Window Closing on Discounts for Intra-family Gifts

We've been quiet for a couple of weeks, something we intend to avoid in the future, however today's blog addresses the Proposed Regulations announced yesterday by the Treasury Department and the IRS with respect to the ability to claim a discounted valuation for Intra-family gifts. If you or your clients are considering transferring partial ownership of a family business on to children it may be beneficial to do so sooner, rather than later.

In previous blogs we discussed the strategy of using a Family Limited Partnership or Family L.L.C. to transfer interests in either family owned businesses or other types of assets, such as real estate, to children while allowing parents to retaining control of the entity during their lifetime. A major benefit of such transfers is the ability of the parent to claim a significant discount in the valuation of the transferred assets for the purposes of Gift Tax liability. On Tuesday August 2, 2016, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service announced Proposed Regulations that address this strategy and, if put into effect as written, will significantly reduce the ability of family business owners to take advantage of this strategy.

Under current regulations, it is possible for a parent to transfer interests in a family business to the other family members while retaining operational control of those businesses. The transferred interest does not contain voting rights and specifically indicates that the family member does not have the right to sell or otherwise alienate the interest. The lack of control over the operation of the business and inability to sell the interest reduces the value of the interest and allows for a discount in the value for purposes of gifting. This discount allows the client to transfer a greater value of assets to their loved ones at a lesser cost for gift tax purposes. When it has challenged transfers of this nature in court, the IRS has consistently argued against the size of the discounts. 

The Proposed Regulations generally provide that if a parent transfers an interest in a corporation that the parent controls to any other member of the family any "applicable restriction" shall be disregarded in valuing the transferred interest. The Internal Revenue Code defines “applicable restriction” as “any restriction that effectively limits the ability of the entity to liquidate, but which, after the transfer, either in whole or in part, will lapse or may be removed by the transferor or any member of the transferor’s family, either alone or collectively.” In plain English, the Proposed Regulation provides that if a parent transfers an interest in a family owned business to their child with the restriction that the child cannot alienate their interest in the business without the parent’s permission, that restriction is ignored for purposes of valuing the transferred interest. The removal of such restrictions from consideration in valuing the interests transferred will have a significant impact on the strategy of transferring interests in family owned businesses.

While the Proposed Regulations will significantly limit the valuation discount available to clients when making transfers of family-owned businesses, it does not entirely eliminate the benefits of such transfers. Until these regulations go into effect and are tested in real-world situations, it is unclear what level of discount the IRS will argue is reasonable with respect to other restrictions placed on interests transferred to children that do not relate to the child's ability to alienate the interest. Additionally the strategy of transferring minority or non-controlling interests in family businesses to children is still very beneficial, especially when those business interests contain assets that are likely to appreciate significantly in coming years. Such transfers are also still relevant in the context of succession planning for family businesses, as an equity interest in the family business is often necessary to ensure that future generations are fully invested in the operation of that business before they are given control of the company.

There is still an opportunity to take advantage of the valuation discount, but the window for doing so may be closing. Before these Proposed Regulations can go into effect they must first go through a 90-day public comment period, after which there may be changes, but even if there are no changes, portions of the regulations will not take effect until 30 days after the government issues a final version of the regulations.

The strategy of using a Family L.L.C. to obtain a discount in the valuation of assets transferred to children is a complex legal strategy that business owners should not attempt without consulting an attorney and accountant who are familiar with the process. Avoiding significant issues with the IRS in implementing this strategy requires sound valuations of the business and working with advisors familiar with the process of justifying such valuations. If you have additional questions, concerns, or interest in discussing whether this strategy may be appropriate for your circumstances, or the circumstances of one of your clients, we encourage you to contact us quickly, as the time available to take advantage of this strategy is very limited.

Alan and Matt

Understanding the Estate and Gift Taxes

     One of the most misunderstood areas of estate planning involves the impact of Federal Estate and Gift Taxes. While most people understand they pay Federal Estate Tax on inherited assets and Federal Gift Tax on gifts made, few people truly understand what creates liability for these taxes and who is responsible for paying them.

     The first point to understand is that Federal Gift and Estate taxes are integrated into a single transfer tax under a unified rate schedule and with a unified credit that imposes a single tax on transfers during life and at death. The Internal Revenue Service group gifts and inherited assets together for purposes of determining total tax owed and the amount of assets excludable before payment of either Federal Gift or Estate taxes

     Let us begin with the Estate Tax. The estate of a deceased individual pays Estate Tax on the assets transferred to non-spouses at the individual's death. The estate tax rate is a sliding scale that tops out at 40%.  The Tax Code includes an Exclusion, which currently allows an estate to transfer $5,430,000.00 before incurring any Estate Tax liability. In addition to this large Exclusion, the Tax Code provides that any assets transferred to a surviving spouse are exempt from tax liability. In addition, any portion of the Exclusion that the estate of the first to die of a married couple does not use can be used by the surviving spouse's estate at his or her death. This ability, commonly known as Portability, means that a married couple will need to transfer nearly $11,000,000.00 at death before paying any Estate Tax. The Tax Code ties the Exclusion amount to the cost of living and therefore each year the Exclusion grows allowing ever-greater tax-free transfers.

     A person can choose to make gifts during lifetime instead of making bequests at death, making Gift Tax an important consideration. The person making the gift is liable for paying the Gift tax, if any is due. As indicated above, Gift and Estate taxes are integrated into a single transfer tax, so that the exclusion from tax becomes a "lifetime exclusion" rather than an exclusion at death. Any exclusion used during lifetime against Gift taxes will reduce the exclusion available against Estate taxes. 

     As noted above, we offset any Gift Tax against the Lifetime Exclusion before any tax becomes due. There is also another exclusion against Gift Tax--the "Annual Exclusion. A The Annual Exclusion on Gift Taxes allows any person to give up to $14,000 to any number of people, each year without creating any Gift tax liability. This means that a husband and wife together can give the each of their three children and their spouses $28,000 each year, reducing the parents' taxable estate by $168,000 each year without paying any tax on those transfers, and without using the Lifetime Exclusion. If our couple wanted to give their children additional amounts in a year, every dollar over $14,000 per beneficiary then reduces the parent’s Lifetime Exclusion.

     As an example, if the parents want to make a $200,000 gift to each of their three children so that the children can purchase a home, the parents can give a total of $28,000 to each child and $28,000 to each child’s spouse tax-free using the Annual Exclusion. The remaining $432,000 in gifts to the children and their spouses will reduce each of the parent's Lifetime Exclusion by $216,000 and reduce their remaining Estate Tax Exclusion by the same amount.

     In estate planning, we employ strategies that can increase the benefit of each of these Exclusions for people able to make substantial gifts. We will discuss some of these in our next blogs. 

How the Investment Income Tax Effects Trusts and Estates

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 imposes a 3.8% tax on the net investment income (NII) of individuals, estates, and trusts to the extent that the taxpayer's adjusted gross income exceeds the applicable thresholds. While the threshold amount for married and single filers are relatively high, the threshold for an estate or trust is only $11,950 for the tax year 2013. Therefore, if the undistributed NII of an estate or trust exceeds $11,950, the excess is subject to the 3.8% Medicare tax.

A trust or estate is only subject to the NII tax if the trust or estate contains undistributed net investment income. Therefore, the trust or estate can avoid this tax entirely by distributing its net investment income to its beneficiaries. With some trusts, especially those that contain mandatory distributions of all income or where the trustee regularly distributes all the trust income to pay the beneficiaries’ expenses, this is simple. However, for trusts that seek to minimize income distributions, such as Supplemental Needs Trusts for beneficiaries receiving government benefits, avoiding this tax becomes more problematic.

In situations where the distribution of trust income has the potential to create problems the Trustee must weigh the benefits of tax avoidance against the drawbacks of giving income to beneficiaries who may waste it or actually do harm to themselves. In these situations, rather than distributing income to avoid the NII tax it may be better to restructure the trust's investments to avoid receipt of NII. Investing in tax-exempt investments such as municipal bonds or tax-deferred investments or accounts such as life insurance or deferred annuity contracts can avoid the net investment income. It may also make sense to select investments producing growth but little or no income. Trustees can sell such assets later when cash is needed for distributions.

Another, less common concern, is that the value of income generated by a trust will exceed the liability threshold for a beneficiary as an individual. This issue may be addressed by including a number of permissible, but not mandatory beneficiaries in the trust, such as including grandchildren as permissible beneficiaries of a trust for their parent. This allows the trustee to make distributions to a number of trust beneficiaries who do not otherwise have sufficient income to subject themselves to this 3.8% Medicare tax, and  spreads the income among taxpayers potentially eliminating the tax liability altogether.

It is important for trustees and personal representatives of trusts and estates containing significant income generating investments to review those entities as soon as possible in order to determine the best results for each trust or estate. Clients should discuss the options with their professionals in order to maximize tax savings.

As a reminder, the IRS treats income distributed from a trust within the first 65 days following the year-end as distributed in the prior year. For example if a Trustee makes distributions from a trust of income earned in 2013 in the first 65 days of 2014, the beneficiaries report that income on their 2013 income tax return. This gives some flexibility in planning, but Planners should not delay acting to avoid problems. 

Alan Ferrara

Estate Planning for a Second Marriage

     Recently a colleague asked for information about the use of trusts in estate planning following a divorce and remarriage. Since we have not addressed this topic yet, a post on the subject seemed appropriate. It is important for client to consider estate planning issues following a divorce and remarriage to avoid inadvertently disinheriting either the new spouse or children of the first marriage. Clients (husband and wife) in their first marriage usually have common goals, such as providing for the surviving spouse during their lifetime and leaving any remaining assets to their children equally. This makes estate planning relatively simple, because a living trust holds the assets to limit tax liability, avoid probate, and ensure the assets pass to the surviving spouse for use during the spouse's lifetime and then on to the couple's children.

     Clients in second marriages, whether because of divorce or death, usually have a more complex situation with which to deal. In those circumstances there are concerns regarding the surviving spouse, children from the first marriage, the surviving spouse's children, and possibly children from the second marriage. Clients wish to ensure the surviving spouse has sufficient assets during lifetime, while also ensuring that the assets they brought into the marriage eventually pass to their children.

     A frequent concern of clients in their second marriage is ensuring that both their second spouse and their children receive gifts following the client's death. A common technique used to achieve this goal provides the surviving spouse with a regular stream of income from the trust assets, while reserving distributions of principal for the client’s children following the death of the surviving spouse. When using this technique, it is also common to provide the trustee with the discretion to make distributions of principal to the surviving spouse, under a limited set of circumstances, to ensure that the surviving spouse has sufficient assets to live on following the first spouse's death. It is important in these circumstances that the trustee understand that part of their responsibility is to balance the best interests of both the spouse and children from the first marriage in making distributions. It is a good idea for the client to discuss these issues with the named trustee.

     Alternatively, some clients opt to address this issue by distributing different assets to their surviving spouse and their children. For example, a trust might provide that the client’s children receive immediate distributions from the trust assets equal to the payout from a life insurance policy. The client may also provide that the children are beneficiaries of the client’s IRA or other retirement accounts. The trust then provides that the client's surviving spouse receive all income from the remaining trust assets, and gives the trustee broad discretion to make distributions of principal for the surviving spouse's needs. Any trust assets that remain following the death of the second spouse are distributed to the client’s children. This technique ensures that that the client’s children receive an immediate gift as well as the potential for additional assets should any remain after ensuring that the surviving spouse has sufficient assets during the their lifetime.

     A well-drafted trust is required to make use of these techniques because you need an entity maintain the trust assets instead of passing those assets directly to the surviving spouse. During a first marriage, a common technique for probate avoidance is to own property jointly with rights of survivorship. This allows the surviving spouse to remain the sole owner of the property following the first spouse's death without the property passing through probate. If this same technique is used following a second marriage, the surviving spouse becomes the sole owner of the property or bank account and then is free to do with that property whatever he or she chooses. This means that property the client intended for children to inherit following the second spouse's death could pass directly to the second spouse's children or family and completely disinherit the client's children from the first marriage.

     There is not always controversy about who inherits which assets. In many second marriages, spouses and their children from first marriages live in perfect harmony. Even in these circumstances, the spouses may wish to ensure that particular assets, such as vacation homes or collectibles, that each has brought into their second marriage are eventually inherited by their own children. With proper planning, it is possible to maintain these separate assets for both spouses’ use while ensuring that after the second death the assets will go to each spouse’s children, while assets earned jointly during the marriage are split equally amongst all the children.

     It is clear that the circumstances that exist when contemplating estate planning for a second marriage involve a level of complexity that generally does not exist when planning during a first marriage. These circumstances can become even more complex if either spouse’s children has special needs, dependency issues, creditor problems, or if there are significant personal conflicts between children and second spouses.  You may actually have a case where the new spouse has his or her own issues, which need to be addressed. An example of this occurs if the new spouse has an unpaid federal income tax liability and the spouse transfers a residence originally owned individually to the other spouse as joint tenants. Now the IRS can attach a lien to the residence. It is important to speak with an experienced attorney to ensure that the estate plan meets the goals of both spouses and is implemented with a minimum of conflict.

Keeping a Vacation Home in the Family

A number of my clients have family vacation homes or cottages that they and their children have enjoyed for many years. After getting so much enjoyment from owning the cottage those clients often ask how they can set up their estate planning documents to ensure that when they die, that ownership experience passes onto their children and grandchildren. While, in theory, this may be a good idea, it often creates significant problems if a not fully thought out and planned.

One issue that often causes an issue is the gift tax consequence of transferring a valuable piece of property. However, because of the most recent tax legislation, most people have a sufficient exemption amount so that gift tax is not an issue.

Transferring cottages to other family members can create thornier issues because of personal relationships. While family members may have enjoyed their time at the cottage, for many reasons they may have no interest in owning the cottage with their siblings or other family members. Issues that can arise include:

1. What is the most efficient manner of ownership of the cottage?
2. How to insure that the cottage remains in the "family"?
3. How to establish rules for the management and use of the cottage?

Generally, traditional forms of joint ownership, such as tenancy in common and joint tenancy with rights of survivorship, are inefficient methods for family ownership of the cottage. The primary risk in these types of ownership is that over time the ownership interest is subdivided or fractionalized as it is passed down to subsequent generations. While it is the dream or wish of the parents that the children continue to enjoy the cottages they have in the past, as family members grow into adulthood they may have different ideas. A family member might not have had a great experience at the cottage, may live too far away to be able to enjoy it, cannot afford the share of the cottage expenses, or may simply prefer the value of the cottage in cash to use as they may choose. With tenancy in common or joint tenancy, a family member may try to use his or her partition rights under state law, forcing the sale of the cottage or vacation home.

Co-ownership of the cottage may lead to other conflicts, such as:

1. Who controls the operation of the cottage?
2. How are operating, maintenance or repair expenses shared?
3. Who determines when and what improvements to make and how to pay for those improvements?
4. How are the most desired dates for cottage use determined or allocated among family members?
5. Are pets allowed?
6. Can family members rent their time to third parties?
7. Are nonfamily members, such as spouses and siblings, allowed to own an interest in the vacation home?
8. What happens if a family member wants to sell his interest in the cottage?

While many of these issues do not exist while the parents are alive because the parents pay all expenses of the cottage and determine how it is used, after the death of parents, these issues and others can create family disagreements or even permanent rifts.

 If the parents are still interested in trying to establish a "family cottage," a limited liability company (LLC) is an ideal ownership vehicle. An LLC has a perpetual existence. Parents can transfer the property to an LLC and then gift interests in the LLC during lifetime or at death to other family members. The LLC as an entity can protect owners from lawsuits by users of the cottage if injured on the premises. It can also prevent owners from being able to use the right of partition in order to sell the property. If used with a properly structured operating agreement, it can promote shared use and fair governance of the property.

It is possible to use an LLC operating agreement to meet the goals of the family, and should include:

1. A determination of who is the manager of the LLC--all members or a named managing member.
2. A procedure for determining what maintenance or improvement is to occur on the property and a method of allocating associated expenses.
3. A method of equitably allocating among family members the dates for using the cottage, especially during holidays, school vacations and most ideal seasons.
4. Rules for members using the cottage, including restrictions on allowance of pets, ability to invite guests, and the ability to rent out the member's time to outside parties.
5. A method for penalizing a member for violation of usage rules and/or failure to pay the required contribution for expenses.
6. A method for determining the transfer of member interests, including price and terms, for any member desiring to sell their interest. This could include a restriction on any sale to a non-family member.

While gift and estate taxes are unlikely to cause an issue, the consequences in regards to property taxes should not be forgotten when considering the transfer of a vacation home. Under Michigan law, if you convey less than 50% of ownership in real estate to others, there is no change in the property tax assessment rules for determining taxable value. Parents can gift up to 49% of the property to family members without any real estate tax consequence. If they prefer, the parents can first transfer the property to an LLC and then transfer 50% of the LLC to family members.

Because property values are still somewhat depressed, this is an opportune time to transfer the vacation property to family members and move value and future appreciation to family members and out of the parents' estate, while continuing to allow parents to maintain control of the asset.

While parents have the best interests of their family at heart, trying to maintain a vacation home in the family for a number of generations can create a nightmare scenario. It makes good sense to discuss this strategy with qualified counsel and the family itself to make sure there is sufficient interest to maintain the family cottage for future generations and to properly structure the transaction.

It is Better to Give than Receive

At this time of the year, our thoughts turn to the holidays and sometimes we get caught up in the hustle and bustle of shopping, parties, family gatherings, and religious services. Our minds race with countless questions; what should I get for everyone; what am I getting; where are we going; what time is that party; and will I survive the stress?

In addition, we also take time to reflect on the blessings of our family, friends, and business acquaintances. We remember that not all people are so fortunate and we reach out a hand to our fellow man through acts of charity. We all feel warmer inside after giving, whether to the Salvation Army Red Kettle at the mall, to our own church or temple, to the local food kitchen, or to countless other groups that seek to assist those in need or find cures for medical conditions. Not only does charitable giving feel good, but also it is good for you.

•      Charitable contributions are income tax deductible: Gifts made directly to charities are income tax deductible and reduce your taxable income in the year of the contribution, if the charity receives the gift by December 31.
•     Charitable contributions are not counted when determining estate tax liability: The value of gifts made at death reduce your taxable estate, saving 35%-50% depending upon the current estate tax rate
•     If structured properly, charitable contributions may avoid capital gains on highly appreciated property: By executing a charitable trust, it is possible to provide funds to charities while also gaining additional tax advantages.

USING CHARITABLE TRUSTS

Some people want to retain control over assets they intend to give away, allowing them to take advantage of a current or future income stream while also guaranteeing a benefit to their favorite charities at some point in time. Achieving these goals is possible with a charitable trust. Charitable trusts take advantage of the differences between present interests (or as I like to refer to them “here” interests) and future interests (“hereafter” interests) to provide benefits to trust beneficiaries.

A Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT) allows you to receive the current income stream from assets transferred to the trust and distributes the remainder portion to the charity after a specified time, or at your death. You get to enjoy the “here” and the charity enjoys the “hereafter.” Through the use of a properly structured CRT, you, your heirs and your chosen charities all benefit, and the IRS receives nothing

The CRT is especially useful where the transferred asset is highly appreciated. If the CRT trustee sells appreciated property, following the property’s transfer to the CRT, there is no capital gains tax liability (unlike if you sold the property yourself). This results in the availability of more assets to provide greater income in the “here.”

While any distributed trust income is taxed to you as ordinary income or capital gains, depending upon its character, you may consider leveraging the CRT by using such income you receive to fund gifts to an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust so your heirs can receive more value at your death without it being subject to income or estate taxes. Alternatively, some people name their children or grandchildren as the current beneficiaries of the CRT to provide those beneficiaries with income taxed at a lower rate than if the grantor of the CRT took distributions directly.

A final thought on the use of CRTs, the amount of the income tax deduction for contributions to the CRT is determined using IRS tables. The longer the period before the charity gets complete control of the trust property, the smaller the deduction you are able to take.

A Charitable Lead Trust (CLT) functions similar to a CRT but provides for the charity in the “here” by giving the charity the current income stream from assets transferred to the trust and for other beneficiaries in the “hereafter” by distributing the remainder portion to family members after a specified time or your death. Again, the amount of the income tax deduction for contributions to the CLT is determined using IRS tables. The longer the period the charity gets the income from the trust property, the smaller the gift to the remainder beneficiaries, and the larger the deduction you are able to take. However, tax rules require you pay tax on the income as the charitable beneficiary receives in order to take the immediate charitable income tax deduction. By making use of a CLT, you can fulfill your charitable inclinations, shift income and assets to eventual beneficiaries with little gift tax cost, and remove assets form your estate. 

The CRT and the CLT both serve as excellent methods of charitable giving as part of a larger estate plan. If however your charitable inclinations include a long-term, active charitable commitment, it may be appropriate to consider organizing your own Charitable Foundation. While creating and maintaining a Foundation requires substantial administrative effort, the use of a Foundation allows you to receive charitable tax deductions, manage the long-term distribution of assets, choose and change which charities benefit from your philanthropy, and potentially provide a vehicle for a multigenerational commitment to doing good works.

No matter how you decide to satisfy your charitable wishes, with proper planning you can benefit your favorite causes, shift income and assets from your estate to other family members and teach your children and grandchildren the lesson of doing good works. If you have specific questions regarding charitable trusts and foundations, feel free to email us or leave them in the comments section.

2012 Tax Planning - Splitting Inherited IRAs

For individuals who inherited a share of an IRA from an IRA owner who died in 2011, December 31, 2012 is an important deadline. This is because the regulations that govern distributions from inherited IRAs require that beneficiaries make decisions regarding the division of inherited IRAs on or before December 31 of the year following the death of the IRA owner. When there are multiple beneficiaries for an inherited IRA, splitting the IRA account into separate accounts for each of the beneficiaries has the potential to yield important tax and investment benefits.

Death beneficiaries of an IRA must take distributions from the IRA either (1) fully within five years or (2) in annual distributions over their life expectancy. The regulations that govern IRA distributions require that, whether the IRA owner died before or after his required beginning date (generally age 70 1/2), if the IRA owner was older than the beneficiaries, the remaining IRA balance is paid out over the remaining life expectancy of the beneficiary. Generally, when there are multiple beneficiaries of a single IRA, those beneficiaries must use the life expectancy of the oldest amongst them (i.e. the shortest life expectancy) when calculating the Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs). This requirement places younger beneficiaries at a disadvantage because the inherited IRA makes larger annual distributions over a shorter time, triggering potentially greater income tax liability.

For example, John designated his children, Bill and Mary, as equal beneficiaries of his IRA. John dies in 2011 at the age of 75 when Bill is age 55 and Mary is age 40. Under the default scenario, Bill's life expectancy dictates the RMDs for both Bill and Mary. Presuming they each are entitled to $500,000 from the account, in the first year the RMD using Bill's life expectancy is almost $17,000. If Mary could calculate the distribution using her life expectancy, her initial distribution would be only about $11,500. The size of the distributions will only accelerate as Bill gets older.

Fortunately for those younger beneficiaries, if they take advantage of the distribution regulations in a timely manner, they can split the IRA into separate accounts and the RMD rules will apply separately to each account. Following the split, each beneficiary will use their own life expectancy in determining the RMDs. Thus, Mary’s required distributions will be smaller than if she were required to use Bill's life expectancy. In addition, Mary would also have more freedom to invest her portion of the IRA, as her investment philosophy is likely to be more aggressive than Bill’s due to the difference in their ages.

In order to take advantage of this opportunity, recent IRA beneficiaries must direct the IRA trustee to split the inherited IRA into separate and equal IRAs no later than December 31, 2012, making each individual the sole beneficiary of their share of the IRA. Additionally, the trustee must allocate all post-death investment gains and losses for the period before the establishment of the separate accounts to each account on a pro rata basis in a reasonable and consistent manner. After establishing separate IRA accounts, each account owner can provide for separate and distinct investments depending upon the needs of the beneficiary's with gains and losses from the investment of the account allocated only to that account.

Time is running out for the beneficiaries of IRAs inherited in 2011 to make this decision. It is important that beneficiaries and their financial advisors communicate regularly to ensure the ability to take advantage of opportunities such as this. The law governing IRA distributions is both long and complex. This article addresses only the potential to split inherited IRAs into separate accounts for each beneficiary, if you have additional questions or concerns regarding IRA distributions please feel free to leave us a comment, send us an e-mail or call us.