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.
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.
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).
