Questions to Ask Before Serving as Trustee

Being asked to serve as the trustee of the trust of a family member is a great honor. It means that the family member trusts your judgment and is willing to put the welfare of the beneficiary or beneficiaries in your hands. 

But being a trustee is also a great responsibility. You need to accept your responsibility fully informed and with your eyes wide open. Here are six questions to ask before saying "yes":

• May I read the trust? The trust document is your instruction manual. It tells you what you should do with the funds or other property you will be entrusted to manage. Make sure you read it and understand it. Ask the drafting attorney any questions you may have.

• What are the goals of the grantor (the person creating the trust)? Unfortunately, many trusts say little or nothing about their purpose. They give the trustee considerable discretion about how to spend trust funds with little or no guidance. Often the trusts say that the trustee may distribute principal for the benefit of the surviving spouse or children for their "health, education, maintenance and support." Is this a limitation, meaning you can't pay for a yacht (despite arguments from the son that he needs it for his mental health)? Or is it a mandate that you pay to support the surviving spouse even if he could work and it means depleting the funds before they pass to the next generation? How are you to balance the needs of current and future beneficiaries? It is important that you ask the grantor while you can. It may even be useful if the trust’s creator can put her intentions in writing in the form of a letter or memorandum addressed to you.

• How much help will I receive? As trustee, will you be on your own or working with a co-trustee? If working with one or more co-trustees, how will you divide up the duties? If the co-trustee is a professional or an institution, such as a bank or trust company, will it take responsibility for investments, accounting and tax issues, and simply consult with you on questions about distributions? If you do not have a professional co-trustee, can you hire attorneys, accountants and investment advisors as needed to make sure you operate the trust properly?

• How long will my responsibilities last? Are you being asked to take this duty on until the youngest minor child reaches age 25, in other words for a clearly limited amount of time, or for an indefinite period that could last the rest of your life? In either case, under what terms can you resign? Do you name your successor, does the trust  or does someone else?

• What is my liability? Generally trustees are relieved of liability in the trust document unless they are grossly negligent or intentionally violate their responsibilities. In addition, professional trustees are generally held to a higher standard than family members or friends. What this means is that you won't be held liable if for instance you get professional help with the trust investments and the investments happen to drop in value. However, if you use your neighbor who is a financial planner as your adviser without checking to see if he has run afoul of the applicable licensing agencies, and he pockets the trust funds, you may be held liable. A well-respected Massachusetts attorney who served as trustee on many trusts used a friend as an investment adviser who put the trust funds in risky investments just before the 2008-2009 stock market crash. The attorney was held personally liable and suspended from the practice of law. So, be careful and read what the trust says in terms of relieving you of personal liability.

• Will I be compensated? Often family members and friends choose to serve as trustees without compensation. If the duties are especially demanding, however, it is appropriate for trustees to be paid for service. The question, then, is how much. Professionals generally charge an annual fee of 1 to 2 percent of assets in the trust. So, the annual fee for a trust holding $1 million would be $10,000. Institutions and professionals generally charge a higher percentage for  smaller trusts and a lower percentage for larger trusts. If you are performing all of the work for a trust, including investments, distributions and accounting, it would be inappropriate to charge a similar fee. If, however, you are paying others to perform these functions or are acting as co-trustee with a professional trustee, charging this much may be seen as inappropriate. A typical fee in such a case is a quarter of what the professional trustee charges, or .25 percent (often referred to by financial professionals as 25 basis points). In any case, it's important for you to read what the trust says about trustee compensation and discuss the issue with the grantor.

If after getting answers to all these questions you feel comfortable serving as trustee, you should accept the role. It is an honor to be asked and you will provide a great service to the grantor and beneficiaries.

For a list of things to do after being appointed a trustee, click here.

For more on the different kinds of trusts, click here.

President Obama's 2014 Budget Includes Troubling Changes Affecting Estate Planning

The celebration following the federal government's increase in the estate tax exemption to $5.25 million is, perhaps, destined to be short lived.  President Obama’s proposed budget plan for 2014 came out on April 10, and proposes substantial changes to the estate and income tax code.  These changes would mean real changes in estate planning. 

According to the budget plan, the federal estate tax rate will increase from 40 to 45 percent. The individual exemption equivalent will be reduced from $5.25 million to $3.5 million, and it will not adjust upward over time to keep pace with inflation. This means that as time goes on and inflation increases, people will surpass the exemption mark due to appreciation in the value of their estate, and be subject to federal estate taxes. Further, these changes are proposed  as "permanent changes" meaning that they will not sunset or lapse in time.  

The lifetime gifting exemption equivalent is also affected, since the gift and estate taxes use a unified exemption.  The maximum amount that a person can leave his or her family in combined taxable lifetime gifts and inheritance is thus reduced from $5.25 million, which increases with inflation, to a non-adjusting maximum of $3.5 million.

Limiting Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts

More surprising and substantive changes are proposed for sophisticated estate plans. A GRAT (grantor retained annuity trust) is a tax-reducing trust popular for giving assets to family members while retaining an income benefit for some defined period of time.  The grantor puts his or her assets into the trust and receives  an annuity which pays a fixed amount each year. Gift tax is paid when the GRAT is created and the tax is based upon the present value of the remainder of the trust, meaning that the value of the gift, for gift tax purposes is substantially less than the actual fair market value of the assets.  One of the real challenges in such planning is that if the grantor dies before the trust ends, the assets become part of the grantor's taxable estate,and the purpose for the trust, reducing estate taxes, is frustrated.. If the grantor survives the term of the trust, any assets left to the beneficiary — usually the grantor’s children — are tax free. GRATs have typically been short-term trusts to make it more likely that the grantor survives beyond the term of the trust.

The proposed budget will require a minimum trust term of ten (10)  years for all GRATS. This defined longer term makes it more likely that the grantor may die during the trust’s existence, and increases the chances that the trust does nothing to reduce the value of the taxable estate. If death of the grantor occurs within the ten year term, the trust is taxed as part of estate, effectively losing nearly half its value to federal estate taxes.  The proposed budget, therefore, limits greatly the attractiveness of  GRATS as an estate planning option.

Eliminating Intentionally Defective Grantor Trusts

The proposed budget also effectively eliminates intentionally defective grantor trusts (IDGT).  An IDGT  is used to freeze the value of appreciating assets for tax purposes. This strategy allows the grantor to be the owner of the assets for income tax purposes but it removes the value of the assets from the grantor’s taxable estate. As the value of the trust increases, the transferor receives the income earned by the assets (and pays tax on the income) but the assets grow outside of the transferor’s estate.

Under proposed budget:, there would be no separation in the tax codes for this trust. Estate or gift tax would have to be paid on the trust at the time of the owner’s death. This would make the IDGT obsolete.

Signalling a Change?

Perhaps the most significant change reflected in the proposed budget is that the federal government has, once again, returned to a  lack of appreciation for the benefits of certainty and stability in estate and business planning.  Among the reasons that many celebrated the recent changes to the estate tax code (recent being changes adopted at the last minute, less than six months ago), is that the inflation adjustment and portability provisions signaled, to some,  an appreciation for long-term stability and certainty.  It appeared to some that having resolved the estate tax exemption amount, and having adjusted it automatically for inflation over time,  the federal government was, in effect, acknowledging the need for stability and certainty, eschewing uncertainty, and detrimental periodic and last minute legislative changes.  

Of course, perhaps the proposed budget is really the "same as it ever was."  

This article is based in large part on an article by Phoebe Venable, entitled "Obama's Budget Plan would Hit Estate Plans Hard," published May 11, 2013, in the Tennessean, and available online here.   

Ohio Repeals Estate Tax

It is now official: Ohio officially abolished its estate tax when Republican Governor John Kasich signed the state budget today (June 30, 2011).  The estate tax provision of the new law does goes into effect on  January 1, 2013.

This cliffhanger is reminiscent of the federal estate tax law change that eliminated the federal estate tax for just one year in 2010. The federal estate tax came back Jan. 1, 2011, albeit with a generous individual exemption of $5 million. The Ohio estate tax repeal is intended to be permanent, once it becomes effective.  In other words, it does not "expire" or "sunset," and will remain the law unless changed by a future Ohio legislature and Governor.

“By repealing this suffocating tax, Gov. Kasich and the Ohio legislature have made their state stronger – and made it a model for the remaining 21 other states who continue to impose state estate or inheritance taxes, including three of Ohio’s neighbors: Indiana, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania,” says Dick Patten, president of the American Family Business Institute, a no-death-tax lobbying group.

For a map showing state estate taxes and rates for 2011, click here.

For the years 2011 and 2012, Ohio remains as one of 22 states that along with the District of Columbia currently have estate and/or inheritance taxes.  Among estate tax states, Ohio currently has the lowest exemption amount per estate, just $338,333, but the lowest top rate at 7%. 

Once the Ohio repeal becomes law, New Jersey will have the distinction of being the state with the lowest estate exemption at $675,000.

For more information on the efforts of other state legislatures to minimize estate taxes, click here.

Insurance Department Helps Locate Missing Life Insurance Policies

If you suspect a deceased loved one has a life insurance policy that you cannot locate, there is a service through the Ohio Department of Insurance that can assist in identifying and locating the policy.  The Ohio Department of Insurance’s missing life policy search service is a comprehensive search service that assists Ohio residents, and the families of deceased Ohio residents, in locating lost insurance policies purchased in the state. The search identifies the existence of any life insurance policies or annuity contracts purchased in Ohio and issued on the life of, or owned by, a deceased person.

Since its implementation in September of 2009, the missing life policy search service has had 682 valid search requests, and have matched 442 polices with their rightful owners.  “This is a great program that works for the consumers of Ohio to help them locate life insurance dollars to which they are entitled,” Ohio Lieutenant Governor and Department of Insurance Director Mary Taylor said in a release. “It’s great that Ohio’s life insurance companies are able to work together, along with the Ohio Department of Insurance, to perform this service. These numbers are amazing and we encourage Ohioans to continue to submit their search requests to the Department.”  

Executors, legal representatives, or members of the deceased person’s immediate family may file a search request with the Department.  To submit a request, visit www.insurance.ohio.gov   to print out the request form.  Have the form notarized, attach a copy of the certified death certificate, and mail it to the Department.

The Department forwards the search requests and supporting documentation to all Ohio-licensed life insurance companies within 25 business days of submission. If an insurance company has information about an in-force individual insurance policy on the life of the deceased person or an individual annuity contract where the deceased person is an annuitant, the insurer is required to take action to administer the policy and/or contract according to its terms.  If any money is to be paid to a beneficiary, the insurance company will contact the beneficiary directly. In this case, the company has 21 days to notify the consumer after contacting the Department.

Ohioans with questions about life insurance can call the Department's toll-free consumer hotline at 1-800-686-1526. A life insurance informational toolkit is also available on the Department's website at www.insurance.ohio.gov. The toolkit provides tip sheets, publications, and links to other helpful web sites.

Estate Tax Uncertaintly Continues

The most common question I have been asked as we start the year 2011, is whether the new tax law ends the uncertainty regarding estate taxes.  Unfortunately, despite the new law reducing the federal estate tax, uncertainty continues as a planning variable. 

For most of the year 2010, we expected 2011 to usher in a fifty-five percent (55%)  federal estate tax on all assets over one million dollars. Toward the end of 2010, President Obama signed legislation reducing this exorbitantly high death tax to thirty-five percent (35%) on assets exceeding five million dollars in value.  However, the reduction only applies for the years 2011 and 2012.

If you plan on dying in the next two years, you are probably relieved. If you plan on living well past 2012, uncertainty regarding the marginal rate and exemption amount remains.   Unless changes are made to the law,  the estate tax rate for 2013 will revert to fifty five percent (55%), with only a one million exemption amount.

When planning, although we hope for the best, we must plan for the worst.  The worst case planning scenario, then, would assume that you survive until January 1, 2013, at which time you pass and realize a fifty-five percent (55%) tax on all assets (including the value of life insurance payable as a consequence of your death), in excess of one million dollars in value. 

So, here are my rules of thumb (my thumb, my rules :-)).   I generally recommend that my clients consider setting up an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT) for all life insurance policies over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) and consider setting up a Bypass or Credit Shelter Trust for all marital estates that exceed one million dollars. A fifty-five percent (55%) tax means a substantial loss of wealth, and a substantially reduced inheritance.  Most people will want to plan to reduce that tax burden as much as possible. 

As the estate laws change, I will continue to update you so that you may better serve your clients and protect yourself and your family.

Doctors Avoid End-of-life Counseling with Patients

According to researchers publishing a report in the journal Cancer, most doctors don't talk about end-of-life issues with their cancer patients when those patients are feeling well. Nor do they talk about them until treatments have been exhausted. Those delays might mean patients are unable able to make truly informed choices early in their treatment.

The study, published online, by Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, and colleagues, surveyed 4,188 physicians about how they would talk to a hypothetical cancer patient with four to six months to live. A majority of respondents (65%) said they would discuss prognosis, but only a minority said they would discuss do-not-resuscitate status (44%), hospice (26%) or preferred site of death (21%) at that time. Rather, they would wait until symptoms were present or until there were no more treatments to offer. An abstract and the full text of the study are available here.

Current guidelines, from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, a not-for-profit alliance of 21 of the world's leading cancer centers, say that such conversations should be initiated whenever a patient has been given less than a year to live, if not at diagnosis.  The survey suggests that these guidelines are not being observed in practice.

The survey did not ask physicians to explain their answers, but the researchers offered several possibilities.

Strange Suit Against Michael Jackson's Estate

After reading that a taxpayer had sued the Michael Jackson estate to recover money spent for his memorial, I suspected that there would be other cases.  Of course, a quick google search revealed an interesting case, reported by TMZ.   TMZ reported last week that "[a] woman who claims to have spent 2,000 hours analyzing the extended family of Michael Jackson -- including children, birth mother(s), sperm donor claims ... and on and on ... wants more than $2 million from Michael Jackson's estate." 


According to TMZ, "Claire McMillan says she's a 'homeschool expert' who did 'a thorough analysis' of Jackson's complete extended family, to determine ... well, it's not clear why she was doing it.  Whatever ... she concluded that Katherine Jackson is doing 'a poor job outside of the home, related to - grooming, age, and psyc (sic) appropriate activities, same-sex, academic & soc interactions w/ non-extended family children .... ' oh, what's the use? It makes no sense." 

TMZ reports that McMillan claims she also inquired as to whether Dr. Arnold Klein would be interested in obtaining guardianship of the children with McMillan and her husband.  McMillan claims that her time is worth $1,000 an hour, and she wants $2,002,000 for her efforts.  Wow!

Howard Weitzman, lawyer for the Michael Jackson estate, reportedly told TMZ that, "[t]o the best of our knowledge, Ms. McMillan never did anything for the estate and the estate owes her nothing."  TMZ goes so far as to characterize the suit as a "Crazy Creditor's Claim."  No clarification if TMZ is saying the claim is crazy, the creditor is crazy, or both.

You can read more here.

Michael Jackson's Estate Sued Over Memorial

The Michael Jackson memorial in Los Angeles last July reportedly cost the cash-strapped city millions of dollars in police overtime and sanitation expenses, and now one  resident wants  Michael Jackson's family to pay the bill. According to the Associated Press, Jose F. Vallejo is seeking $3.3 million from Jackson’s estate.  The lawsuit, typically called a taxpayer's suit, is brought under a California law which permits taxpayers to sue in order to recover money on behalf of a governmental entity to which the taxpayer pays taxes. The taxpayer has requested that the money be deposited into the treasury for the City of Los Angeles.  Although the taxpayer typically does not benefit directly from the action, there are typically attorney fees which may have to be paid either by the defendant or the City, depending upon the outcome of the case.  The taxpayer benefits, at least theoretically, indirectly by reduced need for taxation.

Ohio, too, has a statute which permits taxpayer suits in certain cases. 

While the memorial cost the city millions, it also reportedly earned $4 million for the city’s hotels, restaurants