Family Conflict is Biggest Threat to Your Estate Plan

For the second consecutive year, family conflict is considered by professionals as the leading threat to estate planning. The three greatest threats to estate planning are family conflict, market volatility, and tax reform.  These conclusions represent the consensus of estate planning experts, at least according to a recent survey conducted by TD Wealth.

The survey included 105 respondents who attended the 53rd Annual Heckerling Institute on Estate Planning in January, including attorneys, trust officers, accountants, charitable giving professionals, insurance advisers, elder law specialists, wealth management professionals, educators and nonprofit advisers.  Nearly half of these estate planning experts identified family conflict as the biggest threat to estate planning in 2019. 

The survey explored the various causes of family conflict when engaging in estate planning, citing the designation of beneficiaries as the most common cause of conflict. Other leading factors included not communicating the plan with family members and working with blended families.

“Family dynamics have always played a critical role in estate planning. As we start to see more blended families, we expect these conversations to become even more prevalent and challenging,” said Ray Radigan, head of private trust at TD Wealth . “Estate planning comes with the responsibility of motivating families to communicate through difficult times, which requires regular dialogue and complete transparency. To minimize risk, we encourage families to invite everyone to the table to participate in open and honest conversation about their shared goals and objectives.”

Fortunately for Ohio residents, recent law changes make arbitration clauses in trusts more powerful, discouraging expensive and protracted contests.  Moreover, when combined with in terrorem ("no contest") clauses, a trust can be a powerful tool to eliminate the cost and expense of what may be unavoidable family conflict and disagreement.     

Market volatility was also identified  as a threat by respondents in 2019, with nearly a quarter of respondents identifying volatile markets as the biggest threat to estate planning this year. This was up from 12% in 2018.  According to Radigan, this is not surprising because many clients view lifetime gifting as an important component to their estate plan.

“These gifts, however, should only be made if enough assets are retained to provide support during retirement years,” Radigan said in a statement. “While market fluctuations are certainly worth watching and can cause concern for potential gift givers, we encourage our clients to keep a long-term view when investing and remember that short-term market movements are no match for a robust estate plan and a well-balanced portfolio.”

The sweeping tax overhaul enacted in 2017 is making a broad impact on estate planning, according to the survey.  Following the increase in the federal gift and estate tax exemption, estate planners are introducing various strategies to allow clients to take advantage of the exemption. About one-third of respondents propose clients consider creating trusts to protect assets, while 26% suggest clients plan to minimize future capital gains tax consequences and 21% agree to gift now while the exemption is high.

“Estate planners are now emphasizing the importance of creating trusts for the benefit of their loved ones so that assets can be protected from future claims,” Radigan said in a statement. “For example, rather than provide a child with an outright gift or bequest, many parents are creating trusts as a means of protecting assets from future divorce claims. Additionally, these trusts can be used to ultimately protect loved ones from themselves or other loved ones.”

Additionally, 40 percent of planners believe clients will continue to give the same amount to charities as they did in 2018, and 21 percent expect clients to donate more.  That is good news for charities, and welcome news to those who might be considering charitable giving since it means a consensus of planners agree that charitable giving can accomplish at least one objective in  an estate plan.  

Carryover Basis Complicates Planning / Settlement

I have been asked a lot of questions about the new carryover basis rules and what this means for someone who inherits property in 2010. Simply put, repeal of the federal estate tax that has taken effect in 2010 means that the stepped up basis that the inheritor would have received in 2009 and prior years is officially gone.

The good news is, that for most smaller estates, the practical effect of the change is non-existent. Moderate and larger estates, however, will now find additional taxes, and complications.

A stepped up basis means that the recipient of an inherited asset gets to increase the income tax basis of the asset to its date of death fair market value, which in turn is the basis used for calculating capital gains taxes when the inherited asset is sold. But not so now - instead for deaths occurring in 2010 an heir will receive the decedent's original basis in the inherited asset, which can be adjusted by the executor or personal representative using the new modified carryover basis rules. The personal representative call allocate additional basis to the property received by the beneficiary, in order to reduce the capital gain.

In 2009 and years prior, for example, if a beneficiary inherited a house that cost the decedent $500,000 but

Tax Rules Change Treatment of Gains on Sale of Vacation or Second Home

If you have a vacation or second home, there was a change in the federal income tax law as part of the 2008 Housing Act about which you should be aware.   Most homeowners are familiar with the homesale exclusion, a provision of the tax code which excludes from taxable gain as much as $500,000 of gain if they meet certain conditions. The $500,000 exemption is the maximum exclusion for a married couple filing jointly; taxpayers filing individually get an exemption of up to $250,000. To be eligible for the full exclusion, a taxpayer must have owned the home, and lived in it as his or her principal residence-for at least two of the five years prior to the sale. Because of the "principal residence" requirement, vacation or second homes normally don't qualify for the exclusion. However, in what some saw as a loophole, the law permitted taxpayers to convert their second home to their principal residence, live in it for two years, sell it, and take the full $250,000/$500,000 exclusion available for principal residences, even though portions of their gains were attributable to periods when the property was used as a vacation or second home, not a principal residence.   The new law closes that "loophole" by requiring homeowners to pay taxes on gains made from the sale of a second home to reflect the portion of time the home was not used as a principal residence (e.g, vacation or rental property). The amount taxed will be based on the portion of the time during which the taxpayer owned the home that the house was used as a vacation home or rented out. The rest of the gain remains eligible for the up-to-$500,000 exclusion, as long as the two-out-of-five year usage and ownership tests are met. The new law in effect reduces the exclusion based on the ratio of years of use as a principal residence to the total time of ownership. For example, if a taxpayer owned a vacation home for ten years, but lived in it as a principal residence only for the final two years prior to sale, the maximum available exclusion would be reduced by four-fifths. Accordingly, a $400,000 gain on the sale that would be eligible for the full exclusion under pre-Act law would be reduced by four-fifths, to $80,000. The good news for current owners of second homes is that the new law is not retroactive. The tightening applies only to sales after 2008. Plus, any periods of personal or rental use before 2009 are ignored for purposes of the provision. The new law also does not change the rule that allows homeowners to take advantage of the homesale exclusion every two years. Taxpayers can still move from one home to the other with full tax exclusion if they only own one home at a time. Moreover, the taxpayer still qualifies for capital gain treatment on the amount of gain that cannot be excluded. The tax planning opportunity available to you between now and December 31, 2008, is that if you convert your second residence into your primary residence before January 1, 2009, you will completely avoid the rule above.  You would then have up to three years to sell your old primary residence to claim the full home sale exclusion on the old primary residence. Then two years after the sale of the old primary residence you can sell the second home/ now primary residence and again claim the full home sale exclusion. The decision to move your primary residence involves more than just savings taxes on a later sale. Your primary residence has other income, property and estate tax implications, estate planning and asset protection planning implications, and financial implications that should be fully understood prior to making such an important decision.  Consult an elderlaw  attorney and accountant or tax professional as soon as possible, though; one cannot just "flip a switch" to covert a second home to a primary residence.