Estate Tax Planning for 2026 Tax Changes: Modest Estates At Risk?

You can watch the video in the article frame by pressing the play button,

or you can open the video in a separate window for a better viewing experience

The estate tax is a tax on the value of a person’s assets and property at the time of their death. Upon your death, if the total value of your estate is above a certain threshold amount, known as the federal estate tax exemption, the IRS requires your estate to pay the tax before any assets can be passed to your beneficiaries. Under current law, every year this exemption rises with inflation, but in any given year, politicians can change the amount of your coupon.  Worse, the exemption amounts currently in place sunset or expire beginning in 2026.  

In 2024, the federal estate tax exemption is $13.61 million for individuals ($27.22 million for married couples). Simply put, if you die in 2024, and your assets are worth $13.61 million or less, your estate won't owe any federal estate tax. If, however, your estate is worth more than $13.61 million, every dollar more than that will be taxed at a whopping 40% tax rate.

The current $13.61 million estate tax exemption is set to expire on Jan. 1, 2026, and return to its previous level of $5 million, which when adjusted for inflation is expected to be around $7 million.  Of course, we can't know whether Congress will step-in before to change the law, and we can't know if that change will be helpful or harmful to your current estate plan.  

Additionally, there are some inherent variables in your estate plan, in addition to the tax variables.  We don't know (1) when you will die, (2)  how much money you’ll have when you die, (3)  what the estate tax exemption will be when you die, and as importantly (4) how long,  legally or medically, you will be able to plan for yourself or change your estate plan. That’s why it’s so important to work with an attorney who will develop a long-lasting relationship with you and have processes in place to ensure that you are updated when the law changes and put strategies in place to protect your family, regardless of the amount of the estate tax exemption or the value of your assets.

In addition, the state you live in can also have an estate tax, separate and apart from the federal government’s estate tax. Fortunately, both states in which most of my clients reside, Ohio and Missouri, have neither an estate nor inheritance tax. Illinois, a state in which I am admitted to practice, but in which I no longer practice, is one of seventeen states that have an estate or inheritance tax. In Illinois, any amount of your estate over $4 million will be taxed at a graduated rate that goes as high as 16% based upon the 2024 tax rates. Eleven states, and the District of Columbia, have an estate tax, while five states have an inheritance tax, where they tax people who live in their state when they receive an inheritance. Currently, Maryland is the only state in the nation that has both an estate tax and an inheritance tax.

By using various estate planning strategies, you can reduce — or even eliminate all together — your estate tax liability. Some of the strategies are simple, but the more money you have, the more complex they’ll need to become, for example by using irrevocable trusts. Regardless of the method you employ, without question, these strategies can save your family from a massive tax bill, and are therefore well worth it the time and expense necessary to design, draft, and implement them.  I discussed many of these strategies in my previous article, Looking Ahead to 2026- Estate Tax Exemption Sunset and Current Planning Opportunities.

If you’d like to learn more, or need to get a plan in place to save your family from a major tax burden, give us a call. 

Looking Ahead to 2026- Estate Tax Exemption Sunset and Current Planning Opportunities

The estate and gift tax exemption amounts will decrease at the end of 2025. Decreasing the exemption amounts is tantamount to an increase in the tax because more people are impacted by the existing tax. Currently, an individual can make transfers by gift during life, and bequests at death, up to an aggregate of $12.92 million, with that amount increasing to $13.44 million in 2024, without incurring gift or federal estate tax. Similarly, the federal Generation Skipping Tax (GST) exemption is currently $12.92 million, increasing to $13.44 million in 2024. 

On January 1, 2026, these amounts are scheduled to “sunset” and revert back to the 2017 amount of $5 million, adjusted for inflation. Although the time frame for sunsetting may be extended depending on political and economic factors, it would be prudent for people with larger estates to take advantage of the opportunities available now by utilizing the exemption amounts in excess of the projected 2026 exemption amounts, in case the exemptions are reduced as scheduled in 2026 (or possibly changed before then).

In light of the looming reduction of estate and gift tax exemption amounts, consider some of the following opportunities:

• Complete gifts now to use available exemptions, particularly GST tax exemption for gifts into a long-term dynasty trust. In light of the pending decrease of the estate, gift and GST tax exemption amounts and taking into consideration the proposed effective dates, it may make sense for those individuals who have exemptions available to make gifts prior to year-end 2023, and before the uncertainties inherent in election year 2024.
• In connection with making gifts in 2023, giving a fractional interest in the property (such as an interest in an LLC or real estate) may prove beneficial as the value for gift tax purposes may be reduced by certain discounts, such as a discount for lack of control and/or lack of marketability.
• Consider a spousal lifetime access trust (SLAT) to take advantage of the current high gift and GST exemptions, while retaining some access to the trust assets at the spousal level.
• Consider giving to an irrevocable “grantor trust” that includes a power to reimburse the grantor for income taxes paid. A “grantor trust” means the grantor, not the trust, is treated as the owner for income tax purposes. The grantor pays all income taxes attributable to the trust income, which allows the trust assets to grow without reduction for income taxes. Grantor trusts can be drafted to permit a trustee to reimburse the grantor for income taxes paid; however, until recently it was an open question whether such a power in a California grantor trust would cause negative estate tax consequences to the grantor. This is because prior announcements from the IRS stated that a power to reimburse a grantor for income taxes paid does not cause inclusion of the trust in the grantor’s estate if certain requirements are met, including that applicable state law must not subject the trust assets to the claims of a settlor’s creditors. Effective January 1, 2023, the California Probate Code clarifies that a trustee’s power to reimburse the grantor for income taxes paid does not create a beneficial interest that would allow the settlor’s creditors to reach trust assets.
• For those who are charitably inclined, consider charitable planning such as charitable remainder unitrusts (CRUTs) and charitable lead annuity trusts (CLATs).
• For individuals and families who do not have a significant amount of estate and gift tax exemption available but wish to reduce their overall estate, consider a sale to a trust in exchange for a promissory note. If structured properly, since the transaction is a sale, it will not be treated as a taxable gift, and the assets sold to the trust will be excluded from the estate of the grantor/contributor. The note becomes the replacement asset of grantor/contributor, effectively transferring the appreciation on the asset to the trust.
• If you own Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS), consider gifts to one or more irrevocable trusts to take advantage of substantial exclusions from federal income tax on capital gains. Gifts of QSBS continue to be eligible for the exclusion on gain, and the transferor’s five-year holding period “tacks” to the transferee. The gifted shares to irrevocable trusts that are appropriately structured will be eligible for a separate exclusion (up to the limitation amount) in addition to the exclusion that continues to be available for eligible shares retained by the transferor.
• For individuals who have used their lifetime gift exemption but still have unused GST exemption, consider a late allocation of your remaining GST exemption amount to an existing GST non-exempt trust you have previously created. Alternatively, consider setting up a new two-year grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT) before the end of 2023 so you can apply your unused GST exemption to the GRAT remainder interest prior to January 1, 2026.

The foregoing is solely for illustration purposes. You should reach out to your legal advisor before undertaking any tax or estate planning to determine if it is appropriate for your situation.

New Tax Credit Planning Opportunities for Individuals and Families

Beyond the general planning opportunities previously discussed, individuals and families should be aware of certain new tax planning opportunities. In June, the Department of the Treasury and IRS released guidance on Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 6418, which provides taxpayers a new way to monetize certain energy tax credits. The guidance included proposed regulations relating to the transferability of tax credits under IRC Section 6418. Specifically, Section 6418 allows for the sale of tax credits solely for cash to unrelated taxpayers, and such payment does not constitute taxable income to the transferor (and is not deductible by the transferee). Prior to the enactment of Section 6418, investors typically accessed renewable energy tax credits by investing in so-called “tax equity” partnerships—which were only workable for more sophisticated investors due to the costs and qualifications under such partnership arrangements. Now, with the new rules, monetization of renewable energy tax credits has been made more accessible to a broader range of investors, including partners of a partnership and individuals. Unfortunately, limitations exist. For one, the “passive activity” limitations, applying to individuals, trusts and estates (but not corporations), make such transferees subject to IRC Section 469, only allowing them to utilize purchased tax credits against tax liabilities associated with passive income generated from other sources.  Additional information can be found here.

IRS Targets on Wealthy Taxpayers

In September, the IRS announced it is focusing on high-income earners to “identify sophisticated schemes to avoid taxes.” Bolstered by its funding from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 (P.L. 117-169) and equipped with artificial intelligence and machine-learning technologies, the IRS employed three key initiatives. The first “High Wealth, High Balance Due Taxpayer Field Initiative,” committed dozens of revenue officers to focus on taxpayers with total positive income above $1 million and more than $250,000 in recognized tax debt. The second bolstered IRS compliance efforts related to ongoing discrepancies on the balance sheets of partnerships with over $10 million in assets. The third program focuses on monitoring returns for partnerships with greater than $10 billion in assets.

Summary

The IRS is committed to increasing collection of tax revenue, and federal and state governments are more likely to to increase rather than decrease taxes. Advanced planning to avoid taxation makes sense.  It is best to plan now than discover that you have lost planning opportunities, and incurred unnecessary and avoidable tax liability.  

Liberal Magazine Fires Shot Across the Bow of Cruise Ship Roth IRA

A Roth IRA is an individual retirement account (IRA) that allows qualified withdrawals on a tax-free basis provided certain conditions are satisfied. Established in 1997, it was named after William Roth, a former Delaware Senator.  Roth IRA's are popular investment choices for Americans.

Roth IRAs are similar to traditional IRAs, the biggest distinction between the two being how they are taxed. Roth IRAs are funded with after-tax dollars; the contributions are not tax-deductible. Once you start withdrawing funds, the money is tax-free. Conversely, traditional IRA deposits are generally made with pretax dollars; you usually get a tax deduction on your contribution and pay income tax when you withdraw the money from the account during retirement.

Many people use Roths because account holders don't have to start taking distributions at age 70½ as they do with traditional IRAs. The money can sit untouched and grow tax-free throughout the owner's lifetime—a big plus for those who don't need the assets to live on. And while those who inherit any type of IRA must start taking distributions immediately, they are permitted to stretch out those payments, allowing the bulk of a Roth account to continue growing tax-free.

This and other key differences make Roth IRAs a better choice than traditional IRAs for some retirement savers. They are, at the same time, increasingly unpopular among those who champion government intervention to alleviate wealth disparity.  I have warned investors to consider seriously possible future changes to the laws governing Roth IRA's before investing, and particularly before implementing IRA conversions, i.e., liquidating a traditional IRA, and paying the taxes on the investment, in order to convert the investment to a Roth IRA that permits future tax-free withdrawals of both principal and income. See, "Roth IRAs Dim as Inheritance Vehicles- Beware the Rush to Covert."

Mother Jones Magazine (MJ) recently published an article critical of the government continuing to "support" wealthy individuals in an effort to avoid taxation using Roth IRA's. The article may be the first in a coming onslaught of attacks against the investment option, and may be a bell weather indicating reform. 

Although the article often reads more like a partisan platform or political screed (the article is openly published under the MJ "Politics" section), language choice, narrative, and hyperbole aside, the article explores the uses and misuses of the Roth IRA, particularly as a tool of the ultra-wealthy: 

"For many working Americans, a Roth IRA is a useful, if not particularly interesting, way to save money for retirement. For tech billionaire Peter Thiel, it was a way to accumulate more than $5 billion. The nonprofit journalism shop ProPublica ran an exposé in June revealing how a small number of extremely wealthy folks had ended up with Roths—federally subsidized retirement accounts meant for middle-class savers—worth tens to hundreds of millions of dollars and up. Thiel did so, the article noted, by “stuffing” his Roth IRA with wildly undervalued “founders shares” of pre-IPO startups—potentially an illegal tactic—and then watching as their values rose exponentially, and completely tax-free.

The story prompted congressional leaders to request data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, which reported that, as of 2019, more than 28,000 Americans held combined (Roth and traditional) IRA balances of $5 million or more, and 497 taxpayers had balances of at least $25 million. The latter group had socked away a combined $77 billion in their IRAs—on average, more than $150 million each. 'IRAs were designed to provide retirement security to middle-class families, not allow the super wealthy to avoid paying taxes,' Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) lamented in a press release.  

But it turns out IRAs are only the tip of the iceberg. The bigger problem, according to Steve Rosenthal, a tax attorney and senior fellow at Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, is that, thanks to a series of bipartisan bills Congress has passed over the past quarter-century, the government spends a fortune subsidizing a whole range of retirement plans whose benefits flow overwhelmingly to America’s most affluent. 'It’s unbelievable the amounts of dollars at stake, and how tilted they are to the high end,' Rosenthal told me. 'It’s just staggering.'"

The author acknowledges that reform of the Roth IRA is not likely or particularly popular, right now:

“'The wealth defense industry—the lawyers, accountants, and wealth managers to the super-rich—are paid millions to sequester trillions, stretching the limits of the law and sometimes writing the law themselves,' says Chuck Collins, director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies and author, most recently, of a book titled The Wealth Hoarders. 'They have fracked every corner of the tax code, especially tax-advantaged retirement programs, to extract benefits for their wealthy clients.'"

The article concludes with a contributing source explaining possible reforms and illustrating the lack of receptiveness there is for reform in Congress: 

"'To prevent stuffing and other kinds of self-dealing, [Steve Rosenthal, a tax attorney and senior fellow at Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center] continues, Congress should just forbid people from holding non–publicly traded assets—like shares of a pre-IPO startup—in an IRA. Lawmakers also could enact a combined asset limit that covers all types of tax-advantaged retirement plans—as first proposed by the Obama administration. They also could strengthen nondiscrimination rules or consider shoring up Social Security—which appears to be in trouble—instead of further enriching the families who need the least help in their old age. “Congress will struggle to solve the problem they created,' Rosenthal told me in an email. 'But the longer they wait, the harder it will be.'

He’s not holding his breath. In July, when the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing titled 'Building on Bipartisan Retirement Legislation: How Can Congress Help?,' Rosenthal and University of Chicago professor Daniel Hemel submitted a statement for the record, but most of the professionals present at the hearing were part of what he calls the retirement-industrial complex: 'The benefits community, the practitioners, the retirement service industry—they testified. Nobody was invited to testify who says the emperor has no clothes.'"

MJ, despite is controversies, and mis-fires, has often been at or near the forefront of a once controversial position moving mainstream.  MJ was, for example, among the first to overtly connect Former President Trump to the alt-Right, although it's effort was roundly criticized, from the Left because its article portrayed a neo-nazi in a "positive" light.   

More importantly, the past few years have demonstrated just how quickly change is possible.  Roth IRA's, like all investment options, should be considered carefully. 

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.  

No "Claw-back" of Large Gifts Made Prior to 2025

For transfer tax purposes, the IRS has released guidance confirming that taxpayers can make large gifts from 2018-2025 (when the expanded $11.4 million-per person transfer tax exemption is in place) without fear of any kind of “clawback” if the client dies in a later year, when the exemption is lower.   This means that taxpayers can use the entire $22.8 million per-married-couple transfer tax exemption between 2019 and 2025 without any fear that they will be subject to transfer tax liability for those gifts in later years.

The 2017 tax act doubled the basic exclusion amount (essentially, the amount that can be transferred free of estate, gift, or generation-skipping transfer taxes) from $5 million to $10 million for transfers made after 2017 and before 2026.  The exclusion amounts are adjusted for inflation and assets exceeding the exclusion amount are subject to up to a 40% estate and gift tax rate. For 2018, the inflation adjusted exclusion amount is $11.18 million and in 2019, it is $11.4 million.The exclusion amount is, however, set to revert to $5 million after 2025. 

Priya Prakash Royal, author of the Bloomberg Estate Tax Blog, correctly observed:

Of course, Congress can change the law at any time and the 2017 tax act is a political hotbed. Many taxpayers will probably wait until late in 2025 to make any drastic decisions on gifting their entire exclusion amount. However, advisers should keep their clients aware of the possible changes that could be made if the House and the Senate are both controlled by the Democrats – especially if the Democrats take over the Presidency in 2020 or 2024. This may hasten the need for clients to take advantage of the increased basic exclusion amount.

Account Transcripts Can Function As Estate Tax Closing Letters

On Jan. 6, the IRS announced that executors, probate courts, state tax departments, and others who rely on estate tax closing letters for confirmation that the IRS has closed its examination of an estate tax return can rely on an account transcript issued by the IRS in place of an estate tax closing letter (Notice 2017-12).

An estate tax closing letter confirms that the IRS has accepted the estate tax return, either as filed or after an IRS adjustment that the estate has agreed to, and the receipt of the letter generally indicates that the estate tax return examination has been closed.

The IRS had issued a closing letter for every estate tax return filed, except for those returns filed only for the purpose of electing portability under Sec. 2010(c)(5)(A) when the portability election was denied. However, since June 1, 2015, the IRS has issued estate tax closing letters only when the estate requests one, and that request must be made at least four months after the estate tax return is filed. Estates and authorized representatives can request an estate tax closing letter by calling the IRS at 866-699-4083.

Because it no longer automatically issues an estate tax closing letter, the IRS has announced that an account transcript can substitute for a closing letter (and is available at no charge). Data in an account transcript include the return-received date, payment history, refund history, penalties and interest assessed, balance due, and the date the examination was closed. According to the IRS if an account transcript includes a transaction code 421 and the explanation "Closed examination of tax return," this means that the Service has closed its examination of the return, and this account transcript can serve as the functional equivalent of an estate tax closing letter.

Estates and their authorized representatives can request an account transcript by filing Form 4506-T, Request for Transcript of Tax Return. The IRS's online Transcript Delivery Service is not available for this purpose; Forms 4506-T must be mailed or faxed to the IRS. The AICPA Trust, Estate & Gift Tax Technical Resource Panel continues to discuss the issue of the unavailability of online estate tax return account transcripts with the IRS.

The IRS's notice comes almost one year after Troy Lewis, CPA, then the chair of the AICPA Tax Executive Committee, sent a letter on behalf of the AICPA to the IRS requesting that the Service formally announce its policy regarding estate tax closing letters and that the IRS consider providing closing letters (and not just account transcripts) through its Transcript Delivery Service (the letter is available at www.aicpa.org). The AICPA also requested the IRS revise Form 706, U.S. Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return, to add a box to check to request a closing letter, or allow estates to request a closing letter by adding a handwritten request on top of the first page of the Form 706 or attaching a closing letter request to the Form 706 when it is filed.

- See more here. 

Art Collector's Estate Claims Attorney's Drafting Error Cost It $25 Million

The estate of a prominent art collector has sued the attorney who drafted the art collector's will for legal malpractice. The lawsuit, filed in the New York Supreme Court, claims the attorney's error will cost the estate $25 million in taxes.

Collector Robert Ellsworth, whom The New York Times once called “the king of Ming” for his renowned collection of Asian art, hired attorney George Bischof to draft his will. In 2010, Bischof drafted a will that left Ellsworth's estate outright to his friend, Masahiro Hashiguchi, with six charities as contingent beneficiaries. In 2013, Ellsworth changed his will to name Bischof as the sole trustee of a residuary trust. Under the new will, the residue of the estate was left to a discretionary trust that benefited Hashiguchi during his life and then the remainder of the trust was left to charity.

The lawsuit alleges that Bischof drafted the will in a manner that did not allow the trust to qualify as a charitable remainder trust and therefore meet the criteria for the federal estate tax charitable deduction. According to the lawsuit, because of the "negligently and carelessly" drafted trust, the estate will have to pay $25 million in estate taxes that it wouldn't have had to pay if the trust had been properly drafted.

For more about this case from artnet, click here. 

Roth IRAs Dim as Inheritance Vehicles- Beware the Rush to Covert

Roth IRA's may sound like a great idea for passing wealth to family members—the funds essentially can grow tax-free over your lifetime and theirs. But, before you rush to convert all or part of a traditional retirement account to a Roth for your loved ones, take a long hard look.

Roth conversions- account holders converting a traditional IRA to a Roth, ostensibly in order to capture the benefit s of tax-free, rather than tax deferred growth, often rely upon a common supporting "story" that requires estate taxes (quite avoidable with good planning), high income taxes on the IRA at death (also for which good planning can make a difference), and healthy returns on the Roth investment to pay the investor back for taxes paid making the conversion(which are sometimes unrealistic, especially over time). It is not uncommon for consumers to believe that their traditional IRA's will suffer extraordinary taxes upon death, 50-75% in many cases! While unquestionably those with large IRA's and estates exceeding five million dollars may witness such excessive tax consequence (federal estate tax, state estate tax, federal income tax, state income tax), the reality for most taxpayers is, fortunately, less severe.

Roth IRAs are not always a good way to pass wealth. Whether such a conversion makes sense depends heavily on tax rates—of both the account owner and heirs—and whether lawmakers approve proposed rule changes that could eliminate some of the estate-planning perks of Roths.

Many people use Roths for bequests because account holders don't have to start taking distributions at age 70½ as they do with traditional IRAs. The money can sit untouched and grow tax-free throughout the owner's lifetime—a big plus for those who don't need the assets to live on. And while those who inherit any type of IRA must start taking distributions immediately, they are permitted to stretch out those payments over their lifetime, allowing the bulk of a Roth account to continue growing tax-free.

Two proposals in President Obama's 2015 budget, if approved, would change all that.

The first would require Roth owners to start taking distributions at age 70½. If that happens the Roth IRA would typically be rendered bereft of value by the time an account holder could leave the asset to an heir.

Number of Estate Tax Returns Has Plummeted Since 2003

The IRS has just released an analysis of estate tax returns filed by wealthy decedents in recent years.  The analysis spans the years 2003 to 2012, during which time the estate tax filing threshold gradually rose from $1 million to $5.12 million.

Not surprisingly, the number of estate tax returns declined 87 percent, from about 73,100 in 2003 to about 9,400 in 2012, primarily due to the incremental increase in the filing threshold.  The total net estate tax receipts fell from $20.8 billion in 2003 to $8.5 billion in 2012.  The total for 2011 was only $3 billion; the estates of those dying in 2010 had a choice of paying the estate tax or accepting a limited step-up in the cost basis of inherited assets.

Looking at the number of estate tax returns filed as a percentage of the adult population (ages 18 and over), the top five states were the District of Columbia, Connecticut, Florida, California, and New York.

Stock and real estate made up about half of all estate tax decedents’ asset holdings in 2012.

Estate tax decedents with total assets of $20 million or more held a greater share of their portfolio in stocks (about 40 percent) and lesser shares in real estate and retirement assets than decedents in other total asset categories.

For an IRS brief on its findings, click here.

For detailed statistics on estate tax filings from 1995 to 2012, click here.

Crummey Powers Targeted by 2015 Budget Proposal

President Obama's proposed budget for fiscal year 2015 includes several important tax changes, some  of which would, if adopted, impact many estate, financial, and business succession plans.  Most of the proposals that appear in each year’s budget proposal never make it into law, or even into the following year’s budget proposal.  It is worth noting the proposals, however, because they represent what the President would sign into law if unbridled by the legislative process,  and what might end up as potential bargaining chips in the legislative process.  

The latest budget proposal includes the elimination of Crummey powers in estate planning   under the misleading title, “Simplify Gift Tax Exclusion for Annual Gifts.” Crummey powers are currently drafted in a trust in order to allow a gift to the trust to qualify for the annual gift tax exclusion. By granting the beneficiary of the trust the right for a limited period of time to withdraw the gift, the Crummey powers give the beneficiary a “present interest” in the gifted property, allowing the gift to qualify for the annual exclusion.  Without the Crummey powers, the gifts would be considered incomplete or future gifts, meaning that the gifts would be taxable. Crummey powers are named for the Ninth Circuit decision in Crummey v. Comm’r, 397 F.2d 82 (9th Cir. 1968), which approved and explained the use of this tool to satisfy the present interest requirement for gifts.

Currently individuals can gift up to $14,000 a year per donee without reporting the gift for gift  tax purposes.  Under current law, everyone can each transfer up to $5.34 million tax-free during life or at death without incurring a tax of up to 40% on the gifts. That figure is called the basic exclusion amount and is adjusted for inflation. In addition, widows and widowers may be able to add any unused exclusion of the spouse who died most recently to their own, thus permitting them together to transfer up to $10.68 million tax-free.

The annual gift tax exclusion, however, does not apply to gifts to a trust unless the donor gives the beneficiaries Crummey powers.  Crummey powers are central to many estate planning trusts.  Crummey powers are used by wealthy donors, for example, to create trusts for multiple beneficiaries and gift large amounts of money to the trust tax-free.  By drafting a trust with a large number of beneficiaries, some of which will never exercise their withdrawal power or ultimately receive a distribution from the trust, each additional donee means  more property can be transferred using the annual exclusion.

But, the technique is also used by not-so-wealthy individuals to protect life insurance benefits from taxation.  The planning technique is particularly effective and commonly used in irrevocable life insurance trusts that utilize annual exclusion gifts to fund large insurance premiums on the life of the grantor.  These trusts, while also common in wealthy estates, are also popular in more modest estates where the risk of estate taxes is particularly unacceptable, such as for family farmers, or family business owners.  These insurance trusts often provide taxpayers the best opportunity to leverage their annual exclusion, and can be a key part of ensuring necessary liquidity for an estate.

The new proposal would eliminate the present interest requirement and Crummey powers altogether. Instead, there would be a new category of transfers that would allow a donor to give an additional annual maximum of $50,000 within this category and qualify for the gift tax exclusion. The new category would include transfers in trust and transfers to other entities that normally do not qualify as a transfer of a present interest. This means, however, that if the donor gave more than $50,000, the gift would be taxable, even if the total gifts to individual donees did not exceed $14,000.  It also means that existing wealth transfer trusts, such as irrevocable life insurance trusts, that currently require or intend a total annual contribution or gift in excess of $50,000, would begin to eat into the current  lifetime exclusion. 

The proposal explains the administration’s justification for the change:

"The IRS’s concern has been that Crummey powers could be given to multiple discretionary beneficiaries, most of whom would never receive a distribution from the trust, and thereby inappropriately exclude from gift tax a large total amount of contributions to the trust. (For example, a power could be given to each beneficiary of a discretionary trust for the grantor’s descendants and friendly accommodation parties in the hope that the accommodation parties will not exercise their Crummey powers.)  The IRS has sought (unsuccessfully) to limit the number of available Crummey powers by requiring each powerholder to have some meaningful vested economic interest in the trust over which the power extends. See Estate of Cristofani v. Comm’r, 97 T.C. 74 (1991); Kohlsaat v. Comm’r, 73 TCM 2732 (1997).”

The IRS has attempted for some time to challenge the broad use of Crummey powers by arguing that each beneficiary must have a reasonable chance or expectation of receiving the property held in the Crummey trust.  The Tax Court has repeatedly rejected this argument, holding that the legal right to withdraw funds creates the present interest, thus upholding the right of taxpayers to employ such trusts. 

The Proposal also notes  the administrative costs to the taxpayers who utilize this planning technique and the costs to the IRS in enforcing the rule. Of course, by administrative costs to the taxpayer the  proposal means the legal and accounting fees taxpayers willingly pay in order to avoid what they consider to be an onerous additional tax on wealth transfer, wealth acquired only after paying taxes for an entire lifetime on income and realized gain, and the taxpayer expense in fighting the IRS as it has attempted to challenge otherwise court-approved Crummey powers.  By IRS costs in enforcing the rule, the proposal ostensibly includes the cost of the IRS’s protracted battle against taxpayers to limit Crummey powers, which would undoubtedly be saved.  

To read the Proposal, 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.   

American Taxpayer Relief Act Brings Estate Tax Relief

After some last minute political posturing, in the wee hours of January 1, 2013 the U.S. Senate passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act ("ATRA") by a margin of 89 to 8. The U.S. House of Representatives, after initially balking at the provisions of ATRA, which does not include any significant spending cuts, ended up passing the bill around 11 p.m. on January 1 by a margin of 257 to 167. Shortly after the House passed ATRA, President Obama made a public statement in support of it and then within 30 minutes was whisked away to his Hawaiian vacation home, where he signed the bill into law using an autopen on January 2, 2013.

Now that we have been delivered from the precipice of the so-called fiscal cliff, below is a summary of what ATRA means for American taxpayers in 2013 as well as some retroactive changes for 2012.

Initially, though, you will probably hear more about what ATRA did NOT change. The temporary reduction of the Social Security payroll tax that went into effect in 2011 and was extended for 2012 was not addressed by ATRA, so in 2013 the share of the Social Security payroll tax paid by workers will increase from 4.2% to 6.2% for employees and 10.4% to 12.4% for those who are self-employed.  This increase will likely result in actual take-home pay remaining the same for many taxpayers, despite wage increases for 2013. Since this is the most effect of ATRA that most taxpayers will realize, many taxpayers won't see ATRA as real "relief.'    

Estate Tax, Gift Tax and Generation Skipping Transfer Tax

ATRA makes the rules governing estate taxes, gift taxes and generation skipping transfer taxes that went into effect under the Tax Relief Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 ("TRUIRJCA") permanent for 2013 and beyond, with one exception - the maximum tax rate for each of these taxes is increased from 35% to 40%. Since TRUIRJCA unified the estate tax, gift tax and generation skipping transfer tax exemptions and provided for inflation indexing of these exemptions beginning in 2012, the 2013 exemption for each of these taxes is $5,250,000.

"Portability" of the Federal Estate Tax Exemption Becomes Permanent

 In addition, TRUIRJCA introduced the concept of portability of the estate tax exemption between married couples, and so ATRA has made portability permanent.In 2009 and prior years, married couples could pass on up to two times the federal estate tax exemption by including "AB Trusts" in their estate plan. TRA 2010 eliminated the need for "AB" Trust planning for federal estate taxes in 2011 and 2012 by allowing married couples to add any unused portion of the estate tax exemption of the first spouse to die to the surviving spouse's estate tax exemption, which is commonly referred to as "portability of the estate tax exemption."

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.