The tax impact of family agreements is particularly important. Under Texas law, will recipients can agree among themselves on the distribution of property and agree not to prohibit the will. An informal family comparison contract is an opportunity for the parties to accept the final decision of the succession, without bribing the will in the traditional way. Depending on its design, the family comparison contract can also have a significant impact on inheritance and gift taxes. For example, a widow with a $4 million collective property cannot enter into a family contract with her children by changing her husband`s willingness to directly transfer half of his fortune to his children, saving her heirs more than $700,000 in taxes. She can give her children half the property. And the court will let him do it, and it will be binding on them and for the children. But it will not be binding on the IRS, and taxes will always be due. HOWEVER, if the same widow has a stepchild who has been disinherited, and the will has recently been rendered in circumstances that could be an undue influence, then a reasonable arrangement to transfer some of the inheritance to the child more likely for the IRS, but this goes through the framework of this blog.
When the family comparison contract is concluded, Texas contract laws apply. The abbreviated version of contract law is that there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration (in this case ownership) and mutual consent (agreement). According to the parties, Haley`s three daughters signed a few minutes before the court registered the property on its docket appeal on September 7, 2006, the agreement that requires the estate to be as evenly distributed as possible between them. The agreement describes Carter as an heir and designated executor and states that she is a party to the agreement, „on behalf of himself and the estate, provided the court calls his independent executrix.“ After the parties signed the agreement, the court appointed Carter the independent executor of Haley`s estate. The agreement was not filed in the estate court until 2011. The proposed release and settlement agreement, originally introduced by Nina and Charles` lawyers in December 2015, departed from the terms of the Rule 11 conciliation agreement by adding a provision for 50-foot access and facilitated supply instead of the facility agreed after the „existing universal road.“ In response, Anthony and Nicolas` lawyer wrote in an email to Nina and Charles: „I know that my people will not accept to add a wider ease of usefulness.