Category: Estates & Trusts

Grantor Trusts Rules – Will the Loopholes be Closed in 2025?

While some may see the discovery and use of tax loopholes as a triumph of human ingenuity, others see their exploitation as an abuse of the tax code. The concepts developed here are complex but worth understanding if you want to use them for your clients or participate in the public discourse about related tax law reforms.

When anticipating significant appreciation of an asset, affluent taxpayers typically have two options: 1.  transfer the property now (as a gift) to avoid estate taxes on future appreciation, or 2. transfer the property upon death to avoid income taxes on the appreciation. For each of these options, there is good news and bad news:

If the taxpayer gifts the property today, its value is fixed for transfer tax purposes as of the gift date per IRC Sec. 2512. This avoids transfer taxes on any future appreciation. However, the donee inherits the donor’s basis, often low, under IRC Sec. 1015 and will pay income tax on the appreciation when selling the property.

If the property is transferred at death, its value is determined at the date of death under Sec. 2031, capturing all appreciation for transfer tax purposes. The donee receives a stepped-up basis under IRC Sec. 1014, eliminating income tax on the appreciation that occurred before the donor’s death. However, the property is subject to the estate tax at its current fair market value.

In addition to the above, we need to mention an intermediate situation, the incomplete gift. An incomplete gift occurs when the donor retains certain powers or interests over the transferred property, which prevents the gift from being considered complete for tax purposes. This can have various implications, including the deferral of gift tax liability and the potential inclusion of the property in the donor’s estate.

Tax Planning Conundrum: Wouldn’t it be nice if a taxpayer who has an estate large enough to be subject to estate taxes could do both: avoid capital gains taxes and avoid additions to the taxable estate due to appreciation? In other words, could one obtain a stepped-up basis for income tax purposes while also “freezing” the value of the wealth for transfer tax purposes?

Let’s hold that thought and review the Grantor Trust Rules. They determine when a trust is a grantor trust and when it is not, which in turn determines who pays income taxes. This will be important to solving the tax planning conundrum posed above.

Grantor Trust Rules

The distinction between a grantor trust and a non-grantor trust depends on whether the settlor (grantor) retains any incidents of ownership over the trust. If they do, it is a grantor trust; if they don’t, it’s a non-grantor trust. Incidents of ownership can be any number of things by which control over the trust is exerted, for example, the right to change beneficiaries (Table 1).

As stated, in a grantor trust, the grantor maintains a certain degree of control over the trust’s assets or income. In contrast, non-grantor trusts include irrevocable trusts in which the grantor has relinquished control over the trust assets and does not retain any powers that would cause the trust to be treated as a grantor trust.

Provision Description
Power to Revoke (§ 676) If the grantor has the power to revoke the trust and reclaim the trust assets, the trust is considered a grantor trust.
Power to Control Beneficial Enjoyment (§ 674) If the grantor retains certain powers to control the beneficial enjoyment of the trust’s income or principal, the trust may be treated as a grantor trust.
Administrative Powers (§ 675) If the grantor retains administrative powers that can affect the beneficial enjoyment of the trust, the trust may be considered a grantor trust.
Reversionary Interests (§ 673) If the grantor retains a reversionary interest in the trust that exceeds 5% of the trust’s value, the trust is considered a grantor trust.
Income for the Benefit of the Grantor (§ 677) If the trust income is or may be used to pay premiums on insurance policies on the life of the grantor or the grantor’s spouse, the trust is treated as a grantor trust.

If the trust income can be distributed to the grantor or the grantor’s spouse or held for future distribution to them, the trust is considered a grantor trust.

Table 1: The most important grantor trust rules

The distinction between grantor and non-grantor trusts was made to determine who has to pay income taxes on the trust’s income. In a grantor trust, it’s the grantor; in a non-grantor trust, it’s the trust.

The transfer tax and income tax regimes are closely aligned. When a grantor retains control over transferred property in a trust, they have a grantor trust.  This property is generally considered owned by the grantor at death for estate tax purposes. For instance, if a grantor has the power to revoke a trust, Section 676 treats the grantor as owning the property for income tax purposes, and Section 2038 treats it as owned by the grantor at death for estate tax purposes. However, there is a loophole.

The Loophole – The Intentionally Defective Grantor Trust

An Intentionally Defective Grantor Trust (IDGT) is a type of trust designed to be treated as owned by the grantor for income tax purposes but not for estate tax purposes. This means that the income generated by the trust is taxable to the grantor, but the trust’s assets are not included in the grantor’s estate for estate tax purposes. To draft an IDGT, certain provisions must be included to ensure that the trust is considered defective for income tax purposes. These provisions typically involve intentionally violating one of the above grantor rules so that the trust is taxed on the trust’s income.

A more descriptive name for an Intentionally Defective Grantor Trust (IDGT) could be “Swap Power Grantor Trust”. The swap power is a common feature in the drafting of an Intentionally Defective Grantor Trust (IDGT). It allows the grantor to reacquire trust property by substituting other property of equivalent value. This power is crucial because it helps ensure that the trust is considered a grantor trust for income tax purposes while not causing the trust property to be included in the grantor’s estate for estate tax purposes.

The “Swap Power” in Action:

  • Income Tax Implications:
    • Section 675: The swap power causes the grantor to be treated as owning the property for income tax purposes.
    • No Corresponding Estate Tax Rule: There is no rule that includes this property in the grantor’s estate for transfer tax purposes. Thus, the value of the property for transfer tax purposes is fixed at the time of the gift (Section 2512).

Transferring Property to the Trust:

  • Initial Transfer:
    • When the grantor transfers property to a trust with a swap power, the property is valued for gift and estate tax purposes as of the date of the gift, which freezes its value.
  • Appreciation:
    • Inside the trust, after the transfer, the property may enjoy unlimited appreciation; however, its value for estate tax purposes remains “frozen” at the time of the gift.

Income Tax Treatment of Transactions with the Trust:

  • Disregarded Transactions:
    • Under Section 675, transactions between the grantor and the trust (due to the swap power) are disregarded for income tax purposes.
    • Exercise of Swap Power:
      • When the grantor exercises the swap power (exchanging property within the trust), it is seen as moving assets between the grantor’s own “pockets,” so there are no income tax consequences.

Basis and Tax Implications:

  • Carryover Basis Rule (Section 1015):
    • Normally, the basis of the gifted property carries over to the donee, meaning any appreciation is subject to income tax when the property is sold.
  • Stepped-Up Basis (Section 1014):
    • By using the swap power, the grantor can transfer appreciated low-basis property out of the trust and high-basis property of the same value into the trust.
    • The appreciated property is back in the grantor’s hands. When the grantor dies, it gets a stepped-up basis to its fair market value at death.
    • This eliminates the capital gains tax on the appreciation of the property that occurred before the grantor’s death.
    • In addition, estate taxes are at a lower level because the valuation for estate tax purposes was frozen before appreciation in the trust.

This is all very well, but let’s see how this works out in practice.

Simplified Example

  • Grantor: John
  • Trust Beneficiary: Emily
  • Property: Real estate
  • Initial Value: $2 million
  • Appreciated Value: $6 million

Steps:

See Figure 1.

  1. Initial Transfer:
    • John transfers real estate valued at $2 million to a trust with a swap power. This value is fixed for gift and estate tax purposes.
  2. Appreciation:
    • The property appreciates to $6 million over several years, but its value for estate tax purposes remains “frozen” at $2 million.
  3. Using the Swap Power:
    • John uses the swap power to exchange the $6 million property in the trust for $6 million in cash or other assets.
    • This transaction has no income tax consequences because it is disregarded under Section 675.
  4. Basis Adjustment:
    • Normally, the property in the trust would retain John’s original basis, making any appreciation subject to income tax when sold.
    • By swapping the property out of the trust for $6 Million, John reclaims the house. Upon his death and transfer to beneficiaries, the property gets a stepped-up basis to its fair market value of $6 million.
    • This eliminates capital gains tax on the appreciation that occurred before John’s death.

avoid capital gains and estate taxes with a swap power

Figure 1: How to avoid capital gains and estate taxes with a swap power in a grantor trust (Intentionally Defective Grantor Trust)

John effectively avoids income tax on the property’s appreciation during his lifetime and ensures the property gets a stepped-up basis at his death, providing significant tax advantages for Emily. Our tax planning conundrum from above has been solved.

A number of other techniques have a similar effect, but their discussion goes beyond the scope of this article.

Biden’s Reform Plans

Historical Background

Until 1986, taxpayers aimed to avoid having their trusts classified as grantor trusts to escape the burden of personally paying income taxes on trust earnings. This was crucial in an era with a highly progressive income tax system, exemplified by 1954’s 24 tax brackets ranging from 20% to 91%. In 1954 Congress, codifying judicial decisions and wanting to prevent income shifting from higher to lower tax brackets, enacted the grantor trust rules. However, the 1986 Tax Reform Act and subsequent reforms compressed income tax rates, making grantor trusts more favorable. Today, classifying a trust as a grantor trust often results in better tax outcomes. Moreover, as explained above, careful drafting of grantor trusts can limit both estate and income taxes to an extent otherwise not possible (1).

The current situation subverts Congress’s original intent and is also perceived as societally unfair, as it benefits only the already very wealthy. Reforms are periodically suggested, most recently by the Biden administration in the Greenbook, the Tax Proposal for 2025 (2).

Several reform efforts are aimed at Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts, which we will discuss in a follow-up article but list here for context.

1. Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts (GRATs)

  • Minimum Value for Gift Tax: The remainder interest in a GRAT must have a minimum value for gift tax purposes equal to the greater of 25% of the value of the assets transferred or $500,000.
  • Annuity Payments: The annuity payments cannot decrease during the term of the GRAT.
  • Minimum and Maximum Terms: The GRAT must have a minimum term of ten years and a maximum term equal to the annuitant’s life expectancy plus ten years.
  • Prohibition on Tax-Free Exchanges: The grantor cannot exchange assets held in the trust without recognizing gain or loss for income tax purposes.
  • Impact: These changes aim to reduce the use of short-term and “zeroed-out” GRATs, which are often used for tax avoidance purposes.

2. Sales and Transfers Between Grantor Trusts and Deemed Owners

  • Taxable Events: Sales of appreciated assets between a grantor and a grantor trust will be recognized as taxable events, requiring the seller to pay capital gains tax on the appreciation.
  • Basis Adjustment: The buyer’s basis in the transferred asset will be the amount paid to the seller.
  • Purpose: This proposal aims to prevent tax-free transfers of appreciated assets and ensure that such transactions are treated similarly to sales between unrelated parties.

3. Income Tax Payments as Gifts

  • Gift Treatment: The grantor’s payment of income tax on the trust’s income will be treated as a taxable gift to the trust. This gift will occur on December 31 of the year the tax is paid unless the trust reimburses the grantor.
  • Impact: This change ensures that the grantor’s payment of the trust’s income tax liabilities is recognized as a transfer of value subject to gift tax.

4. Realization of Capital Gains

  • Realization Events: Unrealized capital gains on appreciated property will be taxed at the time of transfer by gift or upon death. This includes transfers to or from most types of trusts and distributions from revocable grantor trusts to persons other than the trust’s owner or their spouse.
  • Impact: This would treat transfers of appreciated assets as taxable events, departing from the current practice of realizing such gains only upon sale. It aims to ensure that high-income taxpayers do not benefit from deferred capital gains taxes indefinitely.

5. Intrafamily Asset Transfers

  • Valuation Discounts: Discounts for lack of marketability and control will be reduced or eliminated for intrafamily transfers of partial interests in assets if the family collectively owns at least 25% of the property.
  • Collective Valuation: The transferred interest’s value will be calculated as a pro-rata share of the total fair market value of the property held by the transferor and their family members, as if a single individual owned all interests.
  • Purpose: This proposal aims to curb the use of valuation discounts to reduce the taxable value of intrafamily transfers.

What if the Republicans Gain Control of Congress?

The Republican proposals regarding grantor trusts largely focus on maintaining the status quo established by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). This includes making the increased estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax exemptions permanent, thus avoiding the reduction scheduled for 2026. Additionally, Republicans are likely to oppose the Biden administration’s suggested reforms, such as treating sales between a grantor and a grantor trust as taxable events and recognizing the payment of income tax on trust income as a taxable gift.

Conclusion

As we anticipate potential changes to the grantor trust rules in 2025, it’s clear that the landscape of estate planning may undergo significant transformations. The Biden administration’s proposals, likely to be adopted in a similar form by Vice President Harris, aim to close loopholes that currently allow for substantial tax advantages through mechanisms like the swap power and GRATs. These reforms would impose stricter requirements and tax consequences, curbing the ability to avoid capital gains and transfer taxes. Conversely, Republican proposals focus on maintaining the current tax benefits established by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Understanding these proposals and their potential impacts is crucial for tax professionals and affluent taxpayers. Staying informed and proactive will ensure the optimal structuring of trusts and asset transfers, aligning with the evolving tax regulations and maximizing the benefits within the legal framework.

 References:

1  Jesse Huber. The grantor trust rules: An exploited mismatch. The Tax Adviser. November 1, 2021

2  Department of the Treasury March 11, 2024. General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2025 Revenue Proposals. Green Book p.127

© 2024 wealthcarelawyer.com. All rights reserved.

The New Retirement Security Rule: Updated Fiduciary Definition Under ERISA

On April 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (the “DOL”) promulgated a final rule, titled the “Retirement Security Rule” (the “Final Rule”), updating the definition of an “investment advice fiduciary” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”). In addition, the DOL issued final amendments to several prohibited transaction class exemptions (“PTEs”) available to investment advice fiduciaries, which together with the Final Rule seek to effectuate the DOL’s goal of requiring honest investment advice from investment advice fiduciaries to retirement investors. The updated fiduciary definition under the Final Rule and the amended PTEs will become effective on September 23, 2024, with a one-year phase-in period for certain conditions of the amended PTEs.

Fiduciary Definition

The framework for determining whether a person is an investment advice fiduciary has historically required that investment advice be provided to a retirement investor on a regular basis and pursuant to a mutual agreement, arrangement, or understanding that such advice will serve as a primary basis for investment decisions.

Under the Final Rule, a person will be an investment advice fiduciary for purposes of ERISA if (1) they make a recommendation of any securities transaction or other investment transaction or any investment strategy to a retirement investor for a fee or other compensation (direct or indirect), and (2) such recommendation arises in either one of the following contexts:

  • The person either directly or indirectly (e.g., through or together with any affiliate) makes professional investment recommendations to investors on a regular basis as part of their business, and the recommendation is made under circumstances that would indicate to a reasonable investor in like circumstances that the recommendation:
    • is based on review of the retirement investor’s particular needs or individual circumstances,
    • reflects the application of professional or expert judgment to the retirement investor’s particular needs or individual circumstances, and
    • may be relied on by the retirement investor as intended to advance the retirement investor’s best interest; or
  • the person represents or acknowledges that they are acting as a fiduciary under ERISA with respect to the recommendation.

For purposes of the Final Rule, a “retirement investor” is defined as a plan, plan fiduciary, plan participant or beneficiary, IRA, IRA owner or beneficiary, or IRA fiduciary. “Recommendations” means recommendations as to:

  • the advisability of acquiring, holding, disposing of, or exchanging securities or other investment property, investment strategy, or how securities or other investment property should be invested following a rollover, transfer, or distribution from a plan or IRA;
  • the management of securities or other investment property, including, among other things, recommendations on investment policies or strategies, portfolio composition, selection of other persons to provide investment advice or investment management services, selection of investment account arrangements, or voting of proxies appurtenant to securities; or
  • rollovers, transfers, or distributions of assets from a plan or IRA, including recommendations as to whether to engage in the transaction, the amount, the form and the destination of such a rollover, transfer or distribution.

Significant Changes

The investment advice fiduciary standard in the Final Rule has become narrower than initially anticipated:

  • The DOL clarified that with respect to a person who becomes an investment advice fiduciary due to their representing or acknowledging that they are acting as a fiduciary under ERISA with respect to a recommendation, fiduciary status would apply only with respect to that recommendation and not with respect to every future interaction with the same retirement investor regardless of the circumstances.
  • The Final Rule includes a paragraph specifically confirming that sales pitches and investment education can be provided without triggering ERISA fiduciary status. A key component of this consideration is whether a sales pitch is individualized to a retirement investor’s particular needs and circumstances.

Amendment to Exemption for Transactions Involving Investment Advice (PTE 2020-02)

PTE 2020-02 generally permits parties providing fiduciary investment advice to retirement investors to receive reasonable compensation in exchange for their services, which would otherwise be prohibited in the absence of an exemption. The final amendment to PTE 2020-02 broadens the exemption to cover additional transactions and revises certain conditions, including conditions relating to disclosure, recordkeeping, and ineligibility.

The amended PTE 2020-02 applies to covered transactions on or after September 23, 2024; however, there is a one-year phase-in period beginning on September 23, 2024. During this phase-in period, investment professionals may receive reasonable compensation if they comply with the Impartial Conduct Standards and the fiduciary acknowledgement requirement.

Required Disclosure and Fiduciary Acknowledgement

The amended PTE 2020-02 requires investment advisers to provide a written acknowledgement that the institution and the investment professional are providing fiduciary advice and are fiduciaries under ERISA. Furthermore, the amended PTE 2020-02 requires investment advisers to make certain additional disclosures regarding fees, scope of services, and conflicts of interest.

Impartial Conduct Standard

The amended PTE 2020-02 replaces the “best interest standard” for determining impartial conduct with the “Care Obligation” and the “Loyalty Obligation,” which, according to the DOL, are more consistent with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation Best Interest. Under the Care Obligation, advice must reflect the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims, based on the investment objectives, risk tolerance, financial circumstances, and needs of the retirement investor. Under the Loyalty Obligation, the investment professional must not place the financial or other interests of the professional, their affiliate or related entity, or other party ahead of the interests of the retirement investor or subordinate the retirement investor’s interests to those of the professional, their affiliate, or related entity.

Policies and Procedures

Each investment adviser must establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures prudently designed to ensure that the investment adviser and its investment professionals comply with the Impartial Conduct Standards and other exemption conditions. The policies must mitigate conflict of interests.

Specifically, investment advisers may not use quotas, appraisals, bonuses, special awards, differential compensation, or other similar actions in a manner that is intended, or that a reasonable person would conclude are likely, to result in recommendations that do not meet the Care Obligation or Loyalty Obligation. The investment adviser must provide their complete policies and procedures to the DOL within 30 days of a request.

Additionally, the investment adviser must continue to conduct a retrospective review at least annually that is reasonably designed to detect and prevent violations of and achieve compliance with the conditions of this exemption. The investment adviser must maintain records demonstrating compliance with PTE 2020-02 for a period of six years after the covered transaction.

Penalties

The amended PTE 2020-02 broadens the disqualification provisions to include convictions of certain affiliated entities and foreign convictions. Previously, an investment adviser or an investment professional was ineligible only upon a conviction for “crimes arising out of such person’s provision of investment advice” to retirement investors. Under the amended PTE 2020-02, however, a relevant conviction or final judgment that occurs on or after September 23, 2024, with respect to an entity in the same controlled group as an investment adviser would result in such investment adviser’s becoming ineligible to rely on PTE 2020-02 for a 10-year period.

The DOL’s Retirement Security Rule has broad implications for financial institutions, including investment advisers.

COPYRIGHT © 2024, STARK & STARK
For more on the Retirement Security Rule, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Confronting Cognitive Abilities in Well-Rounded Estate Planning

Ask anyone how they would define “trusts and estates law” and the odds are the answer will uniformly focus on the act of making the plan as to who will receive a person’s assets when he or she dies.

What happens, however, when the person who makes the so-called plan loses the cognitive ability not only to plan, but further, to carry on with the tasks of ordinary daily living. When that happens, the person we expect to be planning may be taking actions that unbeknownst to him or her are, in fact, jeopardizing the financial well-being of the estate in question and the ultimate inheritance that he or she intends for his or her loved ones to receive upon his or her death.

A recent decision from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Acting Justice Chris Ann Kelley), In the Matter of the Application of T.K., 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 50045 (Suffolk Cnty. Sup. Ct. 2024), illustrates what can happen when the person whom we expect to make the estate plan is no longer competent to protect the very assets contemplated for disposition under that plan.

In T.K., a petition was filed by T.K. (son of K.K.) seeking the appointment of a guardian for his father’s personal needs and property management under Article 81 of the New York Mental Hygiene Law. The basis for the petition was that T.K.’s father was suffering from “severe delusions,” which put his well-being at risk of imminent harm, and which could cause “catastrophic financial loss.”

K.K., the alleged incapacitated person (“AIP”) was an 80-year-old retired advertising executive. He resided with his wife of more than 50 years. T.K. testified that his father had deteriorated mentally over the past 10 years, including more regular consumption of alcohol in large quantities. Of most concern, the AIP had a 15-year business relationship with “Hugh Austin” (“Mr. Austin”), who lived two miles away from the AIP.

T.K. testified that his father had given Mr. Austin approximately $2,500,000 as part of a so-called investment in Mr. Austin’s businesses, which the AIP believed would result in an “imminent return” to the tune of millions of dollars—the AIP never received any money back from Mr. Austin.

Mr. Austin (and his son), meanwhile, was indicted for fraud crimes against 20 victims in excess of $10 million. Yet, the AIP insisted that Mr. Austin “has done nothing wrong.” While Mr. Austin was under house arrest, the AIP continued to meet with him.

The Court Evaluator reported that the AIP had become a “willing participant” in the exploitation perpetrated by Mr. Austin, luring the father into investments coupled with promises of major returns. The evidence also showed that the AIP’s funds were used to pay Mr. Austin’s personal expenses, including trips to Las Vegas. Cash App payments, and various other non-“business-related” charges.

The Court ultimately found that there was a substantial likelihood that the AIP would continue to engage in self-harming activities as a result of years of being psychologically victimized by Mr. Austin. Such victimization caused psychological stress to the AIP, which manifested itself in the forms of “substantial weight loss, excessive consumption of alcohol and diminished abilities to concentrate and communicate.”

In view of the foregoing, the Court appointed a property management guardian to prevent the AIP from self-harm “by reason of his functional limitations and lack of understanding and appreciation of them.”

Many of us have lived the experience of having a parent, or grandparent, lose cognitive functioning to the point where it is inconceivable that such a person could be in any position to properly plan for the disposition of his or her assets.

The T.K. decision presents another reminder as to why a critical element of estate planning is not just the plan to dispose of one’s assets, but also, defining how to implement that plan when the individual himself or herself is no longer able to carry out the directives of that very plan, and to ensure that a plan is in place to address the situation where the individual lacks the necessary capacity to continue to make decisions with respect to his or her own personal affairs.

These are difficult discussions to have, particularly amidst a culture that walks on eggshells when topics such as death and divorce enter the fray. But to ignore these discussions within our own families, and separately, with our trusts and estates counsel, is a mistake; they are elemental to proper estate planning, not to mention the acceptance of reality.

© 2024 Blank Rome LLP
For more news on Estate Planning, visit the NLR Estates & Trusts section.

Wealth Management Update January 2024

JANUARY 2024 INTEREST RATES FOR GRATS, SALES TO DEFECTIVE GRANTOR TRUSTS, INTRA-FAMILY LOANS AND SPLIT INTEREST CHARITABLE TRUSTS

The January applicable federal rate (“AFR”) for use with a sale to a defective grantor trust, self-canceling installment note (“SCIN”) or intra-family loan with a note having a duration of 3-9 years (the mid-term rate, compounded annually) is 4.37%, down from 4.82% in December 2023.

The January 2024 Section 7520 rate for use with estate planning techniques such as CRTs, CLTs, QPRTs and GRATs is 5.20%, down from the 5.80% Section 7520 rate in December 2023.

The AFRs (based on annual compounding) used in connection with intra-family loans are 5.00% for loans with a term of 3 years or less, 4.37% for loans with a term between 3 and 9 years, and 4.54% for loans with a term of longer than 9 years.

REG-142338-07 – PROPOSED REGULATIONS RELATED TO DONOR ADVISED FUNDS

On November 13, 2023, the Department of the Treasury and IRS released Proposed Regulation REG-142338-07 under Section 4966; providing guidance related to numerous open-issues with respect to certain tax rules relating to donor advised funds “(DAFs”).

Pursuant to §4966(d)(2)(A), a DAF is defined generally as a fund or account (1) that is separately identified by reference to contributions of a donor or donors, (2) owned and controlled by a sponsoring organization, and (3) with respect to which a donor (or person appointed or designated by such donor) has, or reasonably expects to have, advisory privileges with respect to the distribution or investment of amounts held in the fund or account by reason of the donor’s status as a donor.

Under the proposed regulations, the definition of a DAF is consistent with the definition under the statute (the same three elements), however, the proposed regulations provide key definitions with respect to specific terms under the Statute.

Element #1: a fund that is separately identified by reference to contributions of a donor or donors.

Separately Identified: The proposed regulations provide that a fund or account is separately identified if the sponsoring organization maintains a formal record of contributions to the fund relating to a donor or donors (regardless of whether the sponsoring organization commingles the assets attributed to the fund with other assets of the sponsoring organization).

If the sponsoring organization does not maintain a formal record, then whether a fund or account is separately identified would be based on all the facts and circumstances, including but not limited to whether: (1) the fund or account balance reflects items such as contributions, expenses and performance; (2) the fund or account is named after the donors; (3) the sponsoring organization refers to the account as a DAF; (4) the sponsoring organization has an agreement or understanding with the donors that such account is a DAF; and (5) the donors regularly receive a statement from the sponsoring organization.

Donor: The proposed regulations broadly define a Donor as any person described in 7701(a)(1) that contributes to a fund or account of a sponsoring organization. However, the proposed regulations specifically exclude public charities defined in 509(a) and any governmental unit described in 170(c)(1). Note: Private foundations and disqualified supporting organizations are not excluded from the definition of a donor since they could use a DAF to circumvent the payout and other applicable requirements.

Element #2: a fund that is owned or controlled by a sponsoring organization. The definition of a sponsoring organization is consistent with §4966(d)(1), specifically, an organization described in §170(c), other than a private foundation, that maintains one or more DAFs.

Element #3: a fund under which at least one donor or donor-advisor has advisory privileges.

Advisory Privileges: In general, the existence of advisory privileges is based on all facts and circumstances, but it is presumed that the donor always has such privileges (even if no advice is given).

The proposed regulations provide that advisory privileges exist when: (i) the sponsoring organization allows a donor or donor-advisor to provide nonbinding recommendations regarding distributions or investments of a fund; (ii) a written agreement states that a donor or donor-advisor has advisory privileges; (iii) a written document or marketing material provided to the donor or donor-advisor indicates that such donor or donor-advisor may provide advice to the sponsoring organization; or (iv) the sponsoring organization generally solicits advice from a donor or donor-advisor regarding distributions or investment of a DAF’s assets.

Donor-Advisor: Defined by the proposed regulations as a person appointed or designated by a donor to have advisory privileges regarding the distribution or investment of assets held in a DAF. If a donor-advisor delegates any of the donor-advisor’s advisor privileges to another person, such person would also be a donor-advisor.

Potential Issue related to Investment Advisors: Is a donor’s personal investment advisor deemed a “donor-advisor?” Pursuant to the proposed regulations:

  • An investment advisor will not be deemed a donor-advisor if he or she:
    • Serves the supporting organization as a whole; or
    • Is recommended by the donor to serve on a committee (of more than 3) of the sponsoring organization that advises as to distributions
  • However, an investment advisor will be deemed a donor-advisor if he or she manages the investments of, or provides investment advice with respect to, both assets maintained in a DAF and the personal assets of a donor to that DAF while serving in such dual capacity. This provision, if finalized may have important consequences for fee structures used by supporting organizations since payments from a DAF to an investment advisor who is considered a donor-advisor will be deemed a taxable distribution under §4966. The IRS is requesting additional comments on this potential issue and is still under consideration.

Exceptions to the Definition of a DAF Under the Proposed Regulations:

  • A multiple donor fund or account will not be a DAF if no donor or donor-advisor has, or reasonably expects to have, advisory privileges.
  • An account or fund that is established to make distributions solely to a single public charity or governmental entity for public purposes is not considered a DAF.
  • A DAF does not include a fund that exclusively makes grants for certain scholarship funds related to travel, study or other similar purposes.
  • Disaster relief funds are not DAFs, provided they comply with other requirements.

Applicability Date: The proposed regulations will apply to taxable years ending on or after the date on which final regulations are published in the Federal Register.

EILEEN GONZALEZ ET AL V. LUIS O. CHIONG ET AL (SEP. 19, 2023)

Miami Circuit Court enters significant judgment for liability related to ownership of golf cart.

Eileen Gonzalez and Luis Chiong and their families were neighbors in a Miami suburb. The families were good friends and had many social interactions. Luis owned a golf cart which he constantly allowed to be driven and used by other people and Eileen’s minor children were often passengers on this specific golf cart.

Luis’ step-niece, Zabryna Acuna, was visiting for July 4th weekend in 2016. Zabryna (age 16 at that time) visited often and during each visit, she had permission to drive the golf cart. On July 4, 2016, Zabryna took the golf cart for a drive with Luis’ son and Eileen’s minor children as passengers.

While driving on a public street, Zabryna ran a stop sign and collided with another car which caused all of the passenger to be ejected from the golf cart. Every passenger suffered injuries, however, Eileen’s son, Devin, suffered a particularly catastrophic brain injury. This led to an eventual lawsuit.

The Circuit Court ruled that Luis owed the plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care which he breached and was negligent in entrusting the golf cart to his niece who negligently operated it causing the crash and injuries at issue. The Court further held that pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court, a golf cart is a dangerous instrumentality, and the dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes vicarious liability upon the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts it to an individual whose negligent operation if it causes damage to another.

Ultimately, the Court awarded a total judgment of $50,100,000 (approximately $46,100,000 to Devin and approximately $4,000,000 to his parents).

IR-2023-185 (OCT 5, 2023)

The IRS warns of Art Valuation Schemes (Oct 5, 2023).

The IRS essentially issued a warning to taxpayers that they will be increasing investigations and taxpayer audits for incorrect or aggressively creative deductions with respect to donations of art. Additionally, the IRS is paying attention to art promoters who are involved in such schemes.

The IRS is warning taxpayers to exercise caution when approached by art promoters who are commonly attempting to facilitate the following specific scheme wherein: (i) a taxpayer is encouraged to purchase art at a significantly discounted price; (ii) the taxpayer is then advised to hold the art for a period of at least one year; and (iii) the taxpayer subsequently donates the art to a charity (often times a charity arranged by the promoter) and claim a tax deduction at an inflated market value, often significantly more than the original purchase price.

This increased scrutiny has led to over 60 completed audits with many more in process and has led to more than $5,000,000 in additional tax.

The IRS reminds taxpayers that they are ultimately responsible for the accuracy of the information reported on their tax return regardless of whether they were enticed by an outside promoter. Therefore, the IRS has provided the following red flags with respect to the purchase of artwork: (i) taxpayers should be wary of buying multiple works by the same artist that have little to no market value outside of what a promoter is advertising; and (ii) when the appraisal coordinated by a promoter fails to adequately describe the artwork (such rarity, age, quality, condition, stature of the artist, etc.).

Within the Notice, the IRS details the tax reporting requirements for donations of art. Specifically, whenever a taxpayer intends to claim a charitable contribution deduction of over $20,000 for an art donation, they must provide the following: (i) the name and address of the charitable organization that received it; (ii) the date and location of the contribution; (iii) a detailed description of the donated art; (iv) a contemporaneous written acknowledgement of the contribution form the charitable organization; (v) completed Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contribution, Section A and B including signatures of the qualified appraiser and done; and (vi) attach a copy of the qualified appraisal to the tax return. They may also be asked to provide a high-resolution photo or digital image.

NEW YORK PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AMENDED TO PERMIT REMOTE WITNESSES FOR HEALTH CARE PROXIES (NOV 17, 2023)

An amendment to Section 2981 of New York Public Health Law was signed into law by the governor on November 17, 2023.

Section 2981 was amended to add a new subdivision 2-a, as follows:

2-A. Alternate procedure for witnessing health care proxies. Witnessing a health care proxy under this section may be done using audio-video technology, for either or both witnesses, provided that the following conditions are met:

  1. The principal, if not personally known to a remote witness, shall display valid photographic identification to the remote witness during the audio-video conference;
  2. The audio-video conference shall allow for direction interaction between the principal and any remote witness;
  3. Any remote witness shall receive a legible copy of the health care proxy, which shall be transmitted via facsimile or electronic means, within 24 hours of the proxy being signed by the principal during the conference; and
  4. The remote witness shall sign the transmitted copy of the proxy and return it to the principal.

SMALL BUSINESS SUCCESSION PLANNING ACT INTRODUCED (OCT 12, 2023)

On October 12, 2023, the Small Business Succession Planning Act was introduced to provide businesses with resources to plan successions, including a one-time $250 credit to create a business succession plan and an additional one-time $250 tax credit when the plan is executed.

Under the proposed Bill, the SBA will provide a “toolkit” to assist small business concerns in establishing a business succession plan, including:

  1. Training resource partners on the toolkit;
  2. Educating small business concerns about the program;
  3. Ensuring that each SBA district office has an employee with the specific responsibility of providing counseling to small business concerns on the use of such toolkit; and
  4. Hold workshops or events on business succession planning.

Pursuant to the proposed Act, the following credits would be available:

  1. $250 for the first taxable year during which the SBA certifies that the taxpayer has: (a) established a business succession plan; (b) is a small business concern at that time; and (c) does not provide for substantially all of the interests or assets to be acquire by one or more entities that are not a small business concern.
  2. An additional $250 for the first taxable year which the SBA certifies that the taxpayer has successfully completed the items described above.

Look-back Rule: If substantially all of the equity interests in business are acquired by an entity that is not a small business concern within three-years of establishment of a business succession plan or completion of such responsibilities (as the case may be) the credits will be subject to recapture.

Small Business Concern (defined under Section 3 of the Small Business Act): A business entity that (a) is legal entity that is independently owned and operated; and (b) is not dominant in its field of operation and does not exceed the relevant small business size standard (subject to standards and number of employees provided by the North American Industry Classification System).

Henry J. Leibowitz, Caroline Q. Robbins, Jay D. Waxenberg, and Joshua B. Glaser contributed to this article.

© 2023 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more news on Wealth Management in 2024, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

2024 Estate Planning Outlook: Transfer Tax Changes are on the Horizon

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) significantly increased the lifetime estate and gift tax exemption from $5.6 million to $11.18 million for individuals, with adjustments for inflation starting in 2018. For 2023, the lifetime estate and gift tax exemption is $12.92 million (or $25.84 million for married couples). For 2024, the lifetime estate and gift tax exemption will be $13.61 million (or $27.22 million for married couples). This relatively high exemption level has offered substantial relief to many taxpayers in recent years.

However, absent Congressional action, the lifetime estate and gift tax exemption is scheduled to sunset after 2025 to its pre-2018 amount (adjusted for inflation). If this sunset does in fact occur, we anticipate that the lifetime estate and gift tax exemption will revert to around $7 million ($14 million for couples) for 2026, effectively reducing the exemption by about one-half. This substantial reduction in the lifetime estate and gift tax exemption will cause many more people to be potentially subject to federal estate tax at death.

The potential substantial reduction in the lifetime estate and gift tax exemption could have several significant impacts on estate planning:

  1. Increased Number of Estates Subject to Estate Tax. A much higher number of individuals could be subject to estate tax at death due to the new lower estate tax exemption threshold. Proper planning is crucial to minimize this impact.
  2. Increased Estate Tax Liability. Individuals with estates valued in excess of the new lower estate tax exemption threshold could be subject to higher estate taxes at death. Proper planning is crucial to minimize this impact.
  3. Gifting Strategies. If the lifetime gift tax exemption is reduced, then individuals will have a diminished ability to make significant gifts during their lifetime and greater care will need to be given to maximizing the tax benefits of the lower exemption.
  4. Reviewing Existing Plans. Individuals who designed their estate plans based on the current lifetime estate and gift tax exemption should consider revisiting their plans to ensure those plans remain aligned with their goals and objectives.

The big question in the estate planning world today is whether, when, and to what extent Congress will enact changes to gift, estate, and income tax laws. With many challenges facing the current Biden Administration and a heavily divided Congress, it is not certain that major tax legislation even will be considered in 2024. Nevertheless, the tax proposals endorsed by the Biden Administration provide signals for actions clients should consider during the current year.

Executive Summary

  • The time to gift is 2024 — change is potentially on the horizon.
  • The timing and extent of potential changes to gift and estate tax laws are unclear.
  • Some potential changes could include reducing the exemption, increasing the estate tax rate, increasing the capital gains tax rate, and eliminating the basis adjustment.
  • Consider “locking in” the 2024 exemption amount by gifting to irrevocable trusts and continuing to take advantage of planning opportunities to shift appreciation out of your estate with techniques such as GRATs and intra-family loans.

Potential Legislative Tax Changes[1]

Potential Transfer Tax Changes – Lowered Transfer Tax Exemptions & Increased Transfer Tax Rate

The Biden Administration has proposed lowering the current lifetime estate and gift tax exemption amount to around $3.5 million per individual and increasing the estate tax rate from 40% to 45% on amounts exceeding the exemption. Instead, we may see Congress simply let the exemption sunset back to around $7 million (adjusted for inflation), which was the exemption amount before the substantial increase enacted under the TCJA.

For what it’s worth, the exemption has never been lowered. Despite this, the doubling of the exemption under the TCJA was a dramatic departure from past policies. Thus, reducing the exemption to $7 million (adjusted for inflation) may seem like an easier path, particularly since Congress is so heavily divided. In other words, Congress may opt to treat the last seven years as a fluke and return to “normal.”

Potential Income Tax Changes – Repeal Basis Adjustment & Capital Gains Taxed as Ordinary Income

The Biden Administration also signaled that it might seek repeal of the basis step-up at death and tax capital gains as ordinary income. Although the basis step-up is an income tax planning concept, it is also an important consideration in transfer tax planning. Under current law, gifts of low basis assets can be detrimental because the donee receives the donor’s basis. Taxpayers often decide to retain certain low basis assets, rather than sell them or gift them, to obtain the basis step-up at death. The family members or trusts receiving those assets then can sell those assets with little or no capital gains tax.

The Biden Administration has proposed to eliminate this basis adjustment. An alternative proposal involves treating the transfer of appreciated property at death or by gift as a taxable event causing the gain to be recognized, but many commentators think this is unlikely.

The Biden Administration proposal to tax long-term capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income on all income over $1 million would further exacerbate the impact of a repeal of the basis step-up.

Planning Ahead

2024 is an opportune time to make the most of your estate and gift tax exemption.

“Locking In” the Estate and Gift Tax Exemption

Many ultra-high net worth individuals have used most, if not all, of their exemption. Under current tax laws, in 2024, individuals may gift up to $13.61 million during their lives ($27.22 million for married couples). If the exemption decreases from $13.61 million to $3.5 million and the estate tax rate is raised from 40% to 45% percent, the cost of inaction is more than $4.5 million (if an individual makes a gift of $13.61 million while the exemption is $3.5 million and gifts beyond the exemption are taxed at a rate of 45%, the resulting gift tax amounts to roughly $4.5 million; $9 million for married couples). If individuals and married couples have not used their exemption(s) and can afford to, they should give serious consideration to completing gifts equal to their remaining exemption(s) in 2024, ideally to a generation-skipping trust for the benefit of their descendants, particularly since these exemptions are scheduled to sunset in 2025.

Depending on your and your family’s goals, circumstances, remaining exemption, and cash flow needs, gifting up to $27.22 million, or even $13.61 million, to a trust for your beneficiaries may not be feasible. A long-accepted way to address this concern is to create a trust that benefits both the Grantor’s spouse and descendants. This type of trust is commonly referred to as a Spousal Lifetime Access Trust (SLAT). A SLAT is a simple and effective way to address the possible need of the senior generation to access the property transferred. It provides direct access for the beneficiary spouse and indirect access for a Grantor spouse. Grantor Trust provisions, such as ones allowing the Grantor of the trust to swap assets or take loans from the trust without full and adequate consideration, offer tax flexibility, and access to funds by loan.

SLATs have become so popular that couples have created trusts for each other. This is not without risk and should only be done with different trust provisions and with creation of the trusts separated in time. Finally, it is important to remember that potential estate tax savings should never be the sole determinate of your financial planning decisions. Individuals who have stretched themselves thin to make significant gifts sometimes have profound “gifter’s remorse.” Thus, make gifts if you can, but, more importantly, make them if you’re comfortable doing so.

Freezing the Size of the Estate

Perhaps you and your spouse have already utilized your exemptions and are seeking ways to further reduce the tax burden on your estate, or you are not ready to commit large transfers of your property. In either situation, an excellent alternative is to freeze the growth of your estate with strategies like Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts (GRATs) and installment sales with trusts or family loans. GRATs and installment sales have thrived in the past low interest rate environment because assets have often grown in value at a rate above the rate of the annuity, in the case of GRATs, or the interest rate on a promissory note. However, in today’s current higher rate environment, the tax benefits of these planning opportunities may be more restrictive as the appreciation hurdle for a GRAT is now substantially higher than before, and the interest rate on an installment sale is also substantially higher. However, these strategies will still essentially “freeze” the size of one’s estate and transfer potentially significant appreciation, which would have otherwise remained in the client’s estate, out of his or her estate.

Uncertainty Doesn’t Preclude Planning

It is absolutely within the power of Congress to enact retroactive tax legislation if it is rationally related to a legislative purpose, but on a practical level, Congress usually avoids that option. It is almost always unpopular and adds only nominal additional revenue for budgeting purposes. Biden Administration officials already have stated they are not interested in seeking retroactive tax changes. Given the low probability, the threat of retroactive tax law changes should not prevent clients from implementing new estate planning strategies. For those who remain worried, a number of strategies can be structured in a manner that limits potential gift tax liability in the unlikely event legislative changes are enacted retroactively. In 2024, clients should consider reviewing their existing plan to determine whether they can employ certain strategies to maximize use of their exemption and achieve their planning objectives. If the lifetime estate and gift tax exemption is reduced, clients will lose the ability to give away that excess amount (and all subsequent appreciation on that amount).

[1] The following list of potential legislative changes is not all-inclusive. Instead, it focuses on the transfer tax and income tax proposals that would have the most significant impact on the practice of wealth transfer.

© 2023 ArentFox Schiff LLP
For more news on 2024 Transfer Tax Changes, visit the NLR Tax section.

Probate & Fiduciary Litigation Newsletter – November 2023

Voluntary Personal Representative Is a “Prior Appointment” For Purposes of the Limitation Period for Commencing Formal Probate

In The Matter of the Estate of Patricia Ann Slavin, 492 Mass. 551 (2023)

Does the position of voluntary personal representative under G. L. c. 190B, § 3-1201 constitute a “prior appointment,” which operates to exempt an estate from the requirement contained in G. L. c. 190B, § 3-108 that probate, testacy, and appointment proceedings be filed within three years of a decedent’s death? The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered this question in the affirmative In The Matter of the Estate of Patricia Ann Slavin, 492 Mass. 551 (2023).

This case arose out of the murder of Patricia Slavin in May 2016 in circumstances allegedly giving rise to claims for wrongful death. A few months after her death, the decedent’s daughter (petitioner) filed a voluntary administration statement in the Probate and Family Court pursuant to § 3-1201 and thereafter became the voluntary personal representative of her mother’s estate. The petitioner’s status as voluntary personal representative allowed her to administer her mother’s small estate without initiating probate proceedings.

More than three years later, the petitioner—having realized her position as voluntary personal representative did not grant her authority to pursue a wrongful death claim—filed a petition for formal probate in the Probate and Family Court seeking court appointment as personal representative. The petitioner argued that the three-year statute of limitations governing probate proceedings was inapplicable because it excepts otherwise untimely filings for estates in which there has been a “prior appointment.” The Probate and Family Court dismissed the petition as untimely, finding that her position as voluntary personal representative did not qualify as a “prior appointment” under the statute. The judge’s decision relied on a procedural guide published by an administrative office of the Probate and Family Court which provided that the authority of a voluntary personal representative does not result in an official appointment by the court.

The SJC granted the petitioner’s application for direct appellate review and held that both the plain language of G. L. c. 190B, §§ 3-108 and 3-1201 and the purpose of the MUPC support the conclusion that the position of voluntary personal representative is indeed a “prior appointment.” The SJC reversed the judgment of dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

First, the SJC concluded that the plain language of § 3-1201 constitutes an “appointment” given that the register of probate may “issue a certificate of appointment to [a] voluntary personal representative”—language that the SJC refused to consider as mere surplusage. This language plainly contradicted the administrative guide the Probate and Family Court judge relied on. The SJC also considered the plain language of § 3-108, which does not limit the type of “prior appointment” that qualifies for an exception from the statute of limitations.

Second, the SJC held that this conclusion was consistent with the purpose of the ultimate time limit. Section 3-108 is intended to establish a basic limitation period within which it may be determined whether a decedent left a will and to commence administration of an estate. Where a voluntary personal representative has been named, the determination of whether a will exists has been made, and administration of the estate has commenced.

Finally, the SJC held that this interpretation was consistent with the legislature’s goal of “flexible and efficient administration” of estates in that it incentivizes people to continue to utilize voluntary administration for smaller estates without fear that they could not increase their authority beyond three years.

Takeaway: Voluntary administration can be used for administration of smaller estates without risk that the three-year limitation period for commencing formal probate proceedings will bar future probate, testacy, or appointment proceedings, if necessary.

Conformed Copy of Will Not Admitted to Probate

In Matter of Estate of Slezak, 218 A.D.3d 946 (3rd Dep’t July 13, 2023)

Where a conformed copy of a will was located where the decedent said his will could be found, no potential heir contested the validity of the will and testimony established that the will was not revoked, should the conformed copy of the will be admitted to probate? In Matter of Estate of Slezak, 218 A.D.3d 946 (3rd Dep’t July 13, 2023), New York’s Appellate Division, Third Department, answered that question in the negative, indicating how difficult it can be to probate a copy of a will rather than the original

In Slezak, testimony established that the decedent told a witness that his will was in a lockbox under his bed, and that he had left everything to a certain beneficiary. When the lockbox was opened, there was a conformed copy of the will, with the decedent’s and the witnesses’ signatures indicated with “s/[names].” The will left everything to the beneficiary indicated by the testimony. No potential heir contested the validity of the conformed copy. Nonetheless, the Surrogate denied probate and the Appellate Division affirmed.

New York SPCA § 1407 and Third Department case law provide that “A lost or destroyed will may be admitted to probate only if [1] It is established that the will has not been revoked, and [2] Execution of the will is proved in the manner required for the probate of an existing will, and [3] All of the provisions of the will are clearly and distinctly proved by each of at least two credible witnesses or by a copy or draft of the will proved to be true and complete.” The Surrogate found that petitioner had established the first two elements, but had fallen short on the third. The Appellate Division agreed that “petitioner failed to show that the conformed copy of decedent’s will was ‘true and complete,’” stating that “[a]lthough petitioner tendered a conformed copy of decedent’s will, there was no other proof from the hearing confirming that the conformed copy was identical to decedent’s original will.”

Takeaway: Slezak reinforces the importance of being sure that the original version of a will is available. While there appears to have been no contest to the validity of the conformed copy of the will, the courts followed the statute strictly and denied probate when one of the statutory elements for admitting the conformed copy was lacking.

Beneficiary Has a Right to an Accounting Despite the Trustee’s Return of Funds

Kaylie v. Kaylie, 2023 WL 6395345 (1st Dep’t October 3, 2023)

Can the beneficiary of a trust require a trustee to provide an accounting despite the trustee’s return to the trust of the funds said to have been diverted? In Kaylie v. Kaylie, 2023 WL 6395345 (1st Dep’t October 3, 2023), New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, answered that question in the affirmative, reversing the trial court’s determination that no accounting was necessary under the circumstances.

In Kaylie, a beneficiary of a family trust commenced an Article 77 proceeding in Supreme Court upon learning that trust bank accounts unexpectedly had zero balances. In response, the trustee argued, among other things, that the trust “irrefutably has been made whole by the restoration of those funds, thus obviating any purported need on the part of [the beneficiary] for an accounting of those funds.” The trustee also argued that she had been removed as trustee since the dispute arose, limiting her access to the bank records of the trust. The trial court agreed, holding that since the beneficiary had not “show[n] misappropriation of funds” and the trustee no longer held that position, “the intrusion of an [accounting] is not warranted….”

The Appellate Division disagreed and reversed, in a decision reaffirming the principle that a beneficiary “is entitled to a judicial accounting by reason of the fiduciary relationship between” the beneficiary and the trustee. The court stated: “The fact that respondent has returned the trust’s funds with interest does not affect petitioner’s right to an accounting.”

Takeaway: The Kaylie decision confirms the primacy of a beneficiary’s right to an accounting from the trustee of a trust, even where the trustee has a “no harm, no foul” argument based on the return of funds to a trust and the trustee’s departure as trustee.

2023 Goulston & Storrs PC.

By Charles R. Jacob III , Jennifer L. Mikels , Molly Quinn , Gary M. Ronan , Nora A. Saunders of Goulston & Storrs

For more news on Probate & Fiduciary Updates, visit the NLR Estates & Trusts section.

How to Solve Estate Planning Challenges: Q&A with Lindsey Paige Markus of Chuhak & Tecson, P.C.

In recognition of National Estate Planning Awareness Week, we sat down with Lindsey Paige Markus, a principal with Chuhak & Tecson law firm in Chicago to discuss the top estate planning challenges and considerations that her clients face. Markus oversees Chuhak & Tecson’s 24-attorney estate planning and asset protection group, and focuses her practice on counseling business owners and families in planning their estates, minimizing taxation and transferring wealth.

Read on to learn more about Markus’ key tips for successful estate planning, and how clients can tailor their estate plans for any stage of their lives.

The NLR: Estate planning needs can change throughout a person’s lifetime. How do you counsel clients to navigate these changes, whether it be marriage, having children or divorce?

Markus: Over time, assets and relationships may change. You might not have the same relationship with the individuals you selected to act as executor or trustee. You may also disagree on how the couple you identified to care for minor children have parented their own children at the last family gathering. Asset holdings, values and priorities change. When your children were young, you may have been very concerned with there being sufficient resources to provide for their everyday needs and help fund a college education. If they are now successful adults living on their own, you might wish to prioritize leaving a philanthropic legacy to your community. Similarly, laws and tax exemptions change over time. For these reasons, I often recommend that clients revisit their estate plan every three years to confirm that the individuals they have identified to carry out their wishes are still appropriate, in addition to the division of assets.

The following image from my book, “A Gift for the Future – Conversations About Estate Planning,” helps highlight life events impacting estate planning, including the following:

–         Engagement

–         Marriage

–         Buying a home or property

–         Starting and building a family

–         Welcoming grandchildren

–         Starting a business

–         Rapid estate growth

–         Charitable interests grow

–         Divorce

 

The NLR: How can clients prepare to handle probate and guardianship issues?

Markus: Ideally, clients will take the time to get documents in place so that their loved ones can avoid probate and guardianship proceedings. Often a revocable living trust is the most efficient vehicle to ensure that the court system is avoided during one’s life (guardianship proceedings) and upon death (probate). When properly drafted, the trust can also help to leverage estate tax savings, provide asset protection for beneficiaries and ensure that the maximum amount can pass estate-tax free from generation to generation. But it is not enough to simply have an estate plan with a revocable living trust. Rather, clients need to go through the process of funding their trust – retitling assets into the name of the trust, transferring real estate interests, business interests and making certain that beneficiary designations on life insurance and retirement plan assets comport with the overall plan.

The NLR: What do you think are some of the biggest or most common misconceptions people have about estate planning?

 

Markus: People think that “estate planning is for the rich and famous,” or comment, “I will make an estate plan…when I have an estate to plan!” In reality, everyone should have an estate plan in place to document their wishes and make the process more manageable for their loved ones. Estate tax savings are just one aspect. But anyone who has had the displeasure of going through the probate process appreciates the importance of avoiding it. Too often clients are overwhelmed by the process. In reality, like any project, actually engaging in the planning and getting it done is far easier than procrastinating. And once you find an estate planning attorney that you feel comfortable working with, the attorney should be able to help guide you seamlessly through the process. Clients are often surprised by how empowering the estate planning process can be.

The NLR: Estate taxes owed to federal and state governments can be difficult to deal with for many people. How can clients best navigate challenging estate tax situations?

Markus: Estate tax liabilities at the federal and state levels can easily reach a tax rate of 50%. FIFTY PERCENT! As challenging as it is to consider, those with taxable gross estates can’t afford to avoid planning. In contrast, by engaging in thoughtful estate planning, these estate tax liabilities can be minimized and sometimes completely eliminated. The best advice I have for clients is to engage in planning early. Once you see projections of your future net worth based on your life expectancy, you quickly appreciate the size of the potential tax liability. You will need to provide feedback on your goals of planning. And, from there, your estate planning attorney, working in tandem with your wealth advisor and CPA, can help advise you on proactive steps you can take now to help minimize or avoid those tax liabilities. Maybe it is through implementing an annual gifting program where you use the annual gift exclusion of $17,000 per person per year by making a gift outright or to a trust for the benefit of a loved one. Perhaps you are in a position to use your $12.92 million lifetime exemption before it cuts in half in 2026. The real benefit of gifting is that we can move the current value of the gift and all future appreciation outside of your taxable gross estate. Or, some clients elect to engage in life insurance as an estate tax replacement vehicle – they purchase life insurance to provide the family with liquidity to cover the estate tax in the future.

The NLR: What are some of the most common mistakes you see people make when it comes to estate planning, and how can they avoid them?

Markus: Start early! None of us know what the future has in store. Get your plan in place this year – and make modifications in the future. Fund your trust! Don’t just get an estate plan. Make sure you retitle assets into your trust and update beneficiary designations to leverage the benefits of the plan. Don’t forget about charitable intentions! It is so easy to leave a lasting legacy to a cause you are passionate about. In doing so, follow your estate planning attorney’s advice and consider leaving taxable retirement plan assets directly to the charity. That allows the funds to pass estate-tax free and income-tax free, sometimes saving more than 70% in estate and income tax consequences. Revisit your plan every three years. Review the summary of your plan, make certain your assets were properly moved into your trust and follow-up with your attorney to find out if any changes have taken place in the law which would warrant an update.

Article by  Rachel Popa of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC
Copyright ©2023 National Law Forum, LLC
For more articles on estate planning, visit the NLR Estates & Trusts section.

Court Rules on When Checks are Considered Completed Gifts

In Estate of DeMuth v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-72 (Aug. 1, 2022), the Tax Court ruled on when checks are considered completed gifts. There, on September 6, 2015, decedent’s son, under power of attorney, wrote 11 checks totaling $464,000 from decedent’s checking account. Decedent died on September 11, 2015. The estate tax return reported the value of decedent’s checking account excluding the value of all 11 checks. However, only one check cleared prior to decedent’s death. Three other checks were deposited to the payees’ respective depository banks on September 11, 2015, but not paid until September 14, 2015.

The Tax Court determined that a check written before death is not considered a completed gift and is includible in the gross estate where the decedent dies before the drawee bank accepts, certifies or makes final payment on the check. The court reasoned that so long as the drawer of the check can make a stop-payment order on the check, the donor has not parted with dominion and control and therefore has not made a completed gift. Accordingly, only the check that cleared the bank prior to death was properly excluded from the gross estate.

In prior Tax Court cases, the court considered whether it could apply a “relation back doctrine” to a check. If the check was paid, the relation back doctrine would deem the gift complete as of the date the check was delivered to the donee; notwithstanding the date the check cleared the bank.

In Estate of Metzger v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 204 (1993), the Tax Court applied the relation back doctrine. There, checks equal to the annual exclusion were issued to four donees in December 1985, deposited on December 31, 1985, and cleared the bank on January 2, 1986. Checks for the same amount and to the same four people were issued in 1986. The court ruled that the relation back doctrine applied so that the checks deposited on December 31, 1985, were considered completed gifts in 1985 and the donor did not make double annual exclusion gifts in 1986.

In contrast, in Newman v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 81 (1998), the Tax Court determined that the relation back doctrine did not apply where checks were written, but not cashed prior to donor’s death. Unlike Metzger, the relation back doctrine did not apply because the donor was not alive when the checks were cashed. DeMuth is consistent with the prior cases in not applying the relation back doctrine because the donor died before the checks were cashed.

Article By David B. Shiner of  Chuhak & Tecson, P.C.

Click here to visit the National Law Review for more Estates & Trusts Legal News

© 2023 Chuhak & Tecson P.C.

IRS Announces 2023 Increases to Estate and Gift Tax Exclusions

The Internal Revenue Service recently announced the 2023 cost of living adjustments for the estate and gift tax exclusion amounts.

Gift Tax Exclusion Amount:

The annual gift tax exclusion is the amount (“Gift Tax Exclusion Amount”) an individual may gift to any number of persons without incurring a gift tax or reporting obligation. The Gift Tax Exclusion Amount will increase from $16,000 to $17,000 in 2023 (a combined $34,000 for married couples). The Gift Tax Exclusion Amount renews annually, so an individual who gifted $16,000 to someone in 2022 may gift $17,000 to that same person in 2023, without any reporting obligation. However, for any gift above the $17,000 in 2023, the individual making the gift must report it to the IRS.

Example A: A single person gives her two children $17,000 each in 2023. Each gift falls within the Gift Tax Exclusion Amount so the gifting individual will not have to pay any gift tax or notify the IRS. A married couple could give $34,000 to each child, with the same effect.

Example B: Compare a single person who wants to give her only child $20,000 in 2023. The person who gave the gift must notify the IRS of the $3,000 gift because it exceeds the $17,000 Gift Tax Exclusion Amount.

Estate Tax Exclusion Amount:

The estate tax exclusion is the amount (“Estate Tax Exclusion Amount”) an individual can transfer estate tax-free upon his or her death. The Estate Tax Exclusion Amount will increase from $12,060,000 to $12,920,000 in 2023 (a combined $25,840,000 for married couples).

Example A: A single person with two children passes away in 2023 owning $12,920,000 in assets. The deceased person’s two children will inherit the full $12,920,000 as no estate tax is owed.

Example B:  A single person with two children passes away in 2023 owning $20,000,000 in assets. The decedent’s estate will owe tax on the assets owned that exceeded the $12,920,000 Estate Tax Exclusion Amount ($20,000,000 – $12,920,000 = $7,080,000). The current estate tax rate is approximately 40% which means the decedent’s estate will owe estate taxes in the amount of $2,832,000 ($7,080,000 x 40%).

© 2022 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC
For more Tax Law News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Your Horse May Be Subject to IRS Seizure

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has broad powers to seize assets in payment of outstanding taxes including income tax, excise tax, employment tax, and estate and gift tax. Assets the IRS can seize in exercise of its levy power are those that constitute “property or rights to property” of the taxpayer as defined under local law. Equine industry assets that could be subject to seizure include real estate, equipment, and the horses themselves, although horses valued below $10,090 are exempt from levy. For example, in 2012 the IRS seized hundreds of horses to collect a tax debt from a defendant convicted of stealing millions of dollars in city funds. The defendant used the funds to finance the breeding and showing of American quarter horses. The government auctioned off more than 400 of the seized horses to pay the defendant’s outstanding federal tax obligation.

But because animals require food and veterinary care and could die, the IRS has specific procedures relating to the seizure of livestock, such as horses. If the horses are considered “perishable goods,” section 6336 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code), which provides the statutory requirements for disposing of perishable goods, will apply. Under section 6336, if it is determined that the seized property is liable to perish, the IRS must appraise the value of the property and either return it to the owner or put it up for immediate sale. The Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) provides further guidance on what constitutes perishable property. IRM 5.10.1.7 (12-20-2019) says that the property must be tangible personal property and have a short life expectancy or limited shelf life.

Prior to July 1, 2019, the definition of perishable goods included property that may “become greatly reduced in price or value by keeping, or that such property cannot be kept without great expense.” Horses would seem to fit within either or both of these categories. Now, under the revised definition of perishable goods, a collection officer would have to show that the horse had a short life expectancy.

A revenue officer seeking to seize perishable property must determine that the property cannot be kept and sold at a public sale under normal sale time frames set forth in section 6335 of the Code. Despite the change in the definition of perishable goods in 2019, the IRM suggests that examples of property likely to perish “may be food, flowers, plants or livestock [emphasis added].” Once the revenue officer determines that the property is perishable, he must secure approval of this finding. The determination is subject to high-level IRS review and planning, including an estimate of the expected net sale proceeds to be received from a forced sale. If the revenue officer concludes that the property is not perishable, sale of the seized property must proceed under normal procedures and within the time frames set forth in the Code.

A recent Bloomberg news article reported that the U.S. government had seized a 15-year-old Holsteiner that had been purchased for $750,000. The horse was a champion show jumper. As might be expected, the cost of maintaining the horse was high. IRS agents determined it would cost $45,000-$50,000 a year to feed the horse, not including the medical costs it might incur. The IRS also learned the value of the horse had dropped sharply from its $750,000 purchase price. Thus, in an unusual deal, the government sold the horse to the taxpayer’s daughter (for whom it had been purchased originally) for $25,000.

The considerations, planning, coordination, documentation, and approval of these types of sales may discourage a revenue officer from seizing perishable property like horses where other assets may be levied more easily. Nonetheless, sometimes the IRS will take action to seize a horse perceived to be valuable, like with the Holsteiner, even if it is not deemed perishable under the Code definition.

Article By Barbara T. Kaplan and Scott E. Fink of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more tax law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.