Mention community property to a lawyer who has never studied or practiced in one of the community property states, and you are likely to see a twitch at the corner of his or her eyes. There is much mystique about how community property works, but it is actually pretty straightforward: all property acquired during the period of a marriage is presumed to be community property, and therefore belongs half to each spouse. In the event of divorce, the courts will probably unwind the community interest by dividing each asset in half — though it may be possible (depending on state law) to segregate assets so that roughly half the total value of community property goes to each spouse.
But of course the devil is in the details. There are lots of ways in which the simple statement of community property principles can get confusing.
The probate estate of Frank Kerns (not his real name) demonstrated one such confusion. Frank left a widow, a son from his first marriage, and an Individual Retirement Account (an IRA). He and his second wife had been married for several years, and at first he had named his wife as the sole beneficiary of his IRA. At some point, however, he changed the beneficiary designation on his IRA, naming his son as beneficiary as to 83% of the account, and his wife as beneficiary as to the other 17%. That was how the beneficiary designation read when he died.
Frank’s widow brought an action in probate court, arguing that community property rules made one-half of the IRA hers — and that Frank could not change the beneficiary designation as to “her” half. She asked the probate judge to order that she was the beneficiary of her half, and that the maximum amount Frank could leave to his son was the other 50%. The probate judge agreed.
The Arizona Court of Appeals did not agree with Frank’s widow. Or, rather, the appellate court did not agree with the conclusion of the argument. Frank’s son and widow agreed that the IRA was community property, but the Court of Appeals adopted Frank’s son’s interpretation of what that meant for the IRA.
Some community property states have adopted what is often called an “item” theory of community property. Under that analysis, one-half of each community property item belongs to each spouse, and if that theory applied to Frank his widow would be right. He would not have the power to name his son as beneficiary for anything more than what we might think of as “his” share of the IRA.
But the Court of Appeals decided that Arizona has embraced an alternate approach, generally referred to as the “aggregate” theory of community property. Under that analysis, Frank owned one-half of all the couple’s assets taken together — but so long as his widow received at least one-half of the aggregate community assets, she could not complain about what he had done with “his” half of the aggregation. Since Frank’s widow may have received some other assets (perhaps by beneficiary designation, or payable-on-death titling), the appellate court remanded the case back to the probate judge for a determination of whether “her” share of the couple’s assets had been properly protected.
Frank’s widow also argued that IRA and other retirement accounts should receive special treatment. Retirement funds, she insisted, are intended to provide for the care of the beneficiary and his or her spouse — and it should not be permissible to direct them to children or others except in unusual circumstances. The Court of Appeals was not persuaded, holding that all assets left to a spouse are intended to help provide for the spouse. In re the Estate of Kirkes, March 8, 2012.
So is community property really hard to understand, or are the principles difficult to apply? Not really. States where community property principles are not relevant also have complications and exceptions. But the basic rules are clear in both kinds of states: in community property states, property acquired during the marriage is generally presumed to be community property unless it was acquired by gift or inheritance. Property owned before the marriage generally remains separate property of the spouse who brought it into the marriage — unless he or she does something to convert it into community property. And then there are those details.
MARCH 26, 2012 VOLUME 19 NUMBER 12
Here at Fleming & Curti, PLC, we keep tabs on what brings people to our website. We look at referring pages, at search terms and at a variety of other items. We are intrigued by what persistently tops the search-engine list. The most common search? It’s some variation of: “do I need a new tax ID number for my living trust?” (For those keeping score, the second-most-common question seems to be “can I leave my IRA to a living trust?“)
Why the enduring interest? Because the question is so much less complicated than people think it is. There is a surprising paucity of clear information about when you need to have a new tax ID number (an EIN, if you want to use the correct acronym). And much of the information out there is contradictory.
We have written about the question several times before. In 2009 we asked and answered the question: “Do you need a new tax ID number for your living trust?” Just last year we reviewed the question, along with some other reader questions, and provided a little more detail on when your trust needs an EIN. Since those two explanations the rules haven’t really changed — but your questions have gotten a little bit more sophisticated.
Several of those questions deal with the same basic scenario: what happens when a husband and wife have a joint trust, using one spouse’s Social Security number, and then that spouse dies? The answer will depend on what the trust provides.
First, a word about joint trusts for spouses: they are common in community property states (like Arizona), not as common in those states where community property principles do not apply. Remember, please, that we are Arizona lawyers, and so we write here about Arizona rules. Attorneys from other states are more than free to add their comments; we will post them as we receive them — but we are not vouching for the accuracy of their advice in states other than Arizona.
Let’s set up a scenario, drawn from our common experience: Husband and wife created a joint revocable trust, and their bank accounts, brokerage accounts, insurance — all of their assets, in fact — listed the husband’s Social Security number. They could do that because, as with a joint account outside of a trust, tax rules allow one owner’s identifying number to be used rather than having to use all owners’ numbers. But now the husband has died. What should the (surviving) wife do about the TIN (Taxpayer Identification Number)?
Before we answer, we need to know what happens to the trust on the death of the first spouse. Let’s assume, for a moment, that it remains in one trust, that the wife now has the power to amend or revoke it in its entirety, and that she is the sole trustee. In that case, the direction is easy: tell the bank, the brokerage house and the insurance company to change the name of the trustee from the couple to the wife, and to change the TIN to the wife’s Social Security number. How do you do that? Send them a death certificate and a letter instructing them to make the changes. Assume, incidentally, that they won’t — it will often take you two or three tries, several phone calls, and some wheedling to get the task done. But that’s what should happen.
What if the wife is not the sole trustee? Let’s say, for a moment, that the oldest daughter now becomes co-trustee with her mother, but that the trust remains revocable and amendable by the wife. In that situation, we have the same answer: switch to the wife’s Social Security number.
What if the wife has the power to revoke or amend the trust, but she is now incapacitated? The oldest daughter is the sole trustee, and isn’t sure what to tell the financial institutions. The answer is still the same: the trust is still revocable (even though there may be no practical way to revoke it if the only person with power to do so is incapacitated), and the wife’s Social Security number is the trust’s TIN (expect to have an argument with the financial institutions over this one). Is a bank trust department the successor trustee instead? Same answer — but with the ironic twist that the argument between trustee and financial institution will now occur between two branches of the same organization.
Sometimes a joint revocable trust becomes irrevocable on the death of one spouse. More commonly it splits into two (or sometimes three) portions, one (or two) of which are irrevocable. What happens then? The answer, as you might expect, is a little bit more complicated — and may not be the same in every case.
Generally speaking, an irrevocable trust that does not contain the assets originally belonging to the beneficiary is likely to need its own EIN. That may mean that one (sometimes two) of the trusts resulting from the death of one spouse needs a new EIN, and one just uses the surviving spouse’s Social Security number.
Let’s use a specific example: in our earlier scenario, after the death of the husband the joint revocable trust splits into a “Decedent’s” (sometimes “bypass”) share and a “Survivor’s” share. The Decedent’s Trust is irrevocable. Wife is the trustee, and she is entitled to all the income from the trust. She may even have the ability to distribute trust principal to herself, or to decide how the Trust is divided among the couple’s children at her death. But this trust is not “grantor” trust — it gets taxed as a separate entity. Hence, it needs its own EIN, and it files its own tax returns.
Mechanically, the process of dividing the trust is a little more complicated than in our earlier scenario. An estate tax return may be required (although it may not). A division of trust assets needs to be completed (the assistance of a competent lawyer and a good accountant is essential here). The share to be assigned to the Decedent’s Trust needs to be identified, and then physically transferred into a new account — often titled something like “The Jones Family Trust — Decedent’s Trust” (yeah, we know — your name isn’t Jones. Stick with us anyway). And that new account needs to use the Decedent’s Trust’s new EIN.
Note that we said that the assets need to be transferred into the new account. Most financial institutions will insist on opening a new account, with a new account number, rather than simply changing the name on an existing account. But when the process is completed — however you and the financial institution get there — the Decedent’s Trust should be physically separated from the Survivor’s Trust, it will have its own EIN, and it will need to file tax returns. Note: it probably will not pay any tax as a separate entity — all its income will probably be imputed to the surviving spouse.
Meanwhile, the remaining trust assets in our example will continue to use the wife’s Social Security number. It may not be crucial to change the name on that account to “The Jones Family Trust — Survivor’s Trust” (those Joneses — they end up will all the money anyway). If you long for clarity, we would certainly support a transfer of the Surivor’s Trust share into a new account, titled as part of that sub-trust, and bearing the wife’s Social Security number — even if it is not required.
Recall, please, that there are lots of variations on this basic scenario. Be careful about generalizing from this information to your precise circumstances. Our goal here is to give you some general notions about what needs to be done — we do not think of ourselves as a substitute for good, personalized legal advice. We think, in fact, that you should get some of that, because your situation might well be more complicated than you think it is. But we hope we’ve given you some idea of what your attorney will be asking you, and what he or she is likely to tell you.
FEBRUARY 21, 2011 VOLUME 18 NUMBER 6
We get asked plenty of general legal questions. We try to give helpful answers, recognizing that we can not give specific legal advice to non-clients (and particularly to questioners from outside Arizona, where we are licensed to practice law). Often our best answer is “check with a local lawyer familiar with the appropriate area of law.” Unsatisfying, but it really is the right answer in many cases.
Still, we want to get general legal concepts out to the public. Why? Because we think it makes non-lawyers recognize when the legal problem they face is too complex for self-help, and it even helps make the questioner a better client when they do get to the lawyer’s office.
What kind of legal questions can we answer? very general ones. Like these, which are some of our most common questions:
Does my living trust need a new tax ID number? The best way to answer this is probably to explain when a trust doesn’t need its own “Employer Identification Number” (EIN — even if the trust isn’t an “employer,” that’s the kind of tax ID number it will get).
General rule: every separate entity requires its own TIN, whether that is a Social Security number (for you) or an EIN (for your corporation, trust, LLC, or whatever). First major exception to the general rule: if your trust is revocable, and you are the trustee, for tax purposes it is not a separate entity at all — you don’t need an EIN and, in fact, you shouldn’t get one.
Now let’s make it a little more complicated. If your trust is irrevocable, or you are not the trustee, the rules are a little harder to parse. The key question is whether your trust is a “grantor” trust. If it is, and if there is only one grantor (or one married couple), then it does not need an EIN. If it is not, or if there are multiple grantors, it must have its own EIN.
Note that whether or not the trust needs (or is even permitted to get) an EIN is not the same question as whether it has to file a separate tax return. That one is more complicated, and we’ll save it for another day.
Can a revocable trust be named as beneficiary of an IRA? Yes, but be careful. This is something you should discuss with your attorney or your accountant (or both).
Before we talk about naming your trust as the beneficiary, we have a question for you: what are you trying to accomplish by naming the trust as beneficiary? If your trust divides equally and distributes outright among a fairly small number of beneficiaries upon your death, why not just name those beneficiaries on the IRA as well as in the trust? Then you don’t have to figure out the rules on naming a trust as beneficiary, and you don’t have to keep wondering if you’ve done it right.
Maybe you have a child who is ill, or a spendthrift, or needs to have his inheritance placed in trust. In that case — and in a few other cases — it can make sense to name your trust as beneficiary of your IRA. Now you need to become familiar with the difference between what lawyers usually call “conduit” trusts and “accumulation” trusts. The former require distribution of any money received from the IRA’s minimum distribution requirements each year, and the latter allow (but do not require) the IRA distributions to accumulate. The distinction is important; the accumulation trust will require distributions on the basis of the oldest possible beneficiary of the trust. That is the result in most cases where a trust is named as beneficiary.
These same rules apply, by the way, for other tax-qualified accounts, like 401(k) and 403(b) plans. Some advisers will tell you it is not even permitted to name a trust as beneficiary of an IRA or qualified plan. They are wrong, but the rules are a little difficult to figure out in individual cases. Also, some account custodians (that is, the bank or financial institution where the money is held) may limit or even prohibit trusts as beneficiaries.
How does community property work in Arizona? Nine U.S. states are usually listed as the “community property” states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. In addition, Puerto Rico recognizes community property, and Alaska allows couples to choose community property treatment of their joint assets.
But what does it mean to have property held as community property? In Arizona, it means that the property is jointly owned, that each spouse has an equal interest, and that either spouse has the right to manage the property on behalf of the community.
When one spouse dies, his (or her) half int0erest in the community property normally passes according to his will or, if he did not sign a will, to his children (including those who are also children of the surviving spouse). To avoid that result couples are permitted to specifically designate their property as “community property with right of survivorship.” If that title has been used, the surviving spouse receives the entire community asset on the first spouse’s death. Note that the different community property states treat the right of survivorship differently, and we are only describing Arizona’s approach here.
It is also possible for a portion of an asset to be subject to community rights. This might happen, for example, if one spouse brought the property into the marriage but mortgage payments were made during the period of marriage from community income or assets. This kind of calculation is usually much more important in divorce proceedings than upon the death of one spouse.
Property received by inheritance or gift, and property owned before the marriage, are not community property — they are the separate property of the recipient or owner. Couples can choose to convert their community property into separate property, and can even agree that property acquired in the future will be treated as separate property.
Thanks. But I have a different question to ask. Go ahead — pose your question as a comment here, and we’ll try to answer it. Don’t be too surprised if we tell you that it is too specific, or requires knowledge of another state’s laws, or we can’t answer it for some other reason. But we’ll try to be helpful.
One word of caution: do not give us a detailed fact pattern and ask us for advice. We simply can not provide individual legal advice — free or even for a fee — based on unsolicited e-mails or comments. You will not have any lawyer/client privilege for your recitation of the facts, and we will not be able to help with that kind of inquiry. We do welcome your general questions that give us a chance to explain legal principles, though.
Older individuals often get married, of course, and sometimes face legal issues as a result of separation or divorce. The legal problems associated with the end of a late-life marriage are not necessarily different from those faced by younger divorcing couples. A recent Arizona Court of Appeals decision addresses one difference that often occurs.
When Norman and Judy Flower married he was 76 and she was 55. She had a son from a former marriage, and each of them owned a home. Mr. Flower promptly transferred his home into joint ownership with his new wife; Mrs. Flower’s son was already on the title to her home, and she did not add Mr. Flower.
The couple lived together in Mr. Flower’s home for six months, while they fixed up Mrs. Flower’s residence. They took out a line of credit secured by Mr. Flower’s home and spent a total of at least $32,000 on Mrs. Flower’s home. They accumulated a total of $61,000 of debt during the marriage. After the work was done on Mrs. Flower’s home they moved into it, and her son moved into the jointly-owned home that had originally belonged to Mr. Flower.
A year after the marriage, Mr. Flower decided that his wife had been interested in him only for financial reasons and he filed a petition seeking an annulment. Mrs. Flower responded by asking for a divorce, and insisted that she was entitled to a half interest in what had been Mr. Flower’s home, all of her own (now improved) home, and no obligation to repay any of the costs of improvements to her home.
Arizona law, like that of many jurisdictions, assumes that the property division in a divorce proceeding will usually be roughly equal. The legal term, however, requires that it be “equitable,” and in rare cases that can mean something other than an equal division. The trial judge decided this was such a case.
Although the trial court denied Mr. Flower’s request for an annulment, it did grant the couple a divorce. The judge also returned Mr. Flower’s residence to him, although it required him to pay the majority of the debt the couple had accumulated. Mrs. Flower was awarded her home without any claim for the improvements made during the marriage, and she was ordered to pay $16,000 of the couple’s debts. Mrs. Flower appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the unequal division of property and debts. Given the unusual facts of this case, ruled the appellate judges, the usual requirement of “substantially equal” division need not be applied. The appellate court noted that though Mr. Flower received his home, he was also required to pay most of the community’s debt incurred during a relatively brief marriage. Flower v. Flower, February 25, 2010.
Arizona, of course, is a “community property” state. Does that mean that the result in a state that did not apply community property rules would be different? Perhaps, but not necessarily. Most states apply some version of Arizona’s requirement that property division be “equitable” and assume that usually means “equal.” While Mr. and Mrs. Flowers did initially transfer his residence into “community property with right of survivorship,” the result in Arizona would not have been different if they had transferred it to “joint tenancy with right of survivorship.”
Is the result in the Flower case unusual based on unusual facts? Not really. The same day that the Arizona Court of Appeals decided the Flower property division issues, it also handled another, similar case. Retirees Carolyn and Lowell Inboden (the opinion does not give their ages) had married and purchased a vacant lot as joint tenants, but using $90,000 of Mrs. Inboden’s separate money from before the marriage. They then built a home on the lot, using $67,000 of her money, $46,500 of his, and a lot of sweat (they acted as their own general contractors).
When Mr. and Mrs. Inboden divorced a little less than two years after the marriage (and just a few months after the house was completed), the trial judge awarded her about three-quarters of the value of the home to reimburse her for her disproportionate contribution to its purchase and construction. The Court of Appeals reversed that result and returned it for further consideration.
In the case of the Inbodens’ property division, the appellate court was clear that the final result might well be an unequal division. The basis for any deviation, however, must be based on “equitable” principles, and not on a simple calculation to reimburse each spouse for their contribution of property that was previously separate. There is a presumption, difficult to overcome, that changes of title or transfers of assets are intended to be gifts, and those gifts can not be reversed if the marriage later falters. Inboden v. Inboden, February 25, 2010.
Why are these divorce issues “elder law” concerns? They are not, really — except that when older couples marry they are more likely to have property that they bring into the marriage, and less likely to have minor children. Consequently, if their later-in-life marriages fail they are perhaps more likely to present complicated property division issues and less likely to focus on child custody and support problems.
Of course, divorce is not the only venue for property division concerns. Even the popular press has begun to consider the possibility that later-in-life marriages might create property disputes between surviving spouses and children from prior marriages or relationships.
Arizona is one of nine “community property” states in the country, and that can be the source of some confusion about estate planning, taxes and property ownership rights for married couples. Recent changes in Arizona’s law make the “community property” designation a little more friendly and understandable, and the benefits to this unique property ownership choice are now clearer.
“Community property” concepts were not part of the English common law. Under the system imported to most of the American states, property was owned by one spouse or the other, though the non-owner might acquire some rights in his or her spouse’s property. The French and Spanish, however, understood the marital community to be a separate entity from either spouse individually, and permitted the “community” to own property. Each spouse then holds an equal interest in the community’s property.
Those American states with rich Spanish or French histories tended to adopt some version of the community property concept. Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin are community property states, although the method of implementing the concept varies somewhat. Alaska also permits some trust assets to be held as community property.
In community property states a married couple is presumed to hold assets as community property regardless of the actual title on the asset. Couples may, however, choose to hold their property in joint tenancy or as tenants in common if they wish.
One important advantage to having assets titled as community property comes, oddly enough, from federal tax law. Although capital gains taxes are ordinarily due any time an appreciated asset is sold, the increased value of property held by a decedent at the time of death is not taxed. The property’s income tax “basis” is said to “step up” to its value on the date of the owner’s death, often resulting in substantial income tax savings for heirs.
Jointly owned property only receives a partial “step up” in basis. Property held in joint tenancy will usually only get half the income tax benefit on the death of one joint owner. Community property, however, is treated differently: the entire value of a community property asset gets “stepped up” to the value on the first spouse’s death, resulting in twice the income tax savings.
The main drawback to holding community property in Arizona has long been the requirement of a probate proceeding to pass the property to the surviving spouse. Although the long-term tax savings can be substantial, the probate costs are immediate and, in most people’s minds, too high. Since 1995 Arizona has permitted married couples the best of both worlds: property can be held as “community property with right of survivorship” and secure the favorable income tax treatment while still avoiding the probate process. The value of this type of property ownership is, of course, restricted to married couples.
One caveat: some commentators, relying on fairly arcane interpretations of the federal tax law, argue that the “community property with right of survivorship” designation could conceivably be found to result in no step up in tax basis at all. So far the federal government has not taken such a position, but there remains some slight possibility of a problem. In addition, the effect of titling separate property as community property (with or without the “right of survivorship” language) has more than just tax effects. In other words, you should consult an Arizona attorney before changing title on your existing assets or deciding how to title a new acquisition.
Premarital agreements are increasingly common, particularly in second marriages and between older couples. Do agreements between couples really work? A recent Arizona case provides good evidence that premarital agreements really can protect both husband and wife.
Christopher and Shelley Schlaefer were married in 1994. They had already signed an agreement before the wedding. Like most premarital agreements, the Schlaefers’ provided that neither would have any claim against the other’s separate property, and that neither would be liable for the other’s debts.
While they were married, Shelley Schlaefer became ill and was treated at Paradise Valley Hospital in the Phoenix area. Christopher Schlaefer did not sign his wife’s admission documents, and never agreed to pay her hospital bill.
Sometime later, the Schlaefers divorced. After the divorce was final, Paradise Valley Hospital sought to collect the hospital bill from Mr. Schlaefer.
Arizona, of course, is a community property state. That usually means that each spouse receives an ownership interest in the other spouse’s earnings, and that each spouse is liable for the other spouse’s debts in most situations. Mr. Schlaefer, however, pointed to the prenuptial agreement and insisted that he was not responsible for his wife’s hospital debt.
Paradise Valley Hospital acknowledged that the Schlaefers could agree between themselves about how to divide their debts. But, the hospital argued, they could not bind their creditors to abide by their agreement. To allow the Schlaefers (or any couple) to change the general rules governing community property would be unconscionable, argued the hospital.
The Arizona trial court agreed, and ordered Mr. Schlaefer to pay not only his wife’s hospital bill but also the attorneys’ fees incurred by Paradise Valley Hospital in collecting the debt. Mr. Schlaefer appealed.
The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge’s decision. The appellate court pointed out that the premarital agreement changed the nature of the couple’s debts—they no longer were presumed to be community debts but had been “transmuted” into separate debts. Furthermore, the award of attorneys’ fees was reversed, and Paradise Valley Hospital was directed to pay Mr. Schlaefer’s attorney’s fees for the appeal. Schlaefer v. Financial Management, January 27, 2000.
Do prenuptial agreements work in Arizona? Yes, they do—not only to protect spouses from one another in the event of subsequent divorce but also to protect both husband and wife from creditor’s claims against the other spouse.
