Category Archives: Uncategorized

Revocable Trusts lay the foundation for many an Estate Plan. They serve various functions, like avoiding probate, planning for incapacity, protecting beneficiaries, and providing continuity after death. Revocable Trusts provide the grantor with flexibility by giving the grantor the right to change the trust during their lifetime. Well-written trusts contain explicit instructions regarding the steps that the grantor needs to follow to amend, revoke, or change the trust. If a Revocable Trust lacks those specific instructions that can lead to questions regarding the grantor’s intent and ultimately, litigation, which benefits no one. Let’s look at a recent Michigan case, In re Gregory Hall Trust, No. 361528 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2023), that underscores the importance of clear instructions in the trust agreement.

Gregory Hall created a Revocable Trust that he subsequently amended and restated. The amendment and restatement indicated that his three children, Kenneth, Cheryl, and Michael, would split the residue of the trust after Gregory’s death. The amendment and restatement indicated that Gregory could amend the trust “by an instrument in writing delivered to the Trustee.” The trust provided no instruction regarding whether Gregory needed to sign the instrument or whether any other formalities typically required for trust amendment were necessary. A few years later, Gregory prepared a spreadsheet, the contents of which remain unknown. Several years after the amendment and restatement, but just weeks after preparing the spreadsheet, Gregory conveyed his home worth $500,000 to Kenneth. A few years later, Gregory created another spreadsheet reflecting the value of his overall estate, approximately $6 million, and reflecting conveyance of the home to Kenneth. After Gregory died, Kenneth argued that the house was a gift to him and that entitled him to 1/3 of the residue of the trust. Kenneth’s siblings indicated that the home was an advancement and argued for reduction of Kenneth’s 1/3 share of the residue by the value of the home.

After Gregory’s death, all three children became co-Trustees of the Trust. Cheryl and Michael petitioned the court for limited supervision of the Trust to resolve the advancement issue. Kenneth failed to cooperate during discovery and violated several of the court’s orders relating to discovery during the proceeding. Ultimately, the lower court found in favor of Cheryl and Michael and entered a default judgment against Kenneth as a discovery sanction. Kenneth appealed and the higher court affirmed the lower court’s decision. Kenneth’s egregious behavior concerning the documents and related electronically-stored information requested during discovery despite numerous reprimands from the lower court convinced the higher court of the correctness of the lower court’s decision. For those interested, here’s a link to the case detailing Kenneth’s bad acts: In re Gregory Hall Trust.

For purposes of this article, though, the discovery issue isn’t the most compelling part of this case. It’s that the lower court found that the second spreadsheet created by Gregory met the statutory definition of a contemporaneous writing as applied to trusts. The statute provides that an advancement includes property given by the testator during life if “the testator declared in a contemporaneous writing that the gift is in satisfaction of the devise or that its value is to be deducted from the value of the devise.” Based upon this statute, the court considered the transfer of the home an advancement rather than an intervivos gift. While the court never made an express finding that the spreadsheet was a declaration, their decision permits us to infer that the spreadsheet was a declaration for purposes of application of the statute. The court remained silent regarding the length of time between the amendment and restatement and creation of the second spreadsheet, but perhaps the first spreadsheet prepared just weeks before the transfer convinced the court that the second spreadsheet merely confirmed the contents of the first.

The court never disclosed whether Gregory’s Will or Revocable Trust contained language regarding an advancement but maybe it didn’t matter. Perhaps this case demonstrates the willingness of a court to apply statutes broadly to achieve the desired result in a matter. If nothing else, In re Gregory Hall Trust provides valuable lessons on the importance of clear instructions in the trust agreement regarding what constitutes an amendment, as well as how to effectuate such an amendment. Further, the trust agreement should have clear instructions regarding what constitutes an advancement. As In re Gregory Hall Trust demonstrates, these things are too important to leave to chance.

Organ donation saves lives, even as the donor loses theirs. April is National Donate Life Month. It’s designed to encourage people to register to be organ donors and to talk to their families about it. But few people outside of hospital staff see the process in action.

I’ve recently been spending a lot of time in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit of a local hospital. A friend had a heart attack, coded and was revived. This is heavy stuff, experiencing a life and death situation. Luckily my friend had done advance medical directives, estate planning and funeral planning. You definitely want to have all of those things in place when a medical crisis hits.

The Walk of Honor

While keeping vigil at the hospital, I noticed a crowd of nurses and other staffers lined up along the corridor in the ICU. What was going on?

One of the ICU patients who was not going to survive was about to be taken to have their organs harvested. The hospital personnel had gathered for a Walk of Honor. They were there to salute this person’s gift of life. I joined the silent crowd.

A team of what seemed like a dozen medical personnel wheeled the patient through the unit. The person’s ebbing life was still supported with multiple IV drips and a portable vital signs monitor. All eyes focused on the crowd moving this person to organ harvesting surgery. Silent tears welled in the eyes of many. I put my hand over my heart.

This hospital’s staff does this Walk of Honor salute with every patient who opts to donate their organs.

One Organ Donation Story

Connie Diamond received a life-saving liver transplant. During National Donate Life Month, she wanted to share her story through this letter she wrote to the family of the donor.

Dear Donor Family,

When I awoke in the intensive care unit after the transplant surgery, I remember the nurse asked me, “How do you feel?” I said, “I feel grateful,” and I cried tears of joy.

After numerous diagnostic tests, a team of transplant specialists placed me on the transplant list over a year ago. My liver deteriorated to end stage liver failure due to a non-alcoholic auto immune disease called Primary Biliary Cirrhosis. I had complications which resulted in several hospitalizations. Transplant was my only viable treatment, my only hope.

In May, I was given the green light by the transplant team to relocate to Arizona for several months to be readily available for an organ donor match. I flew out to Arizona immediately, by myself, packing a bag big enough to fill with hope, optimism, positivity, and determination. I lit prayer candles. I opened the window coverings so I could see the sunrise on a new day of hope for a donor liver. I kept my cellphone fully charged and placed it on my chest as I slept. I met some special people who had transplants and were recovering. They became my angels while I waited for “the call.”

I am a 70-year-old youthful grandma and proud adoptive, single mother of accomplished twin girls, now age 34: Lauren, a registered nurse, and Jennifer, an honor student in Chemical and Biological Engineering. I also have a precious granddaughter, Maggie, 9 years old, my swim buddy and joy of my life!

While I waited for an opportunity for a transplant, I prayed and maintained a positive attitude. I readied myself to be physically and mentally strong. A driving force that kept me holding on was my wish to be able to attend my daughter Lauren’s wedding in California. August 2, “the call” came and I knew the angels were circling. I made a miraculous recovery and was discharged in record time. Less than two weeks later, on September 10th, I walked my daughter down the aisle with her dad.

I count my blessings every day, and every day think of you and your loved one who gave me this gift of life. I once had a vibrant career and I was forced into retirement, but now I feel like I have more to do in this life, a bigger purpose, and I feel compelled to give back.

With every beat of my heart, I live in gratitude for this precious gift of life from a beautiful loving soul and family. May you have solace in knowing that your loved one’s organ saved my life.

Make Your Wishes Known

National Donate Life Month (NDLM) was established by Donate Life America and its partnering organizations in 2003. Observed in April each year, National Donate Life Month helps raise awareness about donation, encourage Americans to register as organ, eye and tissue donors, and to honor those that have saved lives through the gift of donation. 

If you decide to become an organ donor, talk to your loved ones about what it means to you to make this life-giving choice. They are going to be the ones who have the final say once you are terminal.

Married individuals may decide to create a joint trust to address their Estate Planning needs.  Joint trusts make sense in community property states (Illinois is not a community property state) because those states consider assets accumulated during the marriage as community assets and require that both spouses have equal management rights with respect to the community assets.  Joint trusts may provide benefits in separate property states as well by eliminating the need for separate trusts for each spouse.  In a typical joint trust, each spouse decides what will happen with their respective contributive share of trust assets upon their death.  They retain control of the assets during their life, just as they would were their assets in separate trusts.  A joint trust is nothing more than two separate trusts governed by one document instead of two.  Clients often prefer joint trusts because they have familiarity with joint property.  Typically, the trust has three property schedules, one for each grantor and one for their community or joint assets.

Spouses in second marriages find these trusts useful because they allow the survivor to have continuing access to assets or wealth that the couple accumulated together while maintaining some separateness thereby allowing the spouses to split whatever remains at the second death however they like.  Of course, joint trusts for second marriages require careful drafting and consideration.  For example, naming the surviving spouse as sole trustee after the death of the first spouse could cause issues.  If the surviving spouse fails to seek competent counsel upon the death of the first spouse, that only exacerbates the issue.  Unfortunately, sometimes a surviving spouse continues to view and use all the assets of the joint trust as their own because they had unrestricted access to the assets during the life of the now-deceased spouse.  Occasionally, the surviving spouse fails to realize that, as the Trustee, they have fiduciary duties to the remainder beneficiaries and a duty to follow the terms of the trust, even if against their self-interest.

A recent Michigan case, In re James M. Kurtz Protection Trust, Docket No 360605 2003 Westlaw 2618498 (Mich Ct App Mar 23, 2023) (unpublished), highlighted some of the issues that arise in a joint trust situation when the surviving spouse lacks competent counsel or fails to retain counsel altogether.  James and Barbara Kurtz created a joint trust naming their respective children from prior marriages as equal residuary beneficiaries after the death of both of them.  The joint trust contained provisions preventing revocation or amendment by the surviving spouse after the death of the first spouse.  The joint trust also gave the surviving spouse the right to withdraw principal.  After Barbara died, however, James purported to restate the joint trust.  He eliminated the children as beneficiaries and named his newly created “protection trust” as the sole residuary beneficiary.  In his capacity as trustee, James made distributions from the joint trust to himself and then used those assets to fund the protection trust.  James named one of his sons as the sole beneficiary of the protection trust.  James died and Barbara’s children initiated a lawsuit challenging James’ actions, including his restatement of the joint trust, his withdrawals from the joint trust, and the creation of the protection trust.  The lower court invalidated the restatement, the withdrawals, and creation of the protection trust.  James’ son appealed.

The appellate court considered both the provision prohibiting amendment of the joint trust as well as the provision allowing the surviving spouse the right to withdraw principal from the trust.  The court determined that one of the main purposes of the trust was to “ensure the children of one settlor would not be posthumously disinherited following the death of that settlor” which was exactly what James did.  By removing assets from the joint trust and putting them in the protection trust, James effectively disinherited Barbara’s children, which frustrated the goal of the joint trust.  The appeals court found that although James had the right to withdraw assets from the joint trust for his own use and benefit, the withdrawals that he made were not for that purpose.  The court determined that the withdrawals that James made were solely to fund the protection trust which was improper.  The court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s rulings with respect to the restatement of the joint trust and withdrawals therefrom.   The higher court indicated that James had the power to create the protection trust, but the terms of the joint trust prohibited unfettered access to the assets thereby preventing him from using joint trust assets to fund the protection trust.

The James case highlights some of the pitfalls that may trap the unwary practitioner with respect to joint trusts and provides several important lessons.  First, even though all the assets are in the joint trust at the first death, it’s important to retain counsel to review the terms of the trust and help guide the trustee through the administration of the joint trust after the death of the first spouse.  Second, it’s vital to follow the terms of the joint trust precisely in making distributions from the trust.  Third, the joint trust need not be irrevocable upon the first death, although the contributive share attributable to the decedent spouse should be irrevocable if protecting the plan is important.  If you want to discuss whether a joint trust is right for you or want to better understand the terms of your joint trust, reach out to discuss.

Each year the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) publishes its “Dirty Dozen” list of the most notorious tax scams from the year. The list alerts taxpayers and professionals alike of the most commonly used tax cons during the last year. The scams run the gamut from promoting taking incorrect credits to produce large refunds to misusing international accounts. Let’s dive in!

Perhaps unsurprisingly, five of the twelve scams making their way onto the Dirty Dozen focus on technology and information grabs. The first comes in the form of fake communications from individuals posing as employees of legitimate tax and financial organizations such as the IRS, state departments of revenue, or other similar organizations. Communications arrive in the form of a text, called “smishing” or an email called “phishing” and ask the taxpayer to provide personal information which allows the scammer to steal the identity of the taxpayer. The IRS always initiates contact through mail, not email or text. Tax professionals need to worry about the second of the Dirty Dozen: “spearphishing” which is a phishing attempt targeted at a specific organization. Tax professionals who have suffered a data breach find themselves at greater risk for spearfishing. A successful spearfishing attempt gives the scammer access to client data allowing the thief to file fraudulent tax returns, among other things.

The third on the list involves scammers who offer their services to create a profile for the taxpayer on IRS.gov and prepare tax returns. The online account gives access to valuable tax information about the taxpayer and requires no assistance for creation. The IRS encourages each individual taxpayer to establish their own account. Anyone with access to the account could misuse the information found in the account. Related to the fake online accounts are fake professional preparers who take the number four spot on the list. While many wonderful preparers exist, watch out for anyone who refuses to sign on the dotted line, who charges a fee based upon the amount of the refund, or who neglects to provide their IRS Preparer Tax Identification Number (“PTIN”). Taxpayers should only sign a completed return and should create an IRS account themselves.

Any list of fraudulent schemes would be incomplete without mentioning social media, which is the fifth and final of the technology-related scams. The IRS notes that social media sites circulate inaccurate and misleading information. Some of it relates to common tax documents like Form W-2, or other forms intended to be used by a small group of individuals. The schemes encourage folks to submit false, inaccurate information to secure a refund. The IRS warns that those things that sound too good to be true generally are.

Two separate tax credits make the Dirty Dozen list. The first or number six on the list relates to the Employee Retention Credit (“ERC”). Those promoting the scam encourage individuals who do not qualify for the credit to file for it anyway. The IRS has discovered radio and internet ads regarding the ERC. First, most people do not qualify for this credit and second, the scam gives ne’er-do-wells an opportunity to collect taxpayer information under the guise of a refund that the scammers know the taxpayers cannot receive. The other tax credit scam giving us number seven on the list relates to the fuel tax credit. Here again, the credit has limited application; however, unscrupulous return preparers and promoters entice taxpayers to claim the credit thereby receiving a larger refund. Unfortunately, the taxpayer doesn’t qualify for the refund and will be subject to interest and penalties once discovered. The IRS has indicated an increase in the promotion of filing for refundable credits.

Fraudulent “Offer in Compromise” (“OIC”) mills sit at number eight on the list. The IRS offers OIC to people unable to pay their tax liabilities as a way to settle their debt. They play an important role in our system and require that the taxpayers desiring to avail themselves of such settlement meet certain qualifications. Mills promoting the OIC mislead taxpayers into thinking that they have a valid OIC with the IRS when they do not which often costs the taxpayers thousands of dollars.

The IRS grouped together three separate schemes all with international implications under the “schemes with international elements” umbrella that resides in spot number nine. Of note, the first scheme under spot nine involves use of offshore accounts and digital assets. United States (U.S.) citizens should avoid placing their assets in other jurisdictions for the sole purpose of preventing the IRS from reaching their assets. The IRS has made identifying these accounts and assets a top priority for several years. The second scheme under spot nine involves U.S. taxpayers contributing to foreign individual retirement accounts to avoid payment of taxes. The taxpayer then improperly claims an exemption from U.S. income tax on gains, earnings, and distributions from the foreign account based on the tax treaty with the host country. Finally, the third scheme under spot nine is some U.S. business owners with foreign business interests claim deductions for amounts allegedly paid as “insurance” even though the arrangement lacks many of the attributes of legitimate insurance. The IRS plans to challenge the purported benefits obtained from these transactions and impose penalties. Rounding out the top ten, the IRS warns taxpayers of bogus tax avoidance strategies such as “micro-captive insurance arrangements” and “syndicated conservation easements.”

Bogus charities pose a tremendous issue, especially when a natural disaster or crisis strikes. Number eleven on the list relates to scammers that set up fake organizations to receive contributions from unsuspecting taxpayers. These scams are particularly egregious in nature because they take advantage of tragedy and people’s generosity. The individuals running the fake charities collect personal information and exploit the taxpayers further. Remember that charitable deductions count only if given to qualified tax-exempt entities recognized by the IRS when accompanied by contemporaneous written acknowledgment.

The last of the Dirty Dozen involves two separate schemes aimed at high-income taxpayers. The first involves the use of a Charitable Remainder Annuity Trust (“CRAT”). A CRAT often involves the transfer of appreciated property to the CRAT. When used incorrectly, taxpayers claim that the transfer to the CRAT provides a step-up in basis as if the property were sold. Promoters and advisors sell taxpayers on this and the subsequent elimination of ordinary income and/or capital gain on the later sale of appreciated property from the CRAT. This misapplies the rules under Internal Revenue Code Sections 72 and 664. In reality, when a CRAT sells appreciated assets, those gains flavor distributions to noncharitable beneficiaries of the CRAT. The second relates to monetized installment sales. With these transactions, scammers find taxpayers seeking to defer gains on the sale of appreciated property. For a fee they facilitate a purported monetized installment sale for the taxpayer. An intermediary purchases appreciated property from a seller in exchange for an installment note. The note typically provides for payments of interest only, with a balloon payment of principal at the end of the term. The seller receives most of the proceeds, but improperly delays the recognition of gain on the appreciated property until the final payment on the installment note, often years later.

The IRS encourages taxpayers to be wary, avoid sharing data, and to report fraudsters who promote these schemes as well as those who prepare improper returns. Taxpayers need to protect their sensitive information and exercise caution and common sense both during tax time and throughout the year. Some of the scams listed in this article have been around for a time while others are new to the list this year. The Dirty Dozen serves as a good reminder to protect confidential information and to stay safe out there.

When most folks think about Estate Planning, they focus on who gets what along with who distributes what. In some cases, clients consider their taxes, but that often occurs only when their estate will exceed the Applicable Exclusion Amount (currently $12.92 million in 2023). Comprehensive Estate Planning focuses on the foregoing but encompasses much more. The first part of this two-part series explored the various tax considerations and the impact of state law on Estate Planning. This second part will focus on the non-tax aspects of Estate Planning.

A Revocable Trusts creates the foundation for an Estate Plan by providing numerous benefits. Revocable Trusts allow the grantor of the trust to maintain control of their assets while alive and provide privacy after death. To understand how that works, it’s important to understand what happens in the absence of a Revocable Trust. Normally, a Will determines the distribution of your assets upon your death and allows you to select an individual or company to make the disbursements. Nearly everyone understands this aspect of Estate Planning. The Will also allows for nomination of a guardian to care for minor children. If you do not have a Will, then your state’s intestacy laws will govern distribution of your assets at your death. There’s no guarantee that the state’s distribution pattern matches yours. Further, state intestacy laws may appoint a stranger to handle these important tasks. Finally, a court proceeding will determine who will care for your minor children. Again, without your input, the court may select someone whom you would not want caring for your children. It’s easy to see how a Will or intestacy laws lack flexibility and fail to meet certain needs.

Regardless of whether you have a Will or your state’s intestacy laws determine property division and distribution of your assets upon your death, the individual in charge must petition the court for permission to transact the business of your estate through a probate proceeding. Depending upon the laws of your state, probate can be a lengthy, costly, and public process. If you want to avoid probate and maintain your privacy, a Revocable Trust serves as a Will substitute and provides the opportunity for you to do that. With a Trust, you transfer the assets to the Trust during your lifetime and manage them as the Trustee. You avoid probate altogether by using a Trust because the Trust doesn’t die, only the individual dies. The Trust contains provisions regarding what happens upon the individual’s death and vests a successor Trustee with the power to make distributions from the Trust without court oversight. The Trust also protects against incapacity by giving a successor Trustee the power to make distributions from the Trust for your benefit should you become incapacitated. Due to cases of fraud, institutions more readily recognize a successor Trustee acting on your behalf than an agent under your Property Power of Attorney. Thus, a Revocable Trust provides several great non-tax benefits to individuals desiring to have privacy and continuity in their Estate Plan.

In addition to the above benefits, using a Revocable Trust provides a way to protect your beneficiaries. Certain types of beneficiaries, for example, minors, those with special needs, or who have creditor issues require assistance in receiving and managing an inheritance. Consider the individual who plans to rely upon state intestacy laws for distribution of their estate. Those laws make no exceptions based on the type of beneficiary receiving the assets. This means that a minor, special needs beneficiary, or spendthrift could end up receiving funds outright. Outright distribution could have disastrous consequences for any special needs beneficiary by making them ineligible for the benefits that they were receiving. Outright distribution causes issues for a minor child by requiring a guardianship for such child to receive the assets. A spendthrift will squander any funds left outright. As mentioned above, the distribution pattern may or may not match your intended plan of distribution. Creating a comprehensive Estate Plan, consisting of a Revocable Trust, Will, Property Power of Attorney, Health Care Power of Attorney, Living Will, and a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Authorization avoids these consequences and gives the individual the ability to account for their own specific circumstances, be it a desire for privacy, protecting a particular beneficiary, or planning for incapacity.

Revocable Trusts also protect blended families. If either spouse has children from a prior marriage, establishing a trust allows that spouse to make distributions to those children on their death and/or create a trust for the surviving spouse that will be distributed to the children from the prior marriage upon the surviving spouse’s death. None of this is possible through the laws of intestacy. Finally, Revocable Trusts often contain provisions that help account for changes in circumstances through the inclusion of Trust Protector language. A Trust Protector may exercise certain powers to amend or change the Revocable Trust when the situation warrants it. For example, if tax consequences changed drastically and operating the trust as originally intended would be economically inefficient or cause undesired tax consequences, the Trust Protector can amend the Trust to provide a better result for the beneficiaries.

Estate Planning involves more than just who gets what when and who gives it to whom. It requires consideration of taxes applicable to an individual during life and to that individual’s estate at death. It also requires understanding the nature and character of assets in that individual’s estate as well as state law governing the title and disposition of assets. Finally, several non-tax considerations impact the shape of the plan as well. Privacy, continuity, and protection for certain beneficiaries, including those with special needs, minors, and spendthrifts all influence the plan. A comprehensive Estate Plan takes shape during life and grows and evolves as do your needs. I can help demystify these confusing concepts and guide you to a plan that accomplishes your goals in a tax-efficient manner.

When most folks think about Estate Planning, they focus on who gets what along with who distributes what. In cases in which an individual’s estate is not expected to exceed the Applicable Exclusion Amount, currently $12.92 million, taxes may simply be an afterthought. Comprehensive Estate Planning, though, encompasses much more than the foregoing. This is the first part in a two-part series that explores the various considerations, both tax and non-tax, for Estate Planning. When focusing on the tax aspects of Estate Planning, one considers the income, gift, and estate tax at both the federal and state level. At the federal level, we have a unified estate and gift tax system applicable to everyone. At the state level, taxes vary widely. Some states may impose estate, gift, inheritance, or income taxes. States diverge in the type of property they recognize and their property and sales tax rates as well, all of which should impact the planning undertaken.

If you live in a state that imposes an income tax, it’s important to understand what types of income your state taxes. Individuals at or nearing retirement prefer states that exclude Social Security benefits from taxation and that provide exemptions for other common forms of retirement income, such as private pensions or Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”). These states generally have lower property and sales taxes that allow their residents to make the most of every dollar, which has become increasingly important as interest rates and food costs continue to rise.

Eight states, including Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming do not impose a state income tax. This protects a resident’s income from diminishment because of state income tax liabilities. Of those eight states, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, and Wyoming impose neither an estate tax nor an inheritance tax. Nevada provides another advantage with a median property tax rate of just over $572 per $100,000 of home value. Unfortunately, Nevada has a combined state and local sales tax rate of 8.23%. Wyoming provides both a low combined state and local sales tax rate (5.22%) and a median property tax rate of $605 per $100,000 of home value.

Arizona, Alabama, Colorado, and South Carolina impose a state income tax, but none impose an estate or inheritance tax. Arizona, Alabama, and South Carolina all exempt Social Security benefits from state income taxes. Colorado exempts Social Security benefits from taxation at the state level if the retiree has attained the age of 65. South Carolina allows taxpayers aged 65 and over to exclude up to $10,000 of retirement income versus $3,000 for those under the age of 65. South Carolina also allows seniors to deduct $15,000 of other taxable income as well. Colorado’s combined state and local sales tax rate comes in at 7.77% and its median property tax rate is $505 per $100,000 of home value. South Carolina bests Colorado slightly with a combined state and local sales tax rate of 7.44% but has a slightly higher median property tax rate of $566 per $100,000 of home value. Alabama taxes IRA and 401(k) distributions but offsets that with a lower median property tax rate than nearly any other state in the nation at $406 per $100,000 of home value. Its average combined state and local sales tax rate is a bit high at 9.24%, but it allows anyone over the age of 65 to exempt the state portion of property taxes and allows lower-income residents an exemption from all property taxes on their principal residence.

Most states impose a tax on capital gains ranging between 2.9% in North Dakota to 13.3% in California. Alaska, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming do not tax capital gains. Of the states on the list that do not impose a tax on capital gains, New Hampshire stands alone in imposing a state income tax. Although it does not impose a state income tax, Washington recently passed legislation imposing a tax on capital gains at a rate of 7%. The legislation included a $250,000 standard deduction.

In addition to considering the potential estate, gift, inheritance, income, sales, and property taxes imposed by a state, individuals need to consider the types of ownership acknowledged in their state. For example, Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin all have community property. In addition, Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, South Dakota, and Tennessee allow their residents to elect into community property status for property held in a community property trust. In general terms, community property states consider the fruits of the labor of either spouse to belong to the community of their marriage, requiring equal access to the assets by both spouses. Community property provides a significant tax advantage by allowing a step-up in basis for all of the community property at the death of the first spouse, rather than just the decedent spouse’s assets, as would be the case in separate property or common law states. Community property states impose no restrictions on the distribution of the decedent spouse’s share of the community property, unlike separate property states.

While common law states do not permit residents to create community property, they provide other protections to a surviving spouse not found in community property states in the form of elective share rights. Typically, the surviving spouse may elect against the will of the predeceasing spouse to receive an intestate share of the estate. This amount depends upon many factors but often ends up around 1/3 of the “estate.” In some common law states, the spouse may elect against an augmented estate, which includes non-probate assets such as those found in a revocable trust. In other states, the survivor may only elect against the probate estate.

About one-half of the separate property states recognize “tenancy-by-the-entirety” or “TBE.” TBE requires unity of the interests of time, title, interest, possession, and marriage. Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and Oregon recognize TBE ownership for only real property. Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming all extend it to personal property as well. TBE property requires both spouses to encumber or sell the property and provides certain creditor protection if the creditor is only a creditor of one spouse. Understanding the protections and limitations of TBE ownership helps shape an estate plan in the separate property states that recognize that type of ownership.

As this article makes clear, Estate Planning involves more than just who gets what when and who gives it to whom. It requires consideration of taxes applicable to an individual during life and to that individual’s estate at death. It also requires understanding the nature and character of assets in that individual’s estate as well as state law governing the title and disposition of assets.

In an effort to make things easier for their loved ones, people sometimes enter into prepaid funeral contracts. The idea is that you pay for all of your own funeral and burial or cremation expenses in advance. When you pass away, your family notifies the service and the service handles everything.

When you enter into the contract you will have the opportunity to make specific choices with regard to the details of your funeral and burial or cremation. The service is legally compelled to deliver in accordance with the terms of the contract.

A Closer Look
This may sound like a simple solution on the surface. However, there are significant problems with these prepaid funeral contracts. For one thing, there are companies with unscrupulous intentions. These services are required by law to place payments into trusts or insurance policies. This doesn’t always happen. When the assets remain in hand, the people behind the service can abscond when the time is right.

Short of flat-out robbery, prepaid funeral services can take advantage of clients in other ways. Shortchanging would be one of them. For example, you could pay for a casket of a certain quality in advance. A far inferior product could ultimately be delivered. Or, you may pay for a certain number of limousines of a particular size. An entirely different assemblage of vehicles may arrive. Floral arrangements may come up short of the mark, and other shortcuts may be taken.

If you were to enter into a prepaid funeral contract in one area of the country and die elsewhere, you may ultimately receive nothing for your money. The contract could be tied to services provided by specific local entities.

Avoid the Middle Man
When you enter into a prepaid funeral contract you are paying someone to make arrangements that could be made directly. As a result, you are paying more for the actual products and services because the intermediary must make a profit. This is why prepaid funeral services exist. Because of the middle man you are overpaying from the start. You are also surrendering the opportunity to earn interest on the money that you have set aside for your final arrangements.

Viable Alternative
Instead of entering into a prepaid funeral contract, you could place adequate resources into a payable-on-death account. You name a trusted heir as the beneficiary. All of your heirs should be aware of this arrangement. After you pass away, the beneficiary assumes ownership of the resources in the account. Probate is not a factor, so the assets are immediately available to cover your final expenses. If you discuss your preferences with your beneficiary in advance, he or she will carry out your specific wishes when the time comes.

If you go this route there will be no surprises. Everything will go according to plan as you leave behind a turnkey, risk-free postmortem situation.

The Biden Administration recently released its budget proposals for 2024. Of the fourteen proposals listed, two could impact estate planning, if signed into law. This article will focus on the first such proposal which relates to distributions from an Individual Retirement Account (“IRA”). The Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) allows taxpayers under the age of 50 to contribute up to $6,500 to their IRAs in 2023. Taxpayers over the age of 50 may contribute an additional $1,000. The numbers adjust for inflation each year. If the taxpayer contributes excess funds to their IRA and does not withdraw the excess amount along with any income attributable thereto prior to the tax filing deadline, then such taxpayer would be subject to an annual excise tax. If the taxpayer contributes to a traditional IRA, then the taxpayer may contribute pre-tax dollars and would include distributions from the IRA in income when received. Taxpayers contributing to Roth IRAs do not report the distributions as income because contributions consist of post-tax dollars.

Under current law, distributions from traditional IRAs begin April 1 in the year after the taxpayer has attained age 73. At that time, the taxpayer needs to withdraw a Required Minimum Distribution (“RMD”) amount annually. Taxpayers and their advisors calculate RMDs based upon tables promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service that use life expectancy to determine the distribution factor. That factor is applied to the account balance as of December 31 of the prior year to produce the RMD for that year. When the taxpayer takes their RMD or otherwise withdraws funds from their IRA, they include those amounts in their income. For that reason, many taxpayers wait until they have reached age 73 to begin withdrawing funds from their IRAs thereby deferring income as long as possible and allowing the funds in the IRA to grow without generating income tax. Taxpayers with Roth IRAs may begin withdrawing penalty-free once they have attained age 59 ½ and have held the account for at least five years but Roth IRAs have no RMDs.

These rules do not consider the value of the IRA and depend solely upon the age of the participant as the trigger for distributions. One aspect of President Biden’s revenue proposals aims to change that. The proposal titled “Modify Rules Relating to Retirement Plans” will require any high-income taxpayer with an aggregate vested account balance under tax-favored retirement arrangements that exceeds $10 million as of the last day of the preceding calendar year to distribute a minimum of 50% of the excess amount. If the aggregate value exceeds $20 million, then the taxpayer needs to withdraw the lesser of the excess amount or the portion of the taxpayer’s aggregate vested account balance that is held in Roth IRA or designated Roth account. Thus, if a taxpayer had $15 million in their tax-favored accounts, then this proposal would require distribution of $2.5 million in addition to any RMD otherwise required.

Tax-favored arrangements include defined contribution plans, annuity contracts under Code Section 403(b), eligible deferred compensation plans under Code Section 457(b) maintained by a state, political subdivision thereof, or an agency or instrumentality of a state or political subdivision thereof, and IRAs. The proposal defines high income as modified adjusted gross income of $450,000 for married filing jointly, $425,000 for head of household, and $400,000 in all other cases, all adjusted for inflation. The taxpayer may choose which tax-favored retirement arrangement from which to withdraw the funds; however, if the taxpayer has funds in a Roth vehicle, those funds need to be distributed first. Distributions resulting from this proposal are in addition to amounts withdrawn as RMDs for any particular year but applies even if the taxpayer is not otherwise required to be taking RMDs. Failure to take this distribution subjects the taxpayer to the 25% excise tax on the portion not taken. Thankfully, the penalty on early distributions does not apply to these excess amounts. The taxpayers cannot use the funds for a rollover. The proposal requires plan administrators to report the vested account balance for all tax-favored retirement arrangements for high income taxpayers that exceeds $2.5 million, as adjusted for inflation. This proposal is for tax years beginning after December 31, 2023.

As mentioned above, the Biden Administration released another revenue proposal of interest to Estate Planning attorneys called “Improve Tax Administration for Trust and Decedents’ Estates.” While it’s interesting to review these proposals, it’s important to remember that they are just that:  proposals and have not yet become the law. It appears unlikely that Congress would enact these proposals given the current Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Of course, even if you aren’t concerned with application of these revenue proposals, it’s always a good time to talk me about your Estate Plan.

When you are thinking about your estate planning process, you will want to establish an estate plan that not only meets your needs but also makes the most sense for you based on your current stage of life. As you think about what you want your estate to entail, it’s likely that you have heard about both wills and trusts.

Wills and trusts are distinctly different legal documents, but if you think that wills and trusts have a lot in common, you are correct! There is a lot of overlap between the two. For instance, they both identify the people who will receive your assets in your absence, but the documents do so in their own ways.

As an example, one main difference between wills and trusts is when they take effect. Wills are not implemented until after you die, whereas a trust goes into effect immediately upon being signed and funded.

If you were to become incapacitated to the point that you are unable to make your own decisions, a will cannot step in to provide any recourse or plan in response to your new circumstances.

Even so, wills can allow you to do the following:

• Name guardians for your children and your pets.
• Designate where your assets will go once you are gone.
• Specify the details of your final arrangements.

Wills offer a beautiful simplicity to the estate planning process, but wait — there are drawbacks as well.

Keep these details in mind:

• Wills offer limited control over the distribution of your assets.
• In most cases, wills require some sort of probate process.
• Wills are public documents, so if there is any information you would prefer to keep private, consider opting for a trust instead.
• Trusts are more complicated than wills, but how do they differ? Trusts, in particular:

• Provide control regarding not only how your assets will be distributed but when they will be distributed as well.
• Are available in more than one form.
• Help you minimize the chances of going to probate if not evading it altogether.
• Come with private distribution of assets.

So you could say that trusts are more complicated to set up than wills are, but if avoiding probate is your goal, setting up a trust is wise.

Having it both ways

Is it possible to have it both ways? Can you draw up both a will and a trust? The answer is yes. While trusts are designed to establish what will happen to your assets, wills give you the opportunity to denote people to serve as guardians for your children, appoint a trustworthy executor for the management of your estate and define your final wishes.

Trusts also differ from wills because while trusts are primarily crafted for the sake of taking care of your estate after you have died, they can also be influential when you are still alive. Alternatively, wills are only put into effect posthumously. But what about how these documents can be contested?

For starters, wills are more likely to be challenged because they can become outdated. They can also be combatted with the claim that the will was made at a point in time when you were not fully of sound mind.

Another possibility is that wills could be contested under the assumption that they were created while you were under the influence of someone else. On the other hand, trusts are far less likely to be contested due to their lack of an expiration date.

Another detail that differentiates wills and trusts is that wills do not offer anyone protections from creditors nor do they come with tax benefits. Dissimilarly, an irrevocable trust is a type of trust that cannot be changed, and it serves the purpose of removing assets from your estate, meaning irrevocable trusts offer both protection from creditors and benefits in a financial sense.

Despite their numerous discrepancies, wills and trusts are both legal instruments that focus on making sure that your assets are allocated to your heirs and according to your wishes. Trusts require more paperwork to establish than wills do, and trusts are typically more expensive to prepare than wills.

Where should you go from here?

Establishing clear expectations and documenting them in written form will significantly benefit your loved ones in your absence. Both trusts and wills are avenues that you can make use of when outlining what you would like to have happen regarding your end-of-life wishes.

Ultimately, the main difference between wills and trusts has to do with the work involved with establishing them. For instance, wills are regarded as lower maintenance than trusts, as they are usually in need of updates every three to five years. On the other hand, trusts must be updated every time a major life event takes place, such as marriage or the birth of a child.

So what’s the takeaway here? As always, talk to me and to financial advisers who can assist you as you figure out which instruments are best for you and your situation. That way, with a personalized approach to your estate planning process, you can ensure that your long-term goals are met.

I remember the shock I felt in 2008 when I learned that my bank, Washington Mutual, collapsed after a 9-day bank run. Thankfully, J.P. Morgan Chase bought the banking subsidiaries and most depositors continued with the new bank as though nothing had happened. Fifteen years later, not one, but three, banks have failed in one week’s time. Leaders are working hard to differentiate the events of the last week from those in 2008, but similarities exist.

Trouble started when Silvergate, a California-based bank that loaned funds to cryptocurrency companies, announced that it would liquidate its assets and cease operations. Concern grew when a few days later the Federal Deposit Insurance Company (“FDIC”) took over Silicon Valley Bank, taking almost $175 billion in customer deposits under its control. A large number of uninsured deposits, many held by small businesses, only exacerbated that concern sending shockwaves through the banking industry over the weekend when banks are typically closed. That fear lead to a Sunday night announcement that yet another bank, Signature Bank, shuttered its doors. The Federal Reserve, Treasury, and FDIC gave a joint statement that “depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13” to calm investors and prevent panic from reverberating throughout the banking industry. If investors feared for the safety of their deposits in other banks and began to withdraw their money that could prompt a system-wide failure. The aggressive move of covering all deposits, even those that exceed the FDIC insured amount, means that the regulators have decided the risk to the banking system merits invoking an exception to the rule that the FDIC covers the failure by the least expensive means. The Deposit Insurance Fund will cover the funds not covered by the FDIC through the fees it collects from the banking industry.

Interesting, no doubt, but what does all of this have to do with Estate Planning? A great deal, it turns out. I have fielded many a question from a client regarding how much of their funds will be insured by the FDIC, especially when the plan involves one or more trusts. Last year, the FDIC issued updated rules regarding insured accounts designed to simplify the system.

Under the current rules, which remain in place until April 1, 2024, the FDIC insures deposits up to $250,000 per depositor, per ownership category, per institution. Assume that Johnny has $250,000 in BigBank and no other accounts anywhere. Should BigBank fail, the FDIC covers the entire amount. The same holds true if instead, Johnny titled his account in his revocable trust. Things change a bit if Johnny dies. Upon Johnny’s death, the assets in trust will pass to his daughter, Lyla. In that situation, the FDIC would insure up to $250,000 per institution, per trust beneficiary, up to a maximum of 5 beneficiaries for a total of $1,250,000. The rules look to the primary beneficiaries of the trust, which the FDIC defines as those individuals who would take upon the death of the grantor of the trust. The rules do not count contingent beneficiaries and more remote beneficiaries. In the above example, one beneficiary means that the FDIC protects the entire $250,000.

If Johnny had $500,000 in the account with BigBank, the FDIC would protect only $250,000. He could, however, transfer $250,000 to HugeBank thereby doubling the protected amount because it’s at a different institution. If Johnny had 5 children, all of whom were the beneficiaries of his revocable trust upon his death, then the FCID would insure $1,250,000 (5 x $250,000). If he had funds in excess of that $1,250,000, then he should transfer the overage to a new bank, keeping in mind that the FDIC insures no more than $250,000, per institution, per beneficiary, up to a maximum of $1,250,000 regardless of additional beneficiaries or funds. If Johnny were married and had a joint revocable trust, assuming that five beneficiaries took upon the death of both grantors, then the FDIC would cover up to $2,500,000 at any one institution.

Now assume that Johnny created an irrevocable trust. FDIC insurance works the same for all identified non-contingent beneficiaries as it does for a revocable trust covering up to $250,000 per institution, per trust beneficiary, up to a maximum of 5 beneficiaries for a total of $1,250,000. If the trust names contingent beneficiaries, however, then the rules add those contingent interests together and insure up to a maximum of $250,000, regardless of the number of beneficiaries or the allocation of the funds among the beneficiaries. To demonstrate, let’s assume that Johnny has 5 children, 4 of whom hold contingent interests in the trust making Lyla’s interest the only non-contingent interest. If Johnny has $600,000 in BigBank, the FDIC will cover only $500,000, $250,000 for Lyla, and $250,000 for the collective contingent interests, even though there are 4 beneficiaries.

Note that if the funds in an account represent both contingent and non-contingent interests, then the FDIC would separate those interests and apply the rules as described above. It’s easy to see how multiple trusts complicate these rules. Interestingly, according to the FDIC, it receives more inquiries related to insurance coverage for trusts than all other types of deposits combined. As noted earlier, to simplify the rules, the FDIC issued new rules on January 21, 2022, with a delayed effective date of April 1, 2024.

The new rules merge the categories for revocable and irrevocable trusts and use a simpler, more consistent approach to determine coverage. Now, each grantor’s trust deposits will be insured up to the standard maximum amount of $250,000, multiplied by the number of beneficiaries of the trust, not to exceed five. It no longer matters whether the trust is revocable or irrevocable or whether the interests are contingent or fixed. These rules effectively limit coverage for a grantor’s deposits at each institution to $1,250,000 for a single grantor trust and $2,500,000 for a joint trust, assuming that there are five beneficiaries of such trusts. The streamlined rules provide depositors and bankers guidance that’s easy to understand and will facilitate the prompt payment of deposit insurance, when necessary.

While depositors in Silicon Valley Bank were covered in excess of FDIC coverage, there’s no guarantee the FDIC will cover depositors in excess of the insurance coverage next time. If you are concerned about FDIC coverage for trust accounts, or in general, let me know. I can help you understand current coverage levels and advise you regarding any moves that you should make now or in the future to receive maximum FDIC insurance coverage.