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.
JUNE 6, 2011 VOLUME 18 NUMBER 20 Last week we answered a pair of questions from our readers and solicited others. Almost immediately we received an excellent question:
What are the factors you look at to determine if a client is best served w/ a will and durable power of attorney or a living trust? In other words, what are the key factors that would lead you to recommend a living trust?
Let us start with a quick disclaimer: the answer to this question is significantly different from state to state. What is true in Arizona may not be the same in other states — and some states will be wildly different. Even for lawyers in the same state there is significant difference of opinion; we are fond of saying that if you ask ten lawyers for their opinions you are bound to get at least fifteen strongly-held, well-reasoned views. Disclaimers aside, what follows is our take on the question.
We think most people do estate planning for one or more of these four reasons:
To minimize taxes. Usually, but not always, that means estate taxes.
To avoid probate, or (more broadly) to simplify matters for their heirs or successors.
To control the way their assets are used after their death.
To make it easier for someone to handle their affairs in the event of their own incapacity or disability.
Which does better at each of those tasks, a will and powers of attorney or a revocable living trust? In almost every case the trust will handle each of those tasks better than a will and powers of attorney. But that is not really the right way to address the question. Since trusts are somewhat more expensive to prepare (assume your lawyer will charge from three to ten times as much for preparation and “funding” of a trust as for a will and powers of attorney) and involve some extra effort, the analysis really becomes one of cost vs. benefit. Will the extra expense and effort of creating a living trust generate enough savings of time or money for heirs that it will turn out to be the right choice?
For most people, the answer is unclear. There are a handful of our clients for whom the trust is unquestionably the right technique, and another handful for whom the trust is not harmful but simply too much legal help for a problem that doesn’t exist. But most of our clients fit into the large middle ground — it would not be foolish of them to opt for a living trust, and it would not be foolish of them to avoid the expense and trouble now and let their heirs deal with it later.
So how do those four estate planning goals relate to the will vs. living trust question? Here’s what we think:
Taxes. Few people need to worry very much about estate taxes these days. With a federal exemption set at $5 million, and no Arizona state estate tax at all, only a tiny fraction of clients have estates large enough to make their decisions on the basis of tax effect.
It is true that the federal estate tax is scheduled to return to the $1 million level in 2013. It is also true that the Arizona legislature could decide to reimpose an estate tax (though most people think that highly unlikely). But for most people, even a taxation level set at $1 million would not make any difference in their planning.
But that’s not the end of the inquiry about taxes. Even if your estate is large enough for you to worry about estate taxation, there is no inherent tax benefit in living trusts. There used to be a way for married couples to lower their combined estate tax bill if their total estate was over the taxation level, but even that has changed (though of course it might change back in 2013). Bottom line: estate tax concerns simply do not drive the trust vs. will question in 2011 the way they did in, say, 1999. And if you are unmarried, or if you are married and your combined estate is less than about $1 million, you simply do not care about estate tax considerations.
Probate avoidance. Arizona’s probate process is not nearly as complicated as its reputation would suggest. It is also not nearly as expensive. Have you read stories about estates that have gone entirely to the lawyers because of a messed-up probate system? Yes, it does happen — but not really because of the system so much as because of family disputes over the validity of documents (including, increasingly, living trusts).
That said, most people will say that even a modest probate cost and time spent in lawyers’ offices would be something worth avoiding. What you need is a solid estimate of what it would cost to probate your estate if you relied on a will instead of a living trust, so that you can compare that cost to the cost of opting for a living trust. It is too hard to generalize about either expense, but we are prepared to go this far: in Arizona, the cost of preparing a living trust (and “funding” it — transferring all your assets into the trust’s name) will almost always be less than the cost of probating your estate later. But not necessarily by much.
There are some other points to be made here. If you own real estate in more than one state, your will must be probated in each of those states (unless you create a living trust or other probate-avoidance mechanism for some or all of those properties). That can drive the expense up considerably, and certainly complicates things for your family. On the other hand, if you have less than $50,000 worth of personal property and no real estate at the time of your death, no probate proceeding is likely to be needed anyway, since there is a “small estates” affidavit mechanism to avoid the probate process.
In general terms, larger estates tend to be more complicated to administer. More complex estates are better candidates for a living trust. So if you are wealthy, probate avoidance is more likely to be a concern for you — and especially if you have unusual assets, or real estate in multiple states, or other uncommon kinds of property issues.
One special consideration here: if you are married, you are probably comfortable putting most or all of your assets in “joint tenancy with right of survivorship” or designating your spouse as beneficiary. You might not feel the same way if you are single; it is not quite as easy (or advisable) to put your children or other beneficiaries on your bank and stock accounts as joint owners. So single people are usually better candidates for living trusts as a means of avoiding probate.
Control. We use the word advisedly. That’s what you might want to do with your funds, even after your death. Are you in a second marriage, with children from the first marriage, and a desire to provide for your spouse but ultimately pass most of your estate to those children? Maybe you have a spendthrift son (or a son who has married a spendthrift). Perhaps your daughter is disabled, and receiving government benefits she would lose if you left her an inheritance outright. Or maybe you want your money to be a retirement fund for your children, or to encourage your grandchildren to get an education, or some other laudable goal you are trying to achieve.
How can you address all of those issues? By putting your money in trust, with a trustee who has been instructed on how you want the money to be used.
You don’t have to create a living trust to put your money in trust. Instead you can create a trust in your will — what we lawyers call a “testamentary” trust. But it will cost you more, and the difference between the cost of a will (with your testamentary trust) and a living trust will shrink. So if you need (or just want) to control the uses of your funds after your death, you will be a better candidate for a living trust.
Your own incapacity. This is why you should sign a power of attorney. It is simultaneously one of the most important documents in your estate plan, and the single most dangerous one. But the cost of going through the courts (in a probate-like proceeding called a conservatorship) is almost always high and the invasion of privacy significant.
There are some times when a power of attorney just won’t solve the problem, though. Plus it is hard to predict when those times arise. Banks, title companies, the federal and state governments — none of them are required to accept the power of attorney. If you sign a living trust and transfer all of your assets to it, though, the problem becomes simpler and narrower: if your successor trustee can show the item the trust calls for (like a letter from your doctor, for instance), then the successor trustee just takes over. There will probably be somewhat fewer problems administering your affairs with a living trust than with a power of attorney.
We don’t want to overstate this benefit, however. It is almost never valuable enough to justify creating a living trust all by itself. As far as we are usually willing to go on this score is to suggest that, if one or more of the other categories make you a good candidate for a living trust, this one might put you over the top.
There’s one more category of living trusty candidates we can suggest: those who are more likely than others to (how can we say this gently?) “use” their estate plans in the next few years. In other words, the older you get the better of a candidate you become for a living trust.
So who should be considering a living trust as part of their estate plan? Look over the explanations above, and you will see that you are a better candidate for a living trust if you:
are older
are not married
are wealthy
have children who are not children of your spouse
have complicated assets, and especially if you
have real estate in more than one state
have beneficiaries with special needs, inability to handle money or other similar considerations
Again, we caution you against putting too much stock in these descriptions or applying them to your situation without good legal counsel. But look over this list of considerations and think about what they say about your estate planning needs. Share them with your own lawyer and ask for a thoughtful, critical evaluation. Your family and heirs will be glad you did.
DECEMBER 20, 2010 VOLUME 17 NUMBER 39
The ink is not yet dry on Congress’s tax and unemployment insurance compromise. Signed just last week by President Obama, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 has now become law. It continues previous income tax breaks for everyone, regardless of wealth. It extends unemployment insurance coverage for an additional 13 months. It also rewrites the estate tax — it does not simply carry forward the estate tax rules adopted a decade ago.
Under the new law no estate tax will be due on estates of less than $5 million. Since there is no Arizona state estate tax, that means that only the wealthiest Arizonans (or those with significant assets in other states which do impose an estate tax) need to be concerned about estate tax rules at all. It should mean that estate planning just got easier, more predictable and lower-risk for nearly all of our clients.
It should mean that, but it may not. There are a number of details to watch out for, including:
If you are married and your estate plan was initially prepared a decade or more ago, you might well have a two-trust arrangement. Sometimes described by the shorthand “A/B trust” designation, such an arrangement can actually now increase the total tax paid by your heirs. How could that happen? If a separate trust is created and funded at the first spouse’s death, assets assigned to that trust will not get a stepped-up basis on the death of the second spouse. Under the new law you can get an equivalent estate tax result and still preserve the 100% step-up in income tax basis at the second spouse’s death.
If a loved one died during 2010, the heirs get to choose which tax regimen to adopt — either the no-tax choice originally in place for 2010 or the $5 million exemption now adopted. Since the $5 million option includes full stepped-up basis (the original 2010 structure limited the step-up to $1.3 million for unmarried decedents), it may actually be beneficial to opt for the new taxable-estate option. Hard to figure out? Yes. The good news: you have until September, 2011, to decide which option is better.
The $5 million exemption is now “portable.” That means that if your spouse dies without having planned to use the exemption, it is still available to you. In other words, a couple effectively gets $10 million in estate tax exemption without having to prepare any planning documents. One small caveat: if the surviving spouse remarries and their new spouse predeceases, they lose the original unused exemption amount (but still get to use any unused exemption from the second spouse). It looks like Congress has (perhaps unwittingly) created a new marriage-discouraging provision for seniors — or at least for wealthy seniors.
For a decade we have been saying that the most important estate tax principle would be certainty. If you are pretty sure you know what the estate tax will look like for the next five years or so, you can plan accordingly. Unfortunately, Congress and the Administration have given us only two years of certainty — and much of the certainty we have is that the issue will be politically charged and intensely debated for much of that two-year period. In fact, Vice President Biden told a national television audience Sunday morning (on NBC’s Meet the Press) that “scaling back … the estate tax for the very wealthy” would be a top priority for the Administration over the next two years.
The new law also increases the level at which both gift taxes and “generation-skipping” taxes are an issue. Both of those also set at the $5 million level for the next two years. If either or both returns to lower levels after 2012, that could mean an important planning issue for very wealthy individuals in the meantime. Should gifts be made now, just in case? Should gifts be made to grandchildren and later generations, just in case? Expect to see more about those issues in coming months.
Paradoxically, the new rules could mean that more people (at least more wealthy decedents) should be filing estate tax returns — even though no estate taxes are due. Penalties for failure to file are higher, the importance to surviving spouses has increased and the stakes involved have generally gone up.
Does all of that sound like the issues are resolved? No — but the plain fact remains that a tiny minority of Americans are wealthy enough to be worried about any of these issues. How do you know if you need to worry? Take this quick four-question quiz:
Is your entire estate (including life insurance, IRAs and retirement accounts) worth less than about $2 million? Whatever happens in the next two years, it is pretty unlikely that the estate tax level is going to return to a number below about $3.5 million (the favorite number kicked around by Democrats during debates over the past year).
Are you married? If so, you can double the estate value in the previous question.
Do you live in Arizona (or another state with no estate tax)? There are only about a dozen states where state estate tax is important — Arizona is not one of them.
Are you middle-aged or older? If so, are you comfortable assuming that your net worth will not dramatically increase in the next few years?
Depending on your answers, your estate planning choices are likely to be simplified. You should check to see whether you now have estate planning provisions that are no longer needed. You should also check whether your non-tax planning issues have been addressed. Do your documents name the right person to act as trustee, health care agent, personal representative and financial agent? Do they leave your assets to the people (and organizations) and in the proportions that you want? Do they refer to events, locations or items that are no longer relevant?
OCTOBER 4, 2010 VOLUME 17 NUMBER 31
Last week we wrote about how you can go about leaving your IRA (or 401(k), 403(b), etc.) to a child with a disability. In passing we mentioned that the discussion about how to leave your IRA to any trust could wait for another day. Today is that day. Let’s tackle this as a Q&A session (or, if you prefer, we can call it a FAQ list).
Can I name a trust as beneficiary of my IRA?
Yes. That was easy.
Are the rules the same for 401(k), 403(b) and other retirement accounts?
Generally, yes. If you have more esoteric retirement accounts, talk to someone to make sure you are doing the right thing. What the heck — talk to an expert in any case. Our purpose here is just to give you some background and introduce the language and issues, not to give you direct legal advice.
Before you tell me how to do it, why would I want to name a trust as beneficiary of my IRA?
There are several reasons you might:
If you have a child who is a spendthrift, or married to a spendthrift, or who is involved in tax issues or legal proceedings, you might want the retirement account to be protected against creditors.
If you worry that your child might get divorced and want to keep your retirement account out of the divorce calculations and proceedings, a trust might help protect the account (and, for that matter, other assets you are considering leaving to that child).
You might just want to delay the withdrawal of your retirement account as long as possible. Of course, you could name your child as beneficiary and trust him or her to withdraw the money as slowly as is permissible. With a trust you can help assure that “stretch-out” of the IRA.
Why is my banker/broker/accountant telling me I can’t name a trust as beneficiary?
That used to be the rule, and lots of professionals are not yet caught up. There are also a couple of special rules that apply when you name a trust as beneficiary — though they are not at all hard to comply with, so it’s not clear why advisers get hung up on those rules. Finally, even though the rules permit naming a trust as beneficiary they do not require all account custodians to go along — so your broker might be telling you that, while the rules permit naming a trust, your account can not take advantage of those rules.
If I want to name a trust as beneficiary, what must I do?
There are a handful of requirements. The important ones: give the IRA custodian a copy of the trust (that, by the way, can be taken care of later — but you can do it now if you want), name only one income beneficiary for the trust, and make sure your beneficiary designation comports with the trust set-up and your larger plans. That probably means you should get competent professional assistance, but that’s usually a good idea for your estate planning anyway.
Are there bad things that happen if I name a trust as beneficiary?
Yes, but not very bad. Depending on the ages of all the beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries, you might have shortened the stretch-out time to a period less than the life expectancy of the primary beneficiary.
Uh, could you please repeat that — in English?
Of course. Let’s use an illustration.
Suppose you have three children: Abigail, Ben and Candy. You are OK with Abbie and Ben getting their shares of your IRA in their names — you trust them to make sound judgments about how quickly to withdraw the money, and you don’t want to bother with a trust for them. Candy is a different story. The details of that story don’t matter: you just want to put Abigail in charge of deciding whether to withdraw more than the minimum amount each year from Candy’s share of the IRA.
You can name a trust for the benefit of Candy as beneficiary of 1/3 of your IRA (naming Abbey and Ben as the other two beneficiaries outright). But what will happen if Candy dies before the IRA is closed out?
As it happens, Candy does not have children. You decide to have the trust say that upon Candy’s death the remaining trust interest in “her” share of your IRA will go to Abigail and Ben. Abigail is ten years older than Candy. That all means that Candy will have to make her IRA withdrawals using Abigail’s age and life expectancy.
But wait. Candy does have children?
Well, why didn’t you say so? That makes it even easier. You can have the trust provide that if Candy dies before the last IRA withdrawal her children become the beneficiaries of the trust (and, indirectly, the IRA). As before, we use the oldest potential beneficiary as the determining age — and we are going to assume for the sake of this piece that Candy is older than all of her children. No effect on Candy’s withdrawal rate. But note that if Candy does die, her children will still have to withdraw from the IRA at Candy’s rate, not their own.
What about estate taxes?
Now you’re talking about a whole different kettle of fish (or something). As you know, the estate tax situation is in flux right now, and some states have their own estate tax rules. That makes it very hard to generalize, and unnecessarily complicates this discussion. Suffice it to say that your IRA will be part of your estate for estate tax purposes, and just because there is income tax due on it does not mean that there won’t also be an estate tax liability attached to it. But if your entire estate is worth less than $1 million, you probably are not going to care very much. Stay tuned for a new number to be inserted in that sentence sometime before the end of 2010.
That sounds pretty simple. Could you please make it more complicated?
We’d be happy to, but it’s not required. We could give you information about what lawyers call “conduit” trusts and “accumulation” trusts. We could explain why you can’t have the money go to a charity upon Candy’s death. We could even try to give you some better names for your imaginary children (while still adhering to the A, B and C convention). But for most of our clients, those complications are unnecessary.
The bottom line: it is not that hard to name a trust as beneficiary of your IRA, 401(k) or other qualified retirement plan. You just need to review the rules, and understand why you might want to do such a thing.
It is also permissible to consider all that, try to get the rules straight, and then decide not to bother. One thing that we don’t want to allow you to do, though: ignore the issue, prepare a will that seems to handle all of your assets, and then have an IRA beneficiary designation that doesn’t agree with the rest of your estate plan, imposes an undue burden on your children and beneficiaries, or fails to address your child’s disability, money problems or legal or financial situation.
We hope this has helped demystify a subject that lawyers and accountants often seem to enjoy complicating. Your life, however, tends to be complicated. Please get good legal, financial and investment advice before you decide what you should do.
AUGUST 9, 2010 VOLUME 17 NUMBER 25
Want to read about the debate over estate tax reform/repeal/reinstatement? There is plenty of literature. You can easily learn about the history of the estate tax (going back to 1797 in the United States, or to the 7th century BCE elsewhere).
How about real-life stories? You already knew that George Steinbrenner saved his family $600 million by managing to die during 2010 (although it turns out that the actual savings is much murkier and, probably, not near that number). But you probably have not heard of Iowan Eugene Sukup, who at 81 is contemplating what will happen to his considerable estate — and the family business — when he dies.
Maybe you make your decisions on the basis of the positions of famous people. How about what Bill Gates, Sr. (not the software innovator, but his father, who has spoken and written extensively on this subject) says about the estate tax? How about Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman? Turns out it’s easier to find wealthy people speaking out in favor of the estate tax (albeit a “reasonable” estate tax) than against the tax altogether, but perhaps that is just because it is such a surprise, at least at first blush.
You know what is missing from most of the debate — and reporting — on the estate tax? Real numbers. Except for that last reference (the Washington Post’s “PostPartisan” blog), there is almost no mention in any of the articles collected here about how many people actually pay — or would pay — an estate tax on death. Are you curious? You may be surprised by the answer.
The best reference we could find is a December 18, 2009, report from the Congressional Budget Office. The non-partisan CBO manages, in a dense but readable 12-page report, to explain the interrelationship of the estate tax with gift taxation and the generation-skipping tax, provide a history of the revenue generated through the estate tax (shown as a percentage of all federal receipts), and describe the effect of all of the major proposals being considered by Congress.
It turns out that in 2004, when the estate tax applied only to estates worth more than $1.5 million, there were 19,294 estate tax returns on which the decedent’s estate owed any money to the federal government. That amounts to .82% of all deaths in 2004. Compare that to 1.14% of deaths in 2003 and 1.17% in 2002; in both of those years the estate tax applied to estates worth more than $1 million. Those details, incidentally, come from the Internal Revenue Service’s Spring, 2009 Statistics of Income Bulletin (if you try to locate the figures yourself, you’ll want to scroll down to page 222 of that lengthy report). The IRS has updated the figures for 2005 and 2006 and, not surprisingly, the percentage of taxable estates has dropped further. In 2005 (with a taxable level of $1.5 million, the same as in 2004), the percentage of taxable estates was .95. In 2006, when the taxable estate level went to $2 million, the number of estates reaching that level dropped to .63%. That was the smallest percentage since at least 1934, when the current tax code was first adopted.
So what does this all mean? Basically, with an estate tax level at about $1 – 1.5 million, right around 1% of decedents will pay any tax at all. At the $2 million level, that percentage drops to about 2/3 of 1%. If Congress proves to be paralyzed, by partisanship or otherwise, and the estate tax drops back to the $1 million level in 2011, then about 1% of decedents’ estates will, presumably, have to pay estate taxes.
That is not the end of the story, of course. It is not, for instance, the same thing as saying that 1% of people are worth a million dollars, or slightly more. Why are they not the same thing? For a variety of reasons, including:
Decedents are, of course, older than the general population. It is likely that the decedents in a given year are somewhat wealthier than the population as a whole, but the statistics we have described here do not show that or even hint at how much difference we should expect. One thing the statistics DO take into account: the IRS removed deaths of children from the figures, so the percentage of ALL deaths paying estate taxes would be slightly smaller.
Decedents with estates of just over the taxable limit have a variety of estate planning options to avoid any estate taxes. Married couples can plan to preserve the exemption for each spouse, those with slightly larger estates can use lifetime gifting, and devices like family limited partnerships and limited liability companies can reduce the value of the estate for tax purposes. Money left to charities or surviving spouses escapes taxation altogether. It is likely that a significant percentage of decedents transferred an amount of property to heirs that would have been taxable but for such techniques.
Even if 99% of decedents avoid estate taxes completely, that does not mean that the estate tax system had no effect on any of them. Presumably another small but significant percentage (perhaps 1-5%) expended at least some funds on the estate planning necessary to avoid estate taxation. We know of no study indicating how many have done so, or at what cost.
Inflation (if there is any) and wealth concentration trends will have continued since the 2002/2003 figures were calculated. In those years the percentage of decedents’ estates paying any estate tax were 1.17 and 1.14, respectively; of course, with the significant reductions in net worth for many Americans since those years the figures might actually drop for 2011. Over time, however, the percentage should be expected to grow. As it did, for instance, between 1987 and 1999, when the estate tax level remained constant at $600,000. During those twelve years, the percentage of estates subject to any tax increased from .88% (in 1987) to 2.3% (in 1999).
Of course, the estate tax level increased to $3.5 million in 2009 (before being eliminated entirely in 2010). The result of that near-doubling of the taxable level in one year has not yet been calculated and published. It will be interesting to see.
One final thought about the statistics developed by the IRS and the CBO: in 2004, with a taxable level higher than ever before and with the smallest percentage of decedent’s estates paying any tax whatsoever in the history of the modern estate tax, the IRS brought in a total of $22.2 billion. That was the fourth-highest haul in the history of the tax, and was about $4.5 higher than the two previous years, with taxable levels at $1 million (rather than the $1.5 million of 2004).
MAY 31, 2010 VOLUME 17, NUMBER 18 You have made your appointment to discuss estate planning. Our office has sent you a reminder letter, an explanation of what will happen when you get here, a map with parking instructions — and an 8-page questionnaire, asking for all sorts of details about your family, your assets and your wishes. Why do we make you do all that work just to have an initial estate planning appointment? Because of William Bruinsma.
Mr. Bruinsma lived in a subsidized senior housing facility in Massachusetts. He visited his lawyer in 1993 and asked for help in preparing a “simple will.” He was very secretive, and did not want to tell his lawyer about his assets. He did insist that he didn’t want to spend too much money in legal fees, and he wanted his will to be simple.
Estate planning lawyers are very familiar with the type of client. In fact, no estate planning attorney we know has ever heard a client ask for a “complicated” will — everyone thinks their wills should be simple.
What Mr. Bruinsma wanted sounded simple enough. He wanted the income from his assets (whatever they might be) to go to his sister and his long-time friend. After both of them died, the remaining money should go to a group of charities. The simple will his lawyer prepared was just two pages long.
Five years later Mr. Bruinsma died, and it turned out that his estate was about $1.7 million. The will was so simple that his estate did not qualify for a charitable deduction — meaning his estate would pay about $466,733 in federal and state estate taxes that could have been easily avoided if the lawyer had known he needed to prepare a slightly more complex will.
Was that the result Mr. Bruinsma wanted? If he had known that the investment of a few hundred dollars during his life could have dramatically increased the income stream to his sister and friend, would he have made the investment? We will never know, because his lawyer did not know to ask those questions — Mr. Bruinsma had not provided enough information to allow the lawyer to give comprehensive legal advice.
Admittedly, the facts in Mr. Bruinsma’s case are relatively extreme. OK, you’re right — the same thing would not happen today and in Arizona, because there is no federal or Arizona state estate tax in place. But our point is still valid: if we do not have a fairly complete picture of your assets, your family and your intentions, we will not be able to prepare a good will, whether or not it is a simple will. Besides, the estate tax might just return next year at the $1 million level, in which case an Arizona version of Mr. Bruinsma would be making only a $350,000 mistake.
And now you know: if you really want to surprise your estate planning lawyer, just sit down in the first conference and insist that what you are hoping for is a complex will.
Incidentally, the charities in Mr. Bruinsma’s simple will ultimately joined forces with the sister, the friend and even the state Attorney General to ask the courts to reform the will so that the estate tax effect could be eliminated. After spending, presumably, thousands of dollars in legal fees to seek that result, they were all turned down by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (the state’s highest court). That court ruled that there is no law permitting reformation of a will to correct an alleged error on the part of the person signing the will. Mr. Bruinsma’s secrecy — and his thrift — ended up costing nearly half a million dollars. Pellegrini v. Breitenbach, May 25, 2010.
MAY 24, 2010 VOLUME 17, NUMBER 17 There is no estate tax in 2010. But there might be. When will we know? What should you do?
Estate planning attorneys have joked darkly (as a group, we often have slightly off-kilter senses of humor) that 2010 is the year to die. Because of Congressional plans first adopted a decade ago, the federal estate tax has long been scheduled to disappear this year, but to return in 2011 with a sort of taxman’s vengeance. Although estates of less than $3.5 million were exempted from estate tax last year, next year the limit is scheduled to drop to $1 million.
For years we estate planners have all reassured our clients that Congress would not — could not — let that happen. Many of us even confidently predicted what Congress would do. Most of us agreed that it was likely Congress would leave the estate tax in place, with the $3.5 million exemption figure or maybe a slightly higher number, and tinker with some of the mechanics. Don’t worry, we all said, there is no way the estate tax will return to the $1 million level — nor will it disappear altogether in 2010, even just for a year.
We were all wrong. Congress has been unable to reach any agreement about how to act, it is now 2010 and there is no estate tax.
But there might be. Speculation has swirled for months about whether Congress has the power to reinstate the estate tax now and make it retroactive to the first of the year. Even if it is legal (and it is not completely clear that it is), every passing day makes it politically less palatable. One idea now being discussed: could Congress reinstate the estate tax but let the executor of each estate decide whether to apply the “new” estate tax or the eliminated estate tax rules?
Why would anyone want to be subject to the estate tax? Because of something called “carryover basis.” As the rules now stand for the estate of someone dying in 2010, there is no estate tax but accumulated capital gains can be taxable if and when heirs sell the property they inherit — though there is $1.3 million of capital gains avoidance given to the estate of each decedent.
Let’s imagine a scenario: because you are a market genius, you bought $1 million worth of McDonald’s stock in early 2003. It is now worth about $5 million. That is the only thing you own, and you are not feeling very healthy. Now assume Congress adopts a new estate tax for 2010, sets a $5 million exemption amount, and allows your heirs to decide whether to apply it or the current, no-estate-tax system.
Your heirs actually do better with the imaginary new estate tax in place. They could inherit your entire estate with no tax consequences; under the current 2010 rules, they will eventually owe income tax on about $2.7 million of gain. Need the math? Here it is: your imaginary estate has $4 million of capital gains that would be untaxed under either 2009 or 2011 rules, but do not escape taxation in 2010. You do get a $1.3 million exemption, which leaves $1.7 million of gain that your heirs receive along with their McDonald’s shares. So if they ever sell their inherited stock, they will owe a significant (but uncertain) income tax on the capital gain.
The truth is, of course, that you didn’t buy a million dollars worth of McDonald’s stock in 2003. In fact, there is a slim likelihood that you are worth more than a million dollars at all. That is not because of recent market reverses — that is because only about one percent of Americans have that kind of net worth, according to the most common estimates. And if you are not worth a million dollars on the day you die, neither the current nor any proposed federal estate tax regimen will make the slightest difference to your estate or heirs. State estate tax rules vary somewhat, but Arizona imposes no estate tax at all, and most of the states that do would also exempt assets of less than $1 million.
But what if you are worth more than a million? What are you supposed to do? The best answer for now might be to keep an eye on what Congress is doing, expect to pay to have your estate plan updated before the end of this year, and in the meantime try to avoid heavy traffic or unhealthy eating. Yes, we know — that wasn’t very helpful advice.
How about this advice: if you are worth more than a million dollars, you should probably have your estate plan reviewed now and expect to have it reviewed again next year, or after we know what Congress is going to do. Depending on your net worth, the types of assets you own and your intended beneficiaries, it might turn out that you don’t need the 2011 return visit — but we won’t know until Congess acts.
Want to learn about why you need a trust? No problem: there is a class for that, and they’ll even buy you lunch if you’ll just listen to their pitch. Want to learn whether you need a trust? It’s a little harder to locate good advice, but still there are resources available.
But what if you already have signed a trust, and just want to understand what you are supposed to do? That information can be especially difficult to locate. That’s why we offer our popular “Trust School.”
We will be offering our next two-hour program (formally titled “Now You Have a Trust”) in Tucson on Saturday, July 18. We will offer a continental breakfast, and we promise to answer your questions about the trust you have already signed. As always, our clients and their family members and invited guests may attend at no charge; others are welcome on a space-available basis and for a nominal $25 enrollment fee.
Who should come to Trust School? Anyone who has signed a trust but wants to understand it better, plus the individuals named as successor trustees. Accountants, brokers, insurance agents and other professionals are also welcome and will have a chance to get their questions about trusts answered.
If you are comfortable that you understand your trust document and the rules under which your trust operates, you might not need to attend. There are recent changes in the law, however, that might make your understanding of the trust somewhat dated. Among the changes:
Arizona has now adopted a version of the Uniform Trust Code. That will have little or no significant effect on many trusts, but some (particularly those that are irrevocable or become irrevocable after the death of one spouse) may be profoundly affected by the new law. We will explain the most important changes in the law and address your questions about what the changes mean for you.
The level at which estate taxes are imposed has climbed yet again — this time to $3.5 million. For most people that means that they never need to worry about incurring an estate tax, although the future remains a little cloudy and a few states (not including Arizona) have adopted state estate taxes that are triggered at lower levels.
There are recent changes that affect IRAs and other retirement savings accounts. Minimum withdrawal amounts and charitable gifts have both been altered for the 2009 calendar year.
If you are interested in attending our Trust School, you should contact Yvette at our office. You can reach her at our general office number: (520) 622-0400. If July is a bad time for you, we have scheduled a second session for September 29, 2009; details will be available closer to that date.
