Posts Tagged ‘estate’

More Definitions for Estate Planning Terms

FEBRUARY 10, 2014 VOLUME 21 NUMBER 6

Last week we gave you short definitions of some common estate planning terms, like “will” (and “pourover will”), “trust” (including both “living” and “testamentary” trust), “grantor trust” and more. This week we want to continue that project with another batch of common terms:

Durable power of attorney — sometimes called a “financial” or “general” power of attorney. The key is that the power of attorney continues (or becomes effective) even if you become incapacitated. This is simultaneously the most important and most dangerous document that most people will sign with their estate planning. Why dangerous? Because it gives such broad, mostly unchecked power to someone else to handle your finances.

Living will — a document by which you give directions about how you would like to be cared for (or what care you would prefer not to have) at the end of life. That’s not the only time the living will is effective (or important), of course, but that’s what people usually think of. This is the document you might sign to direct that you not receive artificially-supplied food and fluids at a time when you are no longer able to make decisions yourself. OR you might direct that you DO want food and fluids (and/or other care) provided in such a situation.

Health care power of attorney — you can designate someone else to make medical decisions for you if you become unable to make or communicate decisions yourself. That person is called your “agent” or “attorney-in-fact,” and the document that names them is your health care power of attorney. That’s the term usually used in Arizona, by the way — other states might use different terms for the same concept.

Advance directive — any document by which you provide for medical decision-making in the event that you become incapable is called an advance directive. The most common advance directives are health care powers of attorney and living wills, but there are others. In Arizona, for instance, you might have an advance directive about mental health care decisions, or rejecting resuscitation measures, or even giving someone authority to decide when you should stop driving. These are a little bit more specialized, and you should talk with your attorney about them.

UTMA accounts — UTMA stands for “Uniform Transfers to Minors Act”, and it refers to a law that has been adopted in some form in every American state. It amounts to a simple sort of mini-trust set out in the law — rather than pay to have a trust set up for a minor, you can simply make a gift to a UTMA account. That makes it easy and inexpensive. It also means that you are stuck with the terms of that legislative trust, but it’s one way to make gifts to children and grandchildren.

529 plans — as long as we’re writing about children and grandchildren, we should mention these popular methods of making gifts. “529″ refers to the section of the Internal Revenue Code which both permits and governs these accounts. Once again, it is a simple and inexpensive way to make a gift to your child or grandchild, provided that the primary purpose of your gift is to pay for future educational costs. Ask your attorney (and also your accountant and financial planner) for more information and direction if this idea seems appealing.

“Crummey” trusts — sometimes called “irrevocable life insurance trusts” (or abbreviated as ILITs), these trusts are a method of transferring assets (often, but not always, life insurance) to future generations without making the gift outright and absolute. The nutshell version: you make a gift of less than the annual exclusion amount (see below) to a trustee, and the trustee notifies the beneficiary that they can take out the gift. When they don’t remove the gift, for tax purposes the transfer is treated as having been made by the beneficiary, so the gift is deemed to have been completed. These trusts are often used to allow gifts of the annual premium amount for life insurance, or to make gifts without giving the beneficiary a chance to misspend the gift.

Annual gift tax exclusion amount — there is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding about this concept. In 2014 you can make a gift of up to $14,000 to any person without having to explain yourself to the Internal Revenue Service or anyone in the federal government. Your spouse can do the same thing — even if it is your money that funds the gift. You (and your spouse, if he or she participates) can do the same thing for as many individuals as you’d like. Here’s the misunderstanding part, though: if you give, say, $20,000 to one person, that doesn’t mean you pay an gift tax, or you have to get government approval. It just means you have to file a gift tax return — and if the amount you total up from all of those returns over your lifetime gets to $5,000,000 (it’s actually more than that, but we’re trying to make this simple) then you might have to pay a gift tax. This $14,000 figure, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with Medicaid eligibility (yes, you can make a $14,000 gift — but it might make you ineligible for Medicaid even though it’s blessed by the IRS).

And, finally, this perennially popular concept/term:

EINs — “Employer Identification Numbers” are issued by the Internal Revenue Service for probate estates, trusts, and other entities that might have to file income tax returns. When someone asks for your “TIN” they mean that they want either your individual Social Security Number or the appropriate EIN. Even if the trust or estate does not have employees (and even if it never will) it still gets an Employer Identification Number (EIN). Does your trust need to have an EIN issued? That is an enduringly popular question, which we have addressed several times before (and undoubtedly will again).

Special Needs Trusts: How Much Trouble Are They to Manage?

SEPTEMBER 3, 2012 VOLUME 19 NUMBER 34
I’m thinking about setting up a special needs trust for my son, who has a developmental disability. Will it mean a lot more work for my daughter, who will be handling the estate?

It’s a fair question, and one we hear a lot. No one ever asks: “could you please give us the most complicated estate plan possible?” Everyone wants things as simple as they can be.

When you think about providing an inheritance for your child — or anyone, for that matter — with a disability, there are some realities you just have to deal with. Those realities almost always lead to the same conclusion: a special needs trust is probably the right answer. There are a number of answers to the “can’t we keep it more simple?” question:

  1. In most cases there’s going to be a trust, whether you set it up or not. If you leave money outright to a person suffering from a disability, someone is probably going to have to transfer that inheritance to a trust in order to allow them to continue to receive public benefits. The trust set up after your death will be what’s called a “first-person” (or “self-settled”) trust, and the rules governing its use will be more restrictive. There will also have to be a “pay-back” provision for state Medicaid benefits when your son dies — so you will lose control over who receives the money you could have set aside. Even if no trust is set up, there is a high likelihood that your son will (because of his disability) require appointment of a conservator. The cost, loss of family control and interference by the legal system will consume a significant part of the inheritance you leave and frustrate those who are caring for your son. If you prepare a special needs trust now it sidesteps those limitations.
  2. The trust you set up will not be that complicated to manage. People often overestimate the difficulty of handling a trust. Yes, there are tax returns to file, and summary accounting requirements. Neither is that complicated; neither is anywhere near as expensive as the likely costs of not creating a special needs trust.
  3. Your daughter can hire experts to handle anything that she finds difficult. There are lawyers, accountants, care managers and even trust administrators who can take care of the heavy lifting for your daughter — or whomever you name as trustee. The costs can be paid out of the trust itself, so she will not be using her portion of the inheritance you leave, or her own money. Yes, they add an expense — but they can actually help improve the quality of life for both your daughter the trustee and your son with a disability.
  4. Your daughter does not have to be the trustee at all. We frequently counsel clients to name someone else — a bank trust department, a trusted professional, or a different family member — as trustee. That lets your daughter take the role in your son’s life that she’s really better suited for: sister. If it is right for your circumstance, you might even consider naming her as “trust protector.” That could allow her, for instance, to receive trust accountings and follow up with the trustee, or even to change trustees if the named trustee is unresponsive, or too expensive, or just annoying. Trusts are wonderfully flexible planning devices — but that does mean you have to do the planning.
  5. If your son gets better, or no longer requires public benefits, the trust can accommodate those changes. Depending on your son’s actual condition and the availability of other resources, you might reasonably hope that he will not need a special needs trust — or at least might not need one for the rest of his life. The good news: your special needs trust will be flexible enough to allow for the use of his inheritance as if there were no special needs. The bad news: that is only true if you set up the trust terms yourself — the trust that will be created for him if you do not plan will not have that flexibility.
  6. Simply disinheriting your son probably is not a good plan. Sometimes clients express concern about the costs and what they perceive as complicated administrative and eligibility issues, and they decide to just leave everything to the children who do not have disabilities. “My daughter will understand that she has to take care of my son,” clients tell us. That’s fine, and it might well work. But do you feel the same way about your daughter’s husband? What about the grandkids and step-grandkids who would inherit “your” money if both your daughter and her husband were to die before your son (the one with the disability)? What about the possibility of creditors’ claims against your daughter, or even bankruptcy? Most of our clients quickly recognize that disinheriting the child with a disability is not really a good planning technique.
  7. But who knows what the public benefits system, the medical care available, or my son’s condition might look like twenty years from now? Indeed. That’s exactly why the trust is so important.

What does that mean for your planning? If you have a child, spouse or other family member with special needs — OR if you have a loved one who may have special needs in the future — your plan should include an appropriate trust. The cost is relatively small, and the benefits are significant. There are really only three downside concerns for special needs planning:

  1. The cost. But the cost of not doing anything is probably higher — and the opportunity loss from failure to plan is especially high.
  2. The nuisance value. Yes, that does mean you need to go see a lawyer. Need a place to start? Look at the membership of the Special Needs Alliance. There’s likely someone near you who understands the importance of special needs planning.
  3. The name. Don’t want to tag your loved one as “special needs”? Then don’t. Call your trust The John Doe Maximum Opportunity Trust. Or the Panorama 2012 Trust. Or Green Acres Fund. With your lawyer’s help, customize the language of your child’s trust to speak in your voice, and to identify what you think is important. Take advantage of the flexibility offered by trust planning.

 

Will Rejected in Illinois but Approved by Indiana Courts

JANUARY 30, 2012 VOLUME 19 NUMBER 4
We are frequently surprised by how much trouble people cause for their families and heirs by not taking simple steps to properly plan for their estates. One thread that often recurs involves a fear (or perhaps disapproval) of lawyers, leading to failure to get good legal advice about planning, or about the execution of documents. This week we read about a different reaction, but with the same result. Florian T. Latek didn’t trust notaries.

Mr. Latek owned a small family farm in Indiana, but he lived (and owned real property) in Illinois. In 2009, with the help of a non-lawyer friend, he wrote a letter to the lawyer for a local charity he favored. The letter began “This is my will” and it proceeded to direct distribution of his entire estate to that charity and other recipients. Then he prepared four identical copies of the document, and signed each one.

Apparently Mr. Latek realized he should have the documents notarized, but he wrote that he did not trust notaries; instead, he included his Army serial number with the note that he hoped it would “be good for any legal matters.” Then he had some — but not all — of the copies witnessed by friends, and he secreted one copy (one that had no witnesses’ signatures) behind (not in) a small safe at the Indiana farm. Less than two months later, Mr. Latek died.

Probate proceedings were begun first in Illinois. The Illinois courts initially determined that Mr. Latek had no will; later, when the friend who had helped prepare the document got in touch with the charity named in the letters, the unwitnessed version was found at the farmhouse. When the charity’s lawyer attempted to introduce that will in the Illinois courts, it was initially rejected because it did not meet the Illinois requirements for a will to be valid. Later a copy with witnesses’ signatures was located, but the lawyer could not produce the witnesses to testify about the signing of the letter in the time given by the Illinois court to prove the validity of the will. The result: the Illinois property would pass according to the law of intestate succession, to Mr. Latek’s cousins (he had no children).

Meanwhile, the charity’s lawyer filed one of the letters with the Indiana courts for admission as Mr. Latek’s last will. If admitted, it would control the distribution of the family farm. The personal representative appointed in Illinois objected, arguing that Illinois had already decided that the will was invalid and the Indiana courts were bound by that finding.

The Indiana probate judge disagreed. The will was admitted to probate in Indiana, and the lawyer for the charity was appointed to administer Mr. Latek’s Indiana estate.

The personal representative appointed in Illinois appealed in Indiana. He argued that the U.S. Constitution requires each state to give “full faith and credit” to the rulings of sister states; once the Illinois courts had rejected Mr. Latek’s letter as a will, according to this argument, the Indiana courts were required to adopt the same ruling. The Indiana Court of Appeals, however, disagreed with that argument, and upheld the Indiana probate court’s admission of Mr. Latek’s letter as his last will. Matter of Latek, January 4, 2012.

What does Mr. Latek’s estate tell the rest of us? A number of things jump out:

  • It just makes sense to get help with setting up one’s estate plan. Assuming that it will all work out, that one’s Army serial number ought to prove one’s wishes, or that notaries are unreliable are not good ideas when dealing with the legal effect of documents. It is touching to note that Mr. Latek also told the charity’s lawyer that he should “tell the judge that we were classmates and do the very best you can,” but that just makes it harder to understand why he did not consult with a lawyer he obviously knew and trusted. Would the lawyer have charged him? Of course. But his wishes might have actually been carried out, rather than two different proceedings with two different results.
  • Mr. Latek looks like a classic example of the kind of person who ought to be considering a living trust. Rather than relying on two different probate courts to come to the same conclusion, he could have transferred both his Illinois real estate and his Indiana real estate — along with all his personal property — to a trust that would have been governed by the law of one state or the other. Would that have cost him something to set up? Yes. It would also have permitted his estate to be managed and distributed in a coherent and effective way, at (ultimately) lower cost than two separate probate proceedings in Illinois and Indiana. That would especially have proven to be true when the cost of one appellate case is factored in. If you own real property in two different states, you should particularly pay attention to the outcome for Mr. Latek’s estate.
  • State laws vary with regard to the formalities of wills. Some states require notarization OR two witnesses. Some states permit unwitnessed wills to be effective, provided that they are signed and in the signer’s handwriting. But here’s a piece of news for do-it-yourself fans: ALL U.S. states would treat a will as effective if it has both two witnesses and a notary. Yes, some states require the signer, the witnesses and the notary to all have been together at the signing — so it just makes sense to do it that way at a minimum.

 

©2014 Fleming & Curti, PLC