WHY would a plaintiff lawyer agree to an extra expense inuring to his client's recovery in setting up a single claimant qualified settlement fund for moneys being used for a structured settlement, where there is no restriction on the selection of structured annuity companies and then agree to have the structured settlement broker designated by the insurer that is paying money into the qualified settlement fund, or segregating the assets?
WHY would a plaintiff lawyer state on the record to a judge that the "holding trust" will not have any tax consequences to an infant that the judge and the attorney are duty bound to protect when the income from such trusts is known to be taxable at the highest rate that the United States government charges?
WHY would a competent settlement planner or plaintiff lawyer provide Court Ordered single claimant qualified settlement fund documents that state "no plaintiff or other payee shall have constructive receipt, as defined in 26 C.F.R. Section 1.451-2(a), or economic benefit, as defined in common law, of any of the assets of plaintiff's qualified settlement fund while they are under control of the Administrator"?
Does a Court Order with such language trump the Internal Revenue Service or the Tax Courts?
If it was as simple as a state court judge being the final arbiter on tax disputes, why, over 5 years ago, did the Society of Settlement Planners hire the very expensive law firm Skadden Arps to request guidance from the Treasury Department on single claimant 468B qualified settlement funds? That guidance has yet to be obtained.
It is unlikely that any "qualified settlement fund jockey" or "plaintiff lawyer" has enough Errors and Omissions coverage to cover the exposure, however remote, resulting from cumulative nature of such advice.