Annual Gift Tax Exclusion for 2022 Increases to $16,000.00

Due to surging inflation, the  Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that the annual exclusion for 2022 will be $16,000, up from the current $15,000. 

The rate of inflation hit a 31-year high in October.  Shortly thereafter, the IRS announced adjustments to certain inflation-indexed tax provisions for returns filed in 2023.

The inflation adjustments for tax years 2021 and 2022 inform taxpayers what they might expect going forward. In the event that inflation isn’t temporary, the adjustment determinations now will be all the more important come tax time in 2023. The other changes follow:

New standard deduction, tax brackets, gift tax and EITC

• The standard deduction rises to $25,100 for married couples filing jointly in their 2022 returns. That’s a $300 increase. It rises to $25,900 for 2023 returns, an $800 rise.

• For single filers and married individuals filing separately, the standard deduction in 2021 returns climbs to $12,550, a $150 increase. The following year, the deduction increases to $12,950, a $400 increase.

• The income levels applying to each tax bracket are increasing up and down the income scale. For example, in 2021 returns, the top 37% rate applies to individuals making $523,600, or $628,300 for married couples filing jointly. In 2022 returns, the richest households face the top rate for incomes above $539,900 or $647,850 for married couples filing jointly.

• The annual exclusion on the gift tax rises for the first time in several years. From 2018 to 2021, $15,000 was the threshold before taxes applied on gifts, according to the IRS. It rises to $16,000 in 2022, with returns filed in 2023.

• The Earned Income Tax Credit, a credit for low- and moderate-income households, also increases. For example, the maximum credit for 2021 returns of qualifying households with three or more eligible children is $6,728. The following year, households with three or more kids will receive $6,935, the IRS said. The American Rescue Plan passed in March expanded the EITC’s rules, qualifications and potential payouts, particularly for workers without children.

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.

Annual Exclusion Gifts Are Counted When Determining Medicaid Eligibility

Many people believe that if they give away an amount equal to the annual gift tax exclusion – currently $14,000 to any one individual – this gift will be exempted from Medicaid’s five-year look-back at transfers that could trigger a waiting period for benefits.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

The gift tax exclusion is an IRS rule.  Any person who gives away $14,000 (in 2014) or less to any one individual does not have to report the gift or gifts to the IRS.  If you give away more than $14,000 to any one person (other than your spouse), you will have to file a gift tax return.  However, this does not necessarily mean you’ll pay a gift tax.  You’ll only have to pay a tax if your reportable gifts total more than $5.34 million (2014 figure) during your lifetime. 

This IRS rule has nothing to do with Medicaid’s asset transfer rules. While the $14,000 that you gave to your grandchild this year will be exempt from any gift tax, Medicaid will still count it as a transfer that could make you ineligible for nursing home benefits for a certain amount of time should you apply for them within the next five years.  You may be able to argue that the gift was not made to qualify you for Medicaid, but proving that is an uphill battle.   

If there is a chance you will need Medicaid coverage of long-term care in the foreseeable future, see your elder law attorney before starting a gifting plan. 

Six Questions to Ask Before Making Gifts

Many seniors consider transferring assets for estate and long-term care planning purposes, or just to help out children and grandchildren. Gifts and transfers to a planning trust often make a lot of sense. They can save money in taxes and long-term care expenditures, and they can help out family members in need and serve as expressions of love and caring.

But some gifts can cause problems, for both the generous donor and the recipient. 

Following are a few questions to ask yourself before writing the check:

Why are you making the gift? Is it simply an expression of love on a birthday or big event, such as a graduation or wedding? Or is it for tax planning or long-term care planning purposes? If the latter, make sure that there's really a benefit to the transfer. If the value of your assets totals less than the estate tax threshold in your state, your estate will pay no tax in any case. For federal purposes the threshold is $5.34 million (in 2014). Gifts can also cause up to five years of ineligibility for Medicaid, which you may need to help pay long-term care costs.

You should also check with your own elder law attorney or financial planner to make sure that the objective you are seeking can be (or best be) attained through the gift.  For example, some gifts that lay persons believe will help either don't help, or in fact may worsen the situation.  A home is not a countable asset when applying for Medicaid, for example, meaning that the home and its value are protected for a spouse living in the home.

A gift of the home removes the home from protection for the community spouse, and causes what would have been an unnecessary spend-down of other assets.  Gifts with retained life estates, and gifts held for the benefit of, and used for the support of the senior may not accomplish the objective sought.   

Are you keeping enough money? If you're making small gifts, you might not need to worry about this question. But before making any large gifts, it makes sense to do some budgeting to make sure that you will not run short of funds for your basic needs, activities you enjoy -- whether that's traveling, taking courses or going out to eat -- and emergencies such as the need for care for yourself or to assist someone in financial trouble.

Is it really a gift (part one)? Are you expecting the money to be paid back or for the recipient to perform some task for you? In either case, make sure that the beneficiary of your generosity is on the same page as you. The best way to do this is in writing, with a promissory note in the case of a loan or an agreement if you have an expectation that certain tasks will be performed.

Is it really a gift (part two)? Another way a gift may not really be a gift is if you expect the recipient to hold the funds for you (or for someone else, such as a disabled child) or to let you live in or use a house that you have transferred. These are gifts with strings attached, at least in theory. But if you don't use a trust or, in the case of real estate, a life estate, legally there are no strings attached. Your expectations may not pan out if the recipient doesn't do what you want or runs into circumstances -- bankruptcy, a lawsuit, divorce, illness -- that no one anticipated. If the idea is to make the gifts with strings attached, it's best to attach those strings legally through a trust or life estate.

Is the gift good for the recipient? If the recipient has special needs, the funds could make him or her ineligible for various public benefits, such as Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income or subsidized housing. If you make many gifts to the same person, you may help create a dependency that interferes with the recipient learning to stand on his own two feet. If the recipient has issues with drugs or alcohol, he may use the gifted funds to further the habit. You may need to permit the individual to hit bottom in order to learn to live on his own (i.e., don't be an "enabler").

Do you understand the tax consequences of the gift?  Sometimes there are adverse tax consequences in making a gift.  The most commonly misunderstood of these is the loss of the step-in basis of appreciated property to the fair market value on the date of death.  This -step-up in basis means, in essence, that your heirs can sell your assets in which you have capital gains without incurring a capital gains tax.  Donors can sometimes overlook this benefit.   At a minimum, a short conversation with an elder law attorney or tax professional will make clear the consequences and the options available to best accomplish your objectives. 

If after you've answered all of these questions, you still want to make a gift, please go ahead. Unless the gift is for a nominal amount, however, it is advisable to check with your attorney to make sure you are aware of the Medicaid, tax and other possible implications of your generosity.

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.