APRIL 9, 2012 VOLUME 19 NUMBER 14
Federal and Arizona state income tax returns are due next week. It’s a good time to review tax deductions for one of the common situations we deal with: in-home (or, for that matter, institutional) caregiving for an infirm family member.
We wrote about an individual case involving long-term care deductions last fall. In that case no returns had been filed, so the taxpayer was playing catch-up — but the U.S. Tax Court agreed that she could deduct the expenses of in-home caregivers. The Court articulated a three-item test to determine whether the taxpayer was a “chronically ill” individual; once she had met any one test, the taxpayer could deduct her medical expenses, including the caregivers.
But what if the caretaking expenses had been paid by someone other than the taxpayer herself? If, for example, she had lived with her adult daughter and the daughter had paid for caretakers to come to the home?
In such a case the daughter should be able to deduct the expenses of care — provided that the patient is a “dependent.” That requires the taxpayer using the deduction to have provided more than half of the patient’s support, and is only available if the patient is a relative OR lived with the taxpayer.
The details about deducting medical expenses for a relative or someone who lives with you are spelled out in IRS Publication 502. Don’t fret about the official-sounding title — it’s actually straightforward and understandable. It also explains exactly what the IRS is looking for when you deduct your own OR a dependent’s medical expenses, and what documentation you will need to provide (or maintain in case you are challenged).
Of course the medical deductions only affect your federal income tax to the extent that they total more than 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). For many people that limitation is hard to meet. Anyone paying for in-home caregivers, though, is likely to have gotten near to or exceeded the 7.5% threshold.
What about listing a relative (other than your minor children) as a dependent on your own tax returns? Is it possible that the daughter in our earlier scenario might be able to list her mother as a depedent if the mother lives in her home? For that matter, can she list her mother as a dependent if she lives in a nursing home or assisted living facility, but the daughter pays the bill?
The short answer in both cases is “yes.” A parent can be a dependent. That can mean, as described above, that their medical expenses may be listed as deductions on your return — but it also leads to a more direct benefit. If you can list your parent (or another relative) as a dependent, you can get an additional exemption — which reduces your taxable income even before looking for eligible deductions like medical expenses.
Can your parent be your dependent? Yes, but the requirements can be a little complicated. First, they must EITHER be a “qualifying relative” (pretty much any kind of relative you can name, including stepchildren and foster children) OR live with you. In addition, they may not have more than $3,700 (in 2011) of their own income. You must also provide at least half of their support. There are limited exceptions to some of those rules, but that’s the basic test for determining whether you can claim a parent or another person as a dependent. NOTE: these rules are not the same as the ones determining whether you can claim your minor children as dependents — THOSE rules can be much more detailed and complicated.
How can you figure out if you meet all the tests (and their exceptions)? You may not be surprised to learn that the IRS has a Publication to explain that. It is IRS Publication 501, and (just like the earlier Publication we mentioned) it is actually helpful and understandable information.
Can you get a direct credit for the caretaking services you provided for your mother yourself last year? Generally, no — and if you think about it that shouldn’t be too surprising. If you could deduct the value of those services, you would need to claim a similar amount as “income.” But that doesn’t mean that there is no tax benefit to having provided those services. First, they will help you establish that you have provided more than half the support necessary for your parent or family member. Second, you might be eligible to deduct expenses (but not the value of your caregiving) for a dependent. Look at IRS Form 2441 for Child and Dependent Care Expenses; the separate instructions for Form 2441 are (wait for it) straightforward and understandable.
Summing up: taking care of a relative (or someone who lives with you, even if they are not a relative) may be personally and emotionally rewarding. It will not usually be profitable. At least, though, there are some slight tax benefits for those who undertake what is usually a labor of love. Make sure you claim deductions and exemptions you are entitled to by virtue of your caregiving services.
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.
Generally speaking, there are two kinds of special needs trusts. Those set up to handle money owned by the beneficiary (like a personal injury settlement, for instance) are usually called “self-settled” special needs trusts. Those set up by someone other than the beneficiary, to handle money not belonging to the beneficiary, are usually called “third-party” special needs trusts. It is the latter kind of trust we want to explain here.
What kind of property can go in to a third-party special needs trust?
Any property someone wants to leave or give to a person with a disability can (and usually should) be placed in a third-party special needs trust. Homes, cash, stock and bonds are all common third-party trust assets.
Are all inheritances properly viewed as third-party trusts, since they come from someone other than the beneficiary?
This is one of the common confusions for those not closely familiar with special needs planning. An inheritance can be left outright to someone, or in a trust for their benefit. In the case of a trust, it can be designated for the “support and maintenance” (or similar language) of the beneficiary, or for their “special” and/or “supplemental” needs (or similar language).
If an inheritance is left outright to a person with a disability, it might be transferable to a trust — but probably only to a self-settled special needs trust, since the beneficiary had an absolute right to possess the property outright. If an inheritance is left in what we might call a “support” trust, it may be a third-party trust but not necessarily a third-party special needs trust. Only if a trust contains money from someone other than the beneficiary and includes language limiting its use to special or supplemental needs will it be considered a third-party special needs trust.
Can an inheritance which is not left to a third-party special needs trust be “fixed”?
Sometimes. State law varies greatly. Fact patterns are very different. This is an important question which should be asked of a qualified attorney. Expect the response to be “let me ask you a few more questions.” The likelihood is high enough, though, that the possibility should definitely be addressed.
Are all third-party trusts funded with inheritances?
Absolutely not. Many people create third-party trusts for their children, loved ones, friends or family members while the person creating the trust is still living. Perhaps a wealthy family is eager to reduce assets in the first generation’s name, but unable to transfer funds outright to a child with a disability. Perhaps friends want to band together to provide assistance to someone who is or has become disabled. Perhaps one generation wants to create a vehicle for other family members — including other generations — to make contributions to the welfare of a person with a disability.
Are all third-party special needs trusts irrevocable?
No. Self-settled special needs trusts must be irrevocable, but the same is not true for third-party trusts. Usually a trust established during the life of the trust’s grantor (rather than in their will) is revocable during the grantor’s life. It is important that the beneficiary not be able to revoke the trust, but there is no reason someone who is not the beneficiary can not be given the authority to terminate it.
Who is the “grantor” of a third-party special needs trust?
“Grantor” is a term that has meaning in the tax code — and that meaning is not always synonymous with the general understanding of the language. A grantor is the person who created a trust and is still liable to pay the income taxes on the trust’s earnings. In the case of a revocable third-party special needs trust, the grantor will usually be the person who (a) contributed the money and (b) has the power to revoke the trust — though even that general statement will not always be true. In the case of an irrevocable third-party special needs trust, the person contributing the money may still be the grantor. This is a question best addressed in individual cases by a qualified attorney and/or Certified Public Accountant.
The income tax definition of a “grantor” is important. The grantor will be taxed on the trust’s income, even though he or she may not receive any benefit from those earnings. Though this sounds ominous, it may well be a desirable result — the tax rates on a trust are usually higher than those on an individual, and a wealthy donor might actually prefer to bear the income tax burden rather than have the trust depleted by having to pay taxes. The income tax filings for a third-party trust created by a living grantor can be very complicated, and almost always require the tax preparation skills of a CPA or other experienced professional.
Can a third-party special needs trust be a “Qualified Disability Trust?”
Yes, it can — but only if it is not a grantor trust, taxed to the person who put the money into the trust in the first place. If a trust is a Qualified Disability Trust, there can be important income tax benefits. Basically, such a trust is permitted to claim an “extra” personal exemption, reducing income tax liability in some (but not all) cases. For more detailed information about Qualified Disability Trusts (or to help educate your tax preparer), consider the Special Needs Alliance article authored by Fleming & Curti partner Robert Fleming and friend Ron Landsman.
What happens to the “grantor” status of a third-party special needs trust when the grantor dies?
The trust is no longer a grantor trust. It is now almost certainly what the Internal Revenue Service calls a “complex” trust, and will need to file a separate income tax return (and pay its own income taxes). One important note, though: distributions for the benefit of the beneficiary — the person with a disability — will be treated as income to him or her, reducing the trust’s income tax liability but possibly creating income tax liability for the beneficiary.
Does a third-party special needs trust need its own tax identification number?
If it is still a “grantor” trust (to the person putting the money into the trust) then it might not need a separate tax number or any income tax filings. Upon the death of the grantor, and earlier in many cases, the trust does need to have an Employer Identification Number (an EIN) and to file separate income tax returns. Even though it may not need an EIN while the grantor is still alive, it is usually permissible for it to obtain one, and to file informational returns (though the tax liability all flows to the grantor, and trust administration costs are probably not deductible). This is one of the areas of greatest confusion, and is yet another good reason for the trustee of any special needs trust to seek out an experienced and qualified tax preparer, usually a CPA who has prepared many returns for special needs trusts.
What kinds of things may a third-party special needs trust pay for?
Though there may be limitations in state law and Medicaid rules about what a self-settled special needs trust can pay for, there are almost no limitations on third-party trust distributions. The trustee must remember this, though: some distributions may have the effect of reducing — or even eliminating — some or all of the beneficiaries public benefits.
That may not always be a bad result. Many times a thoughtful trustee will make distributions that affect public benefits in at least these kinds of scenarios:
The effect is to lower, but not eliminate, benefits — and the positive outcome is worth the reduction in benefits (as, for instance, when the trust pays housing expenses and causes a small reduction in Supplemental Security Income payments but improves the beneficiary’s quality of life)
The effect is temporary (as, for instance, when the trustee makes cash distributions that allow the beneficiary to pay off old debt that the trust can not tackle directly, or replenish depleted cash reserves, or purchase food or shelter directly — or all of those things)
The benefit of distributions outweighs the loss of public benefits (as, for instance, when the special needs trust is very large, the beneficiary’s disability is slight and his or her quality of life is better enhanced by allowing the trust to pay all bills and eliminate public benefits — and the limitations on eligibility — altogether)
Where can I get more information?
One excellent resource is the Special Needs Alliance’s “Handbook for Trustees.” It covers both third-party and self-settled special needs trusts, and provides a wealth of practical information for trustees. It is also available in Spanish.
So what, again, are the differences between third-party and self-settled special needs trusts?
The take-away message: third-party special needs trusts are much more flexible and can be much more beneficial to a person with a disability than the more-restrictive self-settled trust. That means that the trustee of a third-party special needs trust often has a more challenging job, having to weigh intangibles and balance the wishes of the original donor of the funds, the hopes and aspirations of the beneficiary (and family members, friends and supporters) and general trust principles. That is why professional help and advice are so important.
SEPTEMBER 5, 2011 VOLUME 18 NUMBER 31
Queens (New York) resident Lillian Baral was in her early 90s. She lived at home, but she required full-time assistance with her care. In 2007 she paid two caretakers a total of $49,580 for live-in care (one lived with her for five weeks while the primary caretaker took a vacation). Were the payments deductible on her income tax return?
The short answer, according to the U.S. Tax Court: yes. Not surprisingly, the more complete answer is complicated and depends on the specific facts of Ms. Baral’s case.
Ms. Baral had been diagnosed as suffering from dementia as early as 2004, three years before her long-term care costs became a tax issue. In December, 2006, her physician wrote an evaluation of her then-current mental status. He found her to be confused, unable to communicate clearly and at risk of falling in her home. Because of her memory deficits she would require assistance with the activities of daily living, he wrote. She needed full-time assistance and supervision for medical and safety reasons if she was going to stay at home.
Ms. Baral’s financial affairs were being handled by her brother David, relying on a power of attorney she had signed some time before. He paid all her bills, handled her checking and other accounts, and hired the nursing service to care for her in her home. By the end of 2006, in an effort to save money, he had discharged the nursing service and hired one of their caretakers directly to live with his sister and oversee her care.
Mr. Baral did not, however, remember to file his sister’s income tax returns for 2007. The Internal Revenue Service noticed, and near the end of 2009 they filed a “substitute for return” based on records available to the IRS. The form indicated that her income for 2007 had been $94,229; after including a personal exemption and a standard deduction, the IRS calculated that Ms. Baral owed $17,681 plus interest and penalties.
By the time the IRS sent out its notice, Ms. Baral had died. Her brother had been appointed as personal representative of her estate; he argued that (a) she had not been required to file a tax return at all, and (b) she was entitled to a medical expense deduction for the long-term care costs she had incurred. The IRS disagreed on both scores.
The dispute ultimately found its way to the United States Tax Court, which hears claims and defenses regarding income tax returns (along with other tax-related proceedings). The Tax Court ruled that the key legal question was whether Ms. Baral was a “chronically ill individual.” If she was, then her caretakers’ salaries would be “qualified long-term care services” and therefore deductible. The court noted that there are three ways to identify a “chronically ill individual”:
Was Ms. Baral unable to perform at least two of the six “activities of daily living”? The six ADLs are: eating, toileting, transferring, bathing, dressing, and continence. Although her physician had said that she required assistance with her ADLs, he had not identified which ones — and therefore the court could not determine whether she was deficient as to only one, or as to two or more. She did not meet this standard.
Did Ms. Baral have a level of disability “similar to” the ADL standard? Again, the court found that the physician’s evaluation was not clear.
Did Ms. Baral require substantial supervision to protect her from threats to her health and safety because of “severe cognitive impairment”? Applying this test to Ms. Baral’s condition and circumstances was a little easier for the court. Because her physician had described her as demented, and at risk for falls or failure to take prescribed medication, Ms. Baral met this test.
Fortunately for Ms. Baral’s tax situation, only one of the three standards had to be met. Because of the evaluation by her primary care physician in 2006, the cost of her live-in caretakers would be a legitimate deduction on her income taxes — or at least it would be deductible to the extent that it exceeded 7% of her adjusted gross income.
Ms. Baral’s brother had also argued that he should be able to deduct the $760 paid in 2007 to her physicians (the Tax Court agreed) and the $5,566 she paid to caretakers for reimbursement of expenses they incurred on her behalf. The Tax Court denied the deduction for reimbursement, since there was no evidence that the payments were for medical items. If Mr. Baral had been able to show that they were, for example, co-payments on prescription medications, or over-the-counter medications at the direction of her physician, or medical supplies, they would have also been deductible. Estate of Baral v. Commissioner, July 5, 2011.
What does Ms. Baral’s case tell us about tax issues surrounding home care? Several things:
Keep good receipts. To the extent possible, segregate clearly deductible expenses from questionable or non-deductible expenses, and make sure the purchases are identifiable.
Get a good doctor’s letter. Ask the attending physician for a letter that specifically addresses ADLs, the need for caretakers to protect the patient’s safety AND a general description of limitations on the patient’s abilities.
If you are in charge of the patient’s finances, file their income tax returns. Someone with $95,000 of income — even if much of it is Social Security and pension income — is almost certainly going to need to file a return. Mr. Baral would have had a much easier time if he had filed the return claiming the deductions, rather than having to argue about the IRS’s “substitute for return” after the fact. Note that the IRS action was delayed, too — it can be that much harder to prove the taxpayer’s condition two (or three, or four) years after the fact, and it is not uncommon to be addressing these issues after the taxpayer’s death.
JANUARY 31, 2011 VOLUME 18 NUMBER 4
One question we are frequently asked: isn’t it a good idea to set aside money for a child or grandchild, and isn’t a UTMA (Uniform Transfers to Minors Act) account a simple way to do that? OK — that’s really two questions. Our answers: Yes, it is a good idea to set aside money. Yes, the UTMA account is a simple way to do it. Don’t set up a UTMA account, however, until you understand the consequences.
There are confusing issues about UTMA accounts. Sometimes the confusion is heightened by the fact that each of the 48 states which have adopted versions of the UTMA Act has changed it a little bit — so what is true in Arizona may not be true in another state (and vice versa). Rather than indulge in all that confusion, however, we are going to tell you in straightforward language what to watch for in Arizona. Be careful about applying these principles to other states’ UTMA acts.
They are inexpensive to set up and to administer. They do not require a lawyer, and avoid courts and formal accounting requirements altogether. All you have to do to create an Arizona UTMA account is to include the name of a custodian, the name of the beneficiary, and the letters UTMA in the title. This will work: “John Jones as custodian pursuant to the Arizona UTMA for the benefit of Marie Smith.”
A UTMA account can simplify the gifting of substantial amounts of money by multiple family members. Set up an account for your 2-year-old, and all four grandparents can put $13,000 each into the account each year (using 2011 numbers — the maximum non-taxable gift may go up next year or in future years).
They automatically end at 21, so the money will not be tied up indefinitely. One of the points of confusion: sometimes UTMA accounts end at 18 in other states, and in some circumstances in Arizona. But if you are putting your money into an account for a minor in Arizona, the end date is age 21.
They encourage regular savings by simplifying the process. Open an account with, say, $1,000, and put $50/month into the account. You won’t save a fortune in 15 years, but you will have $10,000 that you wouldn’t otherwise have saved without this discipline. Plus the earnings and growth on the investment, as a bonus.
If the minor receives public benefits like SSI or Medicaid, the money will usually not be treated as “available” (and therefore reduce or eliminate benefits) until age 21.
Of course it’s not all good news. Here are some problems or limitations:
The money in the UTMA account will need to be reported on the minor’s FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) form when applying for student aid — and it will be treated as completely available to the student. In other words, the very existence of a UTMA account may prevent receipt of needs-based student aid.
The income in the UTMA will be taxed at the minor’s parents’ income tax rates. Unless, of course, there is so much money in the minor’s name that his or her rate is higher — then the UTMA account will be taxed at that higher rate.
The minor may have to file an income tax return if the UTMA money produces significant income. The UTMA account may be used to pay any income tax due, and the tax preparation costs, but it will require that a return be prepared.
At age 21 the (former) minor is entitled to receive all the money. Period. It doesn’t matter if he or she has become a drug addict, a spendthrift or a cult member.
If the (former) minor receives public benefits like SSI or Medicaid, at age 21 the UTMA account becomes an “available” resource and may compromise those benefits.
If the UTMA custodian is the parent of the minor (which is by far the most common arrangement), then there may be additional complications in how the money can be used and/or what tax effect the money might have. Since a parent has an obligation to support his or her minor children, the UTMA account generally can not be used by a parent/custodian in ways that reduce or satisfy that support obligation. If, on the other hand, the donor of the money acts as custodian, he or she may not have gotten the money out of his or her estate (which is usually one intention on the donor’s part).
Although UTMA accounts are usually seen as simple mechanisms avoiding lawyers and conflict, the custodian still has an obligation to give the minor (or his or her guardian) account information. Thinking of giving a divorced and non-custodial parent money for the benefit of his or her minor child? Know that you are inviting a dispute between the custodial parent and the UTMA custodian over how the money is invested and spent (or not spent).
What happens if the custodian dies or becomes incapacitated? There is no easy mechanism to select a successor custodian; it may require a court proceeding to name a successor. A fourteen-year-old minor may be able to select his or her own custodian, which could raise concerns for a thoughtful donor. (Note: Arizona law does allow the current custodian to name his or her own successor custodian, but few do. If you are planning on setting up a UTMA account, insist that the custodian select a successor.)
What happens if the beneficiary dies before reaching age 21? The money goes to his or her estate — which may require a probate proceeding (if the total is over $50,000 in Arizona) and usually means that the money will be split between the child’s parents. That may be fine, but it may not be what the donor intends or wants.
The effect of interstate proceedings is unclear. If you live in New Mexico and set up a UTMA account in an Arizona bank with an Arizona custodian for a minor who lives in Iowa, what happens when your custodian moves to Wisconsin? What courts might the custodian have to answer to, and whose law applies in the case of a disagreement? Fortunately, this problem seldom arises — there are few legal proceedings involving UTMA disputes. But they do happen, and increasingly so in an increasingly mobile society.
What are your alternatives to a UTMA account? Consider 529 plans for educational purposes, and separate trusts if the money is intended to be for more general use. For a child who earns income an IRA might even be an appropriate choice — if the child earns $3,000 in a given year, he or she can contribute up that amount to an IRA (and the source of the money does not have to be the earnings). Talk to your financial adviser and your lawyer about the cost of the various options, the problems they raise, and the best alternative in your circumstances.
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 23, 2010 VOLUME 17 NUMBER 27
It really is unfortunate that we didn’t see this problem coming. Those of us who pioneered special needs trust planning back in the 1980s should have realized that we were setting up everyone (including ourselves) for confusion. We should have just given the two main kinds of special needs trusts different names. But we didn’t, and now we have to keep explaining.
There are two different kinds of special needs trusts, and the treatment and effect of any given trust will be very different depending on which kind of trust is involved in each case. Even that statement is misleading: there are actually about six or seven (depending on your definitions) kinds of special needs trusts — but they generally fall into one of two categories. Most (but not all) practitioners use the same language to describe the distinction: a given special needs trust is either a “self-settled” or a “third-party” trust.
Why is the distinction important? Because the rules surrounding the two kinds of trusts are very different. For example, a “self-settled” special needs trust:
Must include a provision repaying the state Medicaid agency for the cost of Title XIX (Medicaid) benefits received by the beneficiary upon the death of the beneficiary.
May have significant limitations on the kinds of payments the trustee can make; these limitations will vary significantly from state to state.
Will likely require some kind of annual accounting to the state Medicaid agency of trust expenditures.
May, if the rules are not followed precisely, result in the beneficiary being deemed to have access to trust assets and/or income, and thereby cost the beneficiary his or her Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid eligibility.
Will be taxed as if its contents still belonged to the beneficiary — in other words, as what the tax law calls a “grantor” trust.
By contrast, a “third-party” special needs trust usually:
May pay for food and shelter for the beneficiary — though such expenditures may result in a reduction in the beneficiary’s Supplemental Security Income payments for one or more months.
Can be distributed to other family members, or even charities, upon the death of the primary beneficiary.
May be terminated if the beneficiary improves and no longer requires Supplemental Security Income payments or Medicaid eligibility — with the remaining balance being distributed to the beneficiary.
Will not have to account (or at least not have to account so closely) to the state Medicaid agency in order to keep the beneficiary eligible.
Will be taxed on its own, and at a higher rate than a self-settled trust — though sometimes it will be taxed to the original grantor, and sometimes it will be entitled to slightly favorable treatment as a “Qualified Disability” trust (what is sometimes called a QDisT).
So what is the difference? It is actually easy to distinguish the two kinds of trusts, though even the names can make it seem more complicated. A self-settled trust is established with money or property that once belonged to the beneficiary. That might include a personal injury settlement, an inheritance, or just accumulated wealth. If the beneficiary had the legal right to the unrestrained use of the money — directly or though a conservator (or guardian of the estate) — then the trust is probably a self-settled trust.
It may be clearer to describe a third-party trust. If the money belonged to someone else, and that person established the trust for the benefit of the person with a disability, then the trust will be a third-party trust. Of course, it also has to qualify as a special needs trust; not all third-party trusts include language that is sufficient to gain such treatment (and there is a little variation by state in this regard, too).
So an inheritance might be a third-party special needs trust — if the person leaving the inheritance set it up in an appropriate manner. If not, and the inheritance was left outright to the beneficiary, then the trust set up by a court, conservator (or guardian of the estate) or family member will probably be a self-settled trust.
That leads to an important point: if the trust is established by a court, by a conservator or guardian, or even by the defendant in a personal injury action, it is still a self-settled trust for Social Security and Medicaid purposes. Each of those entities is acting on behalf of the beneficiary, and so their actions are interpreted as if the beneficiary himself (or herself) established the trust.
Since the rules governing these two kinds of trusts are so different, why didn’t we just use different names for them to start with? Good question. Some did: in some states and laws offices, self-settled special needs trusts are called “supplemental benefits” trusts. Unfortunately, the idea didn’t catch on, and sometimes the same term is used to describe third-party trusts instead. Oops.
We collectively apologize for the confusion. In the meantime, note that the literature about special needs trusts sometimes assumes that you know which kind is being described and discussed, and sometimes even mixes up the two types without clearly distinguishing. Pay close attention to anything you read about special needs trusts to make sure you’re getting the right information.
Want to know more? You might want to sign up for our upcoming “Special Needs Trust School” program. We are offering our next session (to live attendees only) on September 15, 2010. You can call Yvette at our offices (520-622-0400) to reserve a seat.
Recent changes in federal regulations affecting the Roth IRA now make this retirement savings plan available to wealthier individuals. We list some of the factors to consider in determining whether to convert your existing traditional IRA to a Roth IRA – so that you can discuss the matter in greater detail with your financial advisor.
What are the benefits of a traditional IRA? A traditional IRA allows you to contribute pre-tax dollars to your account. You pay taxes (on the original contribution, plus any increase in value) when you take distributions from the retirement account. The idea is, you will presumably be in a lower tax bracket when you are retired, and taking distributions, than you are as an employed person paying in to the account. The downside to the traditional IRA is that after you reach age 70½, you must take a minimum distribution from the IRA each year. The amount of the distribution is calculated annually and is based on the value of your retirement account and your life expectancy. If you are taking mandatory distributions each year, that will reduce the amount remaining in the account to pass along to your heirs when you die.
(It has long been the case that your spouse can inherit your IRA and continue to take annual distributions based on his or her own life expectancy. Other family members often had to cash out the account in five years, or fewer. Rule changes enacted in 2006 made it easier to pass along the remaining money in your IRA to people other than your spouse – a non-marital partner, or your kids, for example – and allow the beneficiary to take distributions over a longer period of time. See Elder Law Issues November 13, 2006 edition for more detail about those changes).
Why would I want to create a Roth IRA, when I already have a traditional IRA? A Roth IRA is funded with after-tax dollars. This means that as the account increases in value over the years, it increases tax-free. Unlike the traditional IRA, there are no mandatory distribution requirements for the account owner – meaning that more money remains in the account to pass along to your heirs. Although distributions will be mandatory for your heirs, the distributions are tax-free. If you have other sources of income, and you plan to use your retirement account mostly as a vehicle of passing money along to your heirs, rather than to fund your own retirement, a Roth IRA may be preferable to a traditional IRA.
Why are you telling me about a Roth IRA now? Until now, the Roth IRA has only been available to taxpayers whose annual income is less than $100,000. Effective January 1st, taxpayers whose income exceeds $100,000 can convert their traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs. This means having to pay the tax on the account contemporaneously with the conversion. And if you make the conversion in 2010, you can spread out the tax payments over two years.
Why might converting from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA be a good option?
If you believe that the income tax rate will only increase in the future, you might decide that it makes sense to pay the tax now, rather than pay it at a higher rate twenty or thirty years down the road.
If you have sufficient wealth that you don’t think you will drop into a lower tax bracket upon retirement – or if you plan to leave your retirement account to your kids and they will be in a higher tax bracket – it might make sense to pay the tax now.
If your traditional IRA has suffered a big decline in value over the last couple of years (and whose hasn’t?), you may find it more appealing to convert it to a Roth IRA and pay the tax now, in the hope that the account will increase in value (tax-free) over the coming decades.
You are making a bet, though, that Congress won’t decide to begin taxing the capital gains on the Roth IRA. And, you will need to have money available in order to pay the tax on the conversion – preferably, money coming from a source other than your traditional IRA.
What factors should I consider in making the decision? Here are a few:
The availability of funds to pay the taxes now;
Your willingness to pay taxes now, rather than later;
Whether you are already taking distributions from your IRA;
When you plan to retire; and
Whether you intend to live off your retirement account or pass it to heirs.
There are rules about making the conversion (or, having made the conversion, undoing it) and the timing of paying the taxes for the conversion (a lump sum versus installments over two years). There are penalties for withdrawing funds from a Roth IRA within the first five years of establishing an account. For all of these reasons, we encourage you to have a candid conversation with your financial advisor, to see if converting your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA is right for you.
Imagine that you are trying to change the title on your bank account into the name of the living trust you and your spouse just set up. The nice lady at the bank is telling you that you need to get a new tax identification number for the trust. Could she be right? In a word, no.
Because we are lawyers, however, it is very hard for us to answer a complex question with a single word. So let us review some of the variations with you.
Is your trust revocable? This is the easiest variation. Give the bank (and your credit union, and your broker) your Social Security number. Joint trust between you and your spouse? No problem. Give them either Social Security number — just like before, when both of your names were on the account as individuals.
What if the trust is irrevocable? This is a little more confusing, but ultimately the answer is probably the same. If you receive any significant benefit from the trust, and your money went into it in the first place, you still use your Social Security number.
Is someone else the trustee of your trust? The answer is still the same — though many bank and brokerage officers will insist that this is what makes it mandatory for you to get a separate tax number. Simply put, they are wrong. If the trust is revocable use your Social Security number regardless of who the trustee might be. If it is irrevocable and someone else is the trustee, but you still receive benefits from the trust, use your Social Security number.
What if the trust is a “special needs” trust set up with your personal injury settlement or other funds? You still use your Social Security number. The “special needs” designation does not change the answer.
What about the “special needs” trust you set up with your money but for the benefit of your child? Now we’re getting interesting. Can you revoke the trust? What happens if your child dies before you do — does the money return to you? In either case, you probably use your Social Security number, and report the income on your tax return. Talk to your accountant and/or lawyer — don’t accept the banker’s (or broker’s) analysis of the legal and tax implications.
Is there ever a time when a new tax ID number is required for a trust? Yes, though the circumstances requiring a separate number are not as numerous as most bank officers, brokers and (for that matter) accountants think. These are not the only situations requiring a new number, but the three most common are:
Life insurance trusts, or so-called “Crummey” trusts. Just because your trust owns life insurance it does not automatically follow that this special rule applies, but if it was set up precisely to own life insurance, and you are not the trustee, it likely needs its own number.
A trust that becames irrevocable because of the death of the person setting the the trust up in the first place. This can happen when one spoue dies and a trust becomes partly irrevocable, too.
A special needs trusts you set up (with your money) for the benefit of someone else, but which does not revert to you if the beneficiary dies before you — especially if you are not even the trustee.
When a separate number is required, what kind of number is it? The actual name for a tax identification number for a trust is “Employer Identification Number” or EIN. That is true even though the trust may not have any employees. The common acronym “TIN” (tax identification number) is not really an IRS or Social Security term at all — it is usually used as an umbrella term to encompass both EINs and Social Security numbers.
Why do bankers and stockbrokers insist that I need a new tax ID number if I do not? We’re puzzled, too. Our best answer: they are reading from a prepared list of choices, and they do not really understand the reasoning behind the various categories and approaches. We have had good experience talking with the bank employee on behalf of our clients, but sometimes it requires working up through the levels of authority.
Did you already get an EIN (Employer Identification Number) for your trust? Is that a problem? Probably not. You have two choices: change the tax identification number on all the accounts back to your Social Security number and file a final income tax return for the trust, or file annual tax returns under the trust’s EIN but without including any income or expenses — list those on your own tax return instead.
There is a lot of confusion in the financial industry about tax identification numbers and trusts. Feel free to print this out and take it to your banker.
Even as the recent national election was ramping up late last summer, Congress passed and the President signed the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Billed as a great boon to most workers, the Act may not have nearly the advertised effect—primarily because of a continuing shift away from traditional “defined benefit” pension plans and toward “defined contribution” retirement arrangements. Still, there are a number of items every worker should know about—particularly those invested in IRAs and 401(k) plans.
The new law may actually accelerate the trend away from defined benefit retirement plans. Because it requires companies to use stricter accounting standards in calculating the amount of money required to fully fund such plans, many analysts predict that more employers will review their existing plans and instead move toward pension plans that create a separate account for each worker, with no guarantee of retirement income levels.
For those with existing 401(k) and IRA retirement accounts, however, the new law provides a small handful of new options. Among the benefits offered to those workers and their beneficiaries:
Even before the new law you could withdraw money from an IRA or Roth IRA, then make a charitable gift and deduct the gift for income tax purposes. You might not, however, be able to deduct the entire gift—meaning you would pay taxes on income that you are giving away. The new law lets you give instructions for a distribution directly from your IRA or Roth IRA to a charity with no tax effect at all, ensuring that you get the entire benefit of the charitable gift. Two limits: the maximum amount you can direct to charity is $100,000, and you only have tax years 2006 and 2007 to make the gift.
If you are the beneficiary of an IRA, 401(k) or other qualified plan, you can direct that the plan’s contents be rolled over into an “inherited” IRA. That means you will not be stuck with the plan’s rules about distributions (some plans do not allow withdrawals over your life expectancy, for instance, even though the tax laws permit such “stretch” distributions).
The Treasury Department has been ordered to issue new, liberalized rules on hardship withdrawals from 401(k) accounts. The new rules should make it easier to withdraw money for the benefit of not only the account owner, but also persons listed as beneficiaries under the plan.
It will be easier to roll 401(k) money over into a Roth IRA—though the tax will still have to be paid in the year of the conversion. Under old rules, the rollover required two steps (401(k) to IRA, then to Roth IRA).
