Articles Posted in Estate Planning

The United States Tax Court recently decided a case where the issue was the role that a tax return due to the decedent played in overall estate tax liability. The Estate of Russell Badgett, Jr. et al v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2015-226 (Nov. 24, 2015) dealt with a very large overpayment of taxes by the decedent during his last full calendar year of his life. The estate failed to include the value for the tax returns that Mr. Badgett, Jr. (or his estate as it were) received, which ultimately undervalued the estate a rather significant amount.

The Internal Revenue Service indeed caught this accounting error and sent out a notice of deficiency approximately a year and a half after the filing of the last tax return. The Tax Court ruled in favor of the Internal Revenue Service because estate tax returns must list all the property that an estate owns. The Tax Court cited an United States Supreme Court case that held that state law defines what property rights, while federal law defines what property is taxed. Morgan v. Commissioner, 309 U.S. 78, 80 (1940).

THE CASE OF MR. BADGETT, JR.

WHAT HAPPENS IF A WILL IS INVALIDATED?

Wills are perhaps the most basic and simple form of passing on property and the transmission of wealth from one generation to the next. It allows the testator to give away the property and money that they own and have on hand as they see fit. A person can write a person out of a will, with certain limitations, include another non-child in the distribution and treat them as if they were a child or even leave it all to a charity. While the vast majority of wills are honored and respected without question, there is always the possibility that a potential heir may contest a will. In the event a will is invalidated a Surrogate’s Court must still resolve the issue of how and to whom shall the property be distributed. One possible way of dealing with issue of distributing the property if a will is invalidated is to utilize the state’s default, intestate distribution scheme. Another means is to revive a previous, otherwise valid will. This latter method is called the doctrine of dependent relative revocation.

DOCTRINE OF RELATIVE REVOCATION

STRICT ADHERENCE TO FORM

On March 3, 2015 the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in Denver, Colorado, rendered an opinion in the case of Draper v. Colvin, where it explicitly admitted that it drew “a hard line” when it upheld the decision of the Social Security Administration that denied Stephany Draper eligibility for supplemental security income. Draper v. Colvin, 229 F.3d 556 (8TH Cir. 2015). Ms. Draper was an 18 year old woman who suffered traumatic brain injuries in an automobile accident and applied for supplemental security income benefits. In addition, she filed a personal injury case where she netted approximately $429,000 from the settlement. This amount of money would render Ms. Draper ineligible for both supplemental security income as well as Medicaid, both of which are means based programs.

SPECIAL NEEDS TRUSTS NOT COUNTED AS ASSET IN MEANS TEST

WHY IT MATTERS FOR ESTATE PLANNING

Every year the Federal Department of Treasury publishes the greenbook which outlines the then current presidential administration’s revenue proposals, tax policies, job creation issues that relate to the Department of Treasury and other related fiscal and policy issues. The greenbook is scrutinized by tax pundits, politicians and others for what it contains, but what it does not contain is also important. Within the 2013 greenbook, there was an obvious lack of discussion of 26 U.S.C. § 2704, which mandates how the law measures the value of certain family controlled entities for estate and gift tax purposes. Some observers took that to indicate that the IRS plans on amending the regulations pursuant to this statute. This suspicion was validated when an official from the Department of Treasury spoke at an American Bar Association, tax section meeting in May, 2015. She indicated that a proposed regulation may be released as early as September, 2015. As of mid-November 2015 such regulations have yet to be published. This issue is of substantial import for estate planning throughout the nation. If and when a family business is transferred via an estate or even to a trust created by an owner of the business, it is likely be a taxable event, depending on the specifics of the transaction.

PASSING A FAMILY BUSINESS ON TO NEXT GENERATION

GROWING LEGAL ISSUE

The federal Department of Health and Human Services estimates that there are currently approximately 600,000 frozen embryos in the United States and the number continues to grow each year. Of these, it is estimated that approximately 60,000 could be implanted for full term pregnancy. In still other cases, a father or mother may freeze and store some sperm or eggs for future family planning purposes. In either event, a mother must have artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization or the embryo implanted. It is possible, even likely, that some of these embryos may be implanted and born after the passing of the father or mother with the use of a surrogate mother. The legal rights of these posthumously conceived children are still being fleshed out in legislatures and courtrooms throughout the country. In 2012, the United State Supreme Court dealt with rights of a posthumously conceived child to the Social Security survivor’s benefits of the deceased parent in Astrue v. Capato.

FEDERAL AND NEW YORK LAW

PORTABILITY

In 2011 Congress revamped the estate and gift tax laws and legislated that the federal estate and gift tax exclusion amount was $5 million. This amount is annually adjusted for inflation; the 2015 maximum is $5.43 million. Any estate values less than this amount are excluded from estate and gift tax liability. So, for example, if a husband passes away and leaves $4 million to his wife, the wife has an additional $1.43 million that she carried over to her own estate, as well as the standard $5 million that she is entitled to for her own estate if she also passed away in 2015 before any federal estate tax liability is incurred. Consequently, under the simple example provided, the wife is entitled to $6.86 million in exemptions before incurring any federal estate tax liability. If the surviving spouse remarries, he/she still retains the right to the portability of the unused estate tax. The portability is only effected if the second spouse of the surviving spouse also pre-deceases the original surviving spouse then the portability from the first spouse is extinguished. The idea and principles of estate tax portability do not apply to generation skipping transfer taxes, which is when a grandparent leaves money to his or her grandchildren.

IRS ALLOWS A DO OVER

QTIP TRUSTS – WHAT IS IT?

In our society, with divorces as common as it is, many people would likely benefit from a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust.  The QTIP trust gives a stream of income  produced from a trust to a surviving spouse.  That money passes without payment of any estate tax, as the spouse enjoys the unlimited marital deduction for estate taxes.  The surviving spouse does not obtain title to the income producing property or control over it.  The QTIP trust documents control where it goes after the surviving spouse passes away.  It allows for the interim benefit of the surviving spouse, while preserving the income producing property.  After the surviving spouse passes, the property goes to the heirs as designated by the QTIP trust.  

ELEMENTS OF A QTIP TRUST

WITNESS ADVOCATE RULE

In New York, as well as perhaps every other jurisdiction, an attorney may not serve as an attorney as well as a witness in the same case.  Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.7 is mandatory and not permissive.  It does not matter if it is a bench trial, jury trial, traffic court case or surrogate’s court case.  In fact, the rule is so important to judicial administration that even partners and members of the same firm cannot act as a witnesses.  Courts refer to the issue as the lawyer-witness rule and it comes up often enough in surrogate court cases.  The June 2, 2015 case of Will of Lublin, 2015 NY Slip Op 31038(U) is a good example of how estate lawyers face these issues.  While the lawyer in Lublin avoided the issue of Rule 3.7, a small change could have made it not so.  Very briefly, the decedent, Mr. Irving Lublin, executed a will in 1997 and passed away in 2010. Someone objected, claiming that the decedent did not have sufficient mental capacity to create such a will, the will was not properly executed and that the will was the result of fraud and undue influence.  The lawyer who drafted the will was deposed during the discovery phase.  If, perhaps, the attorney who created the will also represented the executor, an entirely plausible and even relatively normal scenario, the attorney would be disqualified, as he/she would be a material witness.  

UNIQUE POSITION IN THE CASE

SELL NOW OR PASS ON

The issue of how to deal with the collection of fine art that you amassed over the years should be dealt with now rather than allowing your heirs decide for you.  Perhaps your heirs do not have any appreciation for your original Ansel Adams or Edward Curtis photo collections.  If you view it as an investment, then timing your sale to maximize profit should be the most important criteria.  Timing may not be right for several years or it may be right now.  If you are looking to maximize profit which will only go to to your estate, you may consider waiting to pass it on.  If, you happen to value your art collection because of its intrinsic artistic value, you have another set of criteria by which to make your decision.  Perhaps you have a family member you know would appreciate it more than say your son or daughter.  Perhaps you should sell it to insure that the artistic value continues to be appreciated.   Country Living spotlighted an artistic marble collector who decided to sell his collection to insure that it would continue to be appreciated.  In any event, Capital gains tax on collectibles, gift tax and estate tax, both state and federal, must all be considered.  

ESTATE TAX

On June 24, 2015 a trial Court in California invalidated a California law as unconstitutional, which created a default surrogate decision maker when that individual is mentally incapacitated and does not have a family member, or anyone else for that matter, to make key decisions for them.  The law and the issues addressed are not limited to California.  Even though by definition, the law deals with individuals with no proxy decision maker, that does not mean someone did not exist in the past or could not step up to become one.  Proxy decision makers pass away themselves, they move or simply just fade away and no longer attend to their responsibilities.  New York law deals with these issues in a rather collaborative way.  In 2010, New York enacted the New York Family Health Care Decisions Act, which creates a decision ladder for medical professionals who need to know with whom to check with for certain critical decisions.  It was designed to avoid the parade of horribles that the California law dealt with.  Certainly, no one wants a loved one or relative, even a distant relative, to have to rely on these provisions; they are used as a last resort.

DETERMINATION OF INCAPACITY

In the absence of a health care proxy, The New York Family Health Care Decisions Act begins to shape decisions, for all intents and purposes, at the time of the determination of incapacity.  

Contact Information