Each year, Super Lawyers surveys the State of Wisconsin’s 15,000 attorneys and judges, seeking the State’s top attorneys. Recently, Super Lawyers published its lists for 2023, which include the Top 10 Attorneys in Wisconsin, Top 50 Attorneys in Wisconsin, Top 25 Attorneys in Milwaukee, Super Lawyers (consisting of the top 5% of attorneys in Wisconsin), and Rising Stars (consisting of attorneys who are 40 years old or younger or who have been in practice for 10 years or less).

Twenty-nine of our attorneys were recognized by Super Lawyers, which has referred to the firm as “the Milwaukee mid-sized powerhouse.” Those attorneys are the following:

• Nick Chmurski:
  • Rising Star
• Doug Dehler:
  • Super Lawyer
• Jim DeJong:
  • Super Lawyer
• Seth Dizard:
  • Top 50 Attorneys in Wisconsin
  • Top 25 Attorneys in Milwaukee
  • Super Lawyer
• Pete Faust:
  • Super Lawyer
• John Gehringer:
  • Super Lawyer
• Joseph Gumina:
  • Super Lawyer
• Jessica Haskell:
  • Rising Star
• Mike Kennedy:
  • Rising Star
• Grant Killoran:
  • Super Lawyer
• Dean Laing:
  • Top 10 Attorneys in Wisconsin
  • Top 50 Attorneys in Wisconsin
  • Top 25 Attorneys in Milwaukee
  • Super Lawyer
• Trevor Lippman:
  • Rising Star
• Greg Lyons:
  • Super Lawyer
• Patrick McBride:
  • Super Lawyer
• Britany Morrison:
  • Rising Star
• Joe Newbold:
  • Super Lawyer
• Erica Reib:
  • Rising Star
• Chad Richter:
  • Super Lawyer
• Ryan Riebe
  • Rising Star
• John Schreiber:
  • Super Lawyer
• Jason Scoby:
  • Super Lawyer
• Steve Slawinski:
  • Super Lawyer
• Kelly Spott:
  • Rising Star
• Christa Wittenberg:
  • Rising Star

Super Lawyers is a national rating service that rates attorneys in all 50 states. The selection process utilized by Super Lawyers is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations. One court recently had this to say about Super Lawyers:

“[T]he selection procedures employed by [Super Lawyers] are very sophisticated, comprehensive and complex.  It is abundantly clear . . . that [Super Lawyers does] not permit a lawyer to buy one’s way onto the list, nor is there any requirement for the purchase of any product for inclusion in the lists or any quid pro quo of any kind or nature associated with the evaluation and listing of an attorney or in the subsequent advertising of one’s inclusion in the lists.”

We are proud to be one of the few firms in Wisconsin that had more than 50% of its attorneys receive recognition by Super Lawyers.

O’Neil Cannon has been recognized in the 2024 edition of Best Law Firms, ranked by Best Lawyers, regionally in 16 practice areas:

• Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
• Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
• Commercial Litigation
• Construction Law
• Corporate Law
• Employment Law – Management
• Litigation – Bankruptcy
• Litigation – Insurance
• Litigation – Labor and Employment
• Mergers and Acquisitions Law
• Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs
• Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
• Real Estate Law
• Securities / Capital Markets Law
• Tax Law
• Trusts and Estates Law

Firms included in the 2024 Best Law Firms list are recognized for professional excellence based on ratings from clients and peers.

Britany Morrison and Nancy Wilson, as directors of the Wisconsin State Bar’s Taxation Law Section Board, advocated for the inclusion of the Internal Revenue Code Section 1202 stock provisions in Assembly Bill 406, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 36. The Taxation Law Section Board collaborated with its government liaison and lobbyist, who then successfully championed the proposed change. Act 36 rectifies Wisconsin’s tax statute, bringing it in line with the federal guidelines regarding the retroactive date for the 100% capital gain exclusion under IRC Section 1202.

The revised legislation aligns Wisconsin’s statutes with the federal rules concerning the exclusion of capital gains from the sale of shares of qualified small businesses, commonly known as 1202 Stock. It allows for a 50% exclusion rate upon sale for stock acquired after August 10, 1993, and before February 17, 2009; a 75% exclusion rate for stock acquired after February 17, 2009, and on or before September 27, 2010; and a full 100% exclusion for stock acquired after September 27, 2010. This marks a significant departure from Wisconsin’s previous limitation of a maximum 50% exclusion.

Thanks to the entire Section Board for helping to shape the future of taxation in Wisconsin.

Newsletter Article Highlights:

• An Introduction to Earnouts for the Seller of a Registered Investment Advisor
• Understanding the “Step-Up in Tax Basis”: A Summary of IRC Section 1014 and Double Stepped-Up Basis for Marital Property in Wisconsin
• Dust Off Those Handbooks–The NLRB Has Changed Its Rules (Again)
• Ex-Attorney Convicted of Stealing More Than $800,000 from Elderly Victim with Dementia

Firm News:

• 19 O’Neil Cannon Lawyers Selected as 2024 Best Lawyers; Another 4 Named Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch
• Christa Wittenberg Featured on State Bar Podcast

Click the image below to read more.

Christa Wittenberg, a shareholder and board member at O’Neil Cannon, was recently a guest on Bottom Up, a podcast through the State Bar of Wisconsin focused on the challenges, interests, and opportunities available to lawyers. The podcast is intended to be a resource for attorneys establishing their practice in Wisconsin and beyond. In the podcast episode, Wittenberg discusses her career path, her new role as a director at the firm, the positive work environment and culture at O’Neil Cannon, and her involvement in the community. Listen and enjoy the full podcast here.

We are pleased to announce 19 of our lawyers have been included in the 2024 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America, and an additional four have been selected as 2024 Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.

The following are the O’Neil Cannon lawyers named to the 2024 lists:

Best Lawyers in America

• Douglas P. Dehler – Litigation – Insurance

• James G. DeJong – Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, and Securities / Capital Markets Law

• Seth E. Dizard – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law and Litigation – Bankruptcy

• Peter J. Faust – Corporate Law and Mergers and Acquisitions Law

• John G. Gehringer – Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Corporate Law, and Real Estate Law

• Joseph E. Gumina – Employment Law – Management and Litigation – Labor and Employment

• Dennis W. Hollman – Corporate Law and Trusts and Estates

• Grant C. Killoran – Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Health Care

• JB Koenings – Corporate Law

• Dean P. Laing – Commercial Litigation, Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs, and Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

• Gregory W. Lyons – Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Insurance

• Patrick G. McBride – Commercial Litigation

• Joseph D. Newbold – Commercial Litigation

• Chad J. Richter – Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships) and Corporate Law

• John R. Schreiber – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law and Litigation – Bankruptcy

• Jason R. Scoby – Corporate Law

• Steven J. Slawinski – Construction Law

Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch

• Trevor C. Lippman – Litigation – Trusts and Estates

• Erica N. Reib – Labor and Employment Law – Management and Litigation – Labor and Employment

• Kelly M. Spott – Trusts and Estates

• Christa D. Wittenberg – Commercial Litigation

About Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers has published their list for over three decades, earning the respect of the profession, the media, and the public as the most reliable, unbiased source of legal referrals.

Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch recognizes associates and other lawyers who are earlier in their careers for their outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States.

Lawyers on The Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch lists are divided by geographic region and practice areas. They are reviewed by their peers on the basis of professional expertise, and they undergo an authentication process to make sure they are in current practice and in good standing.

When a loved one passes away, the emotional toll can be overwhelming, and dealing with the complexities of tax implications may not be a priority. However, understanding the concept of “step-up in tax basis” can significantly impact the tax burden on inherited assets. In this blog post, we’ll explore the basics of the step-up in tax basis, focusing on IRC Section 1014, and how Wisconsin’s marital property laws can provide a double stepped-up basis for inherited assets.

What is a “Step-Up in Tax Basis”?

Under normal circumstances, when you sell an asset that has appreciated in value since you acquired it, you are subject to capital gains tax on the difference between the purchase price (cost basis) and the selling price. However, when an individual passes away and bequeaths assets to their heirs, these assets receive a “step-up in tax basis.” This step-up means that the tax basis of the inherited assets is adjusted to their fair market value on the date of the decedent’s death. As a result, any unrealized capital gains up to that point are effectively wiped out, reducing or eliminating the capital gains tax burden for the heirs.

IRC Section 1014: Understanding the Legal Basis for Step-Up

The Internal Revenue Code provides the legal framework for the step-up in tax basis. Specifically, IRC Section 1014 outlines the rules governing the determination of the basis of property acquired from a decedent. According to this section, the basis of inherited property is generally its fair market value at the date of the decedent’s death. There are certain exceptions and adjustments depending on the nature of the asset and the circumstances of the transfer, but the general principle remains the same: assets inherited after someone’s passing receive a new, stepped-up tax basis.

It is important to note that certain types of assets such as 401(k)s, annuities, or IRAs do not receive the step-up in basis as these assets contain what is known as “Income in Respect of Decedent.”  These assets are subject to income tax when inherited by the heirs.

Double Stepped-Up Basis for Marital Property in Wisconsin

Wisconsin is one of the nine states in the United States that follows a community property system. Under this system, certain assets acquired during a marriage are considered marital property, jointly owned by both spouses. When one spouse dies and leaves their share of the marital property to the surviving spouse, the tax basis of the deceased spouse’s share is stepped-up to its fair market value on the date of their death, as per IRC Section 1014.

Now, here’s where Wisconsin’s marital property law provides an added benefit. When the surviving spouse inherits the deceased spouse’s share of the marital property, the tax basis receives another step-up to its fair market value on the date of the surviving spouse’s death. This is known as a “double stepped-up basis.”

The double stepped-up basis can be highly advantageous for the surviving spouse and their heirs. It allows the appreciation of a certain asset owned during the marriage to be shielded from capital gains taxes entirely if the asset is later sold by the surviving spouse’s heirs. This significant tax benefit can help preserve more of the family’s wealth and provide more financial flexibility for future generations.

Conclusion

The step-up in tax basis is a critical concept to understand when dealing with inherited assets. Under IRC Section 1014, inherited assets generally receive a new tax basis equal to their fair market value on the date of the decedent’s death, eliminating or reducing the capital gains tax burden. In Wisconsin, the marital property laws add an extra layer of advantage by providing a double stepped-up basis for assets acquired during a marriage. This double step-up can have a substantial positive impact on the overall tax liability for the surviving spouse and their heirs, offering a valuable tool for preserving family wealth and passing it on to future generations.

Newsletter Article Highlights:

• The Pitfalls of Payable on Death Accounts
• Section 1202 Stock: An Attractive Tax Benefit for Investors in Small Businesses
• Pregnant and Nursing Employees Have Newly Expanded Rights
• A Michigan Jury R-E-S-P-E-C-Ts Aretha Franklin’s Wishes

Firm News:

• O’Neil Cannon Welcomes Attorneys Eric Peterson and Kyle Kasper
• Chambers and Partners Recognizes Faust and O’Neil Cannon for M&A Excellence
• Attorney Seth Dizard to Receive 2023 Judge Dale E. Ihlenfeldt Bankruptcy Award
• O’Neil Cannon Serves as Legal Advisor to i3 Product Development in Its Sale to Helios Technologies

Click the image below to read more.

In 2018, the “Queen of Soul” Aretha Franklin passed away, leaving behind four sons and a multimillion-dollar estate. Since this time, Franklin’s sons have been engaged in a fierce legal battle regarding the application of contradictory handwritten wills and the proper division of her assets. Recently, a jury in the probate court in Pontiac, Michigan decided that Franklin’s handwritten will drafted in 2014 revoked a previous handwritten will and will set forth how Franklin’s assets will be divided amongst her children.

Initially, it was believed that Franklin died without a valid will and her estate assets would be distributed in accordance with Michigan’s intestacy law. Under Michigan law, because Franklin was not married at the time of her death, her entire estate was to be distributed equally to her four children. However, months after Franklin’s death, two conflicting handwritten wills were found in Franklin’s home. The first document was discovered in a locked cabinet and was dated 2010. This document was approximately twelve pages long and was signed by Franklin on each page. The second document was dated 2014 and was found inside a spiral notebook tucked under a couch cushion. The 2014 document was significantly shorter than the 2010 document and was only signed “Franklin” with a smiley face nearby. The two handwritten wills were each drafted by Franklin herself and did not list any parties as witnesses. The legal battle revolved around which of the two handwritten wills would apply as they had conflicting terms for the division of Franklin’s assets.

Two of Franklin’s sons argued that the 2014 document revoked the 2010 document and met the legal standard for a “holographic will” under Michigan law. Typically, a will is only valid under Michigan law if it meets three requirements: (1) it is in writing; (2) it is signed by the testator or, while the testator is present, by another at the testator’s direction; and (3) it is signed by at least two witnesses in a reasonable time after seeing the testator sign or after the testator acknowledges the signature. However, unlike Wisconsin, Michigan recognizes handwritten or “holographic” wills if the document is signed, dated, is in the testator’s handwriting, and demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended the document to be their will. After less than an hour of deliberations, the jury determined that the 2014 handwritten document revoked the 2010 document and shall serve as Franklin’s will.

Had Franklin been a Wisconsin resident at the time she drafted the conflicting handwritten wills, the legal battle between her children likely never would have occurred. In Wisconsin, for a will to be valid it must meet certain requirements: (1) it is in writing; (2) it is signed by the testator or signed in the presence of the testator at their direction; and (3) it is signed by at least two witnesses (who are unrelated and disinterested) within a reasonable time after witnessing the signing of the will, after the testator’s acknowledgment of their signature on the will, or after the testator’s acknowledgement of the will. Wisconsin does not recognize holographic wills, and neither Franklin’s 2010 nor 2014 holographic wills would have been upheld as valid regardless of a showing of Franklin’s intent. Instead, Franklin’s estate would be distributed in accordance with Wisconsin’s default probate laws.

Estate planning can be a complex and stressful process for families, that too often ends in disputes between loved ones. The estate planning team at O’Neil Cannon is dedicated to assisting its clients navigate the estate planning process and creating a personalized plan that meets their goals and wishes for distributing their assets. In the event that disputes arise, O’Neil Cannon’s inheritance litigation team is also prepared to assist its clients in all matters related to disputed estate planning documents. To schedule a consultation with a member of O’Neil Cannon’s estate planning or inheritance litigation teams, please call (414) 276-5000.

Attorney Kyle Kasper, a magna cum laude graduate of Marquette University Law School, has joined O’Neil Cannon. Kyle is a member of the firm’s Litigation Practice Group. While in law school, Kyle was actively involved in numerous organizations, including the Moot Court Association, Marquette Law Review, and Marquette Sports Law Review. Additionally, Kyle was selected as an Academic Success Program leader where he assisted law students with their legal writing and research. We are very pleased to welcome Kyle to O’Neil Cannon.

O’Neil Cannon, founded in Milwaukee in 1973, is a full-service law firm that focuses on meeting the many needs of businesses and their owners. Our experienced attorneys work with businesses and their owners at all stages of the business life cycle, helping them start, grow, and transition their businesses. We also assist business owners with their personal legal needs, including tax and estate planning and family law. For more information about the services we provide, please visit our website.