Podcast Episode 56: Smorgasbord | A Little Something for Everyone

A lot of quick hitters in this week’s episode. Consider it a medley of flavours from the world of personal finance. How important is it to be able to support a family financially for men vs women? You might be surprised at what the research shows. Are SPACs still a thing? You probably won’t be surprised by what the research shows. Has Josh’s opinion evolved as it pertains to Elon Musk? No. But maybe. But no.

Episode Transcript

BARENAKED MONEY PODCAST: EPISODE 56

Smorgasbord| A Little Something for Everyone

Announcer:

You’re about to get lucky with the Barenaked Money podcast, the show that gives you the naked truth about personal finance with your hosts, Josh Sheluk and Colin White, portfolio managers with WLWP Wealth Planners, iA Private Wealth.

Colin White:

Welcome everybody to the next edition of Barenaked Money, where you’re going to get the bare naked truth about a smorgasbord of things. Josh and I went back and forth and didn’t really have a huge, compelling topic, but we had a whole bunch of quick hitters. So I think that this is going to be a bit… A smorgasbord is a good word. Don’t you think, Josh?

Josh Sheluk:

Yeah, medley, smorgasbord. We’re in the dog days of summer, so there’s less and less of that big ticket stuff being reported right now.

Colin White:

Yeah. Medley makes it seem like it’s all going to flow together like it’s supposed to be together, but that may not be the whole case. But anyway, let’s start off with something controversial, Josh. The role of men and women in the financial wellbeing of a family. And I’m going to quote a highly respected source. That’s not true. It’s a source. I don’t even know it’s highly respected. But it has an interesting conclusion.

So the premise of the question in the survey postulated, “How important is being able to support a family financially to a man or to a woman?” And they asked men and women and said to them each, “How important is this?” It was interesting that men and women agreed or largely agreed on one aspect, that 71% or 72% of both groups felt it was important for a man to be able to financially support a family, but only 25% of men thought it to be important. And the shocking number that came out of this widely respected study, I said sarcastically because I don’t know, was only 39% of women felt it it important to be able to financially support a family. So I thought that that was a little interesting and disappointing as a father of a daughter, who I hoped I had raised to be more independent than this. But what say you, Josh? Do you think that this has any validity or any usefulness in the world?

Josh Sheluk:

Well, first of all, I think it’s important to kind of recognize that probably as much progress as we’ve made with the gender norms, we’re still not fully at a state of equality. But I guess I look at this from our business perspective. And we all work with a large number of different households. And I think in a lot of situations there’s a split between what the responsibilities are for the husband and the wife. Sometimes that relates to finances. And I would say, just anecdotally, I actually haven’t calculated the numbers or anything, but I would say probably more often than not the husband is the more financial one. But it’s, I think, a lot more evenly split than I would’ve thought coming into this business because that’s not the vast majority by any stretch, I would say. Do you agree?

Colin White:

No, absolutely. But also you raised an interesting point, and this is a bit of a bunny hole we go down having been married for over 30 years. The dividing up of responsibilities, not both being in the same kitchen at the same time is actually one of the keys to a long and healthy relationship. Because again, if there’s two people involved in making day-to-day decisions, then that can become cumbersome over time. So the dividing of responsibilities is an important one. But also to Josh’s point, I think we have seen this change. It’s more common to see the woman of a partnership contributing more financially to the relationship. But it’s interesting to think that some of those older norms are still persisting.

Josh Sheluk:

Yeah. I think if you asked this question differently and said not financially support but more so just in generally support a family, I think it would be very, very important for both the men and women, for them to think that the woman needs to be there to support the family more so. So I think, again, coming back to the norms that we have in mind, I think that is something that has persisted as well.

Colin White:

Yeah. And I know we wouldn’t be able to keep this aspect of our personalities out of this podcast because we can’t look at any data without critically evaluating it and postulating a different way of asking a question and surmising as to what the outcome might be because none of this is one dimensional and it’s an interesting thought. The other thing it reminded me of that’s important, it’s regardless of what everybody thinks they’re contributing, either partner should be prepared to take over the other’s role because it’s oftentimes one person is left on their own for whatever reason to deal with the financial situations. And I make it a very big priority and a demand many times that both the husband and wife are present for conversations, at least at 30,000 feet. If one member of the household wants to dive deep into inverted yield curves, not both partners need to be there for that, but both partners should be there to have a grand overview of what’s going on and to have input in priorities. So that’s what this study brought to mind for me.

Josh Sheluk:

Yeah. Yeah. Having been married for more than 30 days now, Colin, I’m going to put some notes down on your advice there.

Colin White:

Oh, you should. You got two choices. You can learn it the hard way or you could just…

Josh Sheluk:

I just had a meeting with a client and they told me that till death through us part actually means that I’m basically signing over every decision to Heather for the rest of my life. So hey, we’ll see.

Colin White:

That is a strategy. That can work.

Josh Sheluk:

Yeah. All right. So moving on here. So this headline, I said to you, “Oh, SPACs are dead. There’s a headline out there.” You said, “SPACs are dead?” I said, “Oh no, wait. I’m wrong. The headline is actually SPACs Go Kaput.” So not quite dead, just kaput.

Colin White:

And then just assuming that not everybody listening to this episode has listened to every other episode, maybe you should take 10 seconds and explain what a SPAC is before we talk about their demise.

Josh Sheluk:

Yeah. So I think the first time we talked about this was probably two years ago. And we were making fun of it at the time because the idea behind a SPAC is basically write somebody a check. They say, at some point in the future, they’re going to buy something for you and call it a business. And that’s really it. People might think I’m being a little bit hung and cheap, but that’s exactly what a SPAC is.

So when everybody was making really good money and the market was flying high and people were super optimistic on things, you had these companies popping up all over the place, hundreds of them over the course of probably about an 18-month period of time. And when things became a little bit more challenging, guess what happened with most of these SPACs? They went down in price. Companies did go kaput actually in a lot of situations. The deals weren’t able to be found. So the article here said investors that bought a SPAC, they might be getting their money back at some point because the SPAC itself hasn’t been able to find that deal, that business to purchase. But by the way, you’re not getting all your money back. You’re getting a discount because of the fees and charges and whatever else that was incurred over that period of time.

Colin White:

Yeah. I think the one saving grace to them was that I think they’re… SPAC stands for special purpose acquisition corporation or something along those lines. And there was a timeline put on them because this was actually a documented thing. But it was a two years I believe they had from the time of raising capital that they had to deploy it in something. It didn’t have to be defined. Many times when you raise capital, you have to define the purpose. These, you didn’t have to define the purpose, but you were given two years, which I think was kind of the saving grace of this because it doesn’t get to sit there for 10 years and all get eaten up by fees. You should get something back after two years. But I mean when the Shaq SPAC fails, I mean what chance do other SPACs have?

Josh Sheluk:

Well, Shaq’s getting out of SPACs. And I heard that Tom Brady and Matt Damon are getting out crypto.

Colin White:

Oh yes.

Josh Sheluk:

The world is at an end when that happens.

Colin White:

Yes, Matt Damon. The fortune favors the brave, but doesn’t favor all of them.

Josh Sheluk:

That’s right. So some of the brave get their heads chopped up first in line.

Colin White:

There’s a lot of very [inaudible 00:08:45] very determined people, bodies laying alongside the trail leading to the top of Mount Everest. So just, the world has a lot of heroes. Maybe you don’t need to be one.

So you want to move on to something else? And we’ve had a brief conversation about this before we came to record, but not that much that this should go stale. There are now headlines about people who are coming out of retirement going back to work because of inflation. And that’s not normally a happy thing, but it is a reminder of the best laid plans of mice and men are just about equal. And even though you’ve got a good retirement plan, sometimes you can do everything right and still not get the outcome you’re expecting. But the fact that some people are feeling financially compelled to go back to work, it’s an unfortunate reality right now.

I haven’t seen it happen necessarily firsthand, but anecdotally I have noticed stories being told of people like this. But it’s important to recognize when you’re putting together your financial plan. It’s based on projections. And those projections sometimes get surprised. Well, a lot of people a year ago or two years ago were saying that, “Yeah, we’re going to see a spike of inflation up to 8% or 9%.” That wasn’t a commonly held thing. And if your retirement plan did not have enough SLAC in it, then yeah, you probably are facing some hard choices right now. And the hard choice probably is about maintaining lifestyle or whether you decide to go back to work to continue to find your existing lifestyle. And those are never comfortable choices at that point in life. I don’t know. Josh, have you seen any evidence of people having these conversations or thinking like this?

Josh Sheluk:

Not a lot personally, but I think some of the data is starting to show that. But I go back to about a year ago and you had seen retirements spike because of COVID, maybe people were forced into retirement a little bit early, maybe they started getting these third checks and they thought, “Hey, I’m just going to ride this to the bank for a little while. I can take a ‘early retirement’ instead of working for the next six months.” So maybe now we’re just seeing that trend reverse itself back to sort that normal trend line. And this is not really that surprising. Hard to say though.

Colin White:

Yeah. And it really highlights the danger of making a long-term decision based on a short-term situation; for people who made a decision because of the pandemic to retire while the pandemic was a short-term situation, was something that we were going to move through. And to make a long-term decision based on a short-term situation, there’s a weakness to that there. And maybe you’re absolutely right. This is the comeuppance of that. But by the same token, maybe there’s some people choosing to go back to work because of the spike of inflation that may or may not persist. So maybe, again, making a longer term decisions based on short-term situation. May not be the most efficient or effective way to do it.

Josh Sheluk:

Yeah. People have been asking me a lot about whether inflation’s going to persist or not. And inflation for sure will persist. So I believe that strongly. But at a level of 8% or wherever it’s today, I strongly feel that probably not. And my rationale there is we’ve had about a 30-year track record of central banks being very capable of controlling inflation. Now, has that changed? I don’t think so. I think they still have the same tools. I think they still have the same ability to set expectations with the populace. So I think we’ll trend back towards a lower level. When is a great question. We don’t know that for sure, but certainly it’s thrown a bit of a wrench into people’s plans right now.

Colin White:

Well, and it also comes back to that basket of goods and services that are used to establish inflation and what your basket of goods and services looks like it retirement. So it’s not a universal thing. Again, increasing university tuition is unlikely to affect the lifestyle of a retired person unless they are super keen on paying for education for their grandkids. There’s a good chance they could live their life and have a lifestyle without seeing the effect of inflation and certain kinds of things. But again, it’s a matter of understanding that when you have a plan and you execute a plan perfectly, you still may not get an outcome you’re looking for because the world will throw curve balls from time to time and they’re material. And if you think you can organize yourself in such a way that none of this will ever shut you in any way, you’re being optimistic. You got to roll with it a little bit.

Josh Sheluk:

Yeah. You mentioned, Colin, the idea of having some SLAC. Do you think there’s a right amount of SLAC to having a plan? How do you know what the right amount is?

Colin White:

Well, some of it’s a personal choice. Sorry. It’s all a personal choice. So there are people who are comfortable living on the edge and they’re also comfortable with, “If I need to change my lifestyle, I’ll just change it.” So for that kind of attitude, you may not need very much SLAC. Live on the edge knowing that you may need to change your lifestyle if financial situation changes.

If you want to establish an absolute minimum level you’re unwilling to compromise, then, yeah, you need to leave more SLAC in your system. And I don’t think there’s a way to put a number to that per se, but just understanding of yourself what your mentality is like and how painful you would find it if you had to downsize to reduce your cost of rent, or whether you had to give up golfing, or whether you had to give up travel, or all the things that maybe you were counting on retirement, how painful would it be for you to… And then make a judgment call. But I don’t think there’s a number you can put to it. But I do think it’s a conversation that you need to have with yourself to understand, “Yeah, this is the bare minimum I’m willing to settle for.” Okay. You need to have much more SLAC in your system to be comfortable.

Josh Sheluk:

So maybe the biggest news of the week, Colin, is that Elon Musk is going to buy a soccer team. Does he have money left after he bought Twitter? I’m not sure.

Colin White:

Well, I’m just so proud that I didn’t know this. I am so proud of me that I actually missed this titillating piece of news. No, I was not aware, and I assume that’s not the Halifax Wanderers he’s buying. And he’s got a lot of money left over after buying Twitter, seeing as how he didn’t buy Twitter.

Josh Sheluk:

Not yet.

Colin White:

[inaudible 00:15:01]. But I think we’re going to continue to talk about that for a while. But somebody really needs to get between him and his keyboard. He needs to have a sober second thought in the room before he starts pontificating. He gets way more column inches than I would suggest that it’s probably worthy. But again, I’m going to go back to being very proud of myself that I didn’t know this.

Josh Sheluk:

I think if anybody at this point is listening to him for anything outside of entertainment, you’re doing something wrong. But it’s kind of weird. I’m kind of liking Elon Musk more as time goes on because he just becomes more and more of a troll and it becomes more and more absurd. And it’s kind of past my point of peak hatred for him. And now I’m like, “Oh, this guy’s actually kind of funny sometimes.”

Colin White:

Well, Josh, you make an excellent point as you often do. Our fear is when people listen to Elon Musks of the world, that they’re taking it as some kind of information they can use to make decisions with. If you’re just looking at him for entertainment, have at it. Read all his stuff. If all, this is entertainment. If you read something he says, and you come into my office talking about a plan that was inspired by Elon Musk, I will mock [inaudible 00:16:11] that that’s going to happen. But if you’re just listening to him for a fun story, have at it. Absolutely. That’s a great use of that information.

Josh Sheluk:

How does that plan start, a plan inspired by Elon Musk? How does that even start?

Colin White:

Oh, dude, you’re underestimating the industrious of many people out there when it comes to consuming information. All right. So Josh, why don’t you make a comment on oil prices and gas prices, as somebody who spends a lot of money on gas commuting?

Josh Sheluk:

Not as much as I used to now that I move closer to the office, but-

Colin White:

True.

Josh Sheluk:

Yeah. I mean, look. I think we all… Basically ask any Canadian. They can tell you what the price of gas is give or take, and they can tell you how it’s trended over the last couple weeks and couple months. And so, yeah, we’ve seen it come down. And so three months ago, six months ago, when we saw gas prices and oil prices specifically spiking aggressively, we said, “Hey, you probably shouldn’t expect that this is going to go on forever.” Just like you were talking about earlier in the podcast, these are short-term trends. And certainly with commodities, we see them be a lot shorter term than a lot of other trends that are out there. And they are very cyclical. So they tend to go up, they tend to come down, they tend to go back up, they tend to come back down.

And so right now we’re seeing them come back down a little bit after they spiked so aggressively earlier this year. Is it surprising? Probably not. We didn’t really know exactly where they were going. We thought that they were probably a little bit high in the longer term, but it’s been welcomed, I think, from everybody that’s dealing with inflationary pressures right now in their month-to-month expenses to see the gas prices come down a little bit. It’s interesting because people, I think, equate gas prices to inflation. And I think there’s been studies that have been done that show the price of gas, the changes in the price of gas are highly correlated with people’s views on inflation. And that makes sense because this is basically broadcast to you every day, every turn you make. Every turn you make has a gas station on it. And they’re all showing you what the price of gas is. So even if you haven’t filled up your tank in a week, you still know what is happening with the price of gas. So that inflationary aspect of your spending is so front and center all the time.

Colin White:

Well, yeah, I also think it’s an important time to remember that in June when oil prices were over $120 a barrel, you could see commentators talking about $200 barrel oil, $250 barrel oil because… Oh my, it’s been going up there for… It goes up forever. So that was in the zeitgeist. Although, those kind of conversations happen when it’s at that level. And here we are sitting in August and it’s 90 bucks. So again, these trends reverse and you don’t always know when and why. But again, I’ve said it a number of times. This is the first time in my memory I can remember retaining the fact that gas prices actually fell going into the long weekend in August, because that tends to be a peak time of use. That’s one of the biggest driving weekends of the year in North America.

And the fact that gas prices were dropping around that time means it overcame all that surge in use in theory because the people were traveling more. That was overcome and gas prices still fell. So this is one of those things that’s counterintuitive to the narrative that was being built as recently as June. And this is one of those things that complicates everything because it feeds into everything else. Your fuel prices are going to feed into your food prices over time. Right? So there’s all kinds of knock on effects from this. So anybody that thinks they can look at one or two data points and say, “Yep, this is what’s going on and is going to keep going on forever,” is underestimating how complicated the game is.

Josh Sheluk:

Yeah. Now, that leads into a question that I know you’ll have a perfect answer to, Colin. So we’ve seen markets come up for the last eight weeks or so. It was a challenging start to the year, but pretty good the last eight weeks or so. Have markets bottomed? I’m sure you can tell us.

Colin White:

I am so disappointed you got to the punch on this one and asked me first because I really wanted to ask you this question, Josh. I mean, the short answer is, and this doesn’t play well for podcast, we don’t know. There are reasons to be optimistic right now, but there are also still risks. And I guess the most vivid risk or the most vivid thing I can point out to people that resonates is, I don’t know what is in Vladimir Putin’s head. If he invades another country over the weekend or there’s some other significant geopolitical event, then all bets are off.

Now, earlier in this conversation, we’re talking with some of the deflationary forces that are out there. So there’s a case to be made for some optimism on that front. But then the interplay of all the various factors make, again, the immediate future unknowable. It’s been a nice run. It’s been a valid run. It’s probably tied to the fact that things were not as bad as people were projecting in June. And there has been an easing in a whole bunch of things that people thought were going in one direction forever. But no, it’s really hard to say at this point. There’s reasons to be optimistic, but there’s also reasons to be careful. Josh, you have a better answer. You must have a better answer. You read way more stuff than I do. So you must… All the smart stuff you read, there must be a better answer.

Josh Sheluk:

You know what? I think the big thing that has kind of contributed to the markets rallying here a little bit has been the sort of cresting in the inflation numbers. So we are super worried about this and rightfully so. It’s a big deal. But we’ve been thinking that this is going to happen for many months now. And finally we’re starting to see some of the inflation numbers crest a little bit and come back down, which is a good thing and is giving people a little bit more optimism that, hey, maybe the world’s not coming to an end.

As our analyst, Dave, said a couple weeks ago, and he often comes up with great philosophical quotes, he said, “It’s usually, when things look bad, they’re usually not as bad as they look. And when things look really good, they’re usually not as good as they really look.” So you just always try to encourage people, stay on a little bit more of an even keel. Don’t get too high when things are good. Don’t get too low when things are bad. Even though that your emotion and every instinct in your body is driving you to be that way, it’s probably not the right response. And certainly your emotion’s not helping you make any better decisions. That’s for sure. So have we seen the bottom? Seems like it in the short term, but as you said, there’s a lot of uncertainty out there still, as there always is. So we never really know.

Colin White:

All right. So there’s the better answer. Thanks. I feel validated.

Josh Sheluk:

The better answer is if you have a decently long time horizon, we are very confident that you’re going to be better off two years, five years, 10 years from now than you are today if you have that type of timeframe.

Colin White:

Yep.

Josh Sheluk:

And the right answer for if you don’t have that type of timeframe is you probably shouldn’t care about the markets at all, whether they’re bottomed or at a peak or anything like that, you shouldn’t be in them at all.

Colin White:

And the other thing I can state with authority is this is a better time to invest money than January was. But that’s back we’re looking and not all that helpful. So Josh, how about we end with a little bit of a history lesson that builds forward into a new regulation from the Canadian revenue agency. Are you ready for a story?

Josh Sheluk:

I’m always ready for a story, Colin.

Colin White:

So in 1936, the Duke of Westminster had structured his affairs to allow for a deduction of an amount paid to his gardener that would otherwise not be deductible. The British tax authorities did not like this. So it went to court. So the court found that it was acceptable for a taxpayer to organize their affairs in such a way as to minimize their tax and they cannot be compelled to pay increased tax. So the decision gave birth to what’s known today as the Duke of Westminster principle and is referenced in hundreds of tax court cases here in Canada. See how educational that was?

Josh Sheluk:

Compelling. Very compelling. That duke, he’s gone down in history in the tax law. Very, very well known.

Colin White:

Wait for the compelling twist. So obviously tax people don’t like this. So in Canada, we had something that came in to limit the Duke of Westminster principle. It was called the General Anti-avoidance Rule. It was introduced in 1988. And broadly, it was meant to catch everybody who was loophole hunting. So basically, if you were going to great lengths to try to do something in a really complicated way for the sole purpose of paying less tax, the General Anti-avoidance Rule would apply. And that was launched in 1988. So that’s when somebody comes to me with a really aggressive tax planning strategy. And I’ve heard lots. Even if there’s not a specific rule against it, that doesn’t mean they will not apply GAAR, but that was 1988. This is 2022. Guess what happened to the poor CRA? They went to court and they lost a couple of court cases over their use of GAAR. The courts found that the General Anti-avoidance Rules were not well enough written to cover off all of the circumstances that CRA felt were appropriate. So they lost the court case. Josh, what do you think happened next?

Josh Sheluk:

Well, just so I’m really clear what these GAAR rules mean, Colin, it means that I can do everything exactly by the letter of the law, avoid tax in a totally legal way, and the Revenue Canada, the CRA still puts the hammer down and I still owe them tax?

Colin White:

Yes. It’s not the legal way. I will read this to you because you’ve asked and I think people would care. So GAAR goes something like this. The government introduces a new tax law to shut down a particular tax planning idea. You can go back and look at income trust, Kiddie tax. There’s lots of introductions of new tax rules to shut down a certain behavior that they find to be distasteful. Two, tax professionals find a way to get around the new law with a new idea. Three, the government adds another rule to shut down the new idea. Four, only to have tax professionals devise a way to get around that new law. Rinse and repeat.

So what they’re trying to do is get away from chasing the rabbit. So there have been many examples where GAAR has been applied. And you can see what the targets are going to be because, again, there’s everything from the fine art scam that was run where you could make $1,000 donation to a charity, they would use it to buy fine art that would appraise at $5,000, therefore give you a tax receipt for $5,000, saving you more than $1,000 in tax so you made money on it. That ran for a few years. CRA eventually went back and shut all that down. So there’s some pretty obvious examples of where this applies.

To answer your question directly, yes, you can do everything by the letter of the law and CRA can still come back and say, “No, we’re disallowing it.” That absolutely is true. So you have to make sure that… And this is why we talked about tax planning in terms of how aggressive it’s being. Well, there’s a line. If you cross the line, you may immediately run into hot water, or you may put yourself on a list of people who are going to regret having crossed that line at some point. The CRA can go back quite a number of years. And if they consider it to be fraud, they can go back even further. So you have to be careful. But as of tomorrow, 2022, they have expanded the power of the General Anti-avoidance Rule to overcome what they encountered in tax court.

So let me summarize for you. If you think you’ve outsmarted the tax system and you followed all of the laws and you think you were in the clear and think you got away with it, even if you went to court in one, CRA has the power to change the rule and come back after you if they really want. So be super, super careful in your tax planning. Being overly aggressive can seem like fun, but when you’re arguing with the people who make the rules and have the ability to change the rules, if they lose in court, you’re dealing with somebody who eventually is going to win. And I really don’t think you should pick a long-term fight with them. And you can go look this up for those who are super, super interested in it because it is brand new, breaking tax rule changes.

Josh Sheluk:

And this is why we’ve set up our offshore corporation in Panama.

Colin White:

Ah, ha ha ha. Are you so funny, Josh. You’re so funny. Anyway, I do think that’s important because it does reinforce the idea that if you think you’re putting one over on CRA they… No, it’s not going to last long term. So please don’t.

Josh Sheluk:

Yeah. Can’t fight the man.

Colin White:

Well, you young folks try, but then you get tired after a while and you turn into me.

Josh Sheluk:

Can’t wait for that to happen.

Colin White:

Yeah, don’t rush.

Josh Sheluk:

Thanks, everyone. We appreciate your listening and hope everybody has a great rest of the summer. We’ll talk to you soon.

Colin White:

Sharon…

Announcer:

This information has been prepared by White LeBlanc Wealth Planners, who is a portfolio manager for iA Private Wealth. Opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the portfolio manager only and do not necessarily reflect those of iA Private Wealth, Inc. iA Private Wealth, Inc. is a member of the Canadian investor protection fund and the investment industry regulatory organization of Canada. iA Private Wealth is a trademark and business name under which iA Private Wealth, Inc. operates.

[inaudible 00:30:24].

Colin White:

We’ve noticed something. It seems there are a lot of people who would rather try to figure out their lives with an online calculator than air your finances to a human. Stop doing that. You need to talk to someone who can help direct you, tell you where to start with what you’ve got to make the biggest impact on your future. You can’t figure that out at doihaveenoughcash.com, but you can figure it out by chatting with us. Call us. It’ll be okay. You’ll see.

Announcer:

The content of this presentation, including facts, views, opinions, recommendations, descriptions of, or references to products or securities is not to be used or construed as investment advice. Although we endeavor to ensure its accuracy and completeness, we assume no responsibility for any reliance upon it. This should not be construed to be legal or tax advice, as every client situation is different.

This podcast has been prepared for information purposes only. The tax information provided in this podcast is general in nature and each client should consult with their own tax advisor, accountant, and lawyer before pursuing any strategy described herein as each client’s individual circumstances are unique. We’ve endeavored to ensure the accuracy of the information provided at the time that it was written. However, should the information in this podcast be incorrect or incomplete or should the law or its interpretation change after the date of this document, the advice provided may be incorrect or inappropriate. There should be no expectation that the information will be updated, supplemented, or revised, whether as a result of new information, changing circumstances, future events, or otherwise. We are not responsible for errors contained in this podcast or to anyone who relies on the information contained in this podcast. Please consult your own legal and tax advisor.