Groshek Law Blog

Many people in Minnesota assume that they should hold on to their tax returns for three years after the initial filing. In general, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has three years to perform an audit or assess additional taxes; three years is also the time limit during which people can file amended tax returns. However, there are exceptions to the three-year rule, and this could make it important to hold on to tax returns for much longer.

When over 25 percent of income was not included on a tax return, the IRS actually has six years to perform an audit and assess further taxes. In addition, if the IRS can prove that the original return was fraudulent, there is no statute of limitations on a tax audit or additional assessment. It should also be noted that even if a person is certain that neither of these cases applies to his or her tax returns, this does not make it a good idea to discard the original filings after three years. Without an original copy, it may be difficult to prove that the tax return was ever filed at all, and these statutes of limitations apply only after the filing was made.

Minnesota residents may find that squabbles among family members can have just as large of an impact on estate planning as taxes do. This is according to a poll by TD Wealth of 109 estate planning professionals. Family issues may come into play in cases where a person has been married multiple times or is significantly older or younger than a spouse. Spending time talking with family members can work to create realistic expectations for what they will receive.

For example, if an individual plans on creating a trust, a child could see that as a punishment. However, a child should be made aware of the potential benefits that one can provide. For instance, it can keep money out of the hands of creditors or others who try to make a claim for it. Conversations can also address any conflicts between siblings or between children and parents.

Many parents in Minnesota expect that they will eventually pass their estates on to their children as a matter of course. In general, families want wealth to be passed from parents to children, including businesses, investments and real estate. However, some people may wish to consider alternative ways of handling their assets, especially when their children are already well-off and successful on their own.

While parents may want their children to benefit from the income produced by their assets, they might also have concerns that their kids are not the best people to manage the family business or direct an investment fund. When people have substantial businesses, it can be important to set up an internal succession plan that includes paid managers and officers. The profits and income of the company can still be directed to the owner's children, but a different business management structure may be the best way to keep the enterprise profitable and growing. Management and control of an asset do not need to be combined with benefits from those assets.

Americans living in Minnesota and across the nation recently received important new privacy protections. On June 22, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, in most situations, law enforcement agencies are required to obtain a warrant before gaining access to someone's cell site location information, or CSLI. Some legal observers are calling the ruling the most important Fourth Amendment decision of the 21st century.

CSLI can pinpoint a cellphone user's location at any time of the day. As a result, law enforcement agencies have found the information useful for certain types of investigations, and, until now, they have been able to access the data if they can provide "reasonable grounds" for needing it. The case before the court involved a man who had been convicted of burglary partly because the police tracked his movements for 127 days using CSLI. The man argued authorities violated his privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment by accessing his CSLI data without a warrant. He further claimed that the Supreme Court's third-party doctrine, which holds that individuals lose their right to privacy when they voluntarily turn over information to third parties, should not apply in the highly invasive digital age.