Tag Archives: Estate Tax

Trustee or Not to Trustee

Nevada Trust

Most people establishing a revocable living trust select a relative or friend to act as the trustee. Many people feel that this is a bestowal of honor or dignity being conveyed to the nominated individual. The trust creators rationalize the choice of related party as trusts have a very personal element – distributing accumulated assets to loved ones or charities. Yet, the relationships between family and friends grow complicated with emotions and other factors after the trust creator dies. The mere fact of a close relationship is not enough to qualify any individual for the role of trustee. We find that many clients benefit from the inclusion of a professional trustee to administer and distribute the trust estate.

We regularly hear from clients during the estate planning process that “my kids all get along,” and “they would never fight over this stuff.” However, there are frequent disputes between siblings related to the actions or omissions of the appointed trustee. Where parents intend to disinherit one child or make uneven distributions among the children while naming one child as trustee, the groundwork is laid for a conflict. Similarly, parents may desire to leave assets in trust for the benefit of a child, preventing the spendthrift child from blowing the accumulated wealth. By naming a sibling of the spendthrift beneficiary as the trustee of the trust share, clients make the appointed child the bad guy. The chosen trustee may quickly learn that the assigned task is nothing but pain and heartache.

Recently, our firm handled a case where the non professional trustee retained assets in trust for decades longer than she should have. The trust agreement called for the immediate disbursement of assets to several individuals and several charities. Rather than make the prompt distributions, the trustee kept the trust intact and reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees for herself. The charities and individual beneficiaries suffered significant damages which were nearly impossible to collect from the destitute individual trustee.

To avoid these difficulties and provide for a more professional administration, we recommend naming a professional trustee, such as a Nevada trust company or bank. Due to our favorable trust laws and no state income tax, Nevada has a strong industry of professional trust companies. Some argue that professional trust companies charge a higher fee than a lay person. That may be true in isolation. Yet, if the beneficiaries fight the trustee through litigation or the trustee does not appropriately distribute the assets as described above, the professional trustee fees are much lower.

One of the great virtues of trusts is their flexibility. Trusts can be drafted to divide the duties between a professional fiduciary and the individual trustee. A trust company can take responsibility for tax issues, issuing account statements, and making investment decisions. The non-professional trustee can be in charge of making distributions to the beneficiaries. The individual trustee will understand the beneficiaries’ problems and idiosyncrasies and can better address the individuals’ needs.

For those who have trusts presently, you may consider removing and replacing your current trustee with a professional. For those considering a trust, we would be happy to discuss the advantages of naming a professional trustee.

Gift Taxes in a Nutshell

Title Deed with keys

When does my generosity, or my desire to give gifts during my life, trigger the application of federal tax laws regarding gift taxes? Consider the following scenarios:

  • Declan wants his daughter Fiona to receive his residence at his death. He and his late wife purchased the property for $30,000 in the early 1950s. He signs and records a deed in 2015 that conveys the property to himself and Fiona as joint tenants. As of the date of the conveyance, the property is worth $300,000. He continues to reside there and to pay all property taxes, insurance and maintenance.
  • Teresa opens a bank account in 2014 and transfers $500,000 to the account. She names herself and her son Juan as joint tenants with right of survivorship at the time she opens the account. Under the account terms, both Teresa and Juan have the right to withdraw the entire amount of the bank account at any time. Juan does not withdraw any funds from the account the first year. He withdraws $40,000 in 2015 to pay his college tuition.

Has Declan or Teresa made a taxable gift? If so, when was the gift made and for how much? Could either of them have achieved the same result but avoided the gift tax rules?

The gift tax is a tax imposed on certain gifts made during life. Not every gift is taxable. The IRS allows a generous annual exemption, currently $14,000, per donee. This means you may give up to $14,000 each year to an unlimited number of recipients without having to file a gift tax return. (The amount was established at $10,000 and is increased periodically for inflation; it has been $14,000 since 2013). Also, you may give unlimited gifts to your spouse (if a U.S. citizen) or to §501(c)(3) charities without incurring a tax. You may also pay tuition for education and medical bills on another’s behalf without tax consequence if you pay such amounts directly to the educational institution or health care provider.

Even if you make gifts that are taxable, Congress has provided for a unified credit that allows you to make otherwise taxable gifts throughout life and at death up to a sum total of $5,450,000 (for those who die in 2016) without paying a gift or estate tax. The credit is “unified” in the sense that it is applied both to gifts made during your life time and to gifts made at death from your trust or estate, up to the maximum credit. Each year the unified credit is adjusted upward for inflation. Gifts made above that amount are taxed at a whopping 40%.

Returning to our examples, the fact is that both Declan and Teresa have made taxable gifts that require a gift tax return to be prepared and filed with the IRS; and both could have avoided this result with some good legal advice and planning.

Declan has made a taxable gift of one half the value of the real property, or $150,000, to Fiona. He can count the first $14,000 toward the annual exclusion, but he still must file a gift tax return for the remaining $136,000. Even worse, since the transfer was made during his life time, if and when Fiona sells the house after his death she will have to pay a capital gains tax on the increase in value from the $30,000 purchase price. Had Declan conveyed the property to her at his death, she would have received a step up in basis, meaning the base price for considering a capital gains tax would have been the value at his date of death, rather than the value of the original purchase in the 1950s. This would have been a huge tax savings to Fiona. It would also have eliminated the requirement of the gift tax return.

Teresa makes a gift of $40,000 to Juan in 2015 when he withdraws that amount from the account. She must file a gift tax return for the gift, after offsetting the amount of the annual exclusion. The joint bank account is treated differently than a joint tenancy in real property; until and unless Juan withdraws money from the account over and above any contribution he may have made to the account, there is no gift because Teresa can still withdraw the whole amount. Here, Teresa could have paid Juan’s school directly for the tuition without any gift tax consequence.

Note that for both Declan and Teresa, assuming no previous gifts have been made, no actual tax is due because the unified credit will cover these relatively modest amounts; but the hassle and cost of preparing the gift tax return could have been avoided. Moreover, if either has an estate that will exceed the unified credit at the time of death, these gifts will have negative consequences for their estates.

If you are thinking of making a large gift, it is well worth consulting with your accountant or estate planning lawyer to ensure you take advantage of the gift and estate tax rules to minimize or eliminate your tax liability.

‘Decant’ an Irrevocable Trust

Trust DecantIrrevocable may not mean what you think it means when it comes to trust planning.  Thanks to a process known as “trust decanting,” a trustee can change irrevocable trust terms. The decanting process occurs by figuratively pouring the trust assets from an old trust to a new trust agreement.  Just as one decants wine by pouring from an old bottle to a new one, a trustee can move trust assets to a new, more favorable trust. Nevada, along with 20 other states, has very favorable decanting laws in place.

There are limits as to what can be accomplished with decanting.  Trustees cannot alter a beneficiary’s already-vested interests in a trust.  However, a trustee can push back the age at which the beneficiary receives a payout.  Importantly, the trustee can change the governing law of the trust by moving the situs of the trust.  Nevada is the premier domestic self-settled spendthrift trust state so many trustees look to move their assets to Nevada.  In addition, if there is no successor trustee named, decanting can make it possible to name a proper successor trustee.

Nevada law is very favorable because there is no statutory requirement to notify beneficiaries of the decanting.  The trustee does not need to provide beneficiaries copies of the existing or new trust documents.  These privacy protections greatly favor the use of Nevada trust laws.  The trustee has discretion to seek court approval for the decanting process but is not required to do so.  In reality, the vast majority of trustees seek beneficiary approval before starting the procedure to decant the trust assets.

There are uncertain implications for gift, income, and generation-skipping transfers taxes. The Internal Revenue Service has not issued guidelines related to the federal tax issues presented by decanting.  However, the IRS has solicited comments for several years now and guidance should be forthcoming.  Even without federal income tax guidance, there are state income tax savings to be achieved by moving trust assets to a state like Nevada without income tax.

Democrats Divided Over Future of Estate Tax

One tax element overlooked in the negotiations over the “fiscal cliff” is how Congress and the President will resolve the future of the estate tax. The Wall Street Journal reports that several Democratic senators from conservative states will not embrace President Obama’s plan to raise the estate tax.  Under current law, the estate tax exemption amount will be lowered to $1 million with a 55% tax rate starting January 2013. President Obama proposes to return the estate tax exemption amount to $3.5 million with a 45% rate, the same terms as 2009.

Senator LandrieuSenator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Max Baucus of Montana, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas said they would prefer not to raise the estate tax.  This week, Ms. Landrieu took a very strong position by stating that she would oppose any deficit-reduction package that raises the estate tax. One common element among Landrieu, Baucus, and Pryor is their party affiliation, another more important aspect is that all three are up for re-election in 2014.  The three are diverging from the Democratic party’s position to endorse a position likely favored by their conservative constituents.

Republican lawmakers continue to support estate tax repeal altogether.  At the very least, the Republican leaders expect a continuation of the Bush-era tax cuts which would maintain the estate tax exemption at $5 million and a 35% tax rate.  Under the current policy, the Tax Policy Center estimates that $161 billion of tax revenue will be generated over the next 10 years.  Under President Obama’s proposal, $276 billion would be raised.  Considering the highly-charged political climate, we may not have a resolution to the future of the estate tax in the near future.

Facebook Billionaires Avoid Taxes with GRATs

Forbes recently highlighted how Facebook co-founders Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz established grantor retained annuity trusts (GRATs) to transfer significant amounts of wealth tax-free.  In 2008, Zuckerberg and Moskovitz established GRATs which will enable the Facebook executives to transfer as much as $185 million to future offspring or others without paying any gift tax.  Most wealthy individuals recognize that this year offers a golden opportunity to transfer $5.12 million in assets without incurring any gift tax. However, the Facebook executives followed a similar tax strategy to the Walmart founders, the Walton family, by funding their GRATs with their rapidly appreciating Facebook shares.

ImageGRATs function by allowing a grantor (Zuckerberg and Moskovitz) to place shares or other assets into an ­irrevocable trust and retain the right to ­receive an annual payment back from the trust for a period of time.  Typically, to avoid the risk of premature death, advisors select a shorter time period of 2 to 4 years. If the grantor survives that period, any property left in the trust when the annual payments end passes to family members, other beneficiaries, or another trust.

A crucial aspect is determining the value of the remainder interest in the annuity. In calculating how much value will be left at the end of the annuity term (the remainder) — and thus how big a gift the grantor is making — the IRS does look at the performance of the actual stock (or any other asset) in the trust. Instead, the IRS assumes the trust assets are earning a meager government-determined interest rate. With a zeroed-out, or “Walton” GRAT, the grantor receives an annuity that leaves nothing for heirs if assets grow only at the IRS’ lowly interest rate. If the assets grow faster, the excess goes to the heirs gift tax free. If assets or stock under-perform or decrease in value, there is no downside for the grantor because the annuity can be paid by returning some shares each year to the grantor.

As a result, a GRAT is an ideal instrument to shift assets you expect to suddenly increase in value.  Hence, rapidly appreciating stock of technology giants (Facebook) or growing retails empires (Walmart) have proven to be the perfect assets to utilize within a GRAT.  President Obama and Democrat legislators have targeted zeroed-out GRATs as tax loopholes of the wealthy and have proposed legislation which would eliminate their use.  Until that time, the GRAT remains a valuable wealth transfer tool.