Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/28/2020 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB191 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 191 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 192 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 28, 2020
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lora Reinbold
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 191
"An Act relating to trusts and trustees, including trust
division, the powers of trustees, delayed gifts to trusts, and
community property trusts; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 192
"An Act relating to fiduciary discretion and the allocation of
capital gains to income under the Alaska Principal and Income
Act."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 191
SHORT TITLE: TRUSTS, TRUSTEES, COMMUNITY PROPERTY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) COGHILL
02/14/20 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/20 (S) JUD
02/26/20 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/26/20 (S) Heard & Held
02/26/20 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/28/20 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
MATTHEW BLATTMACHR, President & CEO
Peak Trust Company; President
Alaska Trust & Estate Professionals
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
191.
AIMEE BUSHNELL, Staff
Senator John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a white paper and answered
questions during the hearing on SB 191.
ABIGAIL O'CONNOR, Attorney
O'Connor Law, LLC; Vice President
Alaska Trust & Estate Professionals
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
191.
JAMIE DELMAN, Attorney
Shaftel Delman LLC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
191.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:47 PM
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Hughes, Micciche, Kiehl and Chair Coghill.
SB 191-TRUSTS, TRUSTEES, COMMUNITY PROPERTY
1:33:37 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO.
191, "An Act relating to trusts and trustees, including trust
division, the powers of trustees, delayed gifts to trusts, and
community property trusts; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR COGHILL said the agenda for this hearing is to respond to
the questions that arose at the last hearing, starting with Ms.
Bushnell who will review a white paper.
1:34:49 PM
AIMEE BUSHNELL, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that the white paper the
Chair mentioned relates to Alaska Gift Trusts. It was prepared
by the Alaska Trust and Estate Professionals (ATEP), a nonprofit
organization that works to present a unified voice for many
trust and estate professionals in Alaska. The white paper starts
with an explanation that the transfer tax system is completely
separate from income taxes since these gifts happen after the
money has been earned and taxed.
The gift and estate tax exemptions are unified. Currently, the
exemption is $11,580,000 per individual, and the tax rate on
gifts or inheritances that exceed $11,580,000 is 40 percent.
This is historically high. In 1995, the exemption limit was at
$600,000 and anything that exceeded that figure was taxed at 55
percent. In 1976, the allowable estate tax exemption was $60,000
and everything beyond that was taxed at 77 percent. On January
1, 2026, the estate tax exemption will be reduced to $5,000,000,
indexed for inflation. Federal legislation has been introduced
to reduce the exemption further to $3,500,000 or less. The
exemptions on estate taxes could also be reduced by a new
administration in Washington, D.C.
MS. BUSHNELL said that under SB 191, families who expect to be
affected by the estate tax can take advantage of this exemption
now, to save their children and grandchildren estate taxes in
the future. Saving estate tax can help preserve family owned
businesses and ensure that one generation's wealth can be
preserved for the benefit of future generations. The paper
provides several scenarios to better explain how this can help
families with their estate planning and caring for their
descendants.
The concept of the Alaska Gift Trust is that someone makes a
written promise to gift money. That promise is enforceable and
irrevocable, although plenty of safeguards are built into the
statute to make sure a person does not inadvertently make such
an irrevocable promise. The promise must be satisfied within
nine months of the promisor's death, but it may also be filled
while the person is still alive.
1:36:48 PM
MS. BUSHNELL said the white paper reiterates the requirements in
the bill that a number of specific steps need to be followed to
use these provisions in statute. First, a person would need to
create an Alaska Gift Trust, which must be a written document
stating that the trust is a gift trust created under the
statute. The trust must deposit at least $10,000 in an Alaska
bank account, and at least one trustee must be an Alaskan
resident, bank, or trust company with its primary place of
business in Alaska. Second, the person must sign the written
promise, include an express reference to the statute, and
include a statement that the trustee intends to be legally bound
by the promise, both of which are safeguards against inadvertent
usage of the statute. The promise is for a certain amount of
money, and the terms of the promise require that the money be
delivered to the trust within nine months of the person's death
or sooner. Third, the person must deliver the written promise to
the trustee of the trust. Once the promise is delivered to the
trustee and has passed 180 days it becomes a promissory note or
negotiable instrument.
She said [Section 4] of SB 191 is a new concept that makes the
promise of a gift "a negotiable instrument." This will give
trustors, trustees, attorneys, and courts existing statutes to
reference for its application. The white paper lists scenarios
and examples to illustrate how the Alaska Gift Trust would work.
MS. BUSHNELL said the white paper goes on to discuss the impact
on a promisor's estate after death as well as potential risks
and resolutions.
1:38:14 PM
CHAIR COGHILL said the promise of a gift is not necessarily a
contract, but a promise to give.
1:38:27 PM
MATTHEW BLATTMACHR, President & Chief Executive Officer, Peak
Trust Company; President, Alaska Trust & Estate Professionals,
Anchorage, Alaska, stated that in its initial form, the gift
provision is an enforceable promise that is executed via a
contract.
1:38:49 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked what national discussion has occurred on
this new gift trust concept.
MR. M. BLATTMACHR replied there hasn't been much talk about it
at the state or national level. While there is express law
allowing it, no law expressly disallows it.
CHAIR COGHILL summarized that this structure would take
advantage of the high tax limit on estate taxes. There has been
a lot of push back on inheritance taxes because the money being
gifted has already been earned and taxed. He described the
concept of gifting money to the next generation as reasonable.
1:40:28 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if the concept of a gift trust started in
Alaska because it didn't sound as though other states were doing
this.
MR. M. BLATTMACHR agreed that the promise of a gift provision is
not being done elsewhere. The concept was created via the Alaska
Trust and Estates Professionals, so it is an Alaskan concept. If
this bill passes, Alaska will be the only state to expressly
allow this type of estate planning.
SENATOR HUGHES commented that she was pleased to hear Alaska is
innovative. She asked if this provides an advantage to the
state, such that people will want to set up their trusts in
Alaska. She further asked if SB 191 will help the state
economically.
MR. M. BLATTMACHR said he wished Alaska could trademark some of
the estate and trust concepts that the legislature has
pioneered. Alaska is viewed as an innovative state, particularly
in the trust and estate industry. Competitor states watch Alaska
closely to see what estate laws are introduced and passed. He
offered his belief that other states will copy Alaska's laws. In
further response, he agreed there is definitely an advantage in
passing SB 191 since it will encourage Alaskans and non-Alaskans
to implement this type of estate planning in Alaska.
1:42:57 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked how the IRS treats income and appreciation
of community property.
MR. M. BLATTMACHR replied the general rule for community
property is that not only the principal, but any income and
interest is community property, which was the intent of the
original community statute passed in Alaska. It is also the
default regime [by the IRS] and all other states. The
clarification in SB 191 to community property is the result of a
court decision that the Alaska Trust & Estate Professionals
believes misinterprets the intent at the state and federal level
because it separates the principal from the income and
appreciation. SB 191 would clarify that the principal, income,
and appreciation are all considered community property. The bill
would give people the choice to divide principal from income and
appreciation, although doing so is not common. Several
practitioners in the Alaska Trust & Estate Professionals group
have questioned whether allowing that flexibility might violate
the community property regime. The ultimate intent in the bill
is to expressly clarify that unless a person specifically
declares that income and appreciation is not community property,
the default rule is that it will be.
1:45:33 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked if the IRS would allow a person to make the
declaration that income and appreciation is not community
property.
MR. M. BLATTMACHR said he was unsure if the IRS is "okay" with
that, so a person would want to discuss community property
decisions with his or her legal or tax counsel. However, the
bill currently provides an option to do so.
1:46:19 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said the first paragraph of the white paper
indicates the transfer tax system is completely separate from
income tax. He asked if this creates any implications for
personal or corporate income taxes.
MR. M. BLATTMACHR answered no; the gift provision allows people
to take advantage of the gift or estate tax exemption, but it
does not provide any particular personal income tax benefit.
1:47:25 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said the statute provides that the surviving
spouse is entitled to an elective share of the estate, which is
about one-third of the augmented estate. The augmented estate
appears to include the value of property transferred through an
irrevocable transfer. He read [a portion of AS
13.12.205(a)(2)(A)], "an irrevocable transfer in which the
decedent retained the right to the possession or enjoyment of,
or to the income from, the property,?". This would seem to
include "the promise of a gift." He asked if the augmented
estate includes the value of a person's "promise of a gift" to
include the augmented estate to which the surviving spouse is
entitled. If so, he asked if the surviving spouse would receive
this before or after the trust is paid.
MR. M. BLATTMACHR agreed that surviving spouses receive special
protection under Alaska law related to the estate of the
deceased spouse. He deferred further comment to Ms. O'Connor.
1:49:35 PM
ABIGAIL O'CONNOR, Attorney, O'Connor Law, LLC; Vice President,
Alaska Trust & Estate Professionals (ATEP), Anchorage, Alaska,
related a scenario to illustrate how she and Mr. Delman
envisioned the elective share would work once the person dies
and the promise of a gift becomes a claim against the estate. If
a person has assets of $10 million in cash in his or her estate,
that cash is still part of the augmented estate because it is an
asset of the estate. However, the net probate estate that goes
into the augmented estate is reduced by debts, so it's almost a
wash. However, the white paper cites another section of law that
says if the transfer is made during the marriage and within two
years preceding death, [then the spouse would be entitled to a
portion of the promised money if he or she claimed the elective
share].
CHAIR COGHILL asked her to cite the section.
MS. O'CONNOR replied it is AS 13.12.205(a)(3)(C). She stated
that the assets that the decedent had would be part of the
probate estate but would be reduced by the promise to arrive at
the net probate estate amount. She said it is essentially a
gift, but it is also a debt. The ATEP does not think that the
spouse would be any worse off than if the decedent had made an
actual transfer of the cash asset prior to death. Instead of
making the promise of a gift, if the decedent gave the $10
million to the trust during his/her lifetime, it would not be
included in the net probate estate. If it was made within two
years before death it would come into the estate under the
surviving spouse provision. In response to whether the decedent
enjoys the rights of property, the answer is yes; the assets in
the decedent's estate are ones the decedent enjoys. In terms of
the actual promise of a gift, the decedent does not retain any
benefit since it is a debt, she said.
SENATOR KIEHL commented that the surviving spouse provision did
not make him feel any more comfortable.
1:53:10 PM
CHAIR COGHILL remarked that a husband and wife using the Alaska
Gift Trust should be cautious.
MR. M. BLATTMACHR agreed. He added that if one spouse owns a
separate asset, they have the ability to gift it by promise.
Under current law, they can gift the asset in actuality since
the surviving spouse has no right or claim.
CHAIR COGHILL remarked that it would make for interesting
relationships.
SENATOR KIEHL added that if the gift was made while both spouses
were living, it might lead to interesting conversations.
CHAIR COGHILL asked how a surviving spouse would currently
assert a claim if the spouse was excluded from a large portion
of the estate or how the law would exclude the claim.
MS. O'CONNOR answered that it would depend on whether the
decedent retained any interest. She related a scenario in which
the decedent made a gift to a trust for children from his first
marriage and the decedent retained no interest. If it is within
two years prior to his death, the gift would become part of the
augmented estate. She didn't believe the gift would go back into
the estate if the decedent created the gift prior to the
marriage or five years prior to his or her death. That's why
they're saying the spouse would not be in any worse position
under the bill, she said.
1:55:59 PM
MS. O'CONNOR advised that estate planners always look at the
effect on the surviving spouse when gifting strategies are part
of the estate plan. If counsel represents one party and that
spouse gives away assets to his or her children, but does not
tell the other spouse, it will be a red flag regardless of the
mechanism used in the estate planning. She said the bill does
not create any more dangerous situation than under current law.
If counsel is trying to protect assets from a spouse, it is
usually done via a post-nuptial agreement and each spouse is
represented by counsel.
1:57:29 PM
CHAIR COGHILL said the committee members are not practitioners
so they want to be sure that community property is managed such
that surviving spouses are not left high and dry by potentially
unscrupulous tactics.
1:58:12 PM
MS. O'CONNOR clarified two points. In response to the question
about whether the Gift Trust is a contract, she said it is
because it is fully enforceable, but it is different because in
a contract each party has usually given something up. This is
different; this trust does not give anything in exchange for the
promise of a gift, but the person making the gift is held to
that contract.
1:59:30 PM
CHAIR COGHILL said his understanding is that the promise of a
gift turns into a debt to the estate once the person dies.
MS. O'CONNOR replied the promise of a gift will become a debt
immediately. After 180 days, it is treated like a promissory
note. She suggested members think of the promise of a gift to a
trust as an atypical contract.
2:00:04 PM
MS. O'CONNOR turned to the national discussion and whether the
Alaska Gift Trust is unique. She said she was not aware of any
other state using this concept. The theoretical concept of the
promise of a trust was first raised in an article several years
ago by Austin Bramwell [an adjunct professor of law at New York
University School of Law, attorney at Law, Milbank, Tweed,
Hadley & McCloy LLP]. She related her understanding that
Pennsylvania may have common law that such a promise could be
enforceable, but she did not have any details. That state does
not have a gift trust provision in law, she said. Further, the
idea of a promise of a gift can also be found in charitable
giving pledges. Mr. Delman can elaborate on this further, she
said.
She said the Alaska Gift Trust provision is unique, but some of
the underlying theories have been discussed nationally. She
offered her belief that this will gain national recognition
since the buzz in the national estate planning community is how
to use exemptions. She anticipated that the Alaska Gift Trust in
SB 191 would be very helpful and that Alaska would be a
trailblazer.
2:01:59 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked for the reason for using 180 days.
MS. O'CONNOR deferred to Mr. Delman to respond.
2:02:41 PM
JAMIE DELMAN, Attorney, Shaftel Delman LLC, Anchorage, Alaska,
answered that the intent of the 180 day period was to encourage
a continuing nexus with the State of Alaska. This would allow
people to form a trust and contribute the promise of a gift,
which has to stay with the trustee for a period of time. He said
180 days was selected, but it could be shorter.
2:04:05 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked what has to happen during that 180-day
period of time.
MR. DELMAN responded that the typical process before the 180-day
point would be that someone would create, draft and sign the
trust, the trustee would sign the trust document, and the
promisor would create the written promise and deliver it to the
trustee. He envisioned the 180 days as "a holding period," with
no expectation that the written promise would change hands. If
the trustee needed to make a distribution to a beneficiary, he
or she might need to sell property, which could include the
obligation.
2:06:11 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked what the "notwithstanding the provisions of
AS 45.03,?" language related to the 180 days means.
MR. DELMAN responded that this provision relates to a promissory
note typically being issued for value.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. M. Blattmachr to weigh in.
MR. M. BLATTMACHR said that was his understanding; no
consideration is given to the provisions of AS 45.03.
2:07:29 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said it would be helpful to understand the benefit
to having the promise of a gift be a negotiable instrument.
2:08:13 PM
MR. DELMAN responded that there are two reasons to do so. First,
in order for the person creating this written promise to use the
exemption, that person must file a gift tax return reporting the
value of the written promise. If the written promise is so
restrictive that it cannot be sold by the trustee or transferred
in any way, the value of the written promise would be much lower
than a standard promissory note. He highlighted the importance
that the type of asset that this bill would create is like other
assets and is saleable and transferable.
He said a second and more compelling reason is to think about
the written promise as a whole rather than thinking about it in
a vacuum. He related a scenario in which a trustee owns a
written promise and they also own a commercial building that is
subsequently damaged in an earthquake. The estate consists of a
$1 million written promise and a $500,000 building that incurs
$200,000 in damages. The trustee should always be able to sell
trust property in order to meet his or her fiduciary duties. To
repair the earthquake-damaged building, the trustee may need to
sell its other asset. Certainly, sitting on an unsalable asset
is not a good position for a trustee.
MR. DELMAN explained that if a trust only owns a $1 million
promise to pay and the trustee has the fiduciary duty to make a
distribution to a beneficiary in need, the trustee might need to
sell the note.
CHAIR COGHILL commented that he better understands this since he
has been an executor of two different estates.
2:11:55 PM
SENATOR KIEHL expressed concern that this would be a negotiable
instrument that does not need to have any value attached. He
said a person who is less than honorable and is at death's door
could write 1,100 $10,000 promises and proceed to sell those
$10,000 notes without any funds to support the promises.
2:13:19 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said the $10,000 notes would be worth a
fraction of the value to someone who is willing to negotiate on
that debt. He offered his view that this type of opportunity is
available in any law that pertains to debt and he did not see
this as an issue in SB 191.
MR. DELMAN agreed that the value of the note is based on the
person who is making the promise. He said a dishonest person
could also sell his or her own promissory note under current
law. If a person has an estate worth $1 million and the
individual tries to sell a $2 million debt, it would be a case
of buyer beware. The person's ability to pay would determine the
value of the note.
MR. BLATTMACHER said nothing stops a "bad actor" and in any
investment it is buyer beware. He added that while it would not
be common to sell the note outside of an inter-family situation,
it could happen.
CHAIR COGHILL related three benefits: a person gets to decide
how their assets are distributed, the intended beneficiaries
would obtain the real value of the asset, and the IRS does not
tax the gift. He asked if his understanding was correct.
MR. M. BLATTMACHR answered yes.
CHAIR COGHILL asked for an explanation of how tax lawyers will
view this given that the rules may change.
2:17:27 PM
MR. M. BLATTMACHR answered that typically if laws change there
is not a claw back or retroactivity. However, if a person takes
action today and tomorrow's rules are less favorable, it is to
that person's advantage.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if the full value of the asset would flow to
the beneficiaries if the value were to increase.
MR. M. BLATTMACHR answered yes.
2:18:28 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if any laws would protect a senior who got
scammed by a bad actor.
MR. M. BLATTMACHR answered that if the seller made a gross
misrepresentation, that person could potentially be convicted of
fraud. If there was no misrepresentation, he said he hoped the
seller would realize the buyer was unknowing and would not sell
the asset for more than it was worth.
2:19:46 PM
MR. DELMAN reminded members that under the Alaska Gift Trust,
the party selling the instrument is the person who creates the
trust and transfers the written promise. After 180 days lapses,
if the trustee determines a need for cash, the trustee can sell
the instrument. An entire body of trust law guides the trustee.
The person who creates the promise "quite literally" trusts the
trustee, he said. The trustee has a fiduciary duty to the trust
beneficiaries, and the likelihood of a trustee trying to scam a
third party would be less than a random person on the street
trying to sell something to an unsuspecting party.
2:21:27 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether something in the body of trust law
would allow the trustee to be sued if they did something
fraudulent or acted in bad faith.
MR. DELMAN answered absolutely.
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether any advertising will be done to
bring in investment business to the state or if any active word
of mouth efforts will be made.
MR. DELMAN said estate planners throughout the country are very
connected in terms of developing law, but he was not aware of
any campaigns to advertise this innovative law.
2:24:09 PM
MS. O'CONNOR said it is unlikely any direct advertising would
occur since it typically is not done in the industry, but the
Alaska Trust & Estate Professionals were likely to actively
promote it through the existing national network. She
anticipated that the Alaska Gift Trust would gain momentum
because people are eager to find ways to use the federal gift
tax exemption.
CHAIR COGHILL commented that businesses in Alaska would be more
excited than everyone else.
2:25:47 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE related his understanding of the overall effect
of SB 191. Currently, the promise of a gift to a trust allows a
$11.5 million gift tax exemption. If the person waits and the
actual gift is given after January 1, 2026, the exemption would
be reduced to $5 million. But because the $6.5 million is
subject to a 40 percent tax rate, the trust will receive $4
million.
He offered his view that the only potential for abuse is already
covered in the bill. He related a scenario in which someone
would offer to "give the trust 'x' amount someday if the person
pays him or her 'x' amount today." That scenario would be
covered in SB 191 because the Alaska Gift Trust provision is
created for promises without consideration. That scenario would
result in something in return, which is not allowed.
2:27:22 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said his concern was that despite the discussion
about fraud or misrepresentation, this bill, as currently
written, does not require any fraud or misrepresentation to sell
something with no value behind it. That is why the
"notwithstanding language" is required. He said it seems that
there are protections for things that people want to buy and
sell, but only for sophisticated buyers. He wondered if limiting
who could trade in the negotiable promissory notes would provide
some safeguards without opening up an opportunity for abuse.
CHAIR COGHILL said he represented two families as executor for
the estates because the parties trusted him to handle it
appropriately. People use estate and trust companies to have
their estates properly managed. He asked Mr. M. Blattmachr to
address potential mismanagement.
2:30:36 PM
MR. M. BLATTMACHR responded that while nothing is given up
front, the asset has value. He related a scenario in which
during dinner his grandfather promises to give him $5 million
upon his death. However, that is not an enforceable promise.
This Alaska Gift Trust provision in SB 191 changes that such
that the promise of a gift is enforceable and thus has value.
SENATOR KIEHL suggested that a chronic inebriate could be
sobered up and sign a promise, but there would not be any value.
CHAIR COGHILL pointed out that the person must be able to make a
minimum $10,000 deposit to an account in the state.
2:32:41 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE applauded the creativity of delayed gifts to
trusts. He recommended that people read the Alaska Trust &
Estate Professionals' white paper "Alaska Gift Trusts" [dated
February 27, 2020]. He noted that it answered his questions. It
explains the statutory hierarchy when the trust cannot satisfy
its obligations. For example, a person may promise a gift of $2
million in Tupperware stock worth $74 per share, but it is now
worth $7 per share.
2:33:44 PM
CHAIR COGHILL expressed appreciation for the white paper.
2:34:11 PM
CHAIR COGHILL stated that SB 191 will be held in committee.
2:34:29 PM
SENATOR HUGHES complimented the sponsor's staff.
SENATOR MICCICHE reiterated that the white paper explained a
lot. He did not think amendments were necessary, but further
explaining the risks of trust law and the assets included in
trusts could help members feel more comfortable with the current
structure in the bill.
CHAIR COGHILL said the bill has been thoroughly vetted by [the
Alaska Trust & Estate Professionals group]. He commented on the
value of examining what could go wrong for the benefit of
Alaskans and for those who manage trusts, who are subject to
legal requirements. He suggested that the new concept in Section
4, related to Alaska Gift Trusts is something members are still
contemplating to obtain a full understanding.
[SB 191 was held in committee.]
2:37:27 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Coghill adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:37 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 191 Sponsor Statement 2.24.2020.pdf |
SJUD 2/28/2020 1:30:00 PM |
SB 191 |
| SB 191 Sectional Analysis 2.24.2020.pdf |
SJUD 2/28/2020 1:30:00 PM |
SB 191 |
| SB 191 Fiscal Note - Law 2.21.2020.pdf |
SJUD 2/28/2020 1:30:00 PM |
SB 191 |
| SB 191 Letters of Support 2.28.2020.pdf |
SJUD 2/28/2020 1:30:00 PM |
SB 191 |
| SB 191 ATEP White Paper on Alaska Gift Trusts 2.27.2020.pdf |
SJUD 2/28/2020 1:30:00 PM |
SB 191 |