DOCSLIB.ORG

About That Basis: How Income Taxes Have Reshaped Estate Planning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
About That Basis: How Income Taxes Have Reshaped Estate Planning ALL ABOUT THAT BASIS: HOW INCOME TAXES HAVE RESHAPED ESTATE PLANNING MICKEY R. DAVIS AND MELISSA J. WILLMS DAVIS & WILLMS, PLLC 3555 Timmons Lane, Suite 1250 Houston, Texas 77027 (281) 786-4500 [email protected] [email protected] American Law Institute PLANNING TECHNIQUES FOR LARGE ESTATES April 3-5, 2019 Scottsdale, Arizona © 2019, Mickey R. Davis and Melissa J. Willms, All Rights Reserved All About That Basis: How Income Taxes Have Reshaped Estate Planning TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 II. The New Tax Environment ......................................................................................................................... 1 A. ATRA, TCJA, and Their Changes to Rates and Exclusions .......................................................... 1 B. The Net Investment Income Tax .................................................................................................... 1 C. Portability ....................................................................................................................................... 2 III. What Is Basis? ............................................................................................................................................ 2 A. Basis in Property Acquired from a Decedent ................................................................................. 2 Basis Consistency .............................................................................................................. 3 Holding Period ................................................................................................................... 4 B. What Property is "Acquired from a Decedent"? ............................................................................ 5 Inherited Property .............................................................................................................. 5 Revocable Trust Property ................................................................................................... 5 Property with Retained Right to Control Beneficial Enjoyment ........................................ 5 Property Subject to a General Power of Appointment. ...................................................... 5 Both Halves of Community Property ................................................................................. 5 Other Property Includable in the Decedent's Gross Estate ................................................. 5 QTIP Property. ................................................................................................................... 5 C. Exceptions ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Assets Representing Income in Respect of a Decedent. .................................................... 6 Distributions from Trusts and Estates. ............................................................................... 6 Property "Re-Inherited" Within One Year of Gift ............................................................. 6 Depreciable Property Owned by Others ............................................................................ 6 Property Subject to a Conservation Easement ................................................................... 7 D. Persons Dying in 2010 ................................................................................................................... 7 E. Contrast Basis in Property Acquired by Gift .................................................................................. 7 Donee's Basis to Determine Gain....................................................................................... 7 Donee's Basis to Determine Loss ....................................................................................... 7 Basis for Gift Tax Paid....................................................................................................... 7 Basis for Transfers Between Spouses ................................................................................ 7 Basis for GST Tax Paid ..................................................................................................... 8 Holding Period ................................................................................................................... 8 Basis of Suspended Passive Losses ................................................................................... 8 The Cost of Forgoing Basis ............................................................................................... 8 IV. Do Our Old Planning Tools Still Work? .................................................................................................... 9 A. Using Bypass Trusts ....................................................................................................................... 9 No Basis Adjustment at Second Death .............................................................................. 9 Higher Ongoing Income Tax Rates ................................................................................... 9 Some Assets Cause Greater Tax Burdens ........................................................................ 10 Disclaimer Bypass Trusts ................................................................................................. 10 B. Advantages of Trusts over Outright Bequests .............................................................................. 11 Control of Assets .............................................................................................................. 11 Creditor Protection ........................................................................................................... 11 Divorce Protection ........................................................................................................... 11 Protection of Governmental Benefits ............................................................................... 12 Protection from State Inheritance Taxes .......................................................................... 12 Income Shifting ................................................................................................................ 12 Shifting Wealth to Other Family Members ...................................................................... 12 No Inflation Adjustment .................................................................................................. 12 Risk of Loss of DSUE Amount ........................................................................................ 12 No DSUE Amount for GST Tax Purposes .................................................................... 13 Must File Estate Tax Return for Portability ................................................................... 13 Impact on Life Insurance Planning ................................................................................ 13 C. Using QTIPable Trusts ................................................................................................................. 14 i All About That Basis: How Income Taxes Have Reshaped Estate Planning Control, Creditor, and Divorce Protections. ..................................................................... 14 Less Income Tax Exposure. ............................................................................................. 14 New Cost Basis at Second Spouse's Death ...................................................................... 14 Preservation of GST Tax Exemption ............................................................................... 14 QTIPs and Portability....................................................................................................... 14 QTIPs and Using the DSUE Amount .............................................................................. 14 D. QTIP Trust Disadvantages ........................................................................................................... 15 No "Sprinkle" Power ........................................................................................................ 15 Estate Tax Exposure......................................................................................................... 15 Income Tax Exposure ...................................................................................................... 15 Is a QTIP Election Available? ......................................................................................... 16 Clayton QTIP Trusts ........................................................................................................ 17 The QTIP Tax Apportionment Trap ................................................................................ 17 E. Is a "LEPA" Trust a Better Choice? ............................................................................................. 18 Structure of LEPA Trusts ................................................................................................. 18 Benefits of LEPA Trusts .................................................................................................. 18 Disadvantages of LEPA Trusts ........................................................................................ 18 V. A New Estate Planning Paradigm ............................................................................................................. 19 A. Creative Options to Create Basis ................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spring 2014 Melanie Leslie – Trusts and Estates – Attack Outline 1
    Spring 2014 Melanie Leslie – Trusts and Estates – Attack Outline Order of Operations (Will) • Problems with the will itself o Facts showing improper execution (signature, witnesses, statements, affidavits, etc.), other will challenges (Question call here is whether will should be admitted to probate) . Look out for disinherited people who have standing under the intestacy statute!! . Consider mechanisms to avoid will challenges (no contest, etc.) o Will challenges (AFTER you deal with problems in execution) . Capacity/undue influence/fraud o Attempts to reference external/unexecuted documents . Incorporation by reference . Facts of independent significance • Spot: Property/devise identified by a generic name – “all real property,” “all my stocks,” etc. • Problems with specific devises in the will o Ademption (no longer in estate) . Spot: Words of survivorship . Identity theory vs. UPC o Abatement (estate has insufficient assets) . Residuary general specific . Spot: Language opting out of the common law rule o Lapse . First! Is the devisee protected by the anti-lapse statute!?! . Opted out? Spot: Words of survivorship, etc. UPC vs. CL . If devise lapses (or doesn’t), careful about who it goes to • If saved, only one state goes to people in will of devisee, all others go to descendants • Careful if it is a class gift! Does not go to residuary unless whole class lapses • Other issues o Revocation – Express or implied? o Taxes – CL is pro rata, look for opt out, especially for big ticket things o Executor – Careful! Look out for undue
    [Show full text]
  • ESTATE PLANNING: Current Developments and Hot Topics December 2013
    ESTATE PLANNING: Current Developments and Hot Topics December 2013 The Estate Planner’s “Playbook” for 2013 and Going Forward Under the Post-ATRA “New Normal” of Permanent Large Exemptions and Portability. Steve R. Akers Senior Fiduciary Counsel — Southwest Region, Bessemer Trust 300 Crescent Court, Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75201 214-981-9407 [email protected] www.bessemer.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 and “3.8% Medicare Tax” ................................ 1 2. Administration’s Fiscal Year 2014 Revenue Proposals ................................................. 8 3. Treasury-IRS Priority Guidance Plan ........................................................................ 17 4. Possible Tax Reform Legislative Developments.......................................................... 18 5. Planning for Donors Who Made Large 2012 Gifts ...................................................... 20 6. Generation Skipping Transfer Tax Reporting Issues ................................................... 26 7. General Approaches to Estate Planning Following ATRA; The “New Normal”................ 31 8. Portability ............................................................................................................. 41 9. Trust and Estate Planning Considerations for 3.8% Tax on Net Investment Income and Income Taxation of Trusts ....................................................................................... 57 10. Strategies to Preserve Basis Adjustment Upon Grantor’s Death ..................................
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Tax Policy: a Pathway to Reform? Nancy J
    Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy Volume 9 | Issue 2 Article 2 2014 Critical Tax Policy: a Pathway to Reform? Nancy J. Knauer Recommended Citation Nancy J. Knauer, Critical Tax Policy: a Pathway to Reform?, 9 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol'y. 206 (2014). http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njlsp/vol9/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Copyright 2014 by Northwestern University School of Law Vol. 9, Issue 2 (2014) Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy CRITICAL TAX POLICY : A PATHWAY TO REFORM ? ∗ Nancy J. Knauer TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 207 I. THE COSTS OF FALSE NEUTRALITY ............................................................... 214 A. All Part of a Larger “Blueprint” ............................................................ 215 B. Hidden Choices and Embedded Values .................................................. 218 Taxpayer neutrality ..................................................................................... 219 Equity and efficiency .................................................................................. 221 C. Critical Tax Theory and Scholarship ...................................................... 223 II. CHOOSING A CRITICAL
    [Show full text]
  • Part Vi — Resulting Trusts
    Equity and Trusts 06 – Resulting Trusts PART VI — RESULTING TRUSTS I Introduction A Definition A resulting trust arises where there has been a transfer of property and the transferor does not intend (or is presumed not to have intended) to confer a beneficial interest upon the transferee. For example, if A transfers legal title in property to B, not intending B to have any equitable interest in the property, then B is said to hold the property on resulting trust for A, such that A retains an equitable interest in same. The word ‘result’ in ‘resulting trust’ derives from the Latin resaltire, meaning ‘to jump backwards’. It describes the movement of the equitable interest, which ‘jumps backwards’ to the transferor from the transferee. An etymological analysis is thus particularly apt to describe the nature of the modern resulting trust. Equity recognises a resulting trust as arising in three circumstances: 1 Voluntary transfer of property If A voluntarily (ie, for no consideration) transfers property to B, B will be presumed to hold that property on resulting trust for A (‘presumption of resulting trust’). This presumption may be rebutted by evidence of a contrary intention: for example, an intention to make a gift; 2 Purchase in the name of another If A makes contributions to the purchase price of property, which is held in the name of B, B will be presumed to hold that property on resulting trust for A to the extent of A’s contribution (‘purchase money resulting trust’). This presumption is also rebutted by evidence of contrary intention, such as an intention to make a gift, or by a presumption of advancement (that, having regard to the type of relationship between A and B, A intended to advance himself — or herself: Nelson v Nelson — by making a gift); and 3 Failure of an express trust If an express trust fails for any reason, the property will result back to the original owner automatically and irrespective of the settlor or beneficiary’s intention.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the COURT of APPEALS of TENNESSEE at JACKSON May 13, 2015 Session
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON May 13, 2015 Session ROBERT W. MILLS v. NITA D. MILLS, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH1301272 Arnold B. Goldin, Chancellor ________________________________ No. W2014-00855-COA-R3-CV – June 24, 2015 _________________________________ This case involves various causes of action related to the administration of an estate, specifically, the executor‘s action in failing to fund a residuary trust. The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that no assets remained in the estate to fund the residuary trust, the expiration of the statute of limitations, and laches. Although we rely on different grounds, we affirm the trial court‘s order granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed and Remanded J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P. J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRANDON O. GIBSON, J., and KENNY ARMSTRONG, J., joined. Lee S. Saunders and Robert Steven Butler, Somerville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Robert W. Mills. Kacey L. Faughnan, Edward T. Autry, and Joseph B. Reafsnyder, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellees, Nita D. Mills, and James Johnson. OPINION Background On January 30, 2013, Plaintiff/Appellant Robert W. Mills (―Appellant‖) filed a Complaint to Compel Disclosure of Residual Trust or Alternatively for Declaratory Judgment and Judicial Estoppel, For Equitable Relief, For Constructive Trust to Prevent Unjust Enrichment, For Resulting Trust, For Accounting and for Injunction against Appellees Nita D. Mills (―Ms. Mills‖ or ―Defendant Mills‖), Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of William B.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 4 N.C.P.I.—Civil 865.65 TRUSTS by OPERATION of LAW—PURCHASE MONEY RESULTING TRUST (REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY). GENERAL CIVIL VOLUME JUNE 2014
    Page 1 of 4 N.C.P.I.—Civil 865.65 TRUSTS BY OPERATION OF LAW—PURCHASE MONEY RESULTING TRUST (REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY). GENERAL CIVIL VOLUME JUNE 2014 ------------------------------ 865.65 TRUSTS BY OPERATION OF LAW1 — PURCHASE MONEY RESULTING TRUST (REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY).2 The (state number) issue reads: "[Is] [Was] (identify property) held under a purchase money resulting trust by (name alleged trustee)?" You will note that in this issue I have used the word "trust." A trust is a legal relationship between persons. A trust exists when one person acquires property under circumstances where he incurs a legal duty to handle that property in a particular way so as to benefit another person. A 1 Trusts created by operation of law are classified into resulting trusts and constructive trusts. "[T]he creation of a resulting trust involves the application of the doctrine that valuable consideration rather than legal title determines the equitable title resulting from a transaction; whereas a constructive trust ordinarily arises out of the existence of fraud, actual or presumptive - usually involving the violation of a confidential or fiduciary relation - in view of which equity transfers the beneficial title to some person other than the holder of the legal title. Also, a resulting trust involves a presumption or supposition of law of an intention to create a trust, where as a constructive trust arises independent of any actual or presumed intention of the parties and is usually imposed contrary to the actual intention of the trustee." Bowen v. Darden, 241 N.C. 11, 13-14, 84 S.E.2d 289, 292 (1954).
    [Show full text]
  • The Doctrine of Resulting Trusts in Common Law Canada Donovan W.M
    McGILL LAW JOURNAL Montreal Volume 16 1970 Number 2 The Doctrine of Resulting Trusts in Common Law Canada Donovan W.M. Waters* Page THE TERM 'RESULTING TRUST' . ...................................................................... 189 THE RESULTING TRUST SITUATIONS ........................................................... 191 (1) Purchase in the name of another, or in the names of the purchaser and another ............................................................................................................194 (2) Voluntary transfer into the name of another, or into the joint names of the transferor and another ......................................................................... 199 (a) Rebutting the resulting trust .................................................................... 202 (b) The presumption of advancement ............................................................. 205 What evidence rebuts the presumption? Is intent to perpetrate an illegality enough to defeat the claimant to a resulting trust? (i) Joint bank accounts ............................................................................. 217 On what theoretical basis does the volunteer acquire his rights ? What is the effect of the account holder's agreement with the bank? When does the volunteer hold his rights on resulting trust for the payor into the account? When does the right of survivorship vest? Reform? (ii) The presumption of advancement and matrimonial disputes 234 Pettitt v. Pettitt The law "has not developed in the same way in the common
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Trust Code Final Act with Comments
    UNIFORM TRUST CODE (Last Revised or Amended in 2010) Drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS and by it APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES at its ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-NINTH YEAR ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA JULY 28 – AUGUST 4, 2000 WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS Copyright © 2000, 2010 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS April 10, 2020 1 ABOUT NCCUSL The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), now in its 114th year, provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law. Conference members must be lawyers, qualified to practice law. They are practicing lawyers, judges, legislators and legislative staff and law professors, who have been appointed by state governments as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to research, draft and promote enactment of uniform state laws in areas of state law where uniformity is desirable and practical. $ NCCUSL strengthens the federal system by providing rules and procedures that are consistent from state to state but that also reflect the diverse experience of the states. $ NCCUSL statutes are representative of state experience, because the organization is made up of representatives from each state, appointed by state government. $ NCCUSL keeps state law up-to-date by addressing important and timely legal issues. $ NCCUSL’s efforts reduce the need for individuals and businesses to deal with different laws as they move and do business in different states.
    [Show full text]
  • Implied, Resulting Orconstructive Trust?
    Implied, Resulting or Constructive Trust? B. H. Davis* In the past two or three decades, there has arisen "a new field of discord liable to explode into litigation. It arises whenever parties either within or without the bonds of matrimony have lived in a home owned by one, and the other has contributed to its acquisition, its maintenance, its equipment with furniture or the running expenses of the household and their relationship has been dissolved without any clear agreement as to their property rights."l Given that the courts emphasise the need to adhere to established property rights, they have, in order to establish those rights in the "new fields of discord", which indeed has exploded into litigation, had recourse, in the absence of precise statutory provisions, to the doctrines of Equity. The result seems to have been the creation of a new class of trusts, developed from, but distinct from these concepts, or at least not entirely coincident with them. "Equity is not past the age of child-bearing. One of her latest progeny is a constructive trust of a new model,,2 or as Glass JA expressed it, perhaps more cautiously, in Allen v. Snyder: "New situations have, it appears, produced some new legal rules. It is inevitable that judge made law will alter to meet the changing conditions of society. That is the way it has alwaysevolved. But it is essential that new rules should be related to fundamental doctrine. If the foundations of accepted doctrine be submerged under new principles without regard to the interaction between the two, there will be high uncertainty as to the state of the law, both old and new.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uniform Probate Code Upends the Law of Remainders
    Michigan Law Review Volume 94 Issue 1 1995 The Uniform Probate Code Upends the Law of Remainders Jesse Dukeminier University of California, Los Angeles Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Jesse Dukeminier, The Uniform Probate Code Upends the Law of Remainders, 94 MICH. L. REV. 148 (1995). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol94/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE UNIFORM PROBATE CODE UPENDS THE LAW OF REMAINDERS Jesse Dukeminier* Nothing is more settled in the law of remainders than that an indefeasibly vested remainder is transmissible to the remainder­ man's heirs or devisees upon the remainderman's death. Thus, where a grantor conveys property "to A for life, then to B and her heirs," B's remainder passes to B's heirs or devisees if B dies during the life of A. Inheritability of vested remainders was recognized in the time of Edward I, and devisability was recognized with the Stat­ ute of Wills in 1540. Section 2-707 of the Uniform Probate Code (UPC),1 adopted in 1990, upends this law. In a comprehensive remake of the law of remainders, section 2-707 provides that, unless the trust instrument provides otherwise, all fu.ture interests in trust are contingent on the beneficiary's surviving the distribution date.
    [Show full text]
  • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: the 2010 Tax Act Reinstated the Estate and Generation Skipping Transfer Tax (Hereafter GST) for 2010
    We close this week with Frank Berall’s comprehensive analysis of the Tax Reform Act of 2010. As members know, Frank is a LISI Commentator Team Member, and has previously provided members with commentary on the planning issues caused by the absence (until now) of estate and GST taxes in Estate Planning Newsletter #1705. Frank S. Berall, principal of Copp & Berall, LLP and Senior Tax Consultant to Andros, Floyd & Miller, P.C., both of Hartford, CT, is Chair of the newly revived Federal Tax Institute of New England. He was Co- chair (from 1977 through 2009) with Prof. Regis Campfield, of the Notre Dame Estate and Tax Planning Institute, is on the editorial boards of the Connecticut Bar Journal, the Connecticut Lawyer and Estate Planning, was a former Regent of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, a past Vice President of the International Academy of Estate and Trust Law, Co- chair of the Hartford Tax Institute’s Advisory Council for 10 years, and has been a part-time faculty member at the Yale Law School, the University of Connecticut Law School and the University of Hartford’s Graduate Tax Program. Frank, a frequent speaker at many tax institutes, has published 133 articles, eight commentaries for Steve Leimberg’s Estate Planning Newsletter, two articles on the Connecticut Bar Association’s website, portions of 13 books, co-authored two Tax Management Portfolios and recently submitted a final draft of a portfolio on same-sex relationships. He has been recognized for his expertise in both trust and estate law as well as tax law in all 30 editions of the Best Lawyers in America, is one of the top 50 Connecticut Super Lawyers and the New York area’s Best Lawyers.
    [Show full text]
  • National Legal Research Group, Inc. James P. Witt, Senior Attorney
    M E M O R A N D U M TO: John Jonathan II, Esquire FROM: National Legal Research Group, Inc. James P. Witt, Senior Attorney RE: MA/Trusts/Resulting/Extrinsic Evidence—Continuation Of 52-27479-012 FILE: 52-27747-012 January 19, 1999 YOUR FILE: Conrad H. Brown 1968 Trust Instrument STATEMENT OF FACTS The donor, Conrad H. Brown, had originally executed the revocable trust in question on April 6, 1968. The trust's final form is represented by the Sixth Amendment of the Conrad H. Brown 1968 Trust Instrument. Under Article II of the trust, the donor reserved the right to the trust's net income during his life and directed that the trustee pay such amounts of principal to himself or his nominee as he might direct. Under Article III of the trust, upon the donor's death, his wife, Anne P. Brown, was to receive an amount equal to the maximum marital deduction, less the value of other property passing to her that has qualified for the marital deduction and less the amount allocated to a credit shelter trust. Mrs. Brown was to receive the net income of the continuing trust, with income also to be paid for the emergency needs of the donor's daughter, Susan H. Webley, or to assist in the education expenses of Susan's issue if such expenses cannot be funded from other sources. Under Article IIIB, the trust is to continue after Mrs. Brown's death for the benefit of Susan H. Webley. The provision specified that Susan's benefits under Article IIIA were to continue (income for her emergency needs and for the education needs of her issue if not available from other sources).
    [Show full text]