Articles Posted in Estate Taxes

Last week is already being referred to as one of the most important in the history of the equality movement for gay and lesbian couples. That is because, as all news outlets reported on significantly, the U.S. Supreme Court heard two cases related to marriage rights for same sex couples. We have discussed these cases frequently over the last few months, one of them deals with the federal law known as the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) and the other involves a state referendum in California known as Proposition 8.

For New York estate planning purposes, the DOMA case has very obvious ramifications. The very plaintiff in the case is a New York resident (Edith Windsor) who is suing in her capacity as executor of her later partner’s estate (Thea Spyer). Windsor and Spyer were married in Canada and that relationship was legally recognized in New York. However, because of DOMA, the federal government did not recognize the marriage. The divergent recognition of the couple’s relationship was not merely a symbolic difference, it had very real legal impacts. Specifically, Ms. Windsor was forced to pay over $360,000 in estate taxes to the federal government that she otherwise would not have paid if her relationship to Spyer was recognized. It is a pretty cut-and-dry demonstration of how same sex couples are impacted because of a lack of federal recognition of their marriage.

Obviously, the Supreme Court’s ultimate determination of the constitutionality of the challenged portion of DOMA will affect the planning of same sex couples.

One of the biggest names and personalities in recent New York City history passed away in early February: Ed Koch. Koch has a wide-ranging career, most notable for his three terms as New York City mayor. The mayor emeritus apparently died with healthy bank accounts, as a recent Forbes article suggests that his estate is valued at about $10 million. Apparently most of the wealth was accumulated after he left office in the late 1980s. A high-profile name, Koch made money giving speeches, writing books, appearing and the radio and television.

As usually happens after a celebrity passing, many have asked how Koch’s fortune might be distributed. Court documents recently filed in the matter shed light on how it all might shake out–offering yet another example of the need for community members to be vigilant about their affairs to protect against large tax obligations.

According to reports, Koch left most of his fortune to various relatives along with some charities. He made specific cash distinctions to certain relatives (i.e $500,000 to sister and husband, $100,000 to sister in law, etc.), and left the “residuary estate” (everything remaining after specific gifts) to three nephews.

We have frequently discussed the federal law known as the Defense of Marriage Act. Passed in 1996, the law essentially prevents the federal government from recognizing as married same-sex couples who are legally wed in individual states. Of course, New York allows gay couples the right to marry. Under state law, all couples, gay and straight alike, are treated the same. However, while in most cases the federal government defers to state law on legal marriages, that is not so for same-sex couples. To this day they are treated as legal strangers for federal purposes, creating a whole host of complex long-term planning, tax, and government support complications.

New York DOMA Challenge

Over the past few years a few legal challenges have been heard in federal courts arguing that DOMA violates federal constitutional principles. In virtually all of those cases the courts have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, agreeing that parts of the law are unconstitutional. However, considering the magnitude of the issue, it was almost guaranteed that the decision would ultimately lie with the U.S. Supreme Court.

The last few months of 2012 were filled with mass speculation about how many federal tax issues would ultimately be decided. One part of the high-profile “fiscal cliff” proposal and competing options was the estate tax. As oft-discussed, the final tax details could have fallen anywhere between a $1 million or $5 million exemption level, with rates anywhere from 35% to 55%. Fearing that no agreement would be made and the country would “go over the cliff,” many local residents conducted last minute wealth transfers to take advantage of what was assumed to be relatively favorable rates in 2012 that might disappear in 2013.

As we now know, the country did not go over the cliff. As for the estate tax, the compromise did not see nearly as sharp a rise as expected, with a $5.25 million exemption level and 40% rate (up somewhat from the 35% in 2012).

Considering that the concerns which led to many transfers in late 2012 were false alarms, is there anything that can be done to reverse the transfers? That was the subject of a recent Forbes article discussing the “Buyer’s Remorse” of many who pulled the trigger on different financial plans as a result of tax uncertainties.

Like it or not, our world is infatuated with technology. Smartphones conduct intercontinental transactions. Friends across the country communicate through instantaneous text messaging, and telephones and tablets close distances and miles through face to face conversations. Because technology plays such an important role in our daily lives, today’s estate planning should include an arrangement for organizing and protecting technological and digital assets.

Dividing Up Digital Assets

We have frequently discussed how there are different kinds of digital assets to think about when drafting your estate plan. First, there are your personal digital assets, which would include any email accounts, personal social media accounts and maybe even a personal web site or personal blog. Personal digital assets might also include any photos or documents stored on different websites, like Snapfish, Shutterfly or Dropbox. Information stored in any cloud storage should also be considered personal digital assets.

One of the most common concerns that parents have when creating an estate plan in New York is worrying about passing on too much wealth to children who cannot properly handle it. After a lifetime of hard work, ingenuity, and prudent planning, the last thing many families want is to see a child obtain an inheritance and then lose it. One need only check newspapers headlines to see celebrity examples of younger individuals with too much money whose lives take a turn for their worst as they fail to handle their wealth carefully.

A Wall Street Journal article last week discussed this issue in the context of the now seemingly permanent federal estate tax rates. Per the “fiscal cliff” agreement, the estate tax law will allow each individual to shield up to $5.25 million. For a couple, that allows $10.5 million to be given to others tax-free.

While this is good news for those who have this much wealth to pass along, it does raise some questions for families. Is your child–no matter what age–prepared to handle an inheritance of this size? Will it be lost to creditors? Taken by a spouse? WIll the money change the child’s motivation or long-term goals?

Like the monster from a horror movie that will not stay still no matter what is thrown at it, there are already suggestions that the apparent “final” decisions related to the estate tax may not actually be all that final.

As we previously explained, as part of the fiscal cliff compromise bill certain estate tax issues were seemingly made permanent. The exemption level was kept at $5.12 million and indexed to inflation. The top rate was set at 40%. Both of these figures were less intrusive than that original proposals from the White House and far less severe than those mandated by the fiscal cliff itself. Many observers were happy with the outcome, no matter what their personal preferences, for the fact that it at least offered some stability. Having an uncertain tax rate is never a welcome prospect when planning for the future.

Also, as pointed out in a recent article discussed the estate tax components of the bill, the tax will continue to be “portable.” This means that one spouse may use their deceased spouse’s “unused” portion of the exemption level. This is a very helpful tool which allows more assets to pass tax-free without the need for more complex estate planning techniques.

Timing is of critical importance with estate planning matters. Obviously, a plan must be in place early enough to be of use before one falls ill or suffers from mental issues. For example, creating a will or trust may be impossible after one suffers a stroke or succumbs to serious effects of Alzheimers. This is why we continue to encourage residents to make plans early and consistently update them.

Time also factors into matters after a death. Many beneficiaries may face hardship if they are forced to wait months (or even years) to have an estate settled. One of the key benefits of an inheritance plan is to minimize the risk of a long delay between the actual passing on of assets, often focused on avoiding probate and preventing feuding.

Celebrity Example

Chances are you have already heard that a bipartisan agreement was reached on New Years Day which averts the significant tax increases and spending cuts demanded by the so-called “fiscal cliff.” The agreement certainly went down to the wire, with the Senate passing a bill on the last day of the year and the House passing the same bill the following day. Up until the end it was unclear if a compromise could be reached, as House leaders initially claimed that they would amend the Senate bill and send it back to that chamber. In the end, however, a vote was taken on the Senate bill without any changes, passing with support from members of both parties.

The compromise legislation does not resolve all of the issues in disagreement between the parties. More negotiation and legislation will be needed in the coming months to settle those other matters.

The Basics of the Deal

Only a few days remain in the year, and most financial activity for 2012 has come to a close. However, the end of year action has already brought one of the most active seasons ever. Financial advisors, estate planning attorneys, and others have all seen community members of all different income brackets seek out help understanding how possible legal changes in the new year might affect their own financial health and long-term prospects.

A Forbes story last week explored one of the main reasons for confusion and the seeking out of help: the “give now or pay later” problem. This is an issue that mostly affects those with significant assets who may be affected by gift and estate tax changes. As has been documented exhaustively, Congress is considered what to do with the gift and estate tax. Over the past ten years the tax rate has steadily fallen and the exemption level has risen. In 2010, the estate tax was eliminated altogether. However, what will happen in the new year remains to be seen.

Many different options are on the table–from a permanent elimination of tax (unlikely) to a return to pre-2001 rates. A table from the Tax Policy Center (viewed here) offers a helpful snapshot of the options and how many people would be affected by each. One comparison offers the range of possibilities. If the current rate continues, about 3,800 estates will be affected next year. Those estates would bring in about $12 billion in taxes. Conversely, if the 2001 rates returned then 47,000 estates would be affected and over 300% more tax revenue would be generated.

Contact Information