Home » Insights » Wills, Trusts & Estates » Page 7

Wills Insights

Pay Attention to Red Flags in Estate Planning to Avoid Litigation After Death

Published on: April 9, 2018 | by James K. Estabrook and Elizabeth Candido Petite

Years of experience in administering estates have taught us that the best way to avoid litigation after death is to plan during life. We have come to identify several “red flags” that, when not addressed during estate planning, are more often than not resolved in a courtroom. Not only does this mean that a judge, rather than the client, is ultimately deciding how the client’s property is disposed of, but the process can be lengthy, emotional, and expensive. With the possibility that attorney’s fees will be paid before any property is distributed to the family members, the lawyers may become beneficiaries of the estate when it is contested.

Unequal distribution of assets amongst children.

Clients who want to distribute their property to their children unequally are almost always asking for a fight. They may want to do this because they are estranged from a child or because they believe that one child “needs” more than another. The slighted child, however, may not agree with mom or dad’s decision. When this comes as a surprise to a child after the client’s death – and the parent is no longer here to explain the thought process and to act as mediator amongst the children – the slighted child feels like his or her only recourse is to hire an attorney.

POLST vs. Advance Directive – What’s the Difference?

Published on: April 8, 2018 | by Anne Marie Robbins

An advance directive for health care (“Advance Directive”) is a legal document that expresses an individual’s wishes regarding end of life medical treatment, and can include a designation of another person as his or her health care representative.

In contrast, a POLST, Practitioner Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment, is a health care document that sets forth medical treatment orders. A POLST allows individuals to work with their medical teams regarding treatment decisions in connection with serious illness. The POLST form is completed jointly by an individual and a physician or advance practice nurse, expressing the individual’s goals of care and medical preferences.

Unlike an Advance Directive, a completed POLST form is an actual medical order that becomes a part of the individual’s medical record.

Thinking About Getting Re-Married? You Might Want To Roll Over What’s In Your 401(k)

Published on: March 5, 2018 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

Nearly all 401(k) plans are governed by the Employment Retirement Act of 1979 (“ERISA”). ERISA regulates pension, health & welfare, and other employee benefits including 401(k) programs.

Under ERISA, if owner of an ERISA-governed 401(k) plan dies, their surviving spouse is automatically entitled to 401(k) benefits at the time death, regardless of who has been named beneficiary. Under § 1055 of ERISA, if the owner of a retirement account is married when he or she dies, his or her spouse is automatically entitled to receive at least fifty percent (50%) of the money, regardless of what the beneficiary designation says. The Supreme Court has explained that § 1055 reflects Congress’s intent to “ensure a stream of income to surviving spouses.”

This right of the surviving spouse is triggered regardless of when the assets were accrued or how long the pair has been married. There is an exception to the general rule. Plans are permitted to include a 1-year marriage rule whereby a surviving spouse must have been married to the plan participant for at least 1 year before they may claim a right to 401(k) assets, but, not all plans have adopted this exception.

Practical Considerations for Attorneys and Trustees: Trust Decanting After Matter of Kroll

Published on: January 31, 2018 | by Elizabeth Candido Petite

The New York “trust decanting statute” (EPTL 10-6.6) was significantly revised in August 2011. Although commentary and analysis of the new statute appeared almost immediately from practitioners, it was not until late 2013 that the judiciary joined the conversation. In Matter of Kroll,¹ the Surrogate’s Court of Nassau County was faced with a challenge to a trustee’s exercise of appointing trust assets from a lifetime trust to a supplemental needs trust (SNT). The decision is noteworthy not only because it is the first to analyze the revised statute, but also because it serves as an important reminder for all trustees and attorneys to draft flexible trust instruments, to stay current with the needs of beneficiaries, and not to delay when changed circumstances necessitate a change to the trust.

A. Statutory Background

In 1992, New York was at the forefront of trust law when it enacted EPTL 10-6.6, which allowed trustees with unlimited discretion over distributions of principal to appoint trust assets to another trust. The statute was essentially unchanged for almost 20 years, during which time it became evident that the statute had limited applicability. The revised statute now permits all trustees, regardless of their scope of authority, to decant, but they must maintain certain provisions of the original trust in the new trust and cannot eliminate or reduce the interests of current beneficiaries.

2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

Published on: January 25, 2018 | by Anne Marie Robbins

President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Act”) on December 22, 2017. The Act makes significant changes to the Internal Revenue Code, covering a broad range of income, corporate, and estate taxes. Most of the changes to the Code are effective as of January 1, 2018. Because of Senate rules requiring limits on legislation that increases the federal deficit, many provisions of the Act, including the estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax provisions, will expire after December 31, 2025.

From an estate-planning perspective, some key takeaways are:

The federal estate, gift, and GST taxes have not been eliminated, as some had hoped. Instead, the exemptions have increased making it less likely that such taxes will be imposed on all but the wealthiest individuals. The base federal estate and gift tax exemption has been doubled to $10 million, indexed for inflation, for tax years 2018 through 2025. The effect is that a single person may now transfer, during life or at death, a total of approximately $11.2 million (the inflation-adjusted figure), or $22.4 million for a married couple. The GST tax exemption has also increased to a like amount.

Portability – Examination of a Predeceased Spouse’s Estate Tax Return

Published on: January 12, 2018 | by Anne Marie Robbins

In a recent case that is a cautionary tale to preparers of federal estate tax returns, the Tax Court held that the IRS was permitted to examine the estate tax return of the first spouse to die in determining the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount (DSUE) available to the estate of the surviving spouse. The result was an increase to the federal estate tax in the estate of the second spouse.

A husband died in 2012 and his estate reported his DSUE on form 706, the federal estate tax return, and elected portability of the DSUE to the surviving spouse. The IRS sent the husband’s estate a federal estate tax closing letter reporting the return was accepted as filed. When the wife died in 2013, her estate claimed the DSUE reported by the husband’s estate. As part of the examination of the wife’s federal estate tax return, the IRS also examined the 706 filed by the husband’s estate. Without determining a deficiency against the husband’s estate, the IRS reduced the amount of the husband’s DSUE by the amount of taxable gifts given by husband during his life. This reduction in the DSUE reduced the total exclusion available in the wife’s estate and resulted in an increase of the estate tax.

Several holdings by the court are noteworthy:

Disposition of Estate Assets – Real Estate

Published on: November 7, 2017 | by David G. Hardin

Real estate is oftentimes one of the more valuable assets an individual may own, and thus can comprise a substantial asset in the estate following an individual’s death. Typically, it is the personal representative of the estate who has responsibility to dispose of a decedent’s real estate.¹ Real estate can either be conveyed directly to one or more of the estate beneficiaries or it can be sold. The disposition of real estate in an estate can be one of the more significant responsibilities for the personal representative. This article will address a number of issues facing a personal representative involved in the disposition of real estate through sale of the property following an owner’s death.²

The first issue generally faced by a personal representative is determining the fair market value of the property. For purposes of the federal estate tax law, fair market value is defined as “the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.” Treas. Reg. §2031-1(b). For New Jersey estate and inheritance tax purposes, tax is “computed upon the clear market value of the property transferred.” N.J.S. 54:34–5. See also N.J.A.C. 18:26–8.10. In general, an appraisal of real estate prepared by a member of the Appraisal Institute will be recognized as an acceptable appraisal by taxing authorities.³ An arms-length purchase by an unrelated third party, if completed within a reasonable time period after death, is generally accepted by the taxing authorities as an alternative to an appraisal.

The actual process of selling real property owned by an estate can also present challenges to a personal representative. Oftentimes a personal representative will wish to minimize the expenditure of funds to “update” an estate property, preferring instead to enter into a contract selling the property in “as is” condition without addressing any repair issues. While this is often an attractive approach, particularly when a personal representative has never resided in the property or has limited or no knowledge concerning its condition, there are limitations to this approach in New Jersey, which a recent case points out.

NJ Law Journal Quotes Mary Pat Magee in Recent Article Regarding NJ Estate Tax Phaseout

Published on: July 25, 2017 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

Mary Pat Magee discusses the increased NJ estate tax exemption and impending elimination in the New Jersey Law Journal article “NJ Estate Tax Phaseout Hasn’t Haunted T&E Practices”.

Mary Pat says “We’ve always been faced with a planning environment full of tax uncertainty” as she recalls her early days when she began her practice in 1982 and the exemption was then $225,000 and T&E practitioners were anxious over business. “We are really lawyers that advise families as to the dispensation of their assets, and taxes are just one aspect of that” she says.

Click here to view Mary Pat’s comments on the issue.

IRS Issues Revenue Procedure 2017-34, Announcing Simplified Method To Make A Late “Portability” Election

Published on: July 15, 2017 | by Anne Marie Robbins

In June of this year, the IRS published a revenue procedure that allows certain estates to make a late portability election if a timely election was not made. Rev. Proc. 2017-34. The portability election allows a decedent’s unused basic exclusion amount (known as the deceased spousal exclusion amount, or DSUE) to be transferred to the surviving spouse for his or her use during life or at death. In effect, this allows married couples to double the amount of assets they can shelter from federal estate and gift taxes.

In order to make a portability election, the personal representative of the estate of the first spouse to die must file a timely (including extensions) federal estate tax return (Form 706) following the death of the first spouse, even if the estate of the first spouse to die is not otherwise required to file Form 706. For example, if a decedent’s assets and lifetime adjusted taxable gifts do not exceed a certain amount (in 2017 the amount is $5.49 million), a 706 is not required. Many taxpayers, not knowing the rules and not otherwise required to file Form 706, fail to make the portability election timely.

In January of 2014 the IRS had issued Rev. Proc. 2014-18, which provided an automatic extension for certain estates of decedents dying after December 31, 2010 and on or before December 31, 2013 to elect portability of the DSUE by filing Form 706. However, after December 31, 2013, the only way to make a late portability election was to seek a private letter ruling from the IRS pursuant to Treasury Regulations. Despite the fact that private letter rulings can be time-consuming and expensive, the Service has issued many such rulings in the last few years by estates seeking to make a late portability election. Hence the new revenue procedure provides a welcome and lest costly method for preserving the DSUE.

Creditor Protection For Inherited IRA

Published on: January 11, 2017 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

In Clark v. Rameker, the United States Supreme Court held that an inherited IRA does not fall within the definition of retirement funds under Federal Bankruptcy law and is, therefore, not exempt from claims in a bankruptcy proceeding. This decision had a considerable impact upon the estate planning world.

It has long been the law that IRA or other retirement accounts, as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(C) are exempt from the reach of a bankruptcy trustee. In the Clark decision, the Court was called upon to decide whether funds contained an inherited Individual Retirement Account (“IRA”) qualify as retirement funds “within the meaning of the bankruptcy exemption”. The Court found that an inherited IRA does not qualify for the bankruptcy exemption. In making its decision, the Court identified three independent characteristics which differentiate an IRA from an inherited IRA. Unlike traditional IRAs or Roth IRAs, where one can make an additional contribution to the IRA, the owner/beneficiary of an inherited IRA may never invest additional money in the account. Secondly, an individual owner of an inherited IRA is required to make mandatory required distributions from the account annually beginning in the year after the deceased owner’s death, based upon the life expectancy of the individual who has inherited the IRA account. This is in direct contrast to the owner of a traditional IRA who must withdraw funds without penalty only when he or she is close to retirement age, i.e. age 59 ½. Thirdly, the Court noted that one who has inherited an IRA account may withdraw the entire balance at any time and for any purpose without penalty. The owner of a traditional IRA or other retirement account will pay a ten percent (10%) penalty, subject to some very narrow exceptions, if he withdraws prior to age 59 ½. For these reasons, the Court held that an inherited IRA may not benefit from the protection afforded to the owner or participant in a traditional retirement account.

Interestingly, in New Jersey, however, it has been determined that an inherited IRA constitutes a “qualifying trust” under N.J.S.A. 25:2-1(b) and as such will be excluded from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate. In Re: Andolino, 525B.R.588. The New Jersey Bankruptcy Court found that the language of the New Jersey Statutes exempts the inherited IRA from the bankrupt’s estate. In that regard, N.J.S.A. § 25:2-1(b) provides that “any property held in a qualifying trust and any distributions from a qualifying trust, regardless of the distribution plan elected for the qualified trust, shall be exempt from all claims of creditors and shall be excluded from the estate in bankruptcy”. Id. A “qualifying trust” refers to a trust “created or qualified and maintained pursuant to Federal law, including but not limited to § 408 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Bankruptcy Court in New Jersey noted that the IRA’s “status as a qualifying trust remains unchanged, notwithstanding the debtor’s receipt of the IRA as a beneficiary”. Andolino supra, at 591.