Designating IRA and other Qualified Plan Beneficiaries

Please note that this is a very complex area and what follows is generalizations.  This is an area that should be reviewed on a client-by-client, case-by-case basis with a qualified attorney or CPA.

The surge of Estate Planning “experts,” including websites and seminars over the past 20 years has created a surplus of “information” related to estate planning.  Much of this information, while useful in context, is misunderstood and consequently, misapplied.

My “rule of thumb” for the past few years has been to name adult, responsible beneficiaries as direct beneficiaries on IRA and qualified plan assets, unless there is a compelling reason otherwise.

Along with the growth in family Estate Planning Trusts, has come a misunderstanding by many clients and advisors, of the inter-reaction between Trusts and Qualified Retirement Plans.  We tend to think of Trusts as the best solution for all of our Estate Planning clients’ needs.  In a perfect world, this might be true.  From a planner’s perspective, I would like nothing better than to have the flexibility to funnel all of a client’s assets through their Revocable Living Trust.  It would give us ultimate control.  Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, and while a frustration for planners, it is what we have to work with.

There is no area more fraught with potential economic disaster that so-called, “qualified retirement plans” and IRA’s.  Unfortunately, because our laws are sometimes at odds with each other, there is potentially major income tax peril in linking qualified plans with a Revocable Trust.  While there will be times when the clients’ objectives will require us to do so, such linking is not without pitfalls, and should be undertaken only very carefully.

My “rule of thumb” for the past few years has been to name adult, responsible beneficiaries as direct beneficiaries on IRA and qualified plan assets, unless there is a compelling reason otherwise.

In spite of this advice, we too often find that a client (or their financial advisor) has designated their Trust as beneficiary.

Qualified Plan and IRA Basics

The “idea” of qualified plans was to encourage people to do their own retirement savings.  The “carrot” was the ability to remove a portion of income from taxation when earned, and while it grew (in some cases, it worked “too well”).  Over my years as an Estate Planning Attorney, I have found it more common than not that a client has IRA and qualified plan assets that they are not drawing from, even when well into retirement.  However, the idea was never intended to be an Estate Planning mechanism for passing wealth down to the next generation.

the idea was never intended to be an Estate Planning mechanism for passing wealth down to the next generation

Because of this, the rules eventually require a “forced” withdrawal.  This normally ocurrs when the account holder (participant) reaches retirement age (“the year in which they reach age 70 1/2”).  A second instance is upon the death of the participant.  If the rules simply required a lump sum distribution at the death of the participant, it would be a simple mathematical equation and it would end there.  In that case there would be no issue with Revocable Trust beneficiary designation.  However, the law identifies some different methods of distribution and several of them are very tax-significant.

While an IRA is technically not a “qualified” retirement plan, it is by far the most common form of retirement savings, and shares essentially the attributes of a “qualified” plan.  Indeed once you are in “retirement mode,” the IRA is perhaps the better and more flexible retirement plan vehicle, particularly in terms of estate planning (and for this reason, we often counsel fully retired persons to roll their qualified plan assets into an IRA).  Most of the rules contained within IRS Regulations are specifically directed at IRA accounts.  IRAs are a more or less statutory retirement plan and as, such, are pretty typically similar, from sponsor to sponsor.  However, it is always advisable to read the plan document (be it an IRA or some other plan type), to ensure that it provides for what we think it does.  While we often apply IRA rules to other qualified plan accounts, it is important to understand that the plan documents may differ significantly.

When there is a Surviving Spouse

The Typical Family.

The most significant beneficiary designation involves the surviving spouse.  In the majority of planning situations, I deal with a married couple who have acquired assets together and raised their mutual children for a period of years.  Their typical wishes are to take care of each other in their retirement years and have any remaining assets go on to their children on a relatively equal basis upon their deaths.  In this case we almost never designate anyone but the spouse as the primary beneficiary of a participant’s retirement plan.  The spouse, in most circumstances, can elect to treat the decedent’s plan as their own.

In spite of this advice, we too often find that a client (or their financial advisor) has designated their Trust as beneficiary.  While this is often a cause for angst, there are IRS rulings (in the case of an IRA) that would allow a surviving spouse who was the sole income beneficiary of the trust to remove the IRA and make the favorable spousal election.  It does, however, increase complexity and reduce flexibility.

“Unique” Circumstances.

There may be circumstances where a direct beneficiary designation to a is not the desired result, such as where there is a second marriage, blended families, non-resident spouse, or perhaps just a concern that the surviving spouse may not appropriately manage the assets.  In this case, we may still want to designate a Trust as beneficiary.  For example, in a second marriage situation, the participant may wish to have the spouse have the annual income from the retirement plan, but ensure that any remaining plan assets go to their own children.  However, to use a common advertising disclaimer; "Do not try this at home."

While Congress has provided that it is permissible to designate a Trust as an IRA beneficiary (and, presumably, by analogy, other “qualified” plans); and the IRS has provided us with guidance on how to safely do so, that guidance is a proverbial minefield of danger.  Any misstep will likely not only result in a deemed lump-sum distribution (and therefore immediate income taxation) of the entire remaining balance, but will also very possibly result in taxation at the highest percentage brackets.

And, even if done properly, the appropriate administration of such accounts in a Trust guarantees long-term ongoing trust administration and lack of ultimate flexibility for the surviving spouse.

There may be circumstances where a direct beneficiary designation to a is not the desired result, such as where there is a second marriage, blended families, non-resident spouse, or perhaps just a concern that the surviving spouse may not appropriately manage the assets

Contingent Beneficiaries and When there is no Surviving Spouse

The concerns are even more compelling when there is no surviving spouse, or when, because of a prior death, the contingent beneficiary designation becomes effective.  Only the spouse is entitled the “treat-the-account-as-is-it-were-my-own” (referred to as a spousal rollover) election.  However, an individual beneficiary may still have some ability to reduce the effects of taxation on the account.

An individually designated beneficiary may elect “beneficiary IRA” treatment (sometimes called a “stretchout” IRA by financial advisors).  The rules here are pretty clear when the beneficiary is an identifiable individual.  The beneficiary may use his or her life expectancy (in accordance with published IRS tables), to calculate an annual required minimum distribution.  Distributions must commence shortly after the death of the participant, regardless of the age of the beneficiary.  But obviously, there is significant value in the continued tax deferral of the balance of the plan assets during the lifetime of the beneficiary.

“pass-through” language must comply with some very technical IRS Regulations requirements that attempt to match trust fiduciary accounting rules with IRA distribution rules.

Unpredictable Beneficiaries

What if our intended beneficiaries are minor children, or children with special needs or other “disabilities?”  These are instances in which we might wish to use a Trust, even in light of all the pitfalls.  These might be one of the “compelling” reasons my “rule of thumb” acknowledges.

The IRS rules, as noted earlier, do allow for a Trust to be the designated beneficiary of an IRA.  But as also noted, not without complexity and inflexibility.  The Trustee may “step into the shoes” of the trust beneficiaries in only a couple of instances.  First, if all of the trust beneficiaries are identifiable persons and the trust provides for immediate distribution of all of their shares to them; or second, if the trust contains specific “pass-through” (sometimes called “see-through”) language.  If there is a class of beneficiaries (like “children” or “grandchildren”), the distribution rules will be keyed to the oldest person in the class (with the effect of forcing the taxable income out in the fastest manner).

In each case, the IRA custodian will likely be somewhat inflexible.  Typically, this means that a trust “beneficiary” IRA is set up and the Trustee is charged with calculating the annual minimum distribution amount, requesting it from the custodian, and distributing it to the beneficiary, in accordance with the trust language.  This will likely continue on a yearly basis for the lifetime of the youngest beneficiary or until assets have been exhausted.  While this gives the “stretchout” benefit, it must be balanced with the economic and emotional costs of maintaining the trust.

And, the “pass-through” language must comply with some very technical IRS Regulations requirements that attempt to match trust fiduciary accounting rules with IRA distribution rules.

What about Charitable Beneficiaries?

The IRS regulations are also clear about who may be a designated beneficiary for purposes of the “stretchout” election.  They must be identifiable individual beneficiaries.  So what if the trust (or the IRA by direct designation) provides for a charitable beneficiary?  The purpose behind the individual requirement appears to be so the life expectancy calculations may be accurately made.  Obviously, an entity cannot have a life expectancy.

But the IRS has acknowledged that charitable beneficiaries are common, and has given us a planning “out.”  As long as the charity’s portion can be determined and is paid out within a year after the death of the participant, the IRS will essentially ignore it.

What this does tell us is how important the details in planning are.  I often find it fits client’s objectives more closely to designate a specific portion of the IRA to charity, or event to split off a separate account and designate it entirely to charity.

As with all Estate Planning, we need to remember that it is a “moving target.”  Regular period review of designations and of your goals are important to making sure this all works.

Read more...

Should You Have a "Ladybird Deed" ?

With all the competition for customers (from lawyers and non-lawyers alike) in the estate planning field, it is easy to see why the consuming public has the perception that an estate plan merely consists of a pre-printed form, or a set of forms, and that there is a “standard” method of planning.  And it seems like there is always some hot, new technique for estate planning being advocated, often by marketers.  It is nearly impossible these days to find an article, or attend a presentation on Estate Planning these days without hearing about the virtues of  the “Ladybird Deed,” and why everybody should have one.  It is common to have a client call or come in for an appointment, already convinced that they “need” a ladybird deed.

  it seems like there is always some hot, new technique for estate planning being advocated, often by marketers.

The reality is that these are actually somewhat complicated real property conveyancing tools.  And like all tools, I have often said over the course of my career that estate planning is not a “one-size-fits-all,” proposition.  And there is perhaps no better example of this than the “Ladybird Deed.”  The truth is that some people may benefit from the technique and many may find it a detriment.  In order to appreciate this, we need to discuss what a “Ladybird Deed” is and what it does.

Ladybird: What’s In a Name?

"Ladybird" is a name that caught on from use by a Florida attorney and lecturer whose favorite fictional spouse reference was “Ladybird,” in his examples.  The technically correct name is “Enhanced Life Estate Deed."

The reality is that these are actually somewhat complicated real property conveyancing tools.  And they are not a “one-size-fits-all,” proposition

Attorneys learn early in law school that property rights in the most of the U.S. can be divided up into different interests, and that the interests can be defined in different ways.  The sum total of all the rights held together, is known as the fee title.  It is not uncommon to see specific rights be divided (such as mineral, water and wind rights) and conveyed or reserved when the underlying land is conveyed.  It is also possible to convey rights that can be measured by the duration of ownership.  One such division and conveyance is the traditional “life estate.”  Like it sounds, a life estate is measure by the lifetime of the owner of the life estate.  Usually.

There is a very real temptation (often by persons unqualified to give estate planning advice) to indiscriminately use Ladybird Deeds

An Enhanced Life Estate reserves or conveys the traditional duration (life of the owner), but also adds an element (usually reserved by the transferor) to in effect, “change their mind,” and convey the fee title of the property away to someone else (or back to themselves).

Ladybird deeds can be very powerful, versatile, estate planning tools.  But like any tool, they can be misapplied.  Estate Planning is a process involving the careful application and combination of available tools.  There is a very real temptation (often by persons unqualified to give estate planning advice) to indiscriminately use Ladybird Deeds.  But the deed is just a tool, not a process!

Why Shouldn’t You Use a Ladybird Deed?

The danger in casual use of these deeds lies in viewing real estate conveyances as on-dimensional.  There are numerous related risks.

“Uncapping."

Michigan’s ad valorem real property tax scheme is based on complex valuation rules.  In the late 1990’s Michigan’s Constitution was amended to impose a “cap” on how much real property tax assessments could be increased.  This capped value is known as “Taxable Value,” and is subject to a cost of living – based formula, limiting increases.  Like so many laws, over time a series of exceptions and exemptions have emerged. Taxable Value, for example, may be “uncapped” when the property is conveyed (remember that there is a conveyance – or perhaps multiple conveyances – involved when a “Ladybird Deed” is created).  While there are certain exemptions to this “uncapping” rule when Estate Planning and Family transfers of residential real estate are involved, current Michigan law does not appear to apply such exemptions to the end conveyance accomplished by the Ladybird Deed.  So beware!

In order to track the changes of ownership (and therefore “uncapping” opportunities), Michigan has an affidavit filing process (MI Department of Treasury Form L4620 – Property Transfer Affidavit) with local assessors.  There is a relatively nominal fine for failure to file the affidavit and perhaps a temptation to ignore filing it.  One significant concern is that if the time period between the recording of the conveyance and the automatic conveyance by termination of the life estate is substantial, will this cause issues.  The affidavit should be filed, and one of the exemptions invoked, in my view.

Indiscriminate use of a Ladybird Deed may have unintended and undesirable results

Probate Avoidance.

Our modern society has evolved with the ability to structure “pay on death” direct beneficiary designations with nearly every type of asset people own today.  Michigan is one state where such transfer techniques are plentiful and easy to accomplish.  The Ladybird Deed, is such a technique.  It is relatively easy to create, and may well result in a probate--avoided transfer.  Again, indiscriminate application however, may create undesirable results.  This is particularly true where the intended recipients are multiple children.  “Joint” ownership of real property may create a whole set of unintended problems of its own.

Medicaid Planning.    

The so-called Elderlaw planning industry really thrust the use of the Ladybird Deeds into the forefront.  They have been a very powerful tool for Elderlaw planning.  But a lack of understanding of the tool and the process may well create unintended consequences.  The filing of a Medicaid Application is very timing specific.  Whether to convey property by Ladybird Deed, directly to a trust, by JTWROS designation, or not to convey at all, should be carefully considered by the planner, in light of all of the client’s circumstances.

What State are You In?

Not all States recognize Ladybird Deeds.  Since the real estate laws and rules vary by State to State it is wise to consult a knowledgeable specialist in the State where the property is.  Some States recognize a "pay on death," or "transfer on death" conveyance.

Ladybird Deeds are a powerful and often desirable planning tool.  My objection to them is when they are used in an unconsidered, “knee-jerk” one-size-fits all approach to the planning process as a whole.

Read more...

Welcome Clarification on Family Transfers of Residential Real Property and “Uncapping”

The new law now provides that transfers of property into and out of a trust, and via an estate, to these family members, are exempt, in addition to direct transfers.

Beginning December 31, there is yet another beneficial new exception to “uncapping” of transfers of residential real property between certain family members.

In the early 1990’s the Michigan Legislature passed legislation that “capped” the ability of local taxing bodies to increase the “taxable value” of real property to a the lesser of (currently 1.05%) and the rate of inflation for the year.  The statute attempted to define “transfer,” and also set out a series of exceptions to “transfers.”  Over the ensuing years, other exceptions (notably the Agriculture Exception) were added.  But also during this period, some disagreements arose over the meaning and intent of this legislation.  The was a particularly important issue for family cottages and recreational properties that were passed down from generation to generation.

In 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court interpreted one of these disagreements, in Klooster v. City of Charlevoix, holding among other things, that if at the time all owners at one generation died, but there was also a surviving joint tenant in the next generation (most commonly one or more children), that the survivorship conveyance of title by operation of law was not a “transfer” as the Legislature intended that term.  While I have never been persuaded by the Klooster analysis, who am I to rock the boat – particularly when the decision is basically favorable to the taxpayer?  See my blog, “Michigan Supreme Court Buys Us Another Generation on Real Property Taxes,” from March, 2011.  The Klooster case gave us some new, limited planning opportunities to preserve the “cap” on family transfer of property.  But it wasn’t enough.

It wasn’t enough

In December of 2012, Governor Snyder signed new Legislation aimed at this problem.  See, New Michigan Law Avoids “Uncapping” in Family Transfers.”  But as we will see, the aim was not as accurate as it might have been.  The new legislation (effective December 31, 2013, and on), provided that a direct transfer or conveyance of residential real property to a person related to the transferor “by blood or affinity to the first degree,” where the residential use continued, was not deemed a transfer for “uncapping” purposes.  This rather archaic definition seemed reasonably clear to those of us who took the basic Wills and Estates course in law school, but it left way to much uncertainty on the table.

It remained unclear whether these transfers among family members only applied to direct transfers (which would exclude transfers using Trusts, Wills, Estates and Limited Liability Companies).  If they did, it was – though a welcome forward step – still not enough.

It was still not enough

My own view was that given the history of interpretation of similar issues by local governments and by the Michigan Department of Treasury, combined with the near-bankrupt condition of our state government, they were going to take a very literal interpretation of the statutory language.  In Michigan State Tax Commission Bulletin number 23 dated December 16, 2013, my supposition was confirmed.  They would view this as only applying to direct transfers:  “Due to the blood relationship clause, the Commission has defined the transferee and transferor as a ‘person.’  Therefore, this exception to uncapping does not apply to a trust, a limited liability company, or a distribution from probate.”  Transfers to and from estate planning devices like trusts would not come within the exception.  Nor would transfers from an estate, whether by Will or intestate succession.  Again, while there were some additional planning opportunities (the “Ladybird” Deed, for example would work), they were still too limited.  One of the benefits of estate planning – and particularly the trust as a planning tool – is the ability to maintain some management and control where the beneficiaries are either not sufficiently mature to manage, or where there are multiple beneficiaries.  The trust allows ownership and management of assets for the benefit of children, including family legacy real estate (like the family cottage).

Now there is good news

The title of the blog promised good news.  And there is.  On October 10, the Legislature passed still more legislation, clarifying the “uncapping” rules.  Effective December 31, the law now defines those family members within the no uncapping exception more specifically as transfers to “a mother, father, brother, sister, child, adopted child, or grandchild.  And even better, the new law now provides that transfers of property into and out of a trust, and via an estate, to these family members, are exempt, in addition to direct transfers.

We now can breathe easier as estate planners and clients, knowing that we can continue to plan for estates using tried and true techniques.  Like any new law, there will be a period study and analysis and inevitably, questions about clarity of certain provisions and interpretation.

All in all:  I think this is a great development.

Thanks to my Law Partner and fellow Estate Planner, Elian Fichtner for her research and help on this article and topic.  See more about both of us on our website link at the top of the Blog 

Read more...

New Michigan Law Avoids “Uncapping” in Family Transfers

Two years ago in March, I reported here on the Klooster v City of Charlevoix case, which addressed the issue of "uncapping" in a real estate transaction between family members. 1994 amendments to the Michigan Real Property Tax, placed a "cap" on the amount a taxing authority could increase the value of real property under consistent ownership. Under the 1994 rules, a taxing authority may raise the taxable value of real property no more than the lesser of 5% and a CPI calculation.

The principal change is new sub-paragraph (s) which provides a new exception for residential real property transferred to a relative who is related by blood or affinity to the first degree (i.e., children)

However, when there is a "transfer" of ownership in real property, the taxing authority may "uncap" the valuation for the "tax day" immediately following the transfer, raising the taxable value as high as the state determined State Equalized Value (SEV) of the property. This can be a considerable increase in taxes for the new owner.

The Klooster Court interpreted the transfer provisions of the statute, holding that where a father added his son as a "Joint Tenant with rights of Survivorship" while the father was alive and while the father remained a joint owner, there was no transfer. That seems to track with the plain language of the exceptions to "transfer" in the statute. In what was a surprise to many of us (most certainly to the City of Charlevoix and municipal entities around the state), the further held the death of the original joint owner (the father) was not a transfer. This lead to a new (for some of us at least) avenue of planning and caused us to re-think our planning strategies see, Some Family Cottage Strategies in Light of the Klooster Case; my follow up to the Klooster article.

Perhaps in response to Klooster and the uncertainty that surrounded its reasoning, and certainly to protect family interests in family-owned residential real estate, the Michigan Legislature passed, and Governor Snyder signed into law in December of 2012, a newer, clearer exception to the "transfer" for family-owned real property. House Enrolled Bill No. 4753, signed into law on December 27, 2012, amends Section 27a(7) of the Michigan General Property Tax Act (MCL 211.27a) to provide several new exceptions. Most are clarifications of existing exceptions.

The principal change is new sub-paragraph (s) which provides a new exception for residential real property transferred to a relative who is related by blood or affinity to the first degree (i.e., children). Notably, the exception does not limit itself to "cottage" or "vacation" property. Nor are the number of instances or parcels limited. Indeed, the Senate Fiscal Agency's "Bill Analysis" acknowledges that the exception is not limited to "homesteads," nor is there any limit to the number of times a single parcel could be transferred to first-degree relatives.

Caution!

It is important to note that this new transfer exception does not become effective until December 31, 2013! Thus, for owners dying before December 31, it may still be wise to consider the strategies discussed at the link above, at least temporarily. Still, this is a welcome change for owners of family real property, particularly in those instances of homesteads and family cottages that may have remained in the family for multiple generations. Like all legal changes, this development will require planners to consider whether old strategies remain viable and what, if any, new strategies may come into play.

Read more...

Congress Finally Gives us Answers on Estate and Gift Tax

To quote former President Gerald Ford, with respect to the Federal Estate and Gift Tax: "our long, national nightmare is over." Late on January 1, Congress enacted "The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012." I won't go into great detail about the act (there is a lot about it we still don't actually know and will have to wait for the analysis of people more capable than I am), but will point out the highlights of the Estate and Gift Tax provisions which are of considerable importance to Estate Planning.

The Act preserves the $5 million per person ($10 million per married couple) "unified" estate and gift tax exemption and indexes it for inflation.

The Act preserves the 2012 levels of a $5 million per person exemption, maintains the "unified"estate and gift structure (meaning the $5 million threshold applied to total transfers, whether by gift during lifetime or inheritance on death), and indexes them for inflation. The Act also makes the concept of "portability," which was added in the 2010 extension for the first time, a permanent part of the tax structure. What "portability" means is that for married couples, the $5 million credit can be allocated or "shared" between them at any time, including after death. This effectively eliminates–in most cases–the need for those "clunky," inconvenient, "AB Trusts" ("his and hers"), and all the allocations and adjustments we were constantly making in those plans. This should have the effect of greatly simplifying the planning process in all but a few instances. The only real, substantive change in the law is a (modest?) increase in the rate (which will only apply after the $5/10 million credit has been used up).

What does "permanent" mean?

Most importantly, the Act makes the current Estate and Gift tax laws permanent. One of my colleagues asked me, what does "permanent" mean? I think that is a fair question. In 2000, the so-called "Bush Tax Cuts" were implemented and because of internal machinations in Congress, were built around a 10-year "sunset." This meant that unless Congress acted during the 10-year period, the laws would automatically expire on December 31, 2010. In a demonstration of the "brinksmanship" for which our modern Congress has become so famous for, in late December of 2010, they "extended" the law for 2 more years.

For the first time in the past 12 years, planners will be able to tell clients what to expect in this area. As we move forward in 2013, I expect that many of our clients will be looking at much simpler estate planning devices.  I think that is a plus

But when they extended the general tax laws, they made unanticipated major changes to the Federal Estate and Gift tax. This was in every way a good change. But it was "temporary," because it was part of an extension, again due to expire recently on December 31, 2012. The new law does not have a "sunset" provision. This means that until Congress acts by legislation to change it, it is permanent. That is as "permanent" as any law gets these days.

My personal view, and what I have been able to glean from reading other sources, suggests that Congress has no appetite to make future major changes to this area, for a number of reasons. So, what we now have is some consistency and something on which we should be able to rely for the foreseeable future.

For the first time in the past 12 years, planners will be able to tell clients what to expect in this area. As we move forward in 2013, I expect that many of our clients will be looking at much simpler estate planning devices. I think that is a plus.

Read more...

Michigan Supreme Court Buys Us Another Generation on Real Property Taxes

Thursday, March 10, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court, in Klooster v. City of Charlevoix, seems to have granted us another "generation" on Michigan Real Property Taxes. In 1994, so-called "Proposal A" placed a cap on the amount of increase in Michigan Real Property taxes a municipality could apply, regardless of how much the actual market value increased, as long as there was not a "transfer of ownership." The devil is always in the detail, and the Klooster case centered on the definition of "transfer of ownership," and the meaning of one of the exceptions laid out in the act.

The Act, which allows the municipality to remove the "cap" in the tax year following a change in ownership, has a rather involved definition of transfer of ownership. It also has a long list of exceptions to the rule allowing the cap to be removed. The Klooster decision focuses on the so-called "joint-tenancy" exception. That exception provides that the creation or termination of a joint tenancy by one who is an original owner does not result in an uncapping event, even though it is a change of ownership. The court defines "original owner" as one who has ownership immediately following the last "uncapping" transfer. The court further explains that death of a joint owner (joint with rights of survivorship) results in a "transfer" by operation of law. So an original owner who has created a joint tenancy with another and then dies, effects a transfer of ownership, but it is within the exception and therefore not an "uncapping" transfer.

There has been some question about this since the exception of the act. Some of us (particularly municipalities) felt that the intent of the act was to prevent an unfair increase in taxation while the same original owners and spouses were alive and owned the property, but the when the last original owner in a generation died or transferred out of ownership, an uncapping transfer occurred. The Klooster opinion makes clear that, as a matter of Michigan law (now anyway J ), we were incorrect. The court carefully dissects the language of the statute and concludes that the uncapping will occur on the next transfer. In other words, my dad and mom could add me as a joint with right of survivorship owner to real property and after both of their deaths (which would be a "transfer of ownership" by operation of law), an "uncapping event" would still not occur until the next transfer (either by deed or by my death) happens. This means the cap can stay on for my lifetime, if no transfer of ownership occurs.

Great care must be taken in planning. Once my parents die, for example, I may want to plan for my own succession. If I add a joint tenant who does not come within one of the "not a transfer" exceptions in the statute (e.g., adding children or siblings), an uncapping transfer occurs (adding a spouse or conveying to a grantor revocable trust would probably not be viewed as a subsequent uncapping event). Also, presumably, on my death, an uncapping transfer occurs. This opens much proverbial "food for thought" in real estate succession planning transactions.

It will also be interesting to see if the Legislature takes any action to change the statutory language the Court interpreted.

Read more...

Congress Read My Blog!

I am a realist. I assume only a few people read this from time to time. But Congress? I am flattered to no end. Back in February, I excoriated them, stating that their inability to deal with the Estate Tax as it existed was inexcusable and unacceptable:

"This result is symptomatic of the immovable, political partisanship at all costs, out of touch with reality we call "representative" government in Washington, D.C. It is a situation that is untenable for U.S. citizens–clients and planners alike. Most of us are weary of the fighting, infighting and grandstanding behind these "representatives'" abuse of the statement "the American People want . . . . " The reality is they lost touch with what we want years ago. Today, I will settle for a decision. Any decision. We can at least then know what to tell clients and how to plan their estates. Congress? Are you listening? (thought not)."

I suggested that they needed to give us something – anything – to rely on for planning for our clients. My remarks included the sentiment that it wasn't that difficult to pick a number for the exemption equivalent; that I never could make sense of the de-coupling of the gift exclusion from the estate exclusion; and that it only would make common sense to index for inflation.

On Friday, December 17, 2010, after carefully reading my blog (I am certain), Congress has actually made some law that I think is almost too good to be true. There is just too much right with the estate tax provisions of the so-called "Bush Tax Cut" extension! In 1967, for some personal reasons, my mom went all out for Christmas, getting each of her children everything on their "lists" and some additional nice surprises as well. Congress seems to have followed suit this year, with a pretty nice Christmas present for estate planners and their clients.

Here are some highlights. The estate and gift tax "applicable exclusion amount" is now set at $5 million for estates of individuals dying after January 1, 2010, and has been "reunified." It will be indexed for inflation (in increments of $10,000). An additional nice surprise is the concept of "portability" has been added. Married couples may now -- rather than having to proactively plan to use each $5 million for each by creating and funding separate trusts – use each other's unused credit. The mechanics of this are not completely clear, but it looks like a much more "forgiving" solution to this problem.

The "new date of death basis" rules ("stepped up basis") has been restored. The 2010 "carryover basis" rules were a nightmare. Because of years of "stepped up basis" and for other reasons, it was clear to us as practitioners that our clients were going to have poor or non-existent records of their basis in capital assets. And, Congress never made completely clear how the election was going to be made (although they did release and then withdraw a proposed form).

The new law is retroactive to January 1, 2010. Amazingly (yes, I am a cynic), Congress also recognized the practical aspects of their waiting until the proverbial "11^th hour," to address these much needed provisions. For those persons who died between January 1, 2010 and the date of the new law, the executor or administrator may elect to use the new law, or to use the 2010 provisions. And normal filing deadlines for things like tax returns and disclaimers has been extended to 9 months after the December 17, 2010 enactment date.

Thank you Congress, and Merry Christmas to you, too!

Read more...

POLITICAL PARALYSIS ON THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX: SHOULD YOU AMEND YOUR ESTATE PLAN?

On January 1, 2010, the Federal Estate Tax, as we have known it for nearly 30 years, was repealed. But what that means to us as clients and planners is completely unclear. This result is symptomatic of the immovable, poliltical partisanship at all costs, ouit of touch with reality we call "representative" government in Washington, D. C. It is a situation that is untenable for U.S. citizens--clients and planners alike. Most of us are weary of the fighting, infighting and grandstanding behind these "representatives'" abuse of the statement "the American People want . . . " The reality is they lost touch with what we want years ago. Today, I will settle for a decision. Any decision. We can at least then know what to tell clients and how to plan their estates. Congress?? Are you listening?

This result is symptomatic of the immovable, political partisanship at all costs, out of touch with reality we call “representative” government in Washington, D.C. It is a situation that is untenable for U.S. citizens–clients and planners alike. Most of us are weary of the fighting, infighting and grandstanding behind these “representatives'” abuse of the statement “the American People want . . . . “ The reality is they lost touch with what we want years ago. Today, I will settle for a decision. Any decision. We can at least then know what to tell clients and how to plan their estates. Congress? Are you listening? (thought not).

In 1981, Congress enacted the basic structure of the Federal Estate and Gift Tax we have worked with since then. A couple of years later, they “tweaked” the law, adding, among other items, a Generation Skipping Transfer Tax. The Estate Tax was imposed on the value an individual transferred on death. The Gift Tax was imposed on transfers during an individual’s lifetime. The Generation Skipping Tax (GSTT) was imposed--in addition to Estate and Gift Taxes–on transfer to generations further removed than an individual’s own children. This tax scheme contained a couple important exceptions. First, whenever assets are transferred between spouses, there is no tax on that transfer. This has been named the “Marital Deduction.” Mechanically this is a “deduction” on Estate and Gift Tax Returns, but in my view it is inaptly named. It really is a deferral–not a deduction. Because it is a deferral, it can be a trap for the unwary. If relied upon, a married couple might lose an entire exemption.

The second is the charitable deduction. This says that you get a dollar for dollar deduction from Estate and/or Gift Tax on every dollar transferred to charity. This can be a powerful planning tool. But there is a trap waiting for some who have used it in their trusts. I’ll address that below.

Effective in 1986, the maximum value an individual could transfer, during lifetime or at death, was $600,000 (we generally refer to this as an “exemption”). In the late 1990's the amount was incrementally increased from the original $600,000 to $1million. The $1million would have been reached in 2006.

When the “changing of the guard” from a Democrat-controlled Congress and Presidency to all-Republican control was completed in 2000, Congress passed the current law, which accelerated the incremental increases significantly, and eliminated the Estate Tax and the GSTT on January 1, 2010. Inexplicably, the Gift Tax remains in force, with a $1million dollar lifetime exemption. The big problem with this, however, is that the law that became effective in 2000, expires by its own terms on December 31, 2010.

Beginning January 1, 2011, unless Congress acts to change this, the maximum exemption will return to $1 million. In the meantime, we are in a proverbial “no man’s land” regarding planning.

What Should You Do?

If you have not done so already, you need to review your plans with your advisors, in light of this situation. In our practice, we have tried for a number of years, during this period of seemingly phrenetic change, to draft for flexibility. If your documents have not been recently reviewed and do not contain certain language providing for some of this flexibility, you, your spouse, or your children may be in for a rude surprise.

Formula Clauses in Trusts. This is an area which may catch some by surprise. The traditional trust (often referred to as a Credit-Shelter, Bypass, or A-B Trust) technique provides that on death, the maximum amount allowed to pass free of tax (historically, the amount of the exemption) is to be set aside in a trust which allows for limited use and benefit – but not transfer to the spouse and therefore not owned by the spouse. This is done to “bypass” the marital deduction and use all of the exemption (thus, the term “Bypass Trust”). If you are counting on a certain amount or certain specific assets transferring to the spouse, but have only this formula clause in the Trust document, under the 2010 rules, the entir amount of the decedent's trust estate will be held in the Bypass Trust, no matter how large the estate.

If you are counting on a certain amount or certain specific assets transferring to the spouse, but have only this formula clause in the Trust document, under 2010 rules, the entire amount of decedent’s trust estate will be held in the Bypass Trust, no matter how large the estate.

Charitable Formula Provisions. Some Trusts provide that the exempt amount will pass to children or other heirs and balance to a Charity. When there was an established amount and the estate size was modestly over the exemption amount, that probably worked to satisfy a client’s objectives. As the exemption increases or is eliminated, this may not work any more. In 2010, by defiinition, this clause will transfer the decedent's entire trust estate to the Charity and nothing to other heirs.

In 2010, by definition, this clause will transfer the decedent’s entire trust estate to the Charity, and nothing to other heirs!

Other Lurking Issues. Under the current law, the concept of “stepped up” basis is no longer effective. When a capital asset is transferred by gift during lifetime, the transferee “receives” the transferor’s basis (and eventual capital gain on disposition). Under old rules, when a capital asset was transferred “by reason of death,” the transferor’s basis was adusted so the transferee would have a brand new, fair market value, basis on receipt. The new rule, effective January 1, 2010, treats such assets whether inherited by reason of death or received by lifetime gift, the same. The transferor’s basis now “carries over” to the new owner. There is no longer an adjustment to fair market value. This may well have significant consequences and should be considered in planning.

One item of good news here is that the law retained an election by the executor or trustee to step up some of the assets under the old rule. There are rules and time frames, and an administrator will now have to be diligent about it. The amount which may be elected is substantial ($1.3 million).

Conclusion

It is uncertain where we are going with this and whether Congress will act this year–or not at all. It is certain that if you have not done so, you need to review existing plans and adjust where necessary. Earlier, I alluded to drafting for flexibility. There are “disclaimer” techniques and a technique using something called a Power of Appointment which may be very useful in these uncertain times. Your advisor should know about these techniques.

Read more...