Try 12 focused CFP® Cases case questions on Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning, with explanations, then continue with Securities Prep.
Try 12 focused CFP® Cases case questions on Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning, with explanations, then continue with Securities Prep.
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Exam route | CFP® Cases |
| Topic area | Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning |
| Blueprint weight | 14% |
| Page purpose | Focused case questions before returning to mixed practice |
These cases are original Securities Prep practice items aligned to this topic area. They are designed for self-assessment and are not official exam questions.
Topic: Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning
Maya Chen, age 62, is a widowed Ontario resident. Her adult children, Liam and Priya, are her equal residuary beneficiaries. Maya wants Priya to receive the family cottage if possible, and she does not want the estate trustee to be forced to sell the cottage immediately after her death.
Her will says all debts and taxes are paid by the estate, then the cottage goes to Priya, $200,000 cash goes to Liam, $50,000 goes to charity, and the residue is divided equally. There is no written agreement requiring the children to reimburse the estate for taxes.
For a current death scenario, the planner uses these assumptions:
| Item | Amount / note |
|---|---|
| Chequing and HISA | $30,000, estate asset |
| Non-registered portfolio | $260,000 FMV; $90,000 accrued gain |
| Principal residence | $950,000 FMV; $180,000 mortgage; no taxable gain assumed |
| Cottage | $720,000 FMV; $300,000 ACB; no mortgage |
| RRIF | $410,000; Liam and Priya named direct beneficiaries |
| TFSA | $95,000; Liam and Priya named direct beneficiaries |
| Term life insurance | $300,000; estate is beneficiary |
| Other debts | $45,000 line of credit; $7,000 final bills |
| Funeral and administration reserve | $18,000 funeral; $22,000 legal, probate, and trustee costs |
Tax assumptions: RRIF terminal tax is 42% of the RRIF value, even though proceeds pass directly to the children. Capital gains tax is estimated at 25% of accrued gains on the cottage and non-registered portfolio. Ignore any other credits, refunds, or probate-rate calculations.
Which fact most directly creates a taxable-liability-without-cash problem for Maya’s estate?
Best answer: D
What this tests: Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning
Explanation: The RRIF designation is the clearest mismatch between liability and accessible cash. Maya’s terminal return includes tax on the RRIF, but the proceeds are paid directly to Liam and Priya, leaving the estate trustee without control over that cash unless the beneficiaries contribute.
Estate liquidity analysis distinguishes between assets that create tax and assets the estate trustee can actually use. A direct RRIF beneficiary designation can reduce estate administration exposure, but it does not normally eliminate the deceased’s terminal tax inclusion. In Maya’s case, the RRIF generates a large tax estimate while the RRIF proceeds bypass the estate. That makes the estate dependent on other assets, insurance, asset sales, refinancing, or voluntary beneficiary cooperation. The TFSA also bypasses the estate, but it is not the stated source of terminal tax.
The RRIF creates terminal tax for Maya’s estate while the cash bypasses estate control.
Using the stated assumptions, what is the estimated cash liquidity need before considering available estate assets or insurance proceeds?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning
Explanation: The gross liquidity need is the sum of taxes, debts and expenses, and required cash distributions. Under the stated assumptions, those items total $821,700 before considering whether the estate has enough cash, investments, or insurance to fund them.
Estate liquidity need starts with obligations the estate must fund in cash. Maya’s estimated taxes are $172,200 on the RRIF, $105,000 on the cottage gain, and $22,500 on the non-registered gain, for total taxes of $299,700. Debts and expenses are $180,000 + $45,000 + $7,000 + $18,000 + $22,000 = $272,000. Required cash gifts are $200,000 to Liam and $50,000 to charity, or $250,000. Adding these categories gives $821,700. Available assets are compared separately to determine any shortfall.
This includes terminal taxes, debts, funeral and administration costs, and required cash gifts.
The planner identifies $590,000 of available estate liquidity. If the estimated cash need is $821,700 and Maya wants the cottage retained, what is the main interpretation?
Best answer: C
What this tests: Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning
Explanation: The comparison shows that Maya’s estate is asset-rich but liquidity-constrained. With $821,700 of required cash and only $590,000 of estate-controlled liquidity, the estate still needs about $231,700 from another source if the cottage is to be retained.
After estimating gross obligations, the planner compares them with liquid resources controlled by the estate trustee. Maya’s available estate liquidity includes cash, the non-registered portfolio, and insurance payable to the estate. The RRIF and TFSA are not controlled by the estate because the children are named direct beneficiaries. The remaining shortfall means the estate may need beneficiary contributions, refinancing, asset sales, increased insurance, or revised will instructions. If Priya is to receive and keep the cottage, the liquidity plan must be resolved before death rather than left to the estate trustee.
The estate-controlled liquidity is about $231,700 less than the estimated obligations.
Which planning recommendation best addresses the liquidity risk while respecting Maya’s estate objectives?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning
Explanation: The best recommendation combines implementation and funding. Maya should work with the estate lawyer and tax adviser to revise estate documents and ensure there is a dedicated cash source, such as sufficient estate-payable insurance or enforceable funding provisions, to support her cottage and cash-gift objectives.
A liquidity recommendation should not simply minimize probate or rely on informal family cooperation. Maya’s plan requires cash for tax, debt, expenses, and bequests while also trying to preserve the cottage for Priya. The planner should coordinate with legal and tax advisers to review the will, beneficiary designations, insurance beneficiary, and any equalization or contribution clauses. Possible solutions include maintaining or increasing insurance payable to the estate, reducing or conditioning cash gifts, or documenting how a beneficiary who receives an illiquid asset contributes to related costs. The key is to align the documents with a realistic funding source.
This addresses both the legal instructions and the cash source needed to implement them.
Topic: Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning
Elaine Moore, 73, lives in Ontario. She is widowed, rents her home, and has two adult children: Maya and Colin. Maya is named estate trustee. Elaine has a serious illness and wants to confirm that taxes and costs can be paid without forcing a sale or mortgage of the family cottage, which her will gifts to Colin. The residue of the estate is to be divided equally between the children, and both children have limited available cash.
Assume for this case that 50% of capital gains are taxable and that taxable income arising at death is taxed at 45%. Ignore probate and estate administration tax unless specifically noted.
| Item | Amount | Current recipient or tax note |
|---|---|---|
| Cash and GICs | $65,000 | Estate |
| Non-registered portfolio | $190,000 | ACB $150,000; estate residue |
| Muskoka cottage | $850,000 | ACB $250,000; gift to Colin; not principal residence |
| RRIF | $620,000 | Maya and Colin named directly, 50/50 |
| TFSA | $120,000 | Maya and Colin named directly, 50/50 |
| Term life insurance | $400,000 | Maya and Colin named directly, 50/50 |
| Permanent life insurance | $150,000 | Estate beneficiary |
The cottage has a $70,000 secured debt. Estimated final expenses and legal/accounting costs are $40,000. Elaine asks whether the current beneficiary designations “avoid tax” and whether the estate would have enough cash to settle liabilities.
What is the main estate liquidity problem created by Elaine’s current plan?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning
Explanation: Elaine’s estate must fund tax and costs even though several major proceeds are payable outside the estate. The RRIF is taxable on her terminal return, and the cottage and portfolio are deemed disposed of at fair market value, but the RRIF and term insurance do not automatically provide estate cash.
The core issue is estate liquidity, not whether assets have value. At death, Elaine is deemed to dispose of capital property, creating taxable capital gains on the cottage and portfolio. Her RRIF is also included in income on her terminal return because there is no spouse or other qualifying rollover recipient. Direct beneficiary designations may transfer the RRIF, TFSA, and term insurance outside the estate, so those proceeds may not be available to the estate trustee to pay taxes, debts, or costs. The permanent life policy payable to the estate helps, but the largest direct proceeds are outside estate control. The key planning tension is matching tax liabilities with estate-controlled liquid assets.
The estate faces tax from the RRIF and deemed dispositions while the RRIF and term insurance proceeds are directed outside the estate.
Using the assumptions provided and ignoring probate, what is the approximate estate liquidity shortfall before any cottage sale or refinancing?
Best answer: D
What this tests: Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning
Explanation: The estate’s estimated liabilities exceed the liquid resources controlled by the estate trustee. The direct term insurance and RRIF proceeds are not counted as estate liquidity because they are payable to Maya and Colin directly under the current designations.
The calculation should compare estate-controlled liquidity with liabilities payable by the estate. The RRIF tax is $620,000 × 45% = $279,000. The cottage gain is $600,000, so taxable capital gain is $300,000 and tax is $135,000. The portfolio gain is $40,000, so taxable capital gain is $20,000 and tax is $9,000. Total tax is $423,000. Adding the $70,000 cottage debt and $40,000 costs gives a total cash need of $533,000. Estate-controlled liquid resources are $65,000 cash/GICs, $190,000 portfolio value, and $150,000 insurance payable to the estate, or $405,000. The shortfall is therefore about $128,000.
Total tax, debt, and costs are about $533,000, while estate-controlled liquid assets are about $405,000.
Assume Elaine is willing to have some insurance paid to the estate if the children remain economically equal. Which recommendation best targets the liquidity gap?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning
Explanation: Redirecting enough existing term insurance to the estate is the most targeted way to fund the projected shortfall. It provides liquidity without selling the cottage and without increasing Elaine’s taxable income at death, provided the will and beneficiary designations are coordinated.
A liquidity recommendation should solve the cash-flow problem with the least disruption to Elaine’s objectives. Life insurance proceeds are generally received tax-free, and if payable to the estate they can be used by the estate trustee to pay taxes, debts, and administration costs. Because Elaine already has $400,000 of term coverage payable directly to the children, changing enough of that beneficiary designation to the estate can address the estimated shortfall. The planner should also ensure the will’s equalization language reflects the revised beneficiary structure so neither child is unintentionally favoured. Moving all registered assets into the estate can also create cash, but it is less targeted and may add estate administration complications.
Estate-payable insurance can provide tax-free liquidity targeted to the projected shortfall while preserving the cottage plan.
If Elaine makes no changes and the estate lacks cash when terminal tax is due, which statement best describes the RRIF and direct insurance treatment?
Best answer: A
What this tests: Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning
Explanation: A direct RRIF designation does not eliminate the tax caused by the RRIF at death. The estate is responsible for the terminal return, but if the estate cannot pay, RRIF recipients can face recovery for tax attributable to the registered-plan proceeds.
Registered-plan proceeds and life insurance proceeds have different estate-liquidity effects. Elaine’s RRIF is included in income on her terminal return because the beneficiaries are independent adult children and no qualifying rollover applies. The children may receive the RRIF proceeds directly, but that does not make the RRIF tax-free. If the estate cannot pay the tax attributable to the RRIF, the tax authority may pursue the RRIF recipients within the applicable recovery rules. By contrast, life insurance proceeds paid directly to named beneficiaries are generally tax-free and outside the estate, so they are not automatically available to settle estate debts. This distinction is central to explaining why direct designations can reduce probate exposure but worsen liquidity.
The RRIF is taxable to Elaine’s terminal return, and direct RRIF recipients can be exposed if the estate cannot pay the related tax.
Topic: Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning
Leila Haddad, 56, is a technology consultant meeting a CFP professional in Ottawa. She separated from Aaron in 2021, signed a separation agreement in Gatineau, and has never obtained a divorce judgment. She has two adult daughters from that marriage and has lived with Marc for four years. Leila wants Marc to be able to remain in her Ottawa condo if she dies and wants her daughters to receive most of her estate.
Leila’s residence facts are mixed. She owns and sleeps most nights in an Ottawa condo, but she spends three nights a week in Gatineau caring for her mother. Her driver’s licence and health card are still Quebec-issued, and her last tax return used a Quebec address. She is unsure where she will be living permanently next year.
Estate and incapacity file notes
| Item | Current information |
|---|---|
| 2017 will | Signed in Ontario; names Aaron executor and residue beneficiary; daughters are contingent beneficiaries |
| 2017 powers of attorney | Ontario continuing POA for property and POA for personal care; Aaron named as attorney |
| 2021 separation agreement | Signed in Quebec; Leila says Aaron waived estate rights, but no copy is available |
| 2023 handwritten note | In French; says Marc should handle everything; not witnessed |
| Registered plans | RRSP beneficiary shows “Aaron — spouse”; TFSA has no named successor holder or beneficiary |
| Insurance | Group life beneficiary is Marc |
Leila asks whether Marc, as her common-law partner, will automatically inherit and whether Aaron is already “out of the picture.” She also asks whether the planner can summarize what the current documents mean before she pays for legal advice. The planner recognizes that Ontario and Quebec may differ on terminology, document formalities, common-law or de facto partner treatment, separation and divorce effects, family-property rights, and estate administration.
Before giving Leila an answer about Marc’s or Aaron’s estate rights, which missing fact is the most important next information need?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning
Explanation: The first threshold issue is which province’s law may govern the estate and related documents. Leila has mixed Ontario and Quebec facts, and the legal treatment of partners, separated spouses, incapacity documents, and estate administration can vary by province.
When estate advice depends on legal status, document validity, or family-property consequences, the planner should identify and state the relevant provincial or territorial assumptions before advice is given. Leila’s facts are not settled: she has Ontario documents, a Quebec separation agreement, mixed residence indicators, and assets connected to both provinces. Without confirming legal residence or domicile and the relevant situs of assets, a planner risks giving a conclusion that is correct in one jurisdiction but wrong or incomplete in another. The planner can identify the issue and recommend legal review, but should not present a definitive estate-law answer until the governing jurisdiction is verified.
The governing province is central because spousal status, separation effects, and document interpretation may differ between Ontario and Quebec.
Leila asks whether Marc will automatically inherit the Ottawa condo if she dies before signing new documents. What is the best response?
Best answer: D
What this tests: Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning
Explanation: The planner should not give a definitive inheritance answer without stating the jurisdictional uncertainty. Marc’s position could depend on Ontario and Quebec legal differences, Leila’s domicile, condo ownership, and the interaction of the will, separation agreement, and possible dependant-support rules.
A planner can explain that automatic inheritance rights for an unmarried partner are not uniform across Canada and may differ from family-property or support rights. In Leila’s case, the condo is in Ontario, her residence indicators are mixed, she has an Ontario will naming Aaron, and she has a Quebec separation agreement that has not been reviewed. These facts make a specific legal conclusion inappropriate until the governing law and documents are verified. The planner’s role is to flag the planning risk, state assumptions clearly, and refer Leila to an estate lawyer licensed in the relevant jurisdiction or jurisdictions. The key takeaway is that “common-law” is not a single national estate-law status.
Marc’s rights depend on provincial law, ownership, beneficiary designations, and Leila’s current documents.
Which verification step should the planner complete before relying on Leila’s current will and incapacity documents in the financial plan?
Best answer: A
What this tests: Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning
Explanation: The planner must verify the actual documents, not rely on labels or client recollection. Because Leila’s estate and incapacity documents connect to Ontario and Quebec, their form, wording, execution, and practical acceptance should be reviewed before they are used as planning assumptions.
Verification is especially important where provincial legal differences may affect a document’s validity, interpretation, or use by financial institutions. Leila’s Ontario will and powers of attorney, Quebec separation agreement, and unwitnessed handwritten note raise different legal and practical questions. The planner should obtain complete signed copies, identify where and when each document was executed, note which province or provinces may govern, and recommend review by qualified legal counsel. The planner may also confirm institutional requirements for acting under a power of attorney, but should not decide validity personally. The planning file should separate verified facts from client statements and assumptions.
Copies, execution details, and relevant provincial review are needed before incorporating the documents into advice.
The planner is considering beneficiary-change recommendations. What should be resolved first before advising Leila to remove Aaron or name Marc on additional assets?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning
Explanation: The most important sequencing issue is to verify Aaron’s remaining rights before changing designations or making estate recommendations. The separation agreement, lack of divorce, beneficiary wording, and applicable provincial law could materially affect what advice is appropriate.
Beneficiary changes can have legal, tax, family, and practical consequences, especially where a spouse or former spouse is involved. Leila’s RRSP still lists “Aaron — spouse,” her will names Aaron, and she says a Quebec separation agreement waived estate rights, but the planner has not seen the agreement. Because separation and divorce effects are not uniform across provinces and may also depend on contract wording, the planner should not treat Aaron as legally irrelevant. The prudent planning sequence is to gather and review the documents, state the jurisdictional assumptions, obtain legal input, and then coordinate beneficiary designations with Leila’s updated intentions. The closest trap is acting quickly on beneficiary changes before verifying the legal foundation.
Beneficiary and estate changes should not proceed until Aaron’s status under the agreement and applicable provincial law is verified.
Use the CFP® Cases Practice Test page for the full Securities Prep route, mixed-case practice, timed mock exams, explanations, and web/mobile app access.
Use the full Securities Prep practice page above for the latest review links and practice route.