the payment received for the benefit of the child should be applied to satisfy the disabled parent&#8217;s support obligation.&#8221; The Commentary further notes that the revised Child Support Guidelines change the law regarding the application of SSD benefits with respect to SSD lump-sum payments. Under <em>Brown</em> and <em>Hieston v. State, Indiana Family &amp; Soc. Servs. Admin. Child Support Bureau,</em> <a href="				xmlcontentlinks.aspx?gfile=885 N.E.2d 59">885 N.E.2d 59</a> (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), <em>trans. denied,</em> such payments were considered mere gratuities and could not be credited against existing arrearages unless the arrearage post-dated a petition to modify based upon the SSD payments. As is the case with respect to the current version of Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5), <em>Brown</em> and <em>Hieston</em> addressed only lump-sum SSD payments and said nothing about periodic SSD payments, at least so far as applying proceeds against an existing arrearage. We are therefore left to speculate as to how the Guidelines would treat periodic SSD payments in this regard. We believe the Commentary to Guideline 3(G)(5) foreshadows that periodic SSD payments would be treated the same as lump-sum SSD payments.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">The Commentary provides that SSD payments for the benefit of a dependent child are regarded as income of the disabled parent and shall be credited as payment toward the disabled parent&#8217;s support obligation. The revision in Guideline 3(G)(5) is based upon the following rationale:</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">[T]he lump sum payment is merely a method of payment applied to a past support obligation not paid. The distinction is between modification of support which changes the rate of support, e.g. from $100.00 per week to $50.00 per week, as opposed to credit for an indirect payment. Modification of a child support obligation still requires the filing of a petition for modification as set forth in Guideline 4.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">The lump sum payment is a method of payment that may not be specifically authorized by express court order but which should be recognized as a payment of support. Indiana case law establishes that credit can be allowed for payments that do not technically conform to the original support decree. For example, where the obligated parent makes payments directly to the custodial parent rather than through the clerk of the court, the Supreme Court has recognized these payments when there was sufficient proof to convince a trier of fact that the required payments were actually made. Proof of the lump sum SSD benefit payment is not difficult because the Social Security award certificate is a record easily admitted into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule under IRE 803(6) and (8) (reports of a public agency setting forth its regularly recorded activity) and trial courts are rarely burdened with an evidentiary dispute about what was paid, when or to whom, once the Social Security records are shared. By contrast, the informal arrangement disputes between parties to modify and reduce the actual amount of weekly support below that ordered in the divorce decree are actual attempts to retroactively modify the amount of support, which are prohibited. Similar to the nonconforming payment, the lump sum payment shall be applied as a credit to an existing child support arrearage.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">Commentary to Child Supp. G. 3(G). For purposes of the foregoing rationale, we can see no meaningful distinction between SSD periodic payments and SSD lump-sum payments paid for the benefit of a dependent child.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">In neither case does the petitioner seek a modification of the amount of support to be paid. As the Commentary makes clear, there is a critical distinction between seeking a modification of support and seeking credit for the receipt of SSD benefits. With the former, a party seeks to alter the amount of support that is to be paid. With the latter, the party does not seek an alteration in the amount of the child support obligation, but rather seeks to credit against that obligation payments made for the support of the child that are not in a form explicitly authorized by the original child support order. This distinction was not discussed in <em>Brown,</em> at least with respect to the question of whether SSD payments could be applied to an arrearage that accumulated prior to a petition to seek credit for those SSD payments. In fact, it would appear that the court viewed the distinction as irrelevant on that question, as it cited the prohibition against &#8220;`retroactively modify[ing] an obligor&#8217;s duty to pay a delinquent support payment&#8217;&#8221;, <em>Brown v. Brown,</em> 849 N.E.2d at 614 (quoting Ind. Code Ann. § 31-16-16-6 (West, Westlaw through end of 2011 1st Regular Sess.)), in support of its conclusion that no credit would be given for such payments that predated the petition to modify. The Commentary to Guideline 3(G)(5), however, clearly distinguishes between seeking modification of the amount of a support obligation and seeking credit for an indirect payment of support. In fact, it appears that the Commentary places great importance on this distinction in effectively overturning <em>Brown</em> on the matter of crediting SSD lump-sum payments against an arrearage that accumulated prior to the petition seeking that credit.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">As the Commentary notes, the petitioner in cases such as the instant case seeks credit for an indirect payment that &#8220;should be recognized as a payment of support.&#8221; <em>Id.</em> With respect to both lump-sum and periodic SSD payments, the payments are considered income of the disabled parent and not mere &#8220;gratuities from the federal government.&#8221; <em>Brown v. Brown,</em> 849 N.E.2d at 614. Therefore, they should be credited against the disabled parent&#8217;s support obligation. As such, just as with lump-sum payments, applying periodic payments to an accumulated arrearage &#8220;is merely a method of payment applied to a past support obligation not paid.&#8221; <em>Id.</em> Proof of the periodic SSD benefit payment is presumably no more difficult than is the case with lump-sum payments because &#8220;the Social Security award certificate is a record easily admitted into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule under IRE 803(6) and (8)[.]&#8221; <em>Id.</em> Thus, we conclude there is no principled reason to treat periodic SSD benefit payments to a child differently than lump-sum SSD benefit payments, i.e., it &#8220;shall be applied as a credit to an existing child support arrearage&#8221; without the need to file a petition for modification. <em>Id.</em></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">The trial court is reversed insofar as it denied Father&#8217;s request to apply all of the periodic SSD payments received to date by Mother on D.A.&#8217;s behalf against his existing support arrearage. This matter is remanded with instructions to calculate the amount of those payments and to adjust the amount of Father&#8217;s arrearage accordingly.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">Judgment reversed and remanded.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;">DARDEN, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.</span></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.shanehenryandassociates.com/auxiliary-benefits-to-children-effect-on-child-support/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

