Trusts and Estates Wills and Probate Tax Saving Strategies Medicaid

Schedule an in-office, Zoom or phone consultation Here.

GROWING NEED

More ten million elderly Americans rely exclusively on their Social Security pension as their sole means of support. Approximately 90 percent of senior citizens receive some sort of income from Social Security and approximately half of those relied on Social Security for at least half of their monthly income. It keeps approximately 35 percent of elderly Americans from dipping below the federal poverty line. To say that Social Security is vital to this population is an understatement. Included within that population are a subset of individuals who do not directly receive their income from the Social Security Administration but instead rely on a representative payee to manage their money and pay their bills.

The incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other related cognitive impairments increases with age and with people living longer, there will naturally be an increase in such conditions and thus a greater need for more Social Security representative payees. The Social Security Administration’s own Inspector General estimated in 2010 that at least one million elderly Americans over the age of 85 need a representative payee but did not have one. Within this group there is concern that there are de facto representative payee who were not formally approved or vetted by the Social Security Administration and could be perpetuating financial abuse of the beneficiary. Of the existing pool of representative payees, approximately three out of four are family members.

STAGGERING FIGURES

The Alzheimer’s Association recently released its 2016 Alzheimer’s facts and figures report earlier this month with a long list of many facts and figures, as the reports name implies. While the Alzheimer’s Association produces and publishes its report yearly, the 2016 report highlights the personal financial impact that the disease has on family caregivers. Most specifically, the report helps to show the amazing costs that are shouldered by American families in caring for patients with not just Alzheimer’s but dementia and those with general cognitive delays. In New York alone there are estimated to be 390,000 Alzheimer patients. The Alzheimer’s Association also estimates that there will be approximately 460,000 patients by 2025, an increase of approximately 20%. Overall, 4.7 million Americans are diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. That number is expected to triple by 2050. The emotional impact is already high, yet there is hope. Dr. Samuel Cohen gave a TED talk in late 2015 outlining breakthroughs that could spell a cure for the disease, which would in turn mean that the above numbers would indeed need to be revised.

As for the caregivers, there are approximately 16 million of you in the country who give your time and energy for your loved ones without any financial recompense. You give 18 billion hours of unpaid care for your parents, grandparents and other family members. National Public Radio (NPR) produced a report on the financial impact to individuals and families on March 30, 2016 which showed that the average caretaker used their own financial resources to help their loved ones with Alzheimer’s. The average cost was around $400 per month ($4,800 per year), although some spent up to $10,000 per year to help their relatives with Alzheimer’s. Oftentimes, the caretaker had to make choices between of certain necessities, for example, between food and medical care. As if the financial hit was not enough, it often necessitated that the caretaker reduce their own working hours to care for their loved ones with Alzheimer’s, thereby reducing their income even further. Many caretakers had to sell their own personal belongings to help make ends meet. Some were even reduced to basic poverty levels.

LARGE NEED TO REDUCE AND PREVENT FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION

        The American  Bankers Association is looking to serve a large market that is only getting larger by the day.  At the same time, they are working to shore up the larger financial markets in a larger effort to prevent financial fraud perpetrated against seniors.  As one banker noted during a speech on the topic, the banking community responded to the need to protect those with diminished ability to discern the difference between a real deal being sold by a legitimate vendor and a scam by predators.  In February, 2016 it launched the Safe Banking for Seniors program, with various state bankers association across the nation rolling out their own version modeled on the American Bankers Association.  

As of the inception of the program, 30 states joined in to help usher in the program.  The New York Bankers Association is not one of the 30 states and does not currently such a program.  Nevertheless, it is gaining popularity across the nation and many states bankers associations are seeing the utility and popularity of such a program.  Furthermore, the program is not restricted to states bankers associations, individual banks, regional banks and bank chains can join in the program.  As the American Bankers Association notes, 30% of the population of the country will be 60 or older by 2025.  The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and the American Bankers Association both note that $2.9 billion per year is lost to fraud perpetrated against elder Americans.  Some estimates are as high as $36 billion per year, with only one in 43 cases of financial fraud against an elderly American properly documented and reported.  The primary program is designed for banks and bankers associations, which will in turn filter down to individual elderly bank customers.

COMMON PROBLEM

There is much talk lately of how to deal with email, facebook, twitter accounts, et cetera of people who pass away.  For those of us who have friends or family who passed away and see their facebook account send a reminder to all of their friends on their birthday or some other event, it is nothing short of strange, even ery to see their former friend live into perpetuity in the digital realm.  Many people use it as an opportunity to post memories and give a public shout out to the living that their friend or family is still alive in their heart.  Others find the matter to be a painful memory.  

Facebook instituted a policy whereby a legacy contact can delete your account or transition the account to a memorialized account, whereby your name will be changed to a remembered account (more properly a “remembering account“).  Currently, New York does not allow an executor, or anyone else for that matter, to access the emails, online drives and various other digital accounts owned by a person after they pass away.  If it was private while the person was alive, shouldn’t it be alive after they pass away?  Yet, this is a rapidly evolving area of the law, with private corporations creating their own rules in the absence of legislative pronouncements to the contrary.   In the 2012-2013 legislative session, Representative M. Kearns introduced a bill that would address the issue of access to such accounts by an executor.

CERTAIN LIMITATIONS ON SPECIAL NEEDS TRUSTS

Last year a case out of the Western District of Massachusetts Federal District Court dealt with the interplay of a special needs trust and eligibility for certain governmental benefits that the special needs trust was supposed to address. The case of DeCambre v. Brookline Housing Authority dealt with the beneficiary of a valid special needs trust who applied for a section eight housing voucher but was denied because of income that she received from a third party special needs trust, established by a Court. Ms. DeCambre was involved in a catastrophic accident which resulted in a series of settlements, with the proceeds directly deposited into the special needs trust. She received a total of $330,000.

The trust did not earn any income of it’s own, the truste only distributed the income in line with the terms of the trust and charged the normal and typical trustee fees. Ms. DeCambre did not have any control over the distribution of the income or money in the trust. The Court noted that the special needs trust was indeed valid and in conformity with the special needs trust enabling statute, found at 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(A) and (C). Indeed, the Court noted that Ms. DeCambre benefited from this trust insofar as she received Supplemental Security Income of approximately $850 per month and validly received Medicaid. These programs, the Court noted, specifically excluded the income from the a valid special needs trust. Ms. DeCambre applied for a section eight housing voucher through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 2005. The voucher was approved and provided from 2005 through to 2012, when HUD reduced it by approximately $1,000 per month, based on her income from the special needs trust. Ms. DeCambre sued HUD in Federal Court on several statutory grounds, based on HUD’s decision to reduce the amount of her housing voucher.

PRINCE APPARENTLY DID NOT HAVE A WILL

The world learned recently that Prince joined the long list of celebrities who passed away intestate or without a will.  Some of the names on the list are surprising, others not so.  The Honorable Salvatore Phillip “Sonny” Bono, Michael Jackson, Howard Hughes, Abraham Lincoln, Pablo Picasso, Martin Luther King are all grouped together with such musical greats as Jimmy Hendrix, Curt Kobain and Amy Winehouse.  Pablo Picasso’s estate was valued at approximately $30 million upon his passing in 1973 and is now valued at several billion dollars and took several years to sort out.

 If a will does not surface, which seems likely, the local probate Court will follow Minnesota’s intestacy laws to divvy up at his estate which is initially estimated at at least $100 million and very well likely be worth several hundreds of millions of dollars.  While Prince was no doubt a creative genius on par with others who were considered truly great, his creativity did not go into the realm of financial planning, as a will is the most basic of all legal documents.  No doubt he could have afforded the most well paid team of lawyers to easily and without much interference value his estate and develop a legal strategy to help prevent public drama which could cost millions in legal fees as well as untold emotional costs to his family members and very well may cause an irreparable rift in family relations.  Prince and the other above celebrities, however, are in the majority, as the American Bar Association estimates that approximately 55% of Americans pass away without a will.  Forbes estimates that the number may be as high as approximately two out of three Americans.

THOROUGH PLANNING NEEDED IN ADVANCE

This blog has discussed the necessity of proper and thorough planning to ensure a smooth transition into a continuing care retirement community.  This requires, among other things, that a person properly and legally transfer all of their assets, or a substantial portion of their assets that is, to people or entities that would enable them to be eligible for Medicaid.  As many people know, there is a look back period where the state examines all transfers of assets or money over a certain period of time for purposes of Medicaid eligibility purposes.  

If during that time a person transferred any aset for less than full market value or did not transfer the assets to a proper investment vehicle that is otherwise exempt from Medicaid assets, the Medicaid applicant will likely be denied for financial reasons.  In other words Medicaid will claim that the applicant has too many assets or their income is too high to qualify.  Some examples of a Medicaid exempt transfer is the purchase of a graveyard plot, prepayment for funeral services or the purchase of a short term Medicaid annuity.  An interesting case from November, 2015 out of Broome County, entitled Good Shepherd Village at Endwell v. Peter Yezzi shows the many problems that can result when people start their Medicaid planning after admission to a continuing care retirement community.

As was outlined in the most recent blog posting, if you compare the costs and benefits of creating a will now versus passing away intestate, there is no doubt that the benefit is huge and the cost is small.  It is thus high time to explore New York’s intestacy laws in detail.  It is important to note that intestacy laws are important not only because they instruct a probate Judge on how the estate must be divided but it also tells the probate Court what is not permitted as well as what is neither required nor prohibited; in other words the parties can agree to certain final dispositions.  The specific statute that defines intestacy and the outlines the specific requirements that a Court must adhere to is found at New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) Section 4-1.1.  

Family Law and intestacy laws are one of the few areas of the law that recognizes and codifies a different treatment of the sexes, insofar EPTL Section 4-1.2 requires that a child conceived outside of marriage (so called and grossly titled “illegitimate” children) must have an acknowledgement of paternity by their father or a finding by a Court that the children in issue are indeed the children of the deceased man before those children can inherit as a child of the deceased.  Not so with mothers, since, except in the case of children mistakenly switched following birth, there is no doubt that children are the issue of their mother.

The technical legal term when a person passes intestate is that their estate is administered and a person who passes with a will, called testate, has their will probated.  Within the universe of individuals who are material to the probate Court are children, spouses and siblings.  Adopted children at treated the same as biological children although unadopted stepchildren are not considered children as far as the intestacy law is concerned.  New York has adoption proceedings and recognizes adult adoptions to legally redefine this relationship.  Divorced spouses are immaterial, although separated spouse are still considered spouses as far as the law is concerned.  

FURTHER CHANGES MAY BE NEEDED

When a person receives an asset via the probate process, the transaction must be reported to the IRS, even if it does not trigger any tax liability as to the estate or the recipient.  This is because the IRS needs to track the basis of the asset to determine any net capital gains or other calculations for tax liability purposes.  Price minus basis equals profit is the rough calculation to determine how much a person realized in a sale, which in turn determines the capital gain on the sale of the asset.  

There is a tension built into the system whereby the executor wants to assign the lowest possible value to the asset, so as to keep the value of the estate low, while the beneficiary wants to have the highest possible value assigned so when they dispose of the asset in the future it will incur less tax liability.  The IRS sought to address this tension when they lobbied Congress create 26 U.S.C. § 6035, which in turn enabled them to create the new IRS form 8971.  Form 8971 requires an executor to notify the IRS which beneficiary receives what and the value of the asset.  Part of the same legislation also created 26 U.S.C. § 1014 which requires beneficiaries to use the value of the asset at the date of death for purposes of reporting basis.  This value cannot be greater than the amount that the executor reported on the estate tax return.

SPECIAL NEEDS LAWS HELP PROTECT THOSE WHO PROTECT US

For those of us who come from families with many military members, we know the sacrifices and hard work that service members incur for their principles and belief that there are certain obligations in life that precede all else.  Unfortunately, until recently, for a select few of those dedicated service members faced a choice between two equally important obligations, their obligations to their country and their obligations to their family.  More specifically, service members with special needs children who received benefits publicly funded programs such as Medicaid or Supplemental Security Income knew that if something happened to them and their family received monies through the Military Survivor Benefits pension, their children would lose those vital benefits.  

It should be noted that the protections contemplated by the law are even allowed for if a service member retires and collects a pension for retirement but also diverts some of that money for the benefit of their special needs child.  This was a choice that was too high for some service members and helped them decide to not reenlist.  The military spends a tremendous amount of money on training and maintaining our military.  Any lost member is a lost investment to put it in economic terms.  To help combat the lose of these soldiers, sailors and airmen Congress created the Disabled Military Child Protection Act (DMPA).  The DMPA allows a service member to choose a special needs trusts as the beneficiary of any money given through a Military Survivor Benefits pension.  This allows the service member to have peace of mind knowing that if they do pay the ultimate sacrifice, their children and loved ones will not suffer further.

Contact Information