Page 16 THE MALDEN ADVOCATE–Friday, October 4, 2019 Beacon Hill Roll Call By Bob Katzen THE HOUSE AND SENATE Beacon Hill Roll Call records the votes of local representatives from the week of September 23-27, 2019. There were no important roll calls in the Senate last week. SUBSCRIBE TO MASSTERLIST - IT'S FREE! Join more than 17,000 other people from movers and shakers to political junkies and interested citizens who start their morning with a copy of MASSterList! MASSterList is a daily ensemble of news and commentary about the Legislature, Politics, Media and Judiciary of Massachusetts drawn from major news organizations as well as specialized publications selected by widely acclaimed and highly experienced editor Jay Fitzgerald. Jay introduces each article in his own clever and never-boring, inimitable way. Go to: www.massterlist.com/subscribe Type in your e-mail address and in 15 seconds you will be signed up for a free subscription. With no strings attached. CHANGES IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS FOR LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATE (H 4087) House 121-35, approved and sent to the Senate a bill making changes in the state’s campaign finance rules for candidates running for a seat in the Massachusetts House or Senate. Provisions include requiring legislators and candidates for the state Legislature to set up depository committees with a bank, similar to statewide candidates; requiring itemized disclosures to be filed quarterly for the first 18 months of the two-year election cycle, and before the primary and general elections of an election year; and increasing the number of reports for each candidate from five to nine per cycle. The controversial part of the bill was changing how the director of the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) is chosen. The controversy comes amidst speculation that current OCPF Director Michael Sullivan, who has held the job ~ LEGAL NOTICE ~ PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF MALDEN LICENSING BOARD Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held before the Licensing Board for the City of Malden at 800 Eastern Avenue, Malden, MA on the 15th day of October 2019 at 6:30 p.m. regarding the application by Shiv Keshav Corp D/B/A Jay’s Wine & Spirits to transfer the all alcohol package store license to sell all alcoholic beverages at the package store located at 77 Commercial Street, Malden, MA 02148 and a Pledge of License to Rockland Trust Company. All interested parties will be given an opportunity to be heard. Lee A. Kinnon, Chairman Andrew Zeiberg, Member October 4, 2019 ~ LEGAL NOTICE ~ MALDEN BOARD OF APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING The Malden Board of Appeal will hold a public hearing at the John and Christina Markey Malden Community Center, 7 Washington Street, Malden at 6:30 P.M. on Wednesday, October 16, 2019 on Petition 19-013 by Patrick P. MacDonald, Esq. on behalf of Robert Scarpaci, Trustee, for a variance of Section 400.1.2.1 Chapter 12, of the Revised Ordinances of 1991 as Amended of the City of Malden, Namely Dimensional Controls - Side, Rear and Front Setback Requirements - As per plans COO-030994-2019, at the property known as and numbered 10 Dianes View, Malden, MA and also known by City Assessor’s Parcel ID # 152-570-013. Petition & plans available for public review in Office of Assessor, 110 Pleasant St., 3rd floor. Malden MA or online at www.cityofmalden.org or https://permits. ci t yo fma lden.o r g/EnerG ov_P r o d/S e lfS er v ice . By: James O’Brien Chairman September 27 & October 4, 2019 since 1994, may soon retire. Under current law, the director is appointed by a 4-member committee including the state chair of the Democratic party, the state chair of the Republican party, the secretary of state and the dean of a law school located in Massachusetts to be appointed by the governor. The director must be appointed by a unanimous vote of the four members. Under the proposed legislation, the director is comprised of a 5-member committee including the governor, the attorney general, the secretary of state and two people appointed by that preceding trio, one who must be an elected municipal official and the other an elected county official. The director must be appointed by at least a 4/5 vote of the five members and no more than three commissioners can be from the same political party. Rep. John Lawn (D-Watertown), the House chair of the Elections Laws Committee and the Democratic leadership in the House led the fight to change the makeup of the commission and to reduce to 4/5 the current unanimous requirement necessary to appoint the director. Republicans and a handful of Democrats voted in favor of leaving the makeup of the committee intact and requiring a unanimous vote for appointment. Lawn did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call for a statement on the legislation. “We are supportive of any initiatives that increase election transparency and lessen the appearance of partisanship,” said Democratic party chair Gus Bickford. “As we have seen with the Trump Administration’s craven disabling of the Federal Elections Commission, voting rights should exist free of any real or perceived partisan action. I applaud the legislature for looking into ways we can protect our election process.” “This proposal further proves that the Democrats are shameless and will stop at nothing to maintain their stranglehold on power in the commonwealth,” Massachusetts Republican Party Chair Jim Lyons said. “This is an obvious power play to eliminate any say that the minority party has when it comes to selecting the next OCPF director.” “This is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem,” said GOP Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading) who led the unsuccessful effort to adopt several amendments. ”And it would unfairly limit or exclude the minority party’s ability to participate in the selection process.” “There are a lot of good things in this bill that I support, including a provision to bring the campaign finance reporting requirement for state legislators in line with those who hold statewide elected office by requiring legislative candidates to designate a bank as a depository for their campaign finance funds,” Jones continued. “I would have voted for this bill if not for the ‘poison pill’ … that would severely diminish Republican input in selecting the director of the state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance by removing the state party chair from the BEACON | SEE PAGE 17 Income in respect of a decedent I ncome in respect of a decedent (IRD) is income that was owed to a decedent at the time he or she died. This is found in Internal Revenue Code Section 691. Some examples of IRD would include retirement plan assets, IRA’s and IRA distributions, unpaid interest income, unpaid dividend income, salary or wages and sales commissions, lottery winnings, accounts receivable for cash basis self-employed individuals, etc. These items of IRD, along with other assets included in one’s estate, are ultimately distributed to the beneficiaries of the estate. While the beneficiaries receive most of the assets of the estate “income-tax free”, IRD assets are generally taxed at the beneficiaries’ ordinary income tax rates. However, if a decedent’s estate has already paid an estate tax on the IRD assets, a beneficiary may be eligible to take an IRD deduction based upon the amount of the estate tax paid attributable to that item of IRD.IRC Section 691(c). The IRD deduction is taken as an itemized deduction. It is a miscellaneous itemized deduction “not’ subject to the usual “two percent of adjusted gross income” floor. Many financial advisors and estate attorneys are focused on the federal or Massachusetts estate tax return and the transfer of assets to the beneficiaries of the estate, and often overlook the potential of the beneficiaries to take the IRD deduction on his or her individual income tax return. You would simply take the IRD asset that is includible on the estate tax return and divide that number by the total gross estate as shown on the estate tax return. The resulting percentage is then multiplied by the total estate tax paid. That amount is then claimed as an itemized deduction on your federal individual income tax return. You must claim the IRD deduction in the year you actually receive and report the taxable income generated from the IRD asset on your individual income tax return. Another way to figure out the IRD deduction is to figure out the estate tax with and without the IRD asset(s). The difference in the actual estate tax figures will be the IRD deduction amount to take. Beneficiaries will share in the IRD deduction proportionately. Accordingly, if there are only two 50% beneficiaries of the estate and both are receiving 50 percent of the IRD asset as well, each would be entitled to take 50 percent of the IRD deduction on his or her own tax return as an itemized deduction. It is important to look at the IRD deduction whenever an estate tax is actually paid and there are IRD assets includible on the estate tax return as part of the total estate tax calculation. Many times, this valuable deduction is simply overlooked. It is also wise to consider leaving IRD assets to qualified charities if you have a desire to benefit a charity. Why? If you left the IRD asset to an individual, that individual will have to pay taxes on that IRD at ordinary income tax rates. The Charity would pay $0 in taxes. Therefore, you would be better off bequeathing a savings account to a niece or nephew and the balance of your IRA to the charity. The savings account results in no income tax to your nephew and the IRA going to the charity avoids income taxes altogether. If there are percentages of one’s estate going to individuals and charities, it makes sense for the Personal Representative of the estate to cherry pick what assets will go to the individuals and what assets will go to the charity. . Joseph D. Cataldo is an estate planning/elder law attorney, Certified Public Accountant, registered investment advisor, AICPA Personal Financial Specialist and holds a masters degree in taxation.

17 Publizr Home

You need flash player to view this online publication