Blog for Estate Planning Professionals

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Senate Bill Threatens Life of Stretch IRAs

Highway bill provision would end tax-deferred stretches of IRAs for beneficiaries other than a spouse, minor children or the disabled

Reposted from AdvisorOne | By Melanie Waddell

Industry trade groups are up in arms over a provision in a Senate highway bill that would reduce the value of inherited IRAs, commonly referred to as stretch IRAs, and are determined to have it removed.

The bill, S. 1813, the Highway Investment, Job Creation, and Economic Growth Act, includes a provision that would no longer permit tax deferred stretches of IRAs for beneficiaries other than a spouse, minor children or the disabled. Others, such as adult children, would only be permitted a five-year window to defer.

The provision would require beneficiaries to pay taxes on inherited IRAs over five years instead of spreading them over their lifetime. If passed, the provision would apply to deaths after Dec. 31, 2012.

The proposal is designed to reduce the value of a tax-planning technique that allows inside buildup of tax-deferred funds inside inherited retirement accounts.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, added the provision on Feb. 7 during markup of the bill by his committee, but after pushback he promised to have the provision removed.

During the markup of the bill, Baucus said that “IRAs are intended for retirement,” adding that IRAs are being “used by some taxpayers to give tax-free benefits” to future generations. The taxes from the stretch IRAs provision was to be used to help pay for the highway bill, and would raise $4.6 billion over 10 years.

As it stands now, the provision was adopted by Baucus’ committee and remains intact in the highway bill, which awaits action by the full Senate. Once taken up by the Senate, industry officials believe that the IRA provision will be replaced with one that raises the funds by changing the way assets are valued in defined benefit plans.

Judy Miller, chief of actuarial issues at the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries, says that the new provision would likely "reduce the current required contribution to defined benefit plans; when you do that there are fewer deductions taken so it raises money."

But given that the IRA provision has yet to be taken out, the Financial Services Institute is mobilizing its members to have it removed.

Chris Paulitz, spokesperson for FSI, says that FSI “won’t rest" until it's removed. "We’re keeping the pressure on from our members to try and ensure it eventually is indeed stripped out.”

FSI said in a Feb. 15 letter to its members that “while we expect the provision to be removed from the highway bill, it is important that we send the Senate the message that taxes on inherited IRAs should not be used to pay for other governmental spending.”

IRA guru Ed Slott told AdvisorOne on Tuesday that Congress “sees gold in IRAs,” and that the provision on stretch IRAs being inserted into the highway bill “is an indication of where Congress intends to find money to pay for the future.”

Slott said that advisors must “look at the money that their clients may intend to leave over [to heirs] and leverage that now, whether through life insurance or a charitable trust or changing beneficiaries” because Congress believes that IRA money “was never meant to be used as an estate planning vehicle to pass on to beneficiaries.”

Robert Miller, president of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, told AdvisorOne that NAIFA "is concerned that changing the tax rules on inherited IRAs and other retirement products would place an added burden on middle-income Americans at a time when numerous studies show that Americans are financially under-prepared for retirement."

At the very least, he said, "legislation changing the rules should receive more study rather than being rushed through as part of a highway bill. NAIFA is pleased that the Senate leadership has proposed to remove changes to inherited IRAs from the current bill.”

This post has been brought to you by The Ultimate Estate Planner, Inc., providing practical, tested and proven technical and marketing products to help estate planning professionals throughout the country build their practices.  Connect with us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn.

Photo Credit: advisorone.com

Twitter Facebook Digg Delicious Email LinkedIn Stumble Upon

Permanent Link

write a comment

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

IRS Extends Deadline to Make Portability Election

By Robert S. Keebler, CPA, MST, AEP

On February 17th, the IRS released an important Notice allowing an extension to make a portability election for certain qualifying estates. An executor of a qualifying estate that wants to obtain the extension granted by this notice must file the application for a six month extension no later than 15 months after the decedent's date of death. With the extension granted by this notice, the Form 706 of a qualifying estate will be due 15 months after the decedent's date of death. The first of these extensions (and underlying Form 706) will be due April 2nd. Estates qualifying for this election must meet the following requirements:

  • The decedent must have a date of death after 12/31/10 and before 7/1/11
  • The decedent must be survived by a spouse
  • The gross estate does not exceed $5 million
  • The estate is not a qualifying estate if the estate effectively requested an automatic six-month extension of time to file Form 706 by timely filing Form 4768 on or before the due date for filing Form 706.

The executor of a qualifying estate may file Form 4768 at the same time as the executor files Form 706, as long as both are filed on or before the date that is 15 months after decedent's date of death. To obtain the extension, the executor must meet the following requirements:

  • The executor files Form 4768 with the Service office designated in the form's instructions;
  • The executor files Form 4768 no later than 15 months from the decedent's date of death; and
  • The executor enters at the top of Form 4768 the notation "Notice 2012-21, Extension for Good Cause Shown" or otherwise sufficiently notifies the Service on or with Form 4768 that Form 4768 is being filed pursuant to this notice.

This post has been brought to you by The Ultimate Estate Planner, Inc., providing practical, tested and proven technical and marketing products to help estate planning professionals throughout the country build their practices.  Connect with us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn.

Photo Credit: corporatevoices.wordpress.com

Twitter Facebook Digg Delicious Email LinkedIn Stumble Upon

Permanent Link

write a comment

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Whitney Houston Leaves Behind a Legacy of Music and Estate Riddled With Confusion

Reposted from The Trust Advisor | By Scott Martin

Mere weeks after winning nine-year probate case against her own stepmother, glamour queen’s shock death and controversial financial shape raise the odds of much bigger courtroom battles ahead.

Whitney Houston’s management had barely squelched rumors that the 48-year-old diva and recovering cocaine addict had run out of cash before they had to confirm reports that she was dead.

The latest news is that she fell asleep in the bathtub and drowned after mixing prescription painkillers with alcohol.

Now, it’s the disposition of Houston’s remaining wealth that is becoming the object of public scrutiny — and giving advisors plenty to mull where their own clients are concerned.

If Houston’s lawyers were smart, they ironed out her estate plan a decade ago, the gurus tell me.

Back in 2001, she had just signed the biggest record deal in history — six albums, $100 million in guaranteed royalties — and the signs of her drug use were getting harder to hide.

That combination of massive incoming wealth and rising litigation and mortality risks should have been all the incentive her advisors needed to set up long-term trusts and iron out her will.

Unfortunately, that was also the moment at which her career and personal life started to unravel, so they might have missed their opportunity — and as details come out, we might see the grim results.

A very complicated decade

Part of the problem is that Houston’s last decade was extremely complicated, so the lawyers had less time than we might think to keep her affairs orderly.

When she signed that $100 million contract, she was already carrying her long-time husband, Bobby Brown, and a young daughter.

Her father, who had managed her career up to that point, was slowly dying of heart disease and seems to have been perpetually hurting for cash.

In 2002, he sued her for a round $100 million, claiming he was owed that much for helping her beat marijuana possession charges and negotiate her big record deal.

That suit dragged on well after his death before being dismissed in 2004, robbing Houston’s lawyers of vital time to move that money into an asset protection trust.

As long as the lawsuit was pending, those record company millions were simply too hot to hide — any judge would have considered such a move a blatant attempt to defraud an existing creditor.

Two years of relative quiet followed, but Houston spent a lot of that time in and out of rehab, so any claims she was in “sound mind and body” to sign any estate documents may not hold up without challenge.

Her divorce from Bobby Brown dragged on through most of 2007. Her lawyers were on the ball here: she had a prenuptial agreement cutting him out of her money and any legitimate claim to spousal support.

After that, she drifted out of the limelight. And now she’s gone.

Fighting her father’s example

Given the haphazard way the Houston musical dynasty used sophisticated planning techniques to manage its millions, we might expect to see Whitney’s estate reflect a mix of good and bad advice.

On the positive side, Bobby has no claim on her money, and now that daughter Bobbi Kristina is legally an adult — and out of the hospital herself — he can’t try to get custody and the money that goes with that.

And Houston’s father earmarked a $1 million life insurance policy to cover the mortgage on his house, so someone over the years was on the ball there.

Unfortunately, if Whitney and her father used the same lawyers, we can expect fireworks ahead.

John Houston appears to have died without clearly stating whether the life insurance money was meant to go to Whitney — who loaned him the money for the house in the first place — or to pay off his debt to his daughter.

He left behind letters talking about how Whitney made an oral agreement to apply the $1 million toward the loan, but her lawyers successfully noted that nothing like that was spelled out in his actual will.

In November — a full eight years after John Houston died — the case finally wrapped up in Whitney’s favor.

Had the lawyers set up a trust to accept the life insurance proceeds and use them to pay off the loan, his wishes would have been clear and none of the ensuing legal in-fighting would have been necessary.

As the judge noted, it’s impossible to legally determine what the deceased would have wanted, beyond what’s spelled out in the documents.

How much was Whitney worth?

The big question is how much of Whitney’s money the lawyers managed to save.

She died owing Arista three records, so a big chunk of that $100 million from the 2001 contract could be forfeited right away.

Her 10-acre New Jersey property was once appraised as worth $6 million but more recently listed for well under $2 million — barely what she owes in taxes and mortgage payments.

While rumor has it she was calling friends to borrow $100 a few weeks ago, her people insist that she wasn’t hurting for cash.

She’d just wrapped her first movie in 15 years, and as her staff says, she didn’t work for free.

“People get paid to make movies,” they point out.

And estate planners get paid to make sure the movie money lasts. Let’s hope Whitney’s lawyers earned their fees.

This post has been brought to you by The Ultimate Estate Planner, Inc., providing practical, tested and proven technical and marketing products to help estate planning professionals throughout the country build their practices.  Connect with us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn.

Photo Credit: thetrustadvisor.com

Twitter Facebook Digg Delicious Email LinkedIn Stumble Upon

Permanent Link

write a comment

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Forbes.com: Obama Declares War On Rich Folks And Wealth Advisors

By Deborah Jacobs
Reposted from Forbes.com

If Pres. Obama has his way, starting next year, it will be substantially more difficult for the ultra rich to pass along wealth to children and grandchildren without giving Uncle Sam his due.

The President’s proposed budget for 2013, issued yesterday, would permanently restore the estate tax rates to those that were in effect in 2009 and severely curtail some popular high-end tools for shifting assets to future generations. The Green Book, as it is called, downloads here as a pdf.

Under current law, we can each transfer up to $5.12 million tax-free during life or at death without incurring a tax of up to 35%. That figure is called the basic exclusion amount. In addition, widows and widowers can add any unused exclusion of the spouse who died most recently to their own. This enables them together to transfer up to $10.24 million tax-free.

Twitter Facebook Digg Delicious Email LinkedIn Stumble Upon

Permanent Link

write a comment

Monday, February 13, 2012

Bloomberg: Senate Proposes Tougher Requirements for Inherited IRAs

Sen. Baucus Eyes Inherited IRAs for $4.6B
By Richard Rubin
Reposted from Bloomberg.com

The changes that Baucus proposed earlier today would raise $4.6 billion for the Treasury over the next decade by requiring younger beneficiaries to pay taxes over five years instead of spreading them over their lifetimes, according to the Finance Committee. Baucus, a Montana Democrat, had wanted to use the money to help pay for a highway bill the panel is debating.

Under pressure from Republicans, Baucus said he would work with them to find replacement revenue. During the committee meeting, he didn’t provide details about alternatives.

Baucus’s proposal would curtail a tax-planning technique that allows the buildup of tax-deferred gains inside inherited retirement accounts. Currently, holders of inherited IRAs can take required taxable distributions over their anticipated lifespan.

“IRAs are intended for retirement,” said Baucus, who said the current law is being abused. “They’re being used by some taxpayers to give tax-free benefits” to future generations.

Financial advisers and tax lawyers said Baucus’s proposal would significantly alter retirement and estate planning.

Change ‘Playing Field’

“It would really change the whole playing field for retirement planning,” said Ed Slott, an IRA adviser in Rockville Centre, New York. “That would make things simpler, but it would really put a crimp in the whole legacy planning people do for IRAs.”

The proposal includes exceptions for an account owner’s spouse, beneficiaries within 10 years of age of the account owner, and disabled and chronically ill people, according to a summary by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. Children would be exempt from the new five-year rule until they reach adulthood.

Owners of regular IRAs must begin taking taxable distributions at age 70 1/2, and they must be taken according to a life-expectancy calculation.

Baucus’ proposal would take effect for people who die starting in 2013.

Late Starter

Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said members of his party found out that the IRA provision would be included early this morning and said it showed that senators’ attempts to limit highway funding sources to items related to transportation and energy had fallen apart.

“I think we’ve lost the opportunity to have a truly bipartisan package,” he said during the committee meeting. He later praised Baucus for his willingness to find a replacement for the provision.

“Perhaps this provision and the subject can be taken up in tax reform,” Baucus said.

Depending on how the language is written, beneficiaries in some cases might be able to use rollovers into their IRAs to avoid the required distributions, said Mary Ann Mancini, who leads the private client group at Bryan Cave LLP in Washington.

Mancini said many of her clients don’t use IRAs as an estate-planning tool because beneficiaries often want to spend their inheritances.

“If you can keep it in the IRA with tax-free growth, the longer you can keep it in the IRA, people can come out with millions,” she said. “The problem is people don’t keep it in the IRA. Young people want the money.”

‘Too Much Invested’

Baucus’s proposal would return IRAs to their intended purpose as a retirement savings tool and not an estate-planning tool known as a stretch IRA, Slott said. The change, if enacted, would cause people to spend the money in their IRAs rather than leave it as an inheritance for their children, he said.

“It sounds good, but I think it’s a nonstarter,” Slott said. “There’s too much invested in the whole stretch IRA concept.”

John Olivieri, a partner in the private clients group at White & Case LLP in New York, said the change could increase the taxable income of heirs each year for five years and may push them into a higher income tax bracket, he said.

Another potential benefit to the federal government is that, because distributions would be taken out faster, there would be less time for the money to accumulate in the IRA tax- free, Olivieri said.

“Once the money is out of the account, it can no longer grow tax-free,” he said. “That’s where the government may be planning to get the most benefit from this.”

This post has been brought to you by The Ultimate Estate Planner, Inc., providing practical, tested and proven technical and marketing products to help estate planning professionals throughout the country build their practices.  Connect with us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn.

Photo Credit: marketwatch.com

Twitter Facebook Digg Delicious Email LinkedIn Stumble Upon

Permanent Link

write a comment

Monday, February 13, 2012

U.S. Treasury Announces President Obama's 2013 Budget and Proposed Estate Tax Law Changes

A special thank you to Robert Keebler of Keebler & Associates, LLP for the heads up that the U.S Treasury just released its FY2013 Greenbook, which provides an explanation of the Administration's revenue proposals for Fiscal Year 2013. The Administration's FY2013 budget proposes tax policy to boost growth, create jobs and improve opportunity for the middle class.

In particular, as estate planning professionals, we are all extremely interested to see what is going to happen with the current Federal Estate Tax Exemption Amount, which is set to revert back to $1 million in 2013.  According to this bill, the estate tax exemption amount would revert back to the 2009 $3.5 million level.  According to Robert Keebler, that despite this change, the income tax changes would keep us all busy for a decade.

Some estate planning professionals feel that this bill looks very similar to the 2012 Budget Proposal, which was released exactly a year ago on February 14, 2011 and was rejected by the Senate in a unanimous vote of 97 to 0.

To view the explanations of the proposed changes to the Estate & Gift Tax Exemption, click here.

To view the complete FY2013 Greenbook, click here.

Photo Source: AP

Twitter Facebook Digg Delicious Email LinkedIn Stumble Upon

Permanent Link

write a comment

Friday, February 10, 2012

The eBoot Camp's Valentine's Day Gifts to You

Phil Kavesh here to share with you a very special Valentine’s Day Gift that I am passing along from a dear friend of mine.

A little over a year ago, I had the fortunate opportunity to pick up a copy of The eBoot Camp’s President, Corey Perlman’s, book entitled, The eBoot Camp: Proven Internet Marketing Techniques to Grow Your Business.  Some of my favorite marketing minds and authors had endorsed the book for small businesses and as a self-proclaimed internet dinosaur, it was not only an easy read, but I could tell that Corey knew what he was talking about.

Corey then informed me of a 2-day Seminar he was holding where he would spend time with me and other attendees on the concepts of internet and social media marketing for our businesses.  More so, he was going to give us hands-on, personal consultations about our website and our current internet marketing plans.  I was convinced that I needed to go, but the seminar was in Florida and my schedule wouldn’t allow it.  He then offered me the option for a personal consultation while he spent a week with several other businesses in Los Angeles - - an offer I couldn’t refuse.

It was time and money well spent and we have already incorporated a lot of Corey’s ideas into not only my law practice, but with The Ultimate Estate Planner, Inc. as well. 

Corey sent me an e-mail this morning with my Valentine’s Day gifts from him.  Good thing Kristina and Megan monitor my e-mail, because I might have deleted it (joking of course, Corey!).  It was filled with different offers that I asked Corey if we could pass along to all of you and he replied back with a resounding, “YES!”.  So, here you go.

The eBoot Camp’s Valentine’s Day Gifts to You
by Corey Perlman

Gift #1: A Tip

Engagement is an important piece of the social media puzzle and occasions like Valentine's Day are great for connecting with your prospects and customers. 

If you're going to send out a Valentine's Day email or post to your social media sites, here are a few tips:

  • Give sincere appreciation. Valentine's Day is about telling people how you feel. Take the opportunity to tell your customers, contacts, fans, co-workers, etc. that you appreciate them and are thankful for their business. 
  • Use video or pictures. Two years ago, I posted Happy Valentine’s Day on my Facebook business page and got very little in the form of engagement. Last year, I also included a cute video of a lion and his trainer reuniting after being separated for a year. It got a lot more responses and engagement from others. Videos and pictures are worth 1,000 words! 
  • Ask them to engage! Ask for a funny Valentine’s Day date story or ask them to 'like' your post if you helped remind them to go get something special for their significant other. 

________________________________________________________

Gift #2: A Video 

My friend Erik Qualman (Social Media Revolution) is at it again and shot a great social media video with a Valentine's Day theme. Enjoy and share it with your community as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vY9Nd3Pft8

________________________________________________________

Gift #3: A Free Webinar 

Time is limited, budgets are thin. But we all know social media is here to stay. I will share five tips YOU can implement right now to increase your reach and see a better return on your web marketing efforts. If you're in charge of your social media marketing, don't miss this session. 

It will be February 23rd from 12pm-1:15pm EST. 

Here's the link to register: 

Social Media Webinar: 5 Ways to Maximize Your Efforts

________________________________________________________

Gift #4: A Deal

We're at about 50% capacity for our 2-day Workshop in Atlanta, so we're going to have a great group of entrepreneurs, business owners and marketers. 

At the 2-day on March 22nd and 23rd, you will:

  • Receive recommendations to improve your Website.
  • Make sure you rank well on Google.
  • Start a Wordpress blog and learn how to update it. 
  • Makeover your LinkedIn profile. 
  • Learn to use Twitter efficiently and effectively - never miss a Tweet about you or your business.
  • Start using Google+ and I'll share why it's going to rival Facebook and Twitter. 
  • Work on strategies for better email marketing and video marketing.
  • Leave feeling confident on exactly what you need to do on the web to be successful.

Deal #4 - You're getting $200 off the price. 

Deal #2 - You get to bring a colleague for free. 

Deal #3 - I'll give you a 1-year subscription to our Geek for 1-Hour a Week program. 

That's about $2,000 worth of a DEAL! 

Register between now and February 14th (pssst- that's Valentine's Day!) 

Here's the link: www.ebootcamp.com/seminars

Corey really helped my practice out and got the ball rolling for me to enter the 21st Century in marketing.  If you aren’t ready to commit to his seminar, then at the very least, visit the eBootCamp’s website, sign up for his e-mails, read his Blog, and connect with him on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

This post has been brought to you by The Ultimate Estate Planner, Inc., providing practical, tested and proven technical and marketing products to help estate planning professionals throughout the country build their practices.  Connect with us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn.

Photo Credit: eBootCamp.com

Twitter Facebook Digg Delicious Email LinkedIn Stumble Upon

Permanent Link

write a comment

Thursday, February 09, 2012

Financial Planning Magazine: Top Tax Strategies For 2012

Planners and clients may worry about losing tax cuts this year - but they can also take action.

By Ann Marsh
Reposted from Financial-Planning.com

There's a one-word theme for the 2012 tax year: uncertainty. Chief among the reasons are the sky-high exemptions on the estate tax, the lifetime gift tax and the generation-skipping tax. All are currently set at $5 million, but they are headed for expiration at year's end. Most planners expect that these taxes and others - including taxes on capital gains and dividends - will be going up next year, though no one knows for sure. And that's the rub.

"The big question is whether the Bush-era tax cuts will expire at the end of 2012," says Eleanor Blayney, consumer advocate for the CFP Board. "So there's a lot of uncertainty. A lot of us assume that, one way or another, taxes will go up. And if not directly, then we may lose deductions."

After speaking with and learning from planners around the country, Financial Planning has gathered a list of top tax strategies for 2012. Quite a few of these strategies are geared specifically to this year's low-tax-rate environment. Others are tried and true, and bear repeating in any tax year. For as any good planner knows, smart tax planning is not only about choosing the right strategy at the right time, it's also about avoiding bush league mistakes, like the one that befell one high-net-worth family about five years ago.

In this instance, according to the planner involved, several children of modest means became very wealthy upon inheriting assets from their late father. Each child in turn prepared his or her own estate plan. All but one brother signed a plan. "He just never got around to it," the planner says.

About a year after the father died, the son "went to a holiday party, had a massive heart attack at age 49 and died with no estate plan in place," the planner recalls. "His sisters were literally running through the house saying, 'Did he sign the plan? Did he sign the plan?' No, he did not. His estate paid 45 cents on the dollar above and beyond the federal exclusion. More tragically, the old will still named his ex-wife and her child, his former stepchild. It was grotesque. A ton of money went that didn't need to go." All because of one critical misstep.

Planners often don't know for sure which tax strategy could end up being most critical for each client. But, as this case shows, doing something as simple as getting clients to review their estate plans can be just as important as taking advantage of a $5 million estate and lifetime giving exemption.

1. Consider the $5 million estate and lifetime giving tax exemptions.

For the rest of the year, the beneficiaries of anyone who dies won't pay federal estate taxes on the first $5 million value of his or her estate. A gift tax and generation-skipping tax exemption, both at $5 million, were designed to synchronize with the estate-tax exemption. That means that, before they die, clients can give up to $5 million to any individual, including their grandchildren or charity without paying taxes on the money. For couples, the limit is $10 million, with a 35% tax on assets above that amount. The $13,000 annual gift-tax exemption also remains in place and does not count against the $5 million thresholds. By next year, these exemptions could drop substantially.

"It will really be ugly if it goes back to [2002] when it was at $1 million," says Armond Dinverno, president of Balasa Dinverno Foltz in Itasca, Ill.

Some planners say many of their clients have already taken advantage of these exemptions. But others think they pose hidden and dangerous risks. "There are a number of things we leave to our children," Dinverno says. "They include family values, faith and work ethic. I don't think that trading a tax savings for a work ethic or at the expense of creating a trust fund baby is a good choice."

Some of Dinverno's clients have decided it's just not worth the risk to give money too soon to a child or a grandchild, even if the high giving threshold disappears next year. A multimillion-dollar gift, given too soon to someone, can strip away that individual's drive to work, he says.

Dinverno's older clients are more willing to pull the trigger. In these instances, their own children are grown, with well-established careers, families and homes, making the perceived risk lower. "For them," he says, "it's a slam dunk."

2. Channel estate transfers through family limited partnerships.

Planner Andy Berg, co-founder of Homrich Berg in Atlanta, advises his clients to combine the gift-tax exemption with family limited partnerships. "The partnerships are a tool you can use to give away a great deal of wealth, but remain in control of the underlying assets," Berg says.

One of Berg's clients, for example, owned $7 million in commercial real estate. By putting it into a family limited partnership, the actual value of the property was discounted to $4.5 million for tax purposes because it is not liquid. The gift, which fell under the $5 million gift-tax threshold, came tax- free, he says. "It's somewhat of a loophole, if you will," Berg says.

In this strategy, the giver can remain a general partner owning just 1% of the property in the trust, but keeping all decision-making to himself or herself. The other 99% is owned by the recipient and limited partner. "But the limited partner would have little or no say in the management of the assets," Berg says.

When the grantor dies, the recipient pays a capital gains tax on the difference between the basis of $4.5 million and any appreciation. "Let's say it appreciated to $10 million," Berg says, "but who cares." The grantor, he says, "got $7 million out of their estate, tax-free, and the kids already own it."

3. Open a donor-advised fund

A donor-advised fund allows a person to contribute any amount he or she wants to charity, without having to name the charity right away. Once the money is in the fund, it has been gifted from the perspective of the IRS, but the client can take his or her time in deciding who will get it.

Planners say it gets the money out of the income tax column while buying time for clients. "Part of many people's identity is how closely tied they are to a charity," says planner Jeff Fishman, a former lawyer and the founder of JSF Financial in Los Angeles. "So even if they have a couple of bad years, they can keep up with their giving commitments."

4. Use highly appreciated stocks for charitable giving.

Lori Flexer, a chartered financial analyst with Ferguson Wellman Capital Management in Portland, Ore., says that, whenever possible, she urges her clients to give highly appreciated stocks, instead of cash, to their charitable causes. That allows them to both keep up with their giving and to avoid paying capital gains taxes on low-basis-cost investments.

5. Consider Roth IRA conversions.

When it comes to contemplating Roth conversions, "proceed with extreme caution with your CPA by your side," Flexer cautions.

But in the right cases, planners say, Roth conversions make sense. (See "Betting on Roth Conversions" on page 61.) Flexer offered the example of an executive who retired the previous year but is not yet 701/2 years old. For this tax year, he has no earned income and is not taking Social Security. His only income is capital gains. "He knows that 10 years from now he is going to be taking out six-figure distributions (from deferred-tax retirement accounts). So maybe he does a Roth conversion of $50,000 or $60,000 at the lowest state and federal tax rates. He pays those taxes now and that money will grow tax-deferred forever."

Another advantage: Roth accounts aren't burdened by mandatory distribution requirements.

6. Direct annual $13,000 gift tax exemptions to 529 plans.

Several planners say they urge clients to put annual tax-free gifts of $13,000 to each child or grandchild directly into 529 accounts. These accounts allow tax-free accumulation of investments in savings accounts earmarked to pay for higher education expenses.

7. Watch the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act

Many American citizens who live abroad or keep assets overseas are not aware of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, which passed Congress in March 2010. Planners should inform any clients who might be affected by it.

The act will require all foreign banks and institutions to report to the IRS all U.S. citizens with investment accounts of $50,000 or more. Institutions that fail to comply will have 30% of their earnings on their U.S.-based investments (from mutual funds to municipal bonds to real estate) withheld.

It remains to be seen how vigilantly the rest of the world complies with this expanded jurisdictional move by U.S. tax collectors, but citizens who haven't already reported the existence of these accounts may find that their foreign banks are doing it for them.

8. Invest in municipal bonds.

Some planners believe there is tremendous value to be found in the best municipal bonds, which remain one of the few tax-exempt investments and sources of cash flow. The interest on such bonds is exempt from both federal and state taxes as long as the bond is issued in a state where a client is a resident.

For high-net-worth individuals, the tax-adjusted returns for municipals can be superior to those on alternative fixed-income instruments like Treasuries. Some planners think that if you believe taxes are headed up, then munis become even more attractive.

9. Look at investment interest expenses for deductions.

Susan Colpitts, a planner with Signature in Norfolk, Va., analyzes her clients' returns to see if they can deduct interest expense that they paid on their investments. "For any investor, I would look to see if this is optimized," she says.

The determination of when this is possible is somewhat complex, Colpitts says, but planners can check IRS Form 4952 and use tax software to do the calculation. If a planner doesn't want to tangle with tax forms herself, she can recommend that they go to the client's CPA for help.

When it makes sense, investors can gain the right to deduct all of their investment interest expense by electing to have a portion of their qualified dividends or long-term capital gains taxed at their top tax rate, she says. For example, a couple in the 35% tax bracket with a taxable income of more than $379,000 could save $7,500 by taking this election, she calculates.

"We would recommend a taxpayer do this in the case that they have nondeductible investment interest expense year after year," she says. "If, on the other hand, it is an unusual circumstance for the taxpayer and they can likely take the full interest deduction in another year without making the election, we would suggest that they would not make it."

10. Invest in an independent film.

It's little known outside of Hollywood, but Section 181 of the IRS code allows people to take a tax write-off for investing in an independent film. "It's pretty popular among my clients," says Fishman, the L.A.-based planner.

A client can take the write-off as long as the total budget on the production is less than $15 million and as long as 75% of the film is produced in the United States. Now you know why there's no shortage of independent films debuting every year, even though fewer people are going to the movies.

11. Feel free to use 401(k) catch-up contributions for older clients.

Several planners say they are surprised to discover how few of their clients are aware that they can contribute more to their 401(k) plans once they turn 50 years old. The maximum annual amount that anyone younger than 50 can contribute to a 401(k) or IRA is $17,000 for 2012.

But for people older than 50, the IRS has provided a catch-up provision allowing them to contribute $5,500 more, bringing their total annual contribution to $22,500. Clients who walk away from a 401(k) match are walking away from a dollar-to-dollar return if their employer matches their contribution, and from potentially getting themselves into a lower tax bracket.

12. Revisit estate plans frequently.

No one likes contemplating his or her own demise. But because estate-tax laws are changing so frequently, planners need to advise their clients to do so - in some cases, annually.

"It does make people really uncomfortable," Flexer says, "but I try to encourage them by saying, 'You have some clear intentions for this wonderful wealth that you've spent your lifetime building. If you choose not to do this, the government is going to take a crazy amount of the money that you've worked so hard to earn.'"

When one of her clients came to her fuming over a $4,000 bill she got for revising her estate plan, Flexer reminded the client what the government could take if she hadn't done that work. That bill "was expensive compared to what?" the planner says she asked her client before adding, "I love you, but you get no sympathy from me."

13. Work to avoid the alternative minimum tax.

Originally, the alternative minimum tax was designed to ensure that people whose income came mainly from dividends and interest paid their fair share. Instead, planners say, the AMT rules subsequently were changed, making it highly complex and expanding its reach.

"There isn't a rule of thumb except that more and more people are subject to it, which wasn't the original intention," says Deb Wetherby, a planner and former CPA with Wetherby Asset Management in San Francisco. "Once they changed the way it worked, it captured more taxpayers."

Many planners say it's critical to watch the AMT like a hawk to try to keep clients from becoming subject to it. At that point, clients lose the benefit of many deductions.

For example, Fishman says, some of his clients in Los Angeles have bought multimillion-dollar homes, expecting to write off the mortgage interest. But those who became subject to AMT were shocked to discover they lost those deductions. "We call it a stealth tax," he says.

14. Team up with clients' CPAs.

A surprising number of planners neglect to review their clients' income tax statements, their colleagues say. Or they rarely confer with their clients' CPAs. The first order of good tax planning, many planners maintain, is for planners to make a habit of working closely with their clients' tax preparers.

"Planners ought to be asking for copies of income tax returns," says Colpitts, who is a former CPA herself. "CPAs are so busy that, unless you ask them for planning ideas, they don't offer them. Sit down with a CPA to talk about opportunities. Have the conversation between the time the CPA prepares the draft and files the return."

Ann Marsh is a senior editor and the West Coast bureau chief of Financial Planning. Ann Marsh is the West Coast Bureau Chief of Financial Planning Magazine. She spent five years writing the popular "Money Makeover" column for the Los Angeles Times, which featured financial planners helping individuals and families to turn their lives around. A former staff writer for Forbes, she worked on the Forbes 400, researching and writing about the lives and holdings of the wealthiest Americans.  Her work has appeared in dozens of publications including O, The Oprah Magazine, Salon, Fast Company and Business 2.0. She has also coauthored several books, including Copy This!, the autobiography of Kinkos founder and philanthropist Paul Orfalea.

This post has been brought to you by The Ultimate Estate Planner, Inc., providing practical, tested and proven technical and marketing products to help estate planning professionals throughout the country build their practices.  Connect with us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn.

Photo Credit: wscounselblog.com

Twitter Facebook Digg Delicious Email LinkedIn Stumble Upon

Permanent Link

write a comment

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Practical Planner: Checklist: More Heckerling Nuggets (Volume 7, Issue 1)

Martin “Marty” Shenkman, Esq., CPA, MBA is an estate planning attorney and Certified Public Accountant who authors a number of publications each month, including his monthly e-mail newsletter, "Practical Planner".  Below is the second installment from Marty's January/February 2012 newsletter.  To be added to Marty's monthly e-mail distribution list, e-mail newsletter@shenkmanlaw.com.

Your Tax Reimbursement Clauses Might be Dangerous: Some grantor trusts (income taxed to you) include a provision that permit the trustee of a trust you create to reimburse you for taxes you pay on trust income.  If reimbursement is mandatory, Go To Tax Jail, Do Not Pass Go. It causes inclusion in your estate. So does that mean a discretionary reimbursement is guaranteed not to cause inclusion of trust assets in your estate? Not so fast Charlie. If your creditors cannot reach the trust assets under state law the trust assets should not be included in your estate. But (all tax rules have a “but”) so long as there was no implied understanding between you and trustee. An actual pattern of distributions (e.g., taking all income, having all taxes reimbursed over a number of years) would probably sink your tax ship. But what if you and the trust sell stock in closely held business that you had used to fund the trust and you immediately get a tax reimbursement? Was there an understanding from the get go that you’d get the tax paid by the trust? Most folks probably don’t want these clauses anyhow since the tax payments reduce your estate. There are other options. Don't let the trust reimburse you and thereby give the IRS the right to raise the “implied understanding argument.” Instead, the trustee can loan you money to pay the tax. See PLR 200944002; Rev. Rul. 2004-64.

Zapped by a Gift Tax: So here’s the law. A donee is personally liable for the tax, even if it is not their gift subject to tax. Ouch! Example: You made a large gift to your new spouse which qualifies for marital deduction – no tax. You make a separate large taxable gift to another donee, your kid from a prior marriage. You’re a bum and don’t pay the gift tax. Your kid should be liable. But, even your new spouse is on the gift tax hook if tax on other gifts is not paid! This is so even though the gift to her did not trigger any gift tax. IRC Sec. 6324. Here’s the reality TV version: Son is named agent under Dad’s power of attorney. Dad used up his $5 million gift exemption, then fell ill. Any new gifts will be taxable. Son makes gifts to his siblings of $2 million and to Dad’s New Wife of $1 million but doesn’t pay the gift tax from Dad’s funds as agent or from his funds. New Wife can be held liable for the gift tax of $700,000 on the $2 million gifts to Dad’s kids from a prior marriage.

Sunrise Sunset: If Tevye was setting up a dynastic trust today he might want to consider one trust for $1,390,000, the $1M inflation adjusted GST amount, and a second trust for the excess of the current 2012 $5,120,000 GST exemption amount over the $1,390,000 in a second trust. If the GST rules sunset in 2013 this might provide greater certainty.  Use separate trusts to address potential risk of GST rules sun-setting.  Don't create trusts simultaneously in case there is an ordering rule. You could contribute the balance of your GST exemption to a direct skip trust (no non-skip beneficiaries like the kids are included), and do it in 2012 while the law is clear. What is affectionately called the “move down rule” should lock in your GST move. IRC Sec. 2653. Even if the GST rules sunset after 2012, the GST event that closed the year before. Importantly, if sunset happens, the grandchildren beneficiaries of that trust are not skip people for future years because of application of the move down rule.

No Backsies: Not All Roth’s Are Created Equal: If you do an in-plan rollover of your 401(k) into a Roth account in that plan, it could be a tax homerun. But, just as with a conversion of your traditional IRA into a Roth, you have to pay income tax on the value of the plan in excess of your basis. But with an in-plan rollover, you can’t change your mind like you can with a conversion of a regular IRA to a Roth. If plan assets decline in value you lose!

Just Say No Doesn’t Always Work with the Tax Man: If a loved one is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease plan and act quickly. Address elder care issues quickly while he still has testamentary capacity.  If you have sufficient capacity (competence) sign a medical proxy, will, power, etc. Your spouse’s will should set up a trust for your benefit in case he or she predeceases you. This trust should be a special needs trust. Don't rely on portability. Many people assume the spouse with Alzheimer’s will die first and if not he or she can disclaim assets bequeathed from the other. In New York a disclaimer is not treated as a fraudulent transfer by disclaiming beneficiary, except for Medicaid. This is the minority rule, so it might work elsewhere.

To download the complete newsletter and prior newsletters, click here.

_______________________

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Martin “Marty” Shenkman, Esq., CPA, MBA is an estate planning attorney and Certified Public Accountant from Paramus, New Jersey. He received his Bachelor of Science degree from Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania 1977 with a concentration in accounting and economics. He received a Masters degree in Business Administration from the University of Michigan 1981, with a concentration in tax and finance.

Mr. Shenkman is a widely quoted expert on tax matters and is a regular source for numerous financial and business publications, including The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Money, The New York Times, and others. He has appeared as a tax expert on numerous television and cable television shows including The Today Show, CNN, NBC Evening News, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN-FN and others. He is a frequent guest on radio talk shows throughout the country and has a regular weekly radio show on Money Matters Financial Network.

Mr. Shenkman is a prolific author, having published thirty-four books and more than seven hundred articles. Mr. Shenkman has served as contributing editor to a host of publications, including: New Jersey Lawyer, The Journal of Real Estate Finance, Real Estate Insight, Commercial Leasing Law & Strategy, The Journal of Accountancy, Real Estate Accounting and Taxation, Shopping Centers Today, and others.

Mr Shenkman is active in numerous charitable organizations, sitting on many boards and planned giving committees and lectures regularly for these and other organizations.

Twitter Facebook Digg Delicious Email LinkedIn Stumble Upon

Permanent Link

write a comment

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Betting On A Roth Conversion

By Allan Roth
Reposted from Financial-Planning.com

Long ago, there wasn't much that planners had to worry about as far as taxes except for lawmakers changing tax law. Now we have to worry that, if Congress does nothing, taxes will jump in 2013. In these financially tumultuous times, Roth conversion strategies can reduce risk substantially for clients in 2012.

UNKNOWNS FOR 2013

Regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats prevail in controlling the White House and/or Congress in November, there is likely to be an impact on tax law. If nothing is done, the Bush-era tax cuts will expire and the highest federal individual income tax rate will increase to 42%, taking into account deduction phaseout. On top of that, if the federal health care overhaul survives legal challenges, an additional 3.8% Medicare surcharge on investment income for those earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for joint returns) will take effect.

As if the political uncertainty weren't enough, the wild swings in the stock market and other investments create further uncertainty. Will the euro survive? Might there be a major natural disaster? One way of planning for these uncertainties is to predict the outcome and prepare for it. Unfortunately, predictions of market strategists have proved to be very inaccurate. A much better way is to admit we don't know the future and plan as such, giving as much flexibility as possible to our clients. Enter the Roth conversion.

TRADITIONAL VS. ROTH

Gregg Polsky, a tax professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, suggests we view a traditional IRA as a partnership between the taxpayer and the government. If the client has a $100,000 traditional IRA (with a zero basis if it was funded with pretax dollars) and is in the 35% marginal tax bracket, the taxpayer owns $65,000 while the government (federal and state) owns $35,000. The IRA is a partnership between the taxpayer and the government. Admittedly, the ultimate tax bracket upon withdrawing the funds from the traditional IRA is unknown.

Polsky notes that, if the taxpayer decides to convert this IRA to a Roth IRA, he or she is buying out the governments' ownership in the partnership and can then keep all of the returns tax-free going forward. At least this is true without a major change in the tax law. If the client does a Roth conversion in early 2012 with some or all of their traditional IRA funds, he or she has as late as Oct. 15, 2013 (if they file an extension on their 2012 return) to recharacterize some or all of the conversion.

Polsky refers to this recharacterization as a free put option. By exercising the put option, the taxpayer requires the government to buy back its original share of the IRA for the purchase price the taxpayer paid. I liken it to the undo key on a computer. It is this put option that can be so valuable in hedging political and market uncertainty.

John Bledsoe, author of The Gospel of Roth: The Good News About Roth IRA Conversions and How They Can Make You Money, recommends that everyone should convert 100% of his or her IRAs to Roth IRAs as early in the year as possible. Robert Keebler, a partner at Keebler & Associates, a tax and estate planning firm in Green Bay, Wis., agrees. Both specialize in assisting clients to carry out Roth conversion strategies.

They each note that a lot can happen between Jan. 1, 2012, and Oct. 15, 2013. If clients go into the conversion with the premise that they may recharacterize, they in essence get a free look and can keep any conversions that make sense. "Why wouldn't anyone want this free look?" Bledsoe asks.

HEDGING STRATEGIES

Here are three strategies for hedging future uncertainties:

  1. Simple hedging against 2013 tax increases and market declines. This is the simplest and most straightforward of the strategies. To protect against potential tax increases and even a market decline, the client can convert that $100,000 and pay $35,000 to the IRS. If it turns out that tax rates did increase, the client could save up to 10% by converting in 2012 instead of waiting.

    If rates didn't increase, then a recharacterization may be in order. But Keebler believes a 2013 income tax increase is likely, although he sees the Medicare surcharge in the hands of the Supreme Court.

    The second reason a client may want to recharacterize is if the market has a significant decline. Say the $100,000 portfolio declined to $80,000 sometime before 2012 taxes are filed in 2013. Rather than take the whole $20,000 loss, hit the undo button and recharacterize, and the government will take 35% of the loss. In this case, even if tax rates did decrease, the gain from the government taking on a share of the loss is larger than the hit from the tax increase. Both must be taken into account in the decision to recharacterize.
     
  2. Multiple Roth conversions. Polsky, Bledsoe and Keebler recommend against doing a single Roth conversion. The strategy they recommend is to open separate accounts, such as accounts by asset classes. For example, you could have five Roth accounts in U.S. stocks, international stocks, REITs, precious metals and mining stocks, and bonds. If, for example, bonds and precious metals and mining decline significantly, exercise that put option and recharacterize. Keep the others that appreciated, knowing you bought out the government's share of the partnership at a lower price than the current market value.

    There are no limits on the number of accounts one could convert. A client could have a thousand different securities and convert each one to a separate Roth IRA. That way, any security that declined could be recharacterized. Neither Bledsoe nor Keebler does this for his clients, noting the concept of diminishing returns, as well as planner expense from the additional work. Bledsoe and Keebler have each done 10 or more accounts for IRAs exceeding $10 million in value. They typically recommend about four to six separate conversions.
     
  3. High volatility, negative correlation. Polsky wrote last year in the newsletter Tax Notes that the optimal strategy would be to convert two IRAs of equal value, investing in two highly volatile but negatively correlated securities, one in each account. If, for example, there was $50,000 in each at the start and one was wiped out while the other doubled to $100,000, the client has converted $100,000 into a Roth while paying taxes on only $50,000. This is because the client will recharacterize the IRA that went to zero, while maintaining the one that doubled.

    The trick is to find securities that fit this bill, Polsky says, because IRAs cannot sell securities short or buy options. To overcome this barrier, perhaps an approach could be two inverse securities, such as the ProShares UltraPro S&P 500 ETF (UPRO) and the UltraPro Short S&P 500 ETF (SPXU) would work, since each levers three times.

    Unfortunately, in a year like 2011 when the S&P 500 was relatively flat, and due to the specifics of these funds, which essentially invest in a one-day duration and have substantial fees and costs, both would have been in the red. The UPRO fund lost 11.8%, while the SPXU plunged 32.3%.

    Polsky, Bledsoe and Keebler note that they have not performed this strategy. Polsky worries that the IRS could challenge it, although he says it would be difficult for the agency to act if a taxpayer could show he or she had used readily available investment options (as opposed to a customized derivative). Nonetheless, the cost of defending an IRS challenge could be substantial.

BARRIERS TO CONVERSIONS

If a free look into the future is so compelling, why aren't more people converting their IRAs? One answer may be behavioral economics. When clients convert, they must pay taxes, reducing the size of their portfolio. Economically, of course, the Roth money is far more valuable than the traditional IRA funds, and there has not been a decline in economic net worth.

Polsky asserts in the Tax Notes story that financial advisors may be another hurdle. Advisors who are paid by commissions or wrap fees no longer earn fees on the assets used to pay the taxes for the conversions.

One more reason clients hesitate to convert is that the move is not risk-free. Polsky notes it's possible Congress could change laws - even take the unlikely step of taxing some Roth distributions. Polsky likens it to the tax on Social Security benefits. A similar worry would be a revamping of the tax code, such as an enacting of a consumption tax to replace the current income tax. That would effectively result in paying the tax at conversion and again when goods and services are purchased.

(click to enlarge)

BOTTOM LINE

There is nothing simple about taxes, but a Roth conversion with the recharacterization option offers a way to both reduce risk and lower taxes. Before moving forward, advisors need to be sure a client has paid enough estimated taxes to meet the safe harbor rule so that penalties and interest won't kick in if a client decides not to recharacterize.

It's best to maximize the value of the put option by doing the conversion early in the year and following the timeline in the "Roth Conversion Timeline" chart, above. Also make sure a tax expert is guiding your client.

While there is a lot of uncertainty between now and Oct. 15, 2013, there is far more uncertainty decades later when clients may be spending down their IRA money. No one knows what tax rates will be 20 years from now or a client's net income.

There's also the possibility of a radical tax change like a consumption tax. That's why many experts do not recommend keeping 100% of IRA funds in a Roth. Instead, a better strategy would be diversifying against those unknowns by having some taxable traditional IRA funds and some Roth IRA funds. Nonetheless, there is a way to help your clients increase their Roth IRA funds while minimizing taxes.

Allan Roth, founder of the planning firm Wealth Logic in Colorado Springs, Colo., writes the Irrational Investor column for CBS MoneyWatch.com and is an adjunct faculty member at Colorado College and the University of Denver.

This post has been brought to you by The Ultimate Estate Planner, Inc., providing practical, tested and proven technical and marketing products to help estate planning professionals throughout the country build their practices.  Connect with us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn.

Photo Credit: financial-planning.com

Twitter Facebook Digg Delicious Email LinkedIn Stumble Upon

Permanent Link

write a comment




Previous Posts

Senate Bill Threatens Life of Stretch IRAs

IRS Extends Deadline to Make Portability Election

Whitney Houston Leaves Behind a Legacy of Music and Estate Riddled With Confusion

Forbes.com: Obama Declares War On Rich Folks And Wealth Advisors

Bloomberg: Senate Proposes Tougher Requirements for Inherited IRAs

U.S. Treasury Announces President Obama's 2013 Budget and Proposed Estate Tax Law Changes

The eBoot Camp's Valentine's Day Gifts to You

Financial Planning Magazine: Top Tax Strategies For 2012

Practical Planner: Checklist: More Heckerling Nuggets (Volume 7, Issue 1)

Betting On A Roth Conversion

Blog Categories

Administrative Staff

Advanced-Estate Planning

Announcements

Asset Protection

Continuing Education

CPAs

Current Events

Estate Planning Attorneys

Financial Advisors

Financial Planning

Heckerling Institute

IRA Planning

Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts

Legal Document Forms

Leimberg Information Services

Life Insurance Agents

Life Insurance Planning

Marketing

Marty Shenkman

News Releases

Paralegals

Practice-Building Products

Professional Services

Retirement Benefit Planning

Robert Keebler

Roth IRAs

Seminar Marketing

Speaking Engagements

Steve Oshins

Teleconferences

Wealth Strategies Journal

Blog Links

Archived Posts

2012
February
January

The Ultimate Estate Planner, Inc. was formed to assist in the development and growth of estate planning professionals throughout the United States, including but not limited to estate planning attorneys, financial advisors, CPAs, life insurance agents, paralegals and much more. Through education, products and coaching, it is our goal to help estate planning professionals throughout the country unlock their practice’s potential.



© 2012 The Ultimate Estate Planner, Inc.
Mailing Address: 21250 Hawthorne Blvd, Suite 500, Torrance, CA 90503 | Phone: 1-866-754-6477 | 310-792-7418
Corporate Address: 212 Yacht Club Way, Suite A-11, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 | Phone: 310-792-7418 | 1-866-754-6477
About Us | Teleconferences | Products | Services

FacebookTwitterLinked-In CompanyBlog RSS

Amicus Creative