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.

One-Third of Nursing Home Residents Injured or Killed In Treatment

Photograph by:
 Chalmers Butterfield

A federal study has found that about one-third of nursing home residents receiving skilled care were harmed by the treatment in the facility. The  study, conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (IG), is entitled, “Adverse Events in Skilled Nursing Facilities: National Incidence among Medicare Beneficiaries.” "Adverse events" reported include medical errors and more general substandard care that results in patient or resident harm, such as infections caused by the use of contaminated equipment.   A “skilled nursing” facility (SNF) provides specialized care and rehabilitation services to patients following a hospital stay of three days or more. There are more than 15,000 skilled nursing facilities nationwide, and about 90 percent of them are also certified as nursing homes, which provide longer-term care.

According to the study, an estimated 22 percent of residents experienced at least one adverse event that resulted in a prolonged stay, transfer back to a hospital, permanent harm, a life-sustaining intervention, or death. An additional 11 percent experienced temporary harm while in the nursing home. Physician reviewers determined that 59 percent of these adverse events and temporary harm events were clearly or likely preventable. 

Projected nationally, the study estimated that 21,777 patients were harmed and 1,538 died due to substandard skilled nursing care during one month, August 2011, the month for which records were sampled.  These projections suggest that as many as 261,324 patients are harmed, and 18,456 patients killed, annually, from skilled nursing facility care and treatment.

Veterans and Their Families Missing Benefit Opportunities

According to the most recent VA demographic report, there is an estimated U.S. veterans population of over 21 million, with approximately 2 million being WWII veterans. Of the total population, approximately 322,000 of these veterans are receiving VA non-service connected pension benefits. The number of surviving spouses receiving pension benefits is roughly 318,000. These statistics begged Karen McIntyre, President Veterans Information Services, Inc., to ask, "Why so Few?"

She recently wrote in the Veterans Information Services, Inc., newsletter, Veterans Family Matters that:

Non-service connected pension benefits are a needs based VA benefit for war time veterans and their surviving dependents. These benefits have absolutely nothing to do with an injury, condition, or death related to military service. Even though these benefits are needs based, the veteran or dependent does not have to be poor to receive them, because medical expenses such as Medicare and insurance premiums, prescriptions, full costs of assisted living, doctor and hospital co-pays, etc. are used to offset income and assets. 

Although some veterans and surviving spouses are obviously not eligible due to their financial situation or non-wartime service there is a huge number who are eligible, but do not know it. Unfortunately, the ability for our veterans and their families to get financial assistance for medical care has been a well kept secret that is just now being "let out of the bag". 

A single veteran, who served 90 days active duty with even one day during a qualified war time, may be eligible for up to $1,758.00 per month to help pay for home care, assisted living, nursing home care, and other medical necessities. A married veteran may be eligible for up to $2,085.00 per month, a surviving spouse for up to $1,130.00 per month, and a veteran married to a veteran for up to $2,790.00 per month. None of this money affects Social Security or other sources of income and ALL is tax free to the claimant.

Sadly, many vets and their families are unaware of these benefits.

Others incorrectly assume that they are ineligible, or relying upon shoddy assessments and/or poor advice, believe that there is nothing that they can do to become eligible for these benefits.  Others confuse the standards for eligibility with those for Medicaid. Eligibility planning for veterans benefits is very different than planning for Medicaid eligibility, and there are, as a result, a wider array of opportunities to qualify for these benefits.

If you know a veteran, pass this information along.  At a minimum, we owe those who served, and the families that sacrificed for and with them, an obligation to ensure that they receive what is promised to them. 

 

MyRA?

President Obama announced a new retirement savings program for people who do not currently have an employer-sponsored plan during his 2014 State of the Union message. The new investment product, called myRA, is a starter savings account aimed at low- and middle- income workers.

Similar to a Roth IRA, the myRA accounts will allow workers to invest money after tax and withdraw the money in retirement tax-free. Unlike a Roth IRA, however, the savings will be backed up by U.S. Treasury bonds, so investors will have a safer investment alternative designed never to risk the principal investment. The accounts, which are voluntary, will be available to married couples with modified adjusted gross incomes up to $191,000 and to individuals earning up to $129,000.

Workers can open a myRA with a minimal initial $25 investment. The plans are funded through paycheck deductions with contributions as small as $5 at a time. Savers will earn variable interest on the accounts, and there are no fees on the account. Principal contributed to the account can be withdrawn without penalty at any time.  There will be a penalty, however, for withdrawing the earnings i.e., interest, from the account before age 59 1/2. 

Once an account holder has accumulated $15,000, the account holder must roll the account into a traditional Roth IRA, which will then be subject those rules. In addition, the accounts last only 30 years, so at the end of that time the funds must be rolled into a traditional Roth IRA, even if the $15,000 maximum limit has not been reached.  It is unclear whether an account holder can open a new account after a period of time in order to avoid contributions being rolled up, and subject to traditional Roth IRA withdrawal rules.  

Employees who switch jobs will be able to keep their myRA accounts without cashing them out. Workers would also be able to contribute to the same account from multiple part-time jobs. The new accounts will initially be offered through a pilot program with employers who choose to participate and should be available at the end of the year.

Critics contend that the myRA initiative will do little to address the retirement savings gap because enrollment will not be automatic and contributions will be invested only in low-return Treasuries.  The requirements that the myRA rolls up into a traditional Roth IRA at either the $15,000 limitation or upon thirty years is at best going to create confusion.  At worst it will cause account participants to mistake the flexibility and ease of the accounts prior to roll-up in planning, and fail to carefully consider the more cumbersome rules governing Roth IRA distributions after roll-up.  Unexpected tax consequences may follow.

"Qualified" distributions from a Roth IRA are not included in gross income for individual tax purposes. That is deceivingly simple: a "qualified" distribution from a Roth IRA is tax-free, i.e., no taxes due on the principal, and no taxes due on the earnings.

The reason that "simple" is deceiving is the rules that define a qualified distribution.  To be qualified, the distribution MUST be:

• Made on or after the date you become age 59 1/2; OR
• Made to your beneficiary, or to your estate, after you die; OR
• Made to you after you become disabled within the definition of the IRS code; OR
• Used to pay for qualified first-time homebuyer expenses.

But,  even if one of the qualifications above are met, the distribution is STILL not qualified if it is made within a five-tax-year period. Complicating matters further is that tax-years are NOT necessarily the same as five calendar years.

So, in effect, there are two sets of rules that must be met before a Roth IRA distribution becomes qualified, and therefore tax-free: The distribution rules and the five-tax-year rules. Unless both sets of rules are met, the distribution will NOT be qualified, and the earnings will be subject to tax, and possibly penalties.

The direct investment in treasuries may be a safer alternative for many investors, and it will benefit the treasury by encouraging direct investment.  But, is the myRA an example of the government giving with one hand only to take with the other?  Perhaps, only time will tell. 

For the press release detailing the new myRA account, click here.

Appealing Medicare Refusal to Cover Care

Sometimes Medicare will decide that a particular treatment or service is not covered and will deny a beneficiary's claim. Many of these decisions are highly subjective and involve determining, for example, what is "medically and reasonably necessary" or what constitutes "custodial care." If a beneficiary disagrees with a decision, there are reconsideration and appeals procedures within the Medicare program.

While the federal government makes the rules about Medicare, the day-to-day administration and operation of the Medicare program are handled by private insurance companies that have contracted with the government. In the case of Medicare Part A, these insurers are called "intermediaries," and in the case of Medicare Part B they are referred to as "carriers." In addition, the government contracts with committees of physicians -- quality improvement organizations (QIOs) -- to decide the appropriateness of care received by most Medicare beneficiaries who are inpatients in hospitals.

For more, click here to travel to my newsletter article!