Use a non-charitable purpose trust to achieve a variety of goals

Generally, trusts must have one or more human beneficiaries, but there’s an exception for certain “purpose” trusts. One type of purpose trust that you may be familiar with is the charitable trust. But don’t overlook the non-charitable purpose (NCP) trust as a potential tool for achieving your estate planning goals.

What is an NCP trust?

Historically, trusts were required to have human beneficiaries. Why? Because, for a trust to be valid, there must be someone to enforce it. Charitable trusts were the exception: The attorney general of the relevant jurisdiction was authorized to enforce the trust in the public interest.

Over the years, however, many U.S. states and a number of foreign jurisdictions have enacted legislation that authorizes NCP trusts. These trusts may be used to achieve a variety of purposes, such as maintaining family residences, personal property and gravesites and funding a family business.

A trust may be an NCP trust even if the grantor’s children or other heirs will ultimately receive trust property as “remaindermen.” Suppose, for example, that you create an NCP trust to maintain and exhibit your art collection. After a specified time period, the trust terminates and the collection is distributed to your children. The fact that your children will receive the art once the trust has fulfilled its purpose doesn’t change its character as an NCP trust. Nor does it render the trust valid or enforceable absent an applicable NCP trust statute.

To be valid, an NCP must meet certain requirements. Most important, it must 1) have a purpose that’s certain, reasonable and attainable, 2) not violate public policy, and 3) be capable of enforcement. Typically, an NCP trust is enforced by a designated “enforcer” — someone whose job is to ensure that the trust’s purpose is fulfilled and who has the authority to bring a court action — and/or a “trust protector,” who’s empowered to modify the trust when its purpose has been achieved or is no longer relevant.

Which jurisdiction should you choose?

Choosing the right jurisdiction for an NCP trust is critical. The permitted uses of NCP trusts, as well as their duration, vary significantly from state to state, as do the powers of a trust protector or enforcer. Most states limit an NCP trust’s duration to a term of 21 years, although some permit longer terms or even “dynasty” NCP trusts of unlimited duration.

Of course, 21 years may not be sufficient for certain purposes, such as supporting a family business or caring for horses or other animals whose life expectancies exceed 21 years. If your state doesn’t have an NCP trust statute, or if its requirements fail to meet your needs, you may be able to set up a trust under the laws of another state or even a foreign country. To do so, you must establish a connection with that jurisdiction, such as appointing a trustee who resides in the jurisdiction or moving trust assets there.

Seek professional help

Be aware that NCP trusts raise a variety of income, estate, gift and generation-skipping transfer tax issues as you assess your situation to determine if an NCP trust is right for your estate plan.

© 2017

Don’t overlook tax apportionment when planning your estate

If you expect your estate to have a significant estate tax liability at your death, be sure to include a well-thought-out tax apportionment clause in your will or revocable trust. An apportionment clause specifies how the estate tax burden will be allocated among your beneficiaries. Omission of this clause, or failure to word it carefully, may result in unintended consequences.

Apportionment options

There are many ways to apportion estate taxes. One option is to have all of the taxes paid out of assets passing through your will. Beneficiaries receiving assets outside your will — such as IRAs, retirement plans or life insurance proceeds — won’t bear any of the tax burden.

Another option is to allocate taxes among all beneficiaries, including those who receive assets outside your will. Yet another is to provide for the tax to be paid from your residuary estate — that is, the portion of your estate that remains after all specific gifts or bequests have been made and all expenses and liabilities have been paid.

There’s no one right way to apportion estate taxes. But it’s important to understand how an apportionment clause operates to ensure that your clause is worded in a way that your wealth will be distributed in the manner you intend.

Suppose, for example, that your will leaves real estate valued at $5 million to your son, with your residuary estate — consisting of $5 million in stock and other liquid assets — passing to your daughter. Your intent is to treat your children equally, but your will’s apportionment clause provides for estate taxes to be paid out of the residuary estate. Thus, the entire estate tax burden — including taxes attributable to the real estate — will be borne by your daughter.
One way to avoid this result is to apportion the taxes to both your son and your daughter. But that approach could cause problems for your son, who may lack the funds to pay the tax without selling the property. To avoid this situation while treating your children equally, you might apportion the taxes to your residuary estate but provide life insurance to cover your daughter’s tax liability.

Omission of apportionment clause

What if your will doesn’t have an apportionment clause? In that case, apportionment will be governed by applicable state law (although federal law covers certain situations).

Most states have some form of an “equitable apportionment” scheme. Essentially, this approach requires each beneficiary to pay the estate tax generated by the assets he or she receives. Some states provide for equitable apportionment among all beneficiaries while others limit apportionment to assets that pass through the will or to the residuary estate.

Often, state apportionment laws produce satisfactory results, but in some cases they may be inconsistent with your wishes.

Avoid surprises

If you ignore tax apportionment when planning your estate, your wealth may not be distributed in the manner you intend.

© 2017

The stretch IRA: A simple yet powerful estate planning tool

The IRA’s value as a retirement planning tool is well known: IRA assets compound on a tax-deferred (or, in the case of a Roth IRA, tax-free) basis, which can help build a more substantial nest egg. But if you don’t need an IRA to fund your retirement, you can use it as an estate planning tool to benefit your children or other beneficiaries on a tax-advantaged basis by turning it into a “stretch” IRA.

Stretching the benefits

Turning an IRA into a stretch IRA is simply a matter of designating a beneficiary who’s significantly younger than you. This could be, for example, your spouse (if there’s a substantial age difference between the two of you), a child or a grandchild.

If you name your spouse as beneficiary, he or she can elect to roll the funds over into his or her own IRA after you die, enabling the funds to continue growing tax-deferred or tax-free until your spouse chooses to begin withdrawing the funds in retirement or must take required minimum distributions (RMDs) starting after age 70½. (Note that RMDs don’t apply to Roth IRAs while the participant is alive.)

If you name someone other than your spouse as beneficiary, he or she generally will have several options:

  • Take a lump-sum distribution of the IRA’s balance.
  • Withdraw the funds by the end of the year of the fifth anniversary of your death (if you die before beginning to take RMDs).
  • Withdraw the funds over your “remaining” life expectancy, calculated under the applicable IRS table as of the year of death (if you die after beginning to take RMDs).
  • Hold the funds in an “inherited IRA,” which allows the beneficiary to spread RMDs over his or her own life expectancy.

Usually the inherited IRA is the best choice because it maximizes the benefits of tax-deferred or tax-free growth.

Naming a trust as beneficiary

A disadvantage of naming your child or grandchild as beneficiary of your IRA is that there’s nothing to prevent him or her from taking a lump-sum distribution, erasing any potential stretch IRA benefits.

To ensure that this doesn’t happen, you can name a trust as beneficiary. In order for a trust to qualify for stretch treatment, it will need to meet certain requirements, such as distributing RMDs received from the IRA to the trust beneficiaries.

© 2017

ABLE accounts can benefit loved ones with special needs

For families with disabled loved ones who are potentially eligible for means-tested government benefits such as Medicaid or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), estate planning can be a challenge. On the one hand, you want to provide the most comfortable life possible for your family member. On the other hand, you don’t want to jeopardize his or her eligibility for needed government benefits.

For many years, the most effective solution to this problem has been to set up a special needs trust (SNT). But beginning in 2014, the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act created Internal Revenue Code Section 529A, which authorizes the states to offer tax-advantaged savings accounts for the blind and severely disabled, similar to Sec. 529 college savings plans.

How ABLE accounts work

The ABLE Act allows family members and others to make nondeductible cash contributions to a qualified beneficiary’s ABLE account, with total annual contributions limited to the federal gift tax annual exclusion amount (currently, $14,000). To qualify, a beneficiary must have become blind or disabled before age 26.

The account grows tax-free, and earnings may be withdrawn tax-free provided they’re used to pay “qualified disability expenses.” These include health care, education, housing, transportation, employment training, assistive technology, personal support services, financial management and legal expenses.
An ABLE account generally won’t affect the beneficiary’s eligibility for Medicaid and SSI — which limits a recipient’s “countable assets” to $2,000 — with a couple of exceptions. First, distributions from an ABLE account used to pay housing expenses are countable assets. Second, if an ABLE account’s balance grows beyond $100,000, the beneficiary’s eligibility for SSI is suspended until the balance is brought below that threshold.

Comparison with SNTs

Here’s a quick review of a few of the relative advantages and disadvantages of ABLE accounts and SNTs:

Availability.

Anyone can establish an SNT, but ABLE accounts are available only if your home state offers them, or contracts with another state to make them available. Also, as previously noted, ABLE account beneficiaries must have become blind or disabled before age 26. There’s no age restriction for SNTs.

Qualified expenses.

ABLE accounts may be used to pay only specified types of expenses. SNTs may be used for any expenses the government doesn’t pay for, including “quality-of-life” expenses, such as travel, recreation, hobbies and entertainment.

Tax treatment.

An ABLE account’s earnings and qualified distributions are tax-free. An SNT’s earnings are taxable.

© 2017

IRS simplifies procedure for obtaining extension to make portability election

Financial Advisor Assisting Senior Woman

Last month, the IRS issued a Revenue Procedure that allows certain estates to make a late portability election without first filing a ruling request. Portability is a tax law provision that permits a surviving spouse to take advantage of the deceased spouse’s unused combined gift and estate tax exemption (currently $5.49 million).

But portability isn’t automatic: It’s available only if the deceased spouse’s estate makes a portability election on a timely filed estate tax return. This return is due nine months after death, with a six-month extension option, regardless of whether any tax is owed.

What’s new?

Previously, if a deceased spouse’s estate failed to make a timely portability election, the surviving spouse’s only recourse was to request a private letter ruling from the IRS — a costly and time-consuming process. Rev. Proc. 2017-34 grants an automatic extension for taxpayers not otherwise required to file an estate tax return, provided they file a return making the election on or before the later of:

• The second anniversary of the deceased’s death, or

• January 2, 2018.

If these requirements are met, the estate may make the election by filing an estate tax return with the following language at the top: “FILED PURSUANT TO REV. PROC. 2017-34 TO ELECT PORTABILITY UNDER SECTION 2010(c)(5)(A).”

Is portability right for you?

The portability provision can provide a safety net for couples with joint assets exceeding the exemption amount of the estate of the first spouse to die. We can answer any questions regarding making the portability election.

© 2017

Are you familiar with fraudulent transfer laws?

A primary goal of your estate plan is to transfer wealth to your family according to your wishes and at the lowest possible tax cost. However, if you have creditors, be aware of fraudulent transfer laws. In a nutshell, if your creditors challenge your gifts, trusts or other strategies as fraudulent transfers, they can quickly undo your estate plan.

2 fraud types

Most states have adopted the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA). The act allows creditors to challenge transfers involving two types of fraud that you should be mindful of as you weigh your estate planning options:

1. Actual fraud.

This means making a transfer or incurring an obligation “with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor,” including current creditors and probable future creditors.

Just because you weren’t purposefully trying to defraud creditors doesn’t mean you’re safe from an actual fraud challenge. Because a court can’t read your mind, it will consider the surrounding facts and circumstances to determine whether a transfer involves fraudulent intent. So before you make gifts or place assets in a trust, consider how a court might view the transfer.

2. Constructive fraud.

This is a more significant risk for most people because it doesn’t involve intent to defraud. Under UFTA, a transfer or obligation is constructively fraudulent if you made it without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and you either were insolvent at the time or became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation.

“Insolvent” means that the sum of your debts is greater than all of your assets, at a fair valuation. You’re presumed to be insolvent if you’re not paying your debts as they become due.

Generally, the constructive fraud rules protect only present creditors — that is, creditors whose claims arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.

Know your net worth

By definition, when you make a gift — either outright or in trust — you don’t receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange. So if you’re insolvent at the time, or the gift renders you insolvent, you’ve made a constructively fraudulent transfer, which means a creditor could potentially undo the transfer.
To avoid this risk, analyze your net worth before making substantial gifts. Even if you’re not having trouble paying your debts, it’s possible to meet the technical definition of insolvency.

Please keep in mind that fraudulent transfer laws vary from state to state.

© 2017

Leaving specific assets to specific heirs is an estate planning no-no


Planning your estate around specific assets is risky and, in most cases, should be avoided. If you leave specific assets — such as a home, a car or stock — to specific people, you could end up inadvertently disinheriting someone.

Unintended consequences

Here’s an example that illustrates the problem: Kim has three children — Sarah, John and Matthew — and wishes to treat them equally in her estate plan. In her will, she leaves a $500,000 mutual fund to Sarah and her $500,000 home to John. She also names Matthew as beneficiary of a $500,000 life insurance policy.

By the time Kim dies, the mutual fund balance has grown to $750,000. In addition, she has sold the home for $750,000, invested the proceeds in the mutual fund and allowed the life insurance policy to lapse. She didn’t revise or revoke her will. The result? Sarah receives the mutual fund, with a balance of $1.5 million, and John and Matthew are disinherited.

Safer alternatives

To avoid this outcome, it’s generally preferable to divide your estate based on dollar values or percentages rather than specific assets. Kim, for example, could have placed the mutual fund, home and insurance policy in a trust and divided the value of the trust equally between her three children.

If it’s important to you that specific assets go to specific heirs — for example, because you want your oldest child to receive the family home or you want your family business to go to a child who works for the company — there are planning techniques you can use to help ensure that outcome while avoiding undesirable consequences. For example, your trust might provide for your assets to be divided equally but also for your children to receive specific assets at fair market value as part of their shares.

In summary, use strategies that can help ensure your assets are distributed as you wish without causing unintentional consequences.

© 2017

Is now the time for a charitable lead trust?

Read heart yarn on wood table over grunge cement background

Families who wish to give to charity while minimizing gift and estate taxes should consider a charitable lead trust (CLT). These trusts are most effective in a low-interest-rate environment, so conditions for taking advantage of a CLT currently are favorable. Although interest rates have crept up in recent years, they remain historically low.

2 types of CLTs

A CLT provides a regular income stream to one or more charities during the trust term, after which the remaining assets pass to your children or other noncharitable beneficiaries. If your beneficiaries are in a position to wait for several years (or even decades) before receiving their inheritance, a CLT may be an attractive planning tool. That’s because the charity’s upfront interest in the trust dramatically reduces the value of your beneficiaries’ interest for gift or estate tax purposes.

There are two types of CLTs: 1) a charitable lead annuity trust (CLAT), which makes annual payments to charity equal to a fixed dollar amount or a fixed percentage of the trust assets’ initial value, and 2) a charitable lead unitrust (CLUT), which pays out a set percentage of the trust assets’ value, recalculated annually. Most people prefer CLATs because they provide a better opportunity to maximize the amount received by one’s noncharitable beneficiaries.

Typically, people establish CLATs during their lives (known as “inter vivos” CLATs) because it allows them to lock in a favorable interest rate. Another option is a testamentary CLAT, or “T-CLAT,” which is established at death by one’s will or living trust.

Another issue to consider is whether to design a CLAT as a grantor or nongrantor trust. Nongrantor CLATs are more common, primarily because the grantor avoids paying income taxes on the trust’s earnings. However, grantor CLATs also have advantages. For example, by paying income taxes, the grantor allows the trust to grow tax-free, enhancing the beneficiaries’ remainder interest.

Interest matters

Here’s why CLATs are so effective when interest rates are low: When you fund a CLAT, you make a taxable gift equal to the initial value of the assets you contribute to the trust, less the value of all charitable interests. A charity’s interest is equal to the total payments it will receive over the trust term, discounted to present value using the Section 7520 rate, a conservative interest rate set monthly by the IRS. As of this writing, the Sec. 7520 rate has fluctuated between 2.35% and 2.55% so far this year.

If trust assets outperform the applicable Sec. 7520 rate (that is, the rate published in the month the trust is established), the trust will produce wealth transfer benefits. For example, if the applicable Sec. 7520 rate is 2.5% and the trust assets actually grow at a 7% rate, your noncharitable beneficiaries will receive assets well in excess of the taxable gift you report when the trust is established.

If a CLAT appeals to you, the sooner you act, the better. In a low-interest-rate environment, outperforming the Sec. 7520 rate is relatively easy, so the prospects of transferring a significant amount of wealth tax-free are good.

© 2017

Videotaping your will signing may not produce the desired outcome

Some people make video recordings of their will signings in an effort to create evidence that they possess the requisite testamentary capacity. For some, this strategy may help stave off a will contest. But in most cases, the risk that the recording will provide ammunition to someone who wishes to challenge the will outweighs the potential benefits.

Assessing the downsides

Unless the person signing the will delivers a flawless, natural performance, a challenger will pounce on the slightest hesitation, apparent discomfort or momentary confusion as “proof” that the person lacked testamentary capacity. Even the sharpest among us occasionally forgets facts or mixes up our children’s or grandchildren’s names. And discomfort or nervousness with the recording process can easily be mistaken for confusion or duress.

You’re probably thinking, “Why can’t we just re-record portions of the video that don’t look good?” The problem with this approach is that a challenger’s attorney will likely ask how much editing was done and how many “takes” were used in the video and cite that as further evidence of lack of testamentary capacity.

Implementing alternative strategies

For most people, other strategies for avoiding a will contest are preferable to recording the will signing. These include having a medical practitioner examine you and attest to your capacity immediately before the signing. It can also involve choosing reliable witnesses, including a “no contest clause” in your will, and using a funded revocable trust, which avoids probate and, therefore, is more difficult and expensive to challenge.

© 2017

 

Are your retirement savings secure from creditors?

A primary goal of estate planning is asset protection. After all, no matter how well your estate plan is designed, it won’t do much good if you wind up with no wealth to share with your family.

If you have significant assets in employer-sponsored retirement plans or IRAs, it’s important to understand the extent to which those assets are protected against creditors’ claims and, if possible, to take steps to strengthen that protection.

Employer plans

Most qualified plans — such as pension, profit-sharing and 401(k) plans — are protected against creditors’ claims, both in and out of bankruptcy, by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). This protection also extends to 403(b) and 457 plans.

IRA-based employer plans — such as Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) plans and Savings Incentive Match Plans for Employees (SIMPLE) IRAs — are also protected in bankruptcy. But there’s some uncertainty over whether they’re protected outside of bankruptcy.

IRAs

The level of asset protection available for IRAs depends in part on whether the owner is involved in bankruptcy proceedings. In a bankruptcy context, creditor protection is governed by federal law. Under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA), both traditional and Roth IRAs are exempt from creditors’ claims up to an inflation-adjusted $1 million.

The IRA limit doesn’t, however, apply to amounts rolled over from a qualified plan or a 403(b) or 457 plan — or to any earnings on those amounts. Suppose, for example, that you have $4 million invested in a 401(k) plan. If you roll it over into an IRA, the entire $4 million, plus all future earnings, will generally continue to be exempt from creditors’ claims in bankruptcy.

To ensure that rollover amounts are fully protected, keep those funds in separate IRAs rather than commingling them with any contributory IRAs you might own. Also, make sure the rollover is fully documented and the word “rollover” is part of its name. Bear in mind, too, that once a distribution is made from the IRA, it’s no longer protected. Outside bankruptcy, the protection afforded an IRA depends on state law.

What about inherited IRAs?

Federal courts are divided on whether bankruptcy protection extends to inherited IRAs. In a nonbankruptcy context, some states expressly exempt inherited IRAs, while courts in other states are divided on the issue.

Protect yourself

The effectiveness of these strategies depends on factors such as whether future creditor claims arise in bankruptcy and what state law applies.

© 2017