Many of our clients who are married have joint revocable trusts that include instructions for the possible division of the trust upon the first spouse’s death. The purpose of the division of the trust into two separate trusts upon the first spouse’s death is primarily estate tax reduction. Sometimes these types of trusts are called “A-B trusts,” “2 trusts,” “credit shelter trusts,” and “exemption trusts.” More recent clients may have trusts known as “disclaimer A-B” or “disclaimer 2 trust” and these trusts would also fit within the topic of this article.
Most planners feel that we currently have a disappearing opportunity to engage in lifetime gifting in excess of $1 Million. In 2011, the lifetime Gift Tax exclusion amount for each person was increased to $5 Million. For 2012, this amount was adjusted for inflation and is now $5,120,000. This amount will change back to $1 Million in 2013 unless Congress enacts a change prior to December 31 of this year.
One strategy for utilizing this higher gift tax exemption that people have been receptive to is to utilize the “exemption” or “credit shelter” that already exists in one of the trust types described in the first paragraph, and to make a completed gift into this type of trust for the benefit of a spouse. Both spouses can accomplish this, but careful attention will be required to be sure that these credit shelter trusts funded with gifts are not treated as reciprocal trusts by the IRS.
Some clients find the idea of making large gifts difficult since they are usually gifting these funds to children or grandchildren and the client essentially loses the ability to control or enjoy the property that has been gifted. Gifting to a spouse, however, might be more easily tolerated than a substantial gift to children or grandchildren. Aside from the dynamics of whether it is easier to gift to a spouse or successive generations, gifting is a powerful estate tax reduction technique. The funding of a credit shelter trust is just one of many ideas that our firm can assist you with. Please call your attorney to discuss gifting techniques or for more information on funding a credit shelter trust for your spouse.
Every once in a while we hear rumors that lawmakers might make changes to our tax laws that would affect planning involving Legacy Trusts. We heard this about a year ago, and new rumors have been heard on the same subject very recently.
A Legacy Trust (also known as a Dynasty Trust or Generation Skipping Trust or GST Trust) is a trust set up in a state that has repealed the “rule against perpetuities” so that the trust can remain in place for multiple generations. In Nevada, a Legacy Trust can exist for up to 365 years. These trusts are typically designed so that the assets held by the trust are not included in the estate of any beneficiary of the trust and therefore the trust is not subject to the federal estate tax during the duration of the trust. For example, if $5 Million were funded into a Legacy Trust today and if those funds could appreciate consistently at 6% and not be subject to multigenerational transfer taxes (estate tax), then the trust would be worth $92 Million in 50 years.
Now for the scare tactics: We strongly suspect that we have a limited opportunity to take advantage of the $5 Million gift tax exclusion that is set to expire at the end of 2012. If lawmakers also somehow remove the advantages of a Legacy Trust in the coming years, then today is the perfect opportunity to engage in some estate planning that will utilize a Legacy Trust for your children and grandchildren. A trust that is established and that is funded with assets would be almost certainly “grandfathered” in the event of a change in the laws. We feel that now is the best possible time to engage in this type of planning.
Earlier this year, A study done by Genworth Financial, Inc. reported that nursing home costs in Nevada are more than $4,000 a year above the national median. In Nevada, a private room in a nursing home carries a median rate of $82,125 per year.* Given the current economic situation in Nevada, expensive nursing home costs can be devastating for families. Families are forced to balance a desire to provide quality care for a loved one with the economic realities of high healthcare costs and a depressed economy.
Loved ones must be cautious as high healthcare costs can deplete savings in a short period of time. Fortunately, there is help. Families can find some relief through Medicaid where the family is unable to bear the costs to provide for a loved one. However, families should be aware that applying for state assistance can be complicated. Medicaid has specific rules and requirements that must be satisfied in order to receive aid.
Family members providing long-term healthcare assistance for other family members in these tough economic times must also remember to take care of themselves. Providing care for an ageing or disabled family member is not only financially draining, but can also be emotionally draining. Family members, especially spouses, must not attempt to do more than is physically possible. This can lead to financial ruin or physical exhaustion. It is often not possible to provide adequate care alone. Even though economic times are tough, it is important to seek help.
Jeffrey Burr Ltd. has a full service Elder Law division that is available to assist you in helping you with all your Medicaid and long-term health care assistance. We are happy to answer any questions you may have.
*Source: Genworth Financial Press Release, Home Care Costs in Nevada Rising Faster than Nationally, Finds Genworth's Annual Cost of Care Survey, Genworth Financial, Inc., May 10, 2011.
- Attorney Corey Schmutz
Recently, it seems that I’ve lost more than my share of clients. Death is a part of our business, but it still troubles me sometimes. Two clients in particular come to mind that recently passed unexpectedly. One client was living in life’s sunset and he certainly experienced a full life. The other died very prematurely leaving young children and unfinished business.
In all cases, I am glad that the client found the time and allocated their resources to come in and prepare an estate plan. I hope that our work will make things easier for their families. It makes me wonder if I would have a Will in place if I could not easily prepare my own?
I feel like I am always borrowing something for my blog posts from other sources – but I found this blog post from CNBC about people procrastinating about preparing a Will. The numbers that were shared were surprising, even to me:
The best part of the blog discussing the survey stated that one in three of the respondents would rather experience the following instead of creating a Will: 1) Prepare a tax return 2) have a root canal 3) give up sex for a month.
So, for you faithful readers of the Jeffrey Burr Blog (all seven of you), statistically at least a few of you do not have a Will. So, let’s get it done, but let’s also not ignore our dental health, tax deadlines, and consortium.
Last week, I prepared and gave a presentation to the Financial Planning Association of Nevada on some of the details of the 2010 Tax Act and its impact on estate planning. One interesting thing that I came across in preparing my presentation was a comparison of an estate relying on the new portability provisions versus utilizing an “A-B”, “Bypass”, or “Credit Shelter trust. “
The assumptions are as follows:
• Married Couple with a $10 Million estate
• Husband dies in 2011
• Wife dies in 2019
• 2% rate of inflation
• 5% return on assets
The original source of the chart and calculations may be found here on page 40-42.
This example shows the power of capturing the appreciation of the assets in the credit shelter trust. Of course, various factors could affect the calculations, including inflation rate, changes in the Capital Gains rate, and an assumption that the Estate Tax rate will remain at 35%.
Owners of large IRAs prior to the 2010 Tax Act generally had to decide between the income tax benefits of leaving the IRA to his or her spouse and the potential estate tax benefits of leaving some or all of the IRA to a credit shelter trust or a trust for children or grandchildren. Now, portability may allow owners of large IRAs to name the spouse as the beneficiary of the IRA while still preserving the owner’s unused estate tax exempt amount to be transferred to the surviving spouse.
Rules for IRAs with the Surviving Spouse as Beneficiary
When an inpidual with an IRA dies, leaving the surviving spouse as the beneficiary, the survivor has three options, all of which could have positive income tax results:
The problem with these options is that, if the survivor is the named beneficiary of the IRA, and the deceased spouse does not have sufficient assets to maximize his or her estate tax exemption, the exemption of the first spouse to die could be wasted.
Maximizing the exemption before the 2010 Tax Act
In order to avoid wasting the exemption, many couples were either naming another inpidual as a beneficiary of their IRAs, or they were leaving all or a portion of their IRAs to a credit-shelter trust in order to preserve the exemption of the first spouse to die.
A number of disadvantages and complexities arise when leaving an IRA to a trust, such as:
Another option would be to name the family trust as the primary beneficiary, allowing the survivor to disclaim the proceeds to a disclaimer trust at the first spouse’s death. However, the spouse would have to decide whether to give up the potential estate tax benefits of fully funding the credit shelter trust and disclaiming the IRA and giving up the income tax benefits of the spousal rollover. Additionally, the spouse would not be able to have any power of appointment over the disclaimer trust.
After the 2010 Tax Act
Now, with the 2010 Tax Act allowing for a $5 million exemption per person, the unused portion of which can be transferred to the surviving spouse, the problems set forth above may be largely solved. The IRA owner can name the spouse as the beneficiary, with all the income tax benefits which come with that option. Any amount of unused estate tax exemption will be transferred to the survivor to use upon his or her own death. Not only will this preserve the estate tax benefits which were only previously preserved by the methods outlined above, but the planning will also be simplified for owners of large IRAs who do not have sufficient other assets to fully fund a credit shelter trust.
As we know, portability is only in effect for 2011 and 2012. In the event that portability is not extended or made permanent, the other methods to preserve the first spouse’s exemption will have to be revisited. For the next two years, however, IRA owners without sufficient non retirement assets to fully utilize their estate tax exempt amounts should consider whether it would be desirable to name the spouse as beneficiary in light of the availability of portability.
There’s a funny commercial on TV lately. It involves a wealthy family gathering for a reading of the Will. If I recall correctly, most of the estate goes to the new (blonde and young) companion. But the only son of the Testator gets the satellite/cable TV package so that he can stream movies and TV shows directly to his television. He then goes berserk with joy.
That commercial got me thinking about contests or challenges to established planning. Most clients want to avoid their heirs fighting over the estate or having to defend the estate from an unintended heir. It can be a financial and emotional drain on the beneficiaries of the estate. Estate Planners try to do their best to ensure that the formalities are followed when estate planning documents are signed and that the person executing the documents has capacity and understands the effect of the documents.
I recently read an interesting article on this topic. (A Will and a Way, WALL STREET JOURNAL, by Anne Tergesen) The article points out that Nevada (among a handful of other states) now allows for pre-mortem probate. What this means is that a person can present his or her planning documents to the court and require a contesting beneficiary to present his challenges to the court before the Testator (person who signed the Will or Trust) passes away. The advantage is that the best witness for the court is still alive to defend his or her actions. The disadvantage is that the client must disclose his or her documents with the court and make the contents known to the beneficiaries. The result is that if the person later changes his or her Will or Trust, then the process must occur again. It’s an interesting idea and I don’t know if our firm has handled a case like this in our local probate court. But as a planner, it’s important for me to know that this is available.
The article points out some other tools that estate planners may use to prevent a challenge to a Will or trust after the client passes away:
1. Use a video message from the Testator to explain provisions of the Will. This may soften the blow to beneficiaries, but might also backfire if the Testator says something inconsistent with the Will.
2. Include a no-contest clause. We do this at our firm, and they are fun to talk about and point out to the client, but are not always enforceable and would not be enforceable if there was a genuine concern that the Testator had capacity or was subject to undue influence.
3. Provide a gift of cash or other property to a person that is suspected to challenge the Will. (I’ve never heard of this one and it made me chuckle). If the person accepts a gift from the Testator at that time, it will be difficult for the person to claim that the Testator was incapacitated at the time of the gift.
Other standby techniques not discussed in the Wall Street Journal article include:
1. Making a specific bequest to a potential challenger which then gives the no-contest provision some effect (they stand to lose something if they challenge and lose).
2. Contract around the challenge: use a family settlement agreement (signed by all family members including potential challengers).
3. Leave the person the satellite/cable TV package so that they can stream hundreds of movies and TV shows directly to their TV. (Probably won’t work).
The following snippet was taken from Bill Bischoff's article as published in the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch web page on February 16, 2011.
"16 States and DC Have Estate Taxes
"The sixteen states and the District of Columbia, which impose their own estate taxes (as opposed to inheritance taxes, which I will explain later) base their taxes on the entire value of an estate in excess of the applicable exemption.
"The exemptions vary from a low of $338,333 to a high of $5 million. Specifically:
* Three states have exemptions of less than $1 million (Ohio at $338,333; New Jersey at $675,000; and Rhode Island at $850,000).
* Six states have $1 million exemptions (Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Oregon), and so does D.C.
* Three states have $2 million exemptions (Illinois, Vermont, and Washington).
* Two states have $3.5 million exemptions (Connecticut and Delaware).
* Two states have $5 million exemptions (Hawaii and North Carolina).
"The lowest tax rates are 7% (Ohio) and 12% (Connecticut). The highest is 19% (Washington). The other 13 states and D.C. all charge 16%.
"6 States Have Inheritance Taxes
"The inheritance tax exemptions are zero or negligible--except in Tennessee which has a $1 million exemption.
"The tax rates are 9.5% in Tennessee, 15% in Iowa and Pennsylvania, 16% in Kentucky, 18% in Nebraska, and 20% in Indiana.
"Worst Case: 2 States Have Both
"Maryland and New Jersey raise confiscation to a higher level by charging both an estate tax and an inheritance tax. In Maryland, the inheritance tax exemption is a whopping $150 and the tax rate is 10% (in addition to the 16% estate tax rate). In New Jersey, the inheritance tax exemption is zero and the tax rate is 16% (in addition to the 16% estate tax rate).
"The Other 28 States Have No Estate or Inheritance Taxes
"The 28 states NOT listed above[, including Nevada,] have no estate or inheritance taxes. They are better places to die."
For the past 10 years we have seen the estate tax exemption increase from $600,000 to $675,000, then to $1,000,000, then to $1.5 million, then $2 million, then $3.5 million in 2009 and finally in 2010, the one-year repeal of all estate taxes.
Over the last thirty years we have seen many changes in the estate and gift tax. In the 1990’s, with the upward climb in the stock market and real estate values, and with the estate tax exemption frozen at $600,000, we saw the growth of many estates far outstrip the exemption. For married couples, the A-B trust planning technique, which required at the first death between spouses that the joint estate be pided between the survivor’s trust and the exemption trust (the exemption trust also known as the “B” trust, or as the unified credit trust) would allow avoidance of estate taxes on a full $1.2 million at the second death. But if the estate exceeded the $1.2 million, there was the looming prospect of the heirs paying upwards of 55% tax on the estate in excess of the $1.2 million exemption.
In response to this concern about estate taxes, many people utilized family limited partnerships to put a cap on the growth in their estates. Taking advantage of the annual gift tax exclusion of $10,000 per donor, per donee (i.e. if there were two parents and three children, then the total number of exclusions was six, three for each parent, and even more if parents wanted to make gifts to children’s spouse or to their grandchildren) but not wishing to actually give money to these people, parents would create the family partnership, fund it with a parcel of real estate (or other types of assets) and then give children, grandchildren and even sons- and daughters-in-law shares of the family partnership. The result was that Mom and Dad’s estate was reduced by the value of the gifts of shares in the family partnership transferred to the heirs while allowing Mom and Dad to maintain control of the family wealth.
The IRS fought this planning technique but the IRS attacks were generally rebuffed by the courts as long as certain formalities in the formation and administration of the partnership were followed.
Due to the increase in the estate tax exemption in 2007 to $2 million per individual (hence $4 million for husband and wife using an A-B trust) and increasing to $3.5 million per person in 2009, the need for estate tax planning was curtailed except for those persons having what most of us would consider to be significant wealth (i.e. more than $7 million for a married couple).
But here we are now with the prospect that the estate tax exemption will drop back to $1 million per person in 2011. There is always talk of legislation which would increase the exemption beyond the $1 million, but for now, prospects do not seem especially good for any such increase. So with the drop in the exemption back to $1 million, many people who thought their heirs would be free from paying the estate tax are once again facing the likelihood of a significant portion of their estates being taken by this confiscatory tax.
If you, the reader, feel that paying taxes is your civic duty, and if you believe the government will make better use of your estate than will your heirs or charities, then there is no point in trying to plan around this tax. But if it bothers you that you have spent your entire life paying taxes and are concerned that what you have worked a lifetime to acquire and save is once again at risk of confiscation by a government which seems to have no limits on its ability to consume and redistribute, then maybe it is time to start thinking about estate tax planning the way it was done back in the 1990’s. If so, you might want to give us a call. If you are not concerned, then we thank you in advance for your contribution to the public weal.
An interesting case recently was reported concerning valuation of assets within a corporation upon a person’s death and the estate tax deduction applicable to the taxes which the heirs will ultimately pay upon the sale of those assets.
Here’s the problem: When a person dies with a corporation which has assets, e.g. real estate, equipment, etc., that are worth more than the depreciated basis, if those assets are sold, there will be a big capital gain or ordinary income tax to pay. So even though you may inherit assets worth $100,000, if the subsequent tax on sale of those assets will be $25,000, and if there is nothing you can do to avoid that tax on sale, you are really getting something less than $100,000 because of this built-in tax.
A federal court recently ruled that the estate would receive a dollar-for-dollar estate tax deduction for each dollar of tax related to the built-in gain which the heirs would have to pay if the properties were sold. The IRS, as one might imagine, opposed this deduction, but the judge held for the taxpayer in granting a substantial estate tax deduction because of this built-in gains tax. There were numerous legal theories discussed by the judge in his opinion, which are beyond the scope of this blog at this time. The important thing to take from this is that there are many creative techniques available to estates if you obtain competent counsel who are aware of these opportunities. We often see people who choose to “go it alone” in their tax filings, and yes, they are probably saving some money up front, but it is likely they will never know how much they gave up on the back end by not taking advantage of the opportunities which an experienced tax professional can provide.
"*" indicates required fields