(This is an updated post from December 2015)
Need a New Year’s resolutions to kick start 2017? Here is an idea you probably hadn’t considered: review your estate planning documents.
If you are like most people, you are probably thinking that reading legal documents does not sound like an even remotely enjoyable way to start a new year. But, it doesn’t have to be as unpleasant as it sounds. Reviewing your documents does not mean you have to read them cover to cover. If you know what are the most important elements, it is easy to review your will, trust, and powers of attorney regularly to ensure they still comply with your wishes. These documents not only determine who will receive your property when you die, but also likely determine who has the right to make financial and major medical decisions during your lifetime. Needless to say, it is important that you are still comfortable with the designations you have made.
To get you started, below is a basic checklist of items we suggest you review annually (make it a New Year’s tradition!).
1. Assess the changes in your life since you last updated your estate planning documents.
Have you gotten married or divorced? Had a child or adopted a child? Moved to a different state? Had a death in the family? Had a major financial event? Any of these life changes may affect your estate planning, and your documents may need to be revised. (more…)
Rev. Proc. 2016-49
The recent issuance of Rev. Proc. 2016-49, which modifies and supersedes Rev. Proc. 2001-38, now puts the taxpayer in the driver’s seat. Recall that in Rev. Proc. 2001-38, the Service was providing relief for the surviving spouse when an unnecessary QTIP election was made, by treating such a QTIP election as though it had not been made. Practitioners began to question whether Rev. Proc. 2001-38 would render a QTIP election a nullity when made in order to qualify for a state marital deduction where such an election was not needed to reduce the Federal estate tax liability to zero. Then when portability came into the picture, the enhanced concern about basis adjustment at death drove practitioners to want to make a QTIP election even though not needed to reduce the estate tax liability, to permit the surviving spouse to make larger gifts that would not be subject to gift tax or solely to obtain a basis adjustment at death. Yet in view of Rev. Proc. 2001-38, it was not clear whether a QTIP election that did not result in a reduction in estate tax was viable.
Now the Service has solved this dilemma with Rev. Proc. 2016-49. A QTIP election will only be void if ALL of the following are satisfied:
A QTIP election will not be treated as void where ANY of the following are true:
The taxpayer did not request that the QTIP election be treated as void and follow the procedure for having the election treated as void.
In the recent decision, Pfannenstiehl v. Pfannenstiehl, the Massachusetts Judicial Supreme Court overruled the appeals court decision and concluded that assets held in a discretionary trust created by a third party, where the husband is but one potential beneficiary of the trust, is not a marital asset to be divided on divorce. (more…)
With some minor exceptions, the facts are the same in PLR 201525002& PLR 201525003. In these PLRs, the Grantor transferred funds to an irrevocable trust for the Grantor’s own benefit and the benefit of several charities. In each case, the trust was created in a state other than the state of residence of the Grantor. In addition to the Trustee, each trust had an Investment Advisor, a Distribution Advisor, a Charity Distribution Advisor and a Trust Protector, none of whom were trust beneficiaries, except that the Charity Distribution Advisor was the Grantor’s spouse who was a potential appointee.
The Distribution Advisor had the power to direct the Trustee as to whether to make Quarterly Distributions, Support Distributions and Special Contingent Distributions to the Grantor, and also had the power to direct the Trustee as to whether to make Quarterly Distributions to the charities.
The Grantor had a limited testamentary power to appoint the trust among her spouse and charities.
The Investment Advisor had the power to direct the Trustee as to trust investments. (more…)
The trailers for the newest installment in the Mission: Impossible franchise, Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation, are being released and, as always when we see actors performing daredevil stunts, it makes us think about life insurance. Hazard (I use the term loosely, in light of what these guys do) of the job, I guess. So, once again, we thought we’d remind everyone about the use of life insurance trusts to reduce estate tax by re-posting the blog we wrote in after seeing his stunts for Ghost Protocol.
And, for your viewing pleasure, share another video of Mr. Cruise’s stunts. (I’m starting to think Tom Cruise or Mission: Impossible should start sponsoring our blog!)
It’s true, it is possible to transfer life insurance proceeds to your beneficiaries without having to pay estate tax on those proceeds. An insured can create an irrevocable trust that is designed to be the owner and beneficiary of a life insurance policy on the insured’s life. The only amount that the insured would end up paying transfer tax on (or allocating unified credit to) would be the amount the insured transfers to the insurance trust to pay the premiums on the policy. If the amount contributed to the trust does not exceed the annual exclusion amount allowable to each of the beneficiaries of the trust, and if the trust is designed to give the beneficiaries crummey withdrawal rights (the right to withdraw any such contributions to the trust over the period of 30-45 days after the transfer), the insured/grantor would not have to use any of his or her unified credit or pay any gift tax on these transfers, either. (more…)
The New York State legislature is considering becoming a directed trust state. In a directed trust, the trustee is allowed to act under the advice or direction of someone else, an advisor or protector, who could make decisions regarding investments, distributions or other trust matters. Earlier this year, the New York State Senate referred a bill to its Judiciary Committee which would expressly allow grantors to establish directed trusts in New York State and sets out general parameters for such trusts. (more…)
The Treasury Green Book provides explanations of the President’s budget proposals. One such proposal (remember…these are just proposals, not actual changes in the law) that may affect your estate planning is found on page 200 of the Green Book and is re-printed here for your convenience:
LIMIT DURATION OF GENERATION-SKIPPING TRANSFER (GST) TAX EXEMPTION
GST tax is imposed on gifts and bequests to transferees who are two or more generations younger than the transferor. The GST tax was enacted to prevent the avoidance of estate and gift taxes through the use of a trust that gives successive life interests to multiple generations of beneficiaries. In such a trust, no estate tax would be incurred as beneficiaries died, because their respective life interests would die with them and thus would cause no inclusion of the trust assets in the deceased beneficiary’s gross estate. The GST tax is a flat tax on the value of a transfer at the highest estate tax bracket applicable in that year. Each person has a lifetime GST tax exemption ($5.43 million in 2015) that can be allocated to transfers made, whether directly or in trust, by that person to a grandchild or other “skip person.” The allocation of GST exemption to a transfer or to a trust excludes from the GST tax not only the amount of the transfer or trust assets equal to the amount of GST exemption allocated, but also all appreciation and income on that amount during the existence of the trust.
Reasons for Change
At the time of the enactment of the GST provisions, the law of most (all but about three) States included the common law Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP) or some statutory version of it. The RAP generally requires that every trust terminate no later than 21 years after the death of a person who was alive (a life in being) at the time of the creation of the trust. (more…)
The Treasury Green Book provides explanations of the President’s budget proposals. One such proposal (remember…these are just proposals, not actual changes in the law) that may affect your estate planning is found on page 197 of the Green Book and is re-printed here for your convenience:
MODIFY TRANSFER TAX RULES FOR GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUITY TRUSTS (GRATS) AND OTHER GRANTOR TRUSTS
Section 2702 provides that, if an interest in a trust is transferred to a family member, any interest retained by the grantor is valued at zero for purposes of determining the transfer tax value of the gift to the family member(s). This rule does not apply if the retained interest is a “qualified interest.” A fixed annuity, such as the annuity interest retained by the grantor of a GRAT, is one form of qualified interest, so the value of the gift of the remainder interest in the GRAT is determined by deducting the present value of the retained annuity during the GRAT term from the fair market value of the property contributed to the trust.
Generally, a GRAT is an irrevocable trust funded with assets expected to appreciate in value, in which the grantor retains an annuity interest for a term of years that the grantor expects to survive. At the end of that term, the assets then remaining in the trust are transferred to (or held in further trust for) the beneficiaries. The value of the grantor’s retained annuity is based in part on the applicable Federal rate under section 7520 in effect for the month in which the GRAT is created. Therefore, to the extent the GRAT’s assets appreciate at a rate that exceeds that statutory interest rate, that appreciation will have been transferred, free of gift tax, to the remainder beneficiary or beneficiaries of the GRAT. (more…)
Originally posted on BryanCaveFiduciaryLitigation.com
A recent case from Connecticut, Tyler v. Tyler, involved a claim to modify a trust based on undue influence. Few details are provided in the opinion about the requested modification but it is a curious claim. If undue influence is exerted over the grantor, then isn’t the contested trust or amendment invalid? Why or how should a trust that is the product of undue influence be modified to reflect the true intent of the grantor? (more…)
While constant attention is being given to Hillary Clinton’s potential decision to run for the presidency in 2016 and the release of her latest book, Hard Choices, last month, news sources recently reported that she and former President Bill Clinton have taken advantage of several of the estate planning techniques recommended by trusts and estates attorneys for high net worth individuals.
This is interesting, in part, because the Clintons support the estate tax and have not been in support of its repeal.
According to reported sources, each of the Clintons created a qualified personal residence trust and each contributed his or her 50% ownership interest in their Chappaqua, New York house to his or her respective trust. A qualified personal residence trust, commonly called by its acronym QPRT, is an IRS sanctioned estate planning technique. The creator of the trust places a residence or interest in a residence in the trust, retains the right to live in the trust for a term of years, and after the term the trust asset or the residence passes to a beneficiary.
The Internal Revenue Code has special rules which help calculate the value of the “gift” made by the creator to the QPRT. The gift portion, which could offset some of the $5,340,000 exemption allotted to individuals in 2014 is not the entire value of the residence, but the value of the residence when transferred reduced by the value of the retained use by the creator for the trust term.
By having each of the Clintons create a separate QPRT with only a 50% interest in the residence, the value of such interest may also be eligible for a discount for owning less than a majority interest.
In order for a QPRT to work, the creator of the trust must outlive the trust term. But for a relatively healthy individual, it is quite likely for this to happen.