Source: http://www.actec.org/public/AkersTaxRelief.asp
Timestamp: 2014-09-19 11:48:25
Document Index: 389835425

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 304', '§ 302', '§ 302', '§ 302', '§ 302', '§ 301', '§ 2210', '§ 2664', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 2203', '§ 1022', '§ 1014', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 2210', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 1022', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 2210', '§2664', '§2664', '§ 1022', '§ 301', '§ 2652', '§ 301', '§ 6018', '§ 6075', '§ 301', '§ 6018', '§ 6018', '§ 6075', '§ 301', '§ 6018', '§301', '§ 6018', '§ 6075', '§ 301', '§ 6018', '§ 301', '§ 6075', '§ 2518', '§ 301', '§ 2518', '§ 2662', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 303', '§ 2010', '§ 2010', '§ 302', '§ 2010', '§ 2001', '§ 2010', '§ 303', '§ 2010', '§ 303', '§ 2505', '§ 2010', '§ 2505', '§ 2010', '§ 2505', '§ 2010', '§ 2505', '§ 2505', '§ 303', '§ 302', '§ 2505', '§ 301', '§ 2505', '§ 302', '§ 2505', '§ 2505', '§ 2505', '§ 2505', '§ 2505', '§ 302', '§ 2505', '§ 2502', '§ 2502', '§ 2505', '§ 302', '§ 2505', '§ 2502', '§ 2502', '§ 2001', '§ 2001', '§ 2001', '§ 2001', '§ 2001', '§ 2001', '§ 2505', '§ 2505', '§ 2505', '§ 2505', '§ 2001', '§ 302', '§ 301', '§ 2664', '§ 302', '§ 2631', '§ 302', '§ 2641', '§ 901', '§ 301', '§ 2210', '§ 2664', '§ 301', '§ 6166', '§ 101', '§ 1015', '§ 2704', '§ 2058', '§ 302', '§ 2664', '§ 2664', '§ 2653', '§ 2642', '§ 2641', '§ 302', '§ 2641', '§ 2653', '§ 2611', '§ 2613', '§ 2613', '§ 26', '§ 2652', '§ 2652', '§ 2652', '§ 2652', '§ 301', '§ 2613', '§ 2631', '§ 2010', '§ 2631', '§ 301', '§ 2010', '§ 2010', '§ 301', '§ 2631', '§ 2632', '§ 2653', '§2642', '§ 2632', '§ 2632', '§ 26', '§ 2632', '§ 2642', '§2632', '§ 2653', '§ 2642', '§2642', '§ 2642', '§ 2632', '§ 301', '§ 2210', '§ 301', '§ 2010', '§ 6075', '§ 301']

Provisions of “Tax Relief... Act of 2010,” Enacted
December 21, 2010 Republican leaders came to agreement with President Obama on December 6, 2010 to extend the “Bush income tax rates” for two years, not limited to just “middle class” taxpayers with less than $200,000 ($250,000 joint returns) and to extend unemployment benefits. Surprisingly, the agreement included extension of the estate tax for two years with a $5 million exemption and 35% rate (the exemption amount and rate urged by various Republican leaders over the last several years). (Apparently, the final “sticking points” in coming “making a deal” on the overall agreement were the estate tax provisions requested by Republican leaders and the renewal of “refundable tax credits” as urged by the Administration, and the final agreement came in meetings between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.)
Following discussions (and probably negotiations) with Congressional staffers about the details of the estate tax provisions and all of the other details of the broad agreement regarding taxes and unemployment insurance, the Senate Finance Committee released an amendment sponsored by Senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell containing the statutory language being considered by the Senate. The bill is an amendment of H.R. 4853 (which authorizes funding of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund), and proposes the “Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.” (This proposal is referred to in this summary as “TRA 2010.”) The TRA 2010 proposal comes on the heels of a proposal by Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus on December 2, 2010 of a Senate amendment of the same H.R. 4853, which amendment proposed the “Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2010.” That bill was defeated by the Senate on December 4, 2010, but of interest to the estate planning community are various estate and gift tax measures that were included in it. The following is a link to the “Baucus bill” containing the proposed Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2010, a Summary of the proposal, and estimated budget effects of the proposal: http://finance.senate.gov/legislation/details/?id=bda915fc-5056-a032-5262-6a1899fee4e3. The following summary sometimes refers to differences between TRA 2010 and the “Baucus bill.”
TRA 2010 was approved by the Senate on December 15 (by a vote of 81-19) and by the House on December 16 (by a vote of 277-148). President Obama signed the legislation on December 17, 2010 (the date of enactment). Text of the legislation is available at http://finance.senate.gov/legislation/details/?id=10874ed6-5056-a032-52cd-99708697eff0. Joint Committee on Taxation revenue estimates of the bill are available at http://op.bna.com/dt.nsf/r?Open=vmar-8bz3bn. General Provisions
(1) Short Title. The “short” title is “Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Authorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.” [TRA 2010 § 1.] How’s that for a short title? (2) Temporary Extension of Tax Relief. TRA 2010 generally provides various tax provisions that apply for just two years. This is accomplished first by extending the provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (“EGTRRA”) generally for two years, including the extension of the “Bush tax cuts” and the estate tax provisions. [TRA 2010 � 101(a) amends EGTRAA (effective as if enacted as part of EGTRRA in 2001) by amending section 901 of EGTRRA (the sunset provision) to extend the EGTRRA sunset to specified events occurring after December 31, 2012 (instead of December 31, 2010). Therefore, all of the provisions of EGTRRA generally are extended through 2012.]In addition, TRA 2010 provides that the EGTRRA sunset provisions in section 901 of EGTRRA apply to all of the amendments in the title containing the estate and gift tax provisions. [TRA 2010 § 304 says that section 901 of EGTRRA applies “to the amendments made by this section” (apparently it meant to say “this title” to refer to all of the “Temporary Estate Tax Relief” provisions in title III of TRA 2010), so the estate, gift and GST tax amendments made by TRA 2010 also sunset after 2012.]
Brief Summary of Highlights of Tax Provisions Other Than Estate, Gift and GST Tax Provisions (1) Income Tax Rates. Taxpayers at every income level would have the lower rates enacted in EGTRRA continued for two years. The top rate, on taxable income above $379,150, would stay at 35% instead of increasing to 39.6%. (Two-year cost: $186.8 billion) (2) Itemized Deductions. The personal exemption phase-out and itemized deduction limitation were both repealed for one year under EGTRRA. The repeal of both of these provisions is extended for an additional two years. This is important, for example, with respect to deductions available for large charitable contributions. Prior to the phase-out of the limitations on itemized deductions, the allowable total amount of itemized deductions was reduced by 3% of the amount by which the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income exceeded a threshold amount that was indexed annually for inflation. The otherwise allowable itemized deductions could not be reduced by more than 80%. For high income taxpayers, reducing the otherwise allowable charitable deductions (as well as other itemized deductions) by as much as 80% is a substantial tax detriment. (Cost: $20.7 billion) (3) Capital Gains and Dividends Rates. Lower capital gains and dividend rates are extended for two years. The lower rates are: taxpayers below 25% bracket: 0%, taxpayers above 25% bracket 15%. If those rates expire, the rates would become 10% and 20%, respectively, and dividend would be taxed as ordinary income. (Cost: $53.2 billion)
(4) Social Security Tax Cut of 2%. All taxpayers, including self-employed individuals, have a one year reduction in the “social security payroll tax” of 2 percentage points in 2011. For individuals, the employee rate is reduced from 6.2% to 4.2% (the old age, survivors, and disability insurance tax on the taxable wage base ($106,800 in 2010)). The employer tax rate remains at 6.2%. For self-employed individuals, the rate is reduced from 12.4% to 10.4% for taxable years of individuals that begin in 2011. (Cost: $112 billion) (5) Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT exemption amounts are increased to $47,450 ($72, 450 for joint returns) for 2010 and to $48,450 ($74,450 for joint returns) for 2011. (Over 20 million households are spared from tax increases averaging $3,900 as a result of this change.) (Cost: $136.7 billion) (6) IRA Charitable Rollover. Among the tax extenders are the IRA Charitable Rollover, which technically expired at the end of 2009. The IRA Charitable Rollover is extended for two years, through 2011, which allows individuals who are at least 70 ½ to transfer up to $100,000 per year directly to a qualified public charity (not a donor advised fund or supporting organization) without being treated as a taxable withdrawal from the IRA. The transfer can be counted toward the required minimum distribution. The measure applies to all charitable distributions throughout 2010, and distributions made any time during 2010 or in January of 2011 can be counted toward their $100,000 limit for 2010. Individuals who have already taken their 2010 required minimum distributions cannot “undo” those distributions and instead make a charitable distribution to satisfy their 2010 required minimum distributions. (Cost: $979 million)
(7) Deduction for State and Local Sales Taxes. The federal deduction for state and local sales taxes is extended for 2010 and 2011. (This is near and dear to residents of Texas and the other eight states without state income taxes.) (Cost: $5.5 billion) (8) Estate, Gift and GST Tax Cost. The estate, gift and GST provisions are discussed in detail below. (Cost: $68.1 billion)
General Summary of Estate, Gift and GST Tax Provisions
(1) Estate, Gift and GST Tax Exemptions and Rates. TRA 2010 generally sets the estate, gift and GST exemption at $5.0 million, indexed from 2010 beginning in 2012, [TRA 2010 § 302(a)(1)] and sets the maximum rate at 35%. [TRA 2010 § 302(a)(2)]. The exemption generally applies in 2010 [TRA § 302(f)], except that the gift exemption remains at $1.0 million for 2010 [TRA § 302(b)(1)(B)]. (Also, as discussed below, the bill appears not to have a $5.0 million estate or GST exemption in 2010 for estates that elect for carryover basis to apply instead of the estate tax in 2010, but this is a technicality that may be corrected before the Senate acts on the bill.)
(2) Estate Tax in 2010. a. Default Rule — Estate Tax Applies in 2010. The estate tax applies to estates of decedents dying in 2010. As discussed above, the estate tax exemption in 2010 is $5.0 million and the rate is 35%. (For various issues discussed below, it is important to keep in mind that the default rule is that the estate tax applies in 2010.) This reenactment of the estate tax for 2010 is in a complicated section of TRA 2010 that sunsets certain provisions of EGTRRA as if they had never been enacted. TRA 2010 § 301(a) provides that “[e]ach provision of subtitle A or E of title V of [EGTRRA] is amended to read as such provision would read if such subtitle had never been enacted.” Subtitle A contains I.R.C. § 2210, which says that Chapter 11 [containing the estate tax provisions] does not apply to decedents dying after 2009 (except as to certain distributions from QDOTs) and I.R.C. § 2664 (which says that Chapter 13 does not apply to GST transfers after 2009). Subtitle E contains the carryover basis provisions. The Code would be interpreted as if those provisions of EGTRRA (repealing the estate and GST tax and enacting carryover basis) had never been enacted. [TRA 2010 § 301(a).] The provision retroactively applies to decedents dying after December 31, 2009. [TRA 2010 § 301(e).] b. Carryover Basis Election for 2010 Decedents. Executors (within the meaning of I.R.C. § 2203) of estates of decedents who die in 2010 (all of 2010, not just decedents who die on or before the date of enactment, as provided in the Baucus bill) may elect to have the modified basis rules of I.R.C. § 1022 apply “with respect to property acquired or passing from the decedent” within the meaning of I.R.C. § 1014(b)) instead of the estate tax. [TRA 2010 § 301(c).] Large estates (not covered by the $5 million exemption) that would otherwise have to pay substantial estate taxes will likely make this election. However, the executor will have to consider a variety of factors in making this decision, such as the amount of estate tax payable currently vs. the gain that would be subject to income tax on a future sale of assets, anticipated dates of sale, ability to allocate basis adjustments up to fair market value at the date of death for assets that will likely be sold in the near future, anticipated future capital gains rates (and ordinary income rates for “ordinary income property”), and weighing the present value of anticipated income tax costs against the current estate tax amount.
This carryover basis election is described in TRA 2010 § 301(c). It is a complicated section, applying double and triple negatives.
“Notwithstanding subsection (a) [which says that subtitle A or E of title V of EGTRAA are treated as having never been enacted], in the case of a decedent dying after December 31, 2009, and before January 1, 2011, the executor (within the meaning of section 2203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) may elect to apply such Code as though the amendments made by subsection (a) do not apply with respect to chapter 11 of such Code and with respect to property acquired or passing from such decedent (within the meaning of section 1014(b) of such Code.)” TRA 2010 § 301(c).
Applying this language in steps:• If this election is made, the amendments made by TRA 2010 § 301(a) do not apply. This involves a triple negative. The estate tax was repealed by I.R.C. § 2210 (“chapter 11 shall not apply…”), which was included in subtitle A of title V of EGTRRA, for decedents dying after 2009 (Negative 1-estate tax not apply). The repeal of the estate tax is repealed, effective 1-1-2010, under TRA 2010 § 301(a) (as if subtitle A “had never been enacted”) (Negative 2, negating Negative 1-so estate tax does apply). If the carryover basis election is made, the “repeal of the repeal” in TRA 2010 § 301(a) does not apply (Negative 3). This means that the estate tax does not apply. (Is your head swimming yet?)
• Similarly, carryover basis does apply under a similar stepped analysis. Carryover basis was instituted under I.R.C. § 1022, as included in subtitle E of title V of EGTRRA for decedents dying after 2009. The carryover basis provisions are repealed, effective 1-1-2010, under TRA 2010 § 301(a) (as if subtitle E “had never been enacted”). If the carryover basis election is made, the amendments in TRA 2010 § 301(a) do not apply, so the repeal of carryover basis is undone, so carryover basis does apply.
• The election (which undoes the “repeal of the repeal” of the estate tax and reinstitutes carryover basis) applies “with respect to chapter 11 of such Code….” This clause, perhaps among other things, means that the amendment in § 301(a) that repeals subtitle A of title V of EGTRRA, which contained I.R.C. § 2210 repealing the estate tax and §2664 repealing the GST tax, does not apply with respect to chapter 11 (meaning that the estate tax is repealed), but does continue to apply with respect to the repeal of §2664. Therefore, the repeal of the GST tax is not undone. That is a technical correction of the similar provision in the Baucus bill.
• The election applies “with respect to property acquired or passing from such decedent (within the meaning of section 1014(b)…).” This is an obvious reference to carryover basis applying for property acquired or passing from the decedent. (It would seem that the provision could have referred just to property “acquired from such decedent” because I.R.C. § 1022(e), which remains in effect because subtitle E of title V of EGTRRA is not repealed as a result of the election, defines “property acquired from the decedent” as including property passing from the decedent by reason of death to the extent that it passes without consideration.)
If the carryover basis election is made, the last sentence of TRA 2010 § 301(c) adds that for purposes of I.R.C. § 2652(a)(1), “the determination of whether any property is subject to the tax imposed by such chapter 11 shall be made without regard to any election made under this subsection.” Section 2652(a)(1) defines “transferor” for GST tax purposes as the last person who was subject to a transfer tax. This sentence means that for GST purposes the decedent is deemed to be subject to the estate tax and is therefore the “transferor” even though chapter 11 does not apply to the decedent in that circumstance. See the discussion below in Item (3) the GST Issues section of this summary.
c. Extension of Time to File and Pay Estate Tax and GST Tax and to Make Disclaimers. (1) Estate Tax. The estate tax return and payment date of estate tax is extended to no earlier than nine months after the date of enactment. The extension applies to estates of decedents dying from January 1, 2010 to the day before the date of enactment. (The extension in the Baucus bill was only for four months rather than nine months.) [TRA 2010 § 301(d).] Practical Planning Pointer: The date of enactment is December 17, 2010, so the due date is extended to September 17, 2011, which falls on a Saturday, so the due date of estate tax returns for 2010 decedents is no earlier than September 19, 2011.
(2) Carryover Basis Report. Under current law, the carryover basis report under § 6018 is required to be filed with the decedent’s final income tax return. I.R.C. § 6075(a). The due date for filing this report may also be deferred to nine months after the date of enactment. [TRA 2010 § 301(d)(1)(A).] EGTRRA amended I.R.C. § 6018 for decedents dying after 2009 to refer to a carryover basis information return instead of the estate tax return (because the estate tax does not apply under EGTRRA to decedents dying after 2009). That amendment to § 6018 (and the change to § 6075(a) regarding the due date of the carryover basis report) were in subtitle E of title V of EGTRRA, and TRA 2010 § 301(a) interprets the Code as if subtitle E had never been enacted. Therefore, the default rule under TRA 2010 is that § 6018 now refers to the estate tax return, not the carryover basis information report. However, if the carryover basis election is made, the amendment in §301(a) does not apply as to the estate tax or carryover basis, so § 6018 continues to refer to the carryover basis report and not the estate tax return and § 6075(a) continues to require that the report be filed with the decedent’s final income tax return. Section 301(d)(1) of TRA 2010 is titled “Estate Tax,” but § 301(d)(1)(A) refers to the date for filing “any return under section 6018.” If the carryover basis election is made, § 6018 addresses the carryover basis information report and not the estate tax return. Therefore, this provision in § 301(d)(1)(A) appears to override I.R.C. § 6075 and change the due date to no earlier than nine months after the date of enactment.The IRS issued a draft of Form 8939 for comments on December 16, 2010. The draft form does not include instructions. The draft form does not contain any election provision (in light of the fact that the draft was prepared before TRA 2010 was enacted providing for the election). The form contemplates that the specific assets passing to each distributee (together with the carryover basis, value, holding period and basis adjustment allocation for each asset) will be listed on the form. (The form does not address what will happen if the executor has not paid all debts and expenses, paid all taxes and made final distributions of the assets to the beneficiaries by the time the form is due. Until all of that has happened, the executor cannot know what specific assets will pass to beneficiaries.) (3) Disclaimers. The time for making any disclaimer under I.R.C. § 2518(b) for property passing by reason of the death of a decedent (who dies after 2009) is extended to nine months after the date of enactment. [TRA § 301(d)(1)(C).] (The Baucus bill applied the disclaimer extension, as well as the other extensions, only for 2010 decedents who die before the date of enactment and referred to an extension before the time of “receiving” a disclaimer rather than the time for “making” a disclaimer.) This opens up additional planning flexibility, in light of the dramatic change in estate tax treatment under TRA 2010. Concerns with being able to take advantage of this additional time include (1) that beneficiaries may have already accepted benefits, not realizing that the disclaimer period would be extended, and (2) state law requirements for disclaimers often refer to nine months after the transfer, so disclaimers during the extended time period may not satisfy the state law requirements. (Query whether states will respond by amending their disclaimer statutes for decedents dying in 2010 before the date of enactment? Keep in mind that I.R.C. § 2518(c)(3) provides that transfers that do not qualify as disclaimers under local law may still constitute a qualified disclaimer under federal law, as long as the disclaimer operates as a valid transfer under local law to the persons who would have received the property had it been a qualified disclaimer under local law.
Practical Planning Pointer: Recite in the deed or other transfer document that the transfer is intended as a qualified disclaimer for federal tax purposes and that the assets are passing to the same persons who would have received the property had the transferor made a valid disclaimer. Extended Due Date: The extended disclaimer period runs until September 17, 2011 for 2010 decedents who die before December 17, 2010. (For decedents who die after December 17, the 9-month period will run as usual, which will be sometime after September 17, 2011.) (4) GST Tax Returns. The date for filing any return under I.R.C. § 2662 to report a “generation-skipping transfer” transfer in 2010 before the date of enactment (December 17) is extended to no earlier than 9 months after the date of enactment (or December 17, 2011, which is a Saturday, so the extended due date would be no earlier than September 19, 2011). [TRA § 301(d)(2).]
Practical Impact: For generation skipping transfers (i.e., direct skips, taxable distributions or taxable terminations), the due date for reporting the transaction on an appropriate return is extended to no earlier than September 17, 2010. (The GST transfer would be reported on the form, but the GST tax rate would be zero. Query whether there is any penalty for failing to file the return on time if the penalty is based on the amount of unpaid tax?) The time for filing a timely return to make a timely allocation of GST exemption or to make a timely election out of automatic allocation to a direct skip would be extended to September 17, 2011. (For a lifetime direct skip that would be reported on a gift tax return, if the income tax return is extended, the extended due date (October 17, 2011) would be past the September 17 date in any event.)
Practical Planning Pointer: While the time to file GST returns to report “generation-skipping transfers” that occur before December 17 in 2010 is extended, there does not appear to be an extension of time for filing a return to make timely allocations of GST exemption (or elect out of automatic allocations) for “indirect skip” transfers to trusts that are not direct skips.
(5) Applicable for Estates of Decedents Dying in 2010 Before Date of Enactment. The extension period for filing returns and paying taxes and for making disclaimers applies to estates of decedents dying in 2010 and before the date of enactment (December 17, 2010). Similarly, the extended due dates for GST returns applies for a generation-skipping transfers made in 2010 before the date of enactment. [TRA 2010 § 301(d).]
(3) Portability. The executor of a deceased spouse’s estate may transfer any unused estate exemption to the surviving spouse. [TRA 2010 § 303.] a. Estate Tax Exclusion Amount Definition Change. The portability concept is accomplished by amending I.R.C. § 2010(c) to provide that the estate tax applicable exclusion amount is 1) the “basic exclusion amount” ($5.0 million, indexed from 2010 beginning in 2012), plus (2) for a surviving spouse, the “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.” [I.R.C. § 2010(c)(2), as amended by TRA § 302(a).]
b. Deceased Spousal Unused Exclusion Amount. The “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount” is the lesser of (1) the basic exclusion amount or (2) the basic exclusion amount of the surviving spouse’s last deceased spouse over the combined amount of the deceased spouse’s taxable estate plus adjusted taxable gifts (described in new § 2010(c)((4)(B)(ii) as “the amount with respect to which the tentative tax is determined under I.R.C. § 2001(b)(1)”). The first item limits the unused exclusion to the amount of the basic exclusion amount. Therefore, if the estate tax exclusion amount decreases by the time of the surviving spouse’s death, the lower basic exclusion amount would be the limit on the unused exclusion of the predeceased spouse that could be used by the surviving spouse.The second item is the last deceased spouse’s remaining unused exemption amount. Observe that it is strictly defined as the predeceased spouse’s basic exclusion amount less the combined amount of taxable estate plus adjusted taxable gifts of the predeceased spouse. This appears to impose a privity requirement (discussed below in Item 3f).
c. Statute of Limitations on Review of Predeceased Spouse’s Estate to Determine Unused Exclusion Amount. Notwithstanding the statute of limitations on assessing estate or gift taxes for the predeceased spouse, the IRS may examine the return of a predeceased spouse at any time for purposes of determining the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount available for use by the surviving spouse. I.R.C. § 2010(c)(5)(B), as amended by TRA 2010 § 303(a).
d. Must be Timely Filed Estate Tax Return and Election for Predeceased Spouse’s Estate. The Act continues the position of prior portability bills that the executor of the first spouse’s estate must file an estate tax return on a timely basis and make an election to permit the surviving spouse to utilize the unused exemption. (Therefore, even small estates of married persons must consider whether to file an estate tax return for the first deceased spouse’s estate.) e. Only Last Deceased Spouse’s Unused Exclusion Amount Applies. Only the most recent deceased spouse’s unused exemption may be used by the surviving spouse (this is different from prior portability legislative proposals). I.R.C. § 2010(c)(5)(B)(i), as amended. An explanation of TRA 2010 by the Joint Committee on Taxation reiterates that this requirement applies even if the last deceased spouse has no unused exclusion and even if the last deceased spouse does not make a timely election. Joint Committee on Taxation Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions Contained in the “Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010” Scheduled for Consideration by the United State Senate, 52 n.57 (Dec. 10, 2010)[hereinafter Joint Committee on Taxation Technical Explanation].
f. Privity Requirement. A spouse may not use his or her spouse’s “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.” This is sometimes referred to as the “privity” requirement. For example, assume H1 dies and W has his deceased spousal unused exclusion amount, and assume W remarries H2. If W dies before H2, H2 may then use the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from W’s unused basic exclusion amount, but may not utilize any of H1s unused exclusion amount. The definition of the “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount” has no element at all that might include a deceased person’s unused exclusion from a prior spouse in determining how much unused exclusion can be used by a surviving spouse. However, the Joint Committee on Taxation Technical Explanation has an Example that appears inconsistent with this conclusion.
“Example 3. [Husband 1 dies with $2 million of unused exclusion amount.] Following Husband 1’s death, Wife’s applicable exclusion amount is $7 million (her $5 million basic exclusion amount plus $2 million deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 1). Wife made no taxable transfers and has a taxable estate of $3 million. An election is made on Wife’s estate tax return to permit Husband 2 to use Wife’s deceased spousal unused exclusion amount, which is $4 million (Wife’s $7 million applicable exclusion amount less her $3 million taxable estate). Under the provision, Husband 2’s applicable exclusion amount is increased by $4 million, i.e., the amount of deceased spousal unused exclusion amount of Wife.” Joint Committee on Taxation Technical Explanation at 53.
This example assumes that Wife’s deceased spouse unused exclusion amount, which could be used by Husband 2, is Wife’s $7 million exclusion amount (which includes the deceased spousal unused exclusion from Husband 1) less her $3 million taxable estate. This would suggest that Husband 2 does get to take advantage of the unused exclusion amount from Husband 1. One might argue that this is just a matter of determining whether Wife first uses her own exclusion or first uses Husband 1’s unused exclusion before using her own. If she first uses the unused exclusion that she received from Husband 1, her $3 million taxable estate, less Husband’s 1’s $2 million exclusion, would leave $1 million of taxable estate to be offset by $1 million of Wife’s basic exclusion, leaving unused exclusion of $4 million for Husband 2. However, that approach is not consistent with the statutory definition of the “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.” Under the statutory definition, the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount that Husband 2 could have from Wife is determined as follows:
(1)Basic exclusion amount $5 million
(2)Wife’s basic exclusion amount $5 million Less Wife’s taxable estate plus adjusted taxable gifts$3 million Item (2) $2 million
There is nothing in the statutory definition that makes any references whatsoever to the amount of Wife’s unused exclusion from Husband 1 in determining the amount of the unused exclusion that Husband 2 has from Wife.
g. Applies for Gift Tax Purposes. Portability applies for the gift exemption as well as the estate exemption. TRA 2010 § 303(b)(1) amends I.R.C. § 2505(a)(1), which describes the “applicable credit amount” for gift tax purposes, by referring to the applicable credit amount under § 2010(c) “which would apply if the donor died as of the end of the calendar year…” (Under § 2505(a)(2), the credit amount is further reduced by the amounts of credit allowable in preceding years.) The applicable credit amount under § 2010(c) includes the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount, so that amount is also included in the gift exemption amount.
Example 1. Husband 1 dies in 2011 with a taxable estate of $1 million, leaving a “deceased spousal unused credit amount” for Wife of $4 million. If later in 2011 Wife makes a large gift, her gift exemption under § 2505(a) is the estate tax applicable credit amount under § 2010(c) that would apply if Wife died as of the end of 2011. If Wife died at the end of 2011, her estate tax applicable credit amount would be her basic exclusion amount ($5 million) plus the amount of her deceased spousal unused credit amount ($4 million), or $9 million.
Example 2 (Gift in 2011). Assume the same facts as Example 1, but assume Wife makes a taxable gift of $4 million in 2011. (Apparently, it makes no difference whether Wife makes the gift before or after Husband 1 dies—her gift exemption is determined as if she had died on the last day of the calendar year, which would be after Husband 1 died.) Does the 2011 gift utilize Wife’s own gift exemption amount first, or does it utilize her deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 1 first? Example 3 in the Joint Committee on Taxation Technical Explanation might be read as saying that the deceased spousal unused credit would be used first (at least for estate tax purposes). However, there is nothing in the statutory language suggesting that either spouse’s credit would be used first. It just says that Wife has a credit on $9 million of exclusion in 2011 (or $3,130,800 of credit). Her gift of $4 million generates no gift tax: Gift tax on $4 million$1,380,800
Less gift unified credit -1,380,800
Gift tax paid0
Example 3 (Additional Gift in 2012). Assume the same facts as in Examples 1-2, assume Wife makes another taxable gift of $4 million in 2012, and assume there is no inflation adjustment to the $5 million basic exclusion amount. (If there had been an inflation adjustment, Wife’s basic exclusion amount would be inflation adjusted, but the $4 million of deceased spousal unused exclusion would not be adjusted.) Wife’s gift unified credit is (1) the estate tax applicable credit amount she would have if she died at the end of 2012 [§ 2505(a)(1)], less (2) the amounts allowable as credit against the gift tax for preceding years [§ 2505(a)(2)]. This amount is:
(1) Estate tax applicable credit amount if die at end of 2012 (tentative tax on basic exclusion amount ($5 million assuming no inflation adjustment) and deceased spousal unused exclusion amount ($4 million, never inflation adjusted), combined $9 million)$3,130,800
Less (2) Amounts allowable as credit for preceding years-1,380,800
Available gift tax unified credit amount for 20121,750,000
Gift tax calculation:
Gift tax on gifts for all periods ($8 million)$2,780,800 Gift tax on $4 million gifts in 2011- 1,380,800 Gift tax before credit1,400,000 Less gift unified credit- 1,400,000 Gift tax paid0
Available gift tax unified credit available for future years (as long as Wife has this same deceased spousal unused exclusion amount):
Credit amount on $9 million$3,130,800 Gift credit used in 2011- 1,380,800 Gift credit used in 2012-1,400,000 Remaining gift credit350,000
(That would cover additional gifts of $1 million.) Example 4 (Husband 2 Dies, Additional Gift in 2013). Assume the same facts as in Examples 1-3, assume Husband 2 dies in 2013 with a taxable estate of $6 million and no unused exclusion amount, assume TRA 2010 is extended to apply in 2013, and assume the estate tax basic exclusion amount has been inflation adjusted to $5,020,000. Assume Wife makes a gift of $1 million in 2013. Wife’s gift tax unified credit: (1)Estate tax applicable credit amount if die at end of 2013
(tentative tax on basic exclusion amount ($5.02 million)
and deceased spousal unused exclusion amount (0),
combined $5.02 million$1,737,800
(2)Amounts allowable as credit for preceding years (1,380,800 for 2011 + 1,400,000 for 2012)- 2,780,800
Remaining gift credit0
Gift tax on gifts for all periods ($9 million)$3,130,800
Gift tax on $8 million gifts in 2011-2012- 2,780,000
Gift tax before credit 350,000
Less gift unified credit- 0
Gift tax paid350,000
Practical Planning Pointers.(a) There is no concept of “using Husband 1’s unused exclusion first,” leaving Wife with $1.0 million of her own gift exemption amount after Husband 2 died, and Wife no longer had any deceased spousal unused exclusion after Husband 2 died.
(b) A surviving spouse should use the deceased spouse’s unused exclusion amount with gifts as soon as possible (particularly if she remarries) so that she does not lose it if the new spouse predeceases or if the basic exclusion amount is decreased (remember that the deceased unused exclusion amount is the lesser of the basic exclusion amount or the amount from the unused exclusion calculation).
(c) There is no way that Wife can utilize her deceased spousal unused exclusion amount with out using her own basic exclusion amount. h. Not Apply for GST Tax Purposes. Portability does not apply to the GST exemption. i. Effective Date — Decedents Dying After 2010. The provision applies to the estates of decedents dying and gifts made after 2010. [TRA § 303(c)(1).] The Joint Committee on Taxation Technical Explanation takes the clear position that portability applies only if the first spouse dies after 2010. Joint Committee on Taxation Technical Explanation, at 51­52 (“Under the provision, any applicable exclusion amount that remains unused as of the death of a spouse who dies after December 31, 2010 (the ‘deceased spousal unused exclusion amount’), generally is available for use by the surviving spouse, as an addition to such surviving spouse’s applicable exclusion amount.”)
j. Planning Observations.(i) Heightened Significance in Light of Exemption Amount Increase. Portability takes on increased importance in light of the increase of the exemption amount to $5.0 million. Marrying a poor dying person to be able to use his or her unused exemption amount (which could be close to the full $5.0 million) may yield dramatic tax savings.(ii) Impact on Decision to Remarry. Portability may impact the decision of a surviving spouse to remarry. If the new spouse should predecease the surviving spouse, the unused exemption of the first deceased spouse would no longer be available to the surviving spouse, and the new spouse may have little or no unused exemption. (iii) Impact of Decision to Divorce. Portability could even encourage the spouses of wealthy families to divorce, each to remarry poor sickly individuals, and not to remarry after the new poor spouses die. This could make up to an additional $10 million of estate and gift tax exemption available to the family.
(iv) Gift Tax Exclusions of Multiple Deceased Spouses. The statute itself has no limits on being able to take advantage of the exemptions from multiple deceased spouses for gift tax purposes. For example, if H1 dies with substantial unused exclusion, the surviving spouse (W) could make lifetime gifts using her own exclusion and H1s unused exclusion. (As discussed above, Wife would have to use her own basic exclusion amount in order to use the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from H1.)) If Wife remarries and H2 also dies with unused exclusion, W could then make additional gifts using H2’s unused exclusion (before she remarries and her next husband dies). Courts or the IRS may address a “sham marriage” concept to put some limits on using the exclusions of multiple poor sickly spouses.
Only Available Two Years. Like the rest of the estate and gift tax provisions in TRA 2010, the portability provision expires after 2012. The apparent anticipation is that Congress will extend this benefit following 2012, but there are no guarantees. In light of this, few will be willing to rely on portability and forego using bypass trust planning in the first deceased spouse’s will. The possible exception would be if the surviving spouse intends to make gifts soon after the first spouse’s death to utilize the unused exclusion — but if the spouse is willing to do that, it would seem better to just use bypass trust planning in the spouses’ wills.
(vi) Reasons for Using Trusts Even With Portability. There are various reasons for continuing to use bypass trusts at the first spouse’s death and not rely on the portability provision including, (a) the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount is not indexed, (b) the unused exclusion from a particular predeceased spouse will be lost if the surviving spouse remarries and survives his or her next spouse, (c) growth in the assets are not excluded from the gross estate of the surviving spouse unlike the growth in a bypass trust which is excluded, (d) there is no portability of the GST exemption, and (e) there are other standard benefits of trusts, including asset protection, providing management, and restricting transfers of assets by the surviving spouse. On the other hand, leaving everything to the surviving spouse and relying on portability offers the advantages of simplicity and a stepped-up basis at the surviving spouse’s death. Practical Planning Pointer: Few individuals will be willing to rely on portability of the estate tax exemption in planning their estates, because of the fact that portability only exists for two years and because there are a variety of other reasons for continuing to use appropriate “bypass” planning with trusts. (4) Gift Exemption and Change in Method for Calculating Gift Tax.
a. Unification of Gift Exemption Beginning in 2011. The gift exemption remains at $1,000,000 in 2010. [TRA § 302(b)(1)(B).] Beginning in 2011, the gift exemption amount is the same as the estate tax exclusion amount, or $5.0 million, indexed from 2010 beginning in 2012. Following amendments to I.R.C. § 2505(a) in TRA 2010 §§ 301(b) & 302(b)(1), § 2505(a)(1) will provide that the unified gift tax credit is:
“(1) the applicable credit amount in effect under section 2010(c) which would apply if the donor died as of the end of the calendar year …” (The last phrase, beginning with “which would apply if the donor died as of the end of the calendar year” is the clause that provides portability of the gift exclusion.)
The Baucus bill did not unify the gift and estate exclusion amounts.Practical Planning Pointer--Huge Implications for Future Transfer Planning Opportunities: The $5.0 million gift exclusion amount beginning in 2011 will open up a new paradigm of thinking regarding transfer planning strategies. The ability to make transfers of up to $10 million per couple without having to pay gift taxes paves the way for many transfer planning opportunities that, with leveraging strategies, can transfer vast amounts of wealth outside the gross estate. For example, a couple could give $10 million to grantor trusts, and sell $90 million of assets to the trusts with extremely low interest rate notes. The couple would continue to pay all of the income taxes on the grantor trusts, further depleting their estates and allowing the trusts to compound tax-free. Perhaps the notion of the estate tax being a “voluntary tax” will become reality.
b. Change in Gift Tax Calculation Method; Effect of Changed Calculation Method. For gift tax purposes, the gift tax calculation includes subtracting a unified credit, and the amount of unified credit available for a particular year is determined after subtracting the amount of credit already used from prior gifts. In calculating the amount of credit used on prior gifts, use the gift tax rate for the year of the current gift to determine the tentative tax on the applicable exclusion amount that was applicable for offsetting the gift tax on prior gifts. [TRA § 302(d)(2), amending I.R.C. § 2505(a).] (Query how to apply the rates in the current year for purposes of subtracting the gift credit amounts used in prior years when gifts were made in years before 1998 for which there was a fixed credit amount rather than an applicable exclusion amount? For example, in 1987-1997, the unified credit against gift tax was $192,800. For those years, presumably, the actual amount of gift credit used in the prior year is subtracted under § 2505(a)(2).) The effect of this change is to “correct” an anomaly that existed under prior law. If an individual had made gifts before 2010 over $500,000, the gifts used more credit (calculated at 37% and 39% rates) than gifts would use at a 35% rate. The result was that donors who had made prior taxable gifts over $500,000 could not make additional gifts in 2010 (at a 35% rate) equal to the difference between $1 million and the prior gifts. (For example, a donor who had made taxable gifts before 2010 of $961,538.46 would not be able to make additional gifts in 2010 (calculating the credit at a 35% rate) without paying gift tax.) Practical Planning Pointer: The amendments to § 2505 mean that a donor can make gifts equal to the difference between the current applicable exclusion amount for gift tax purposes and the amount of prior taxable gifts without having to pay gift tax. Steven Schindler, attorney in Seattle Washington, provides this example of the effect of the amendments to § 2505(a):
“For example, a donor who, in 2009, made her first taxable gift in the amount of $900,000, utilized $306,800 in credit (when $345,800 was available). The same donor in 2010 only has $330,800 in total credit, and, having used $306,800 in 2009, only has $24,000 in remaining credit to apply against 2010 gifts. At the 35% gift tax rate, this amount of credit only protects $68,571 in taxable gifts. If the donor makes a gift of the remaining $100,000, thinking that she has $1 million in total lifetime exemption equivalent, the donor would owe gift tax of $11,000 under the unamended § 2505(a). Under TRA 2010 § 302(d)(2) we would not look to the 2009 return to determine how much credit was used. Instead, we would re-determine in 2010, for purposes of calculating gift tax on any 2010 gift, the amount of credit that would have been used on the 2009 gift if the tax rates in effect in 2010 were applicable in 2009. Applying the maximum 35% rate to the $900,000 gift, only $295,800 in credit would have been used, leaving $35,000 in remaining credit for 2010, permitting a full $100,000 gift.”
c. Gift Tax Effects if Donor Previously Made Gifts Above $5 Million in Prior Years. If a donor has made over $5 million of gifts in prior years, can the donor make use of the additional $4 million of gift exemption in 2011? Yes. The donor paid gift taxes on the excess of gifts over the $1 million exemption (or less) in prior years, and the donor can still take advantage of the additional $4 million of gift exemption. Under § 2505(a), the donor’s gift tax unified credit amount would be the applicable credit amount on the $5 million basic exclusion less the “amounts allowable as a credit to the individual under this section for all preceding calendar periods” (which would reflect the credit amount on $1 million of gifts, so there would be lots of unified credit left). Example ($5 million of Gifts in 2009). Assume Donor made $5 million of taxable gifts in 2009, and wishes to make an additional $4 million of gifts in 2011 (to make use of her additional $4 million of gift exemption.)
Gift tax in 2009 on $5 million gift:
Gift tax before credit (applying 45% rate)$2,130,800
Gift tax credit on $1.0 million-345,800
Gift tax paid for 2009 gifts
Gift tax in 2011 on additional $4 million gift: Gift tax on aggregate gifts of $9 million (applying 35% rate), § 2502(a)(1)(a)
Less gift tax on prior $5 million gift (also applying 35% rate), § 2502(a)(1)(b)
- 1,730,800 Gift tax before credit
Less available gift unified credit (using 35% rate, even
for determining amount of credit used in 2009 when the
marginal rate was 45%, under § 2505(a), as amended by
TRA 2010 § 302(d)(2)) (1) Estate tax applicable credit amount on $5 million basic
exclusion amount in 2011, § 2505(a)(1)$1,730,800 Less
(2) Amounts allowable as credit for preceding years (on $1
million), using 35% highest marginal rate that applies in
current year, rather than 39% highest rate that applied in
2009)- 330,800 Available gift credit for 2011$1,400,000 Gift tax for 2011 after credit Gift tax before credit (calculated above) $1,400,000
Less gift unified credit - 1,400,000
Gift tax payable for 2011 0
Practical Planning Pointer: If a donor previously made taxable gifts exceeding $1 million
prior to 2011, the donor can make additional gifts of exactly $4,000,000 that will be
covered by the $5 million gift exemption in 2011. Even though the gift credit on up to $1
million was previously calculated using 45% (or higher rates), in the current year
calculation the amount of credit previously used is calculated using current year (35% rates) rather than the amount of credit actually applied at the higher rates. e. Gift Tax Effects if Donor Previously Made Taxable Gifts Above $1 Million Prior to 2011. As illustrated by the preceding example, if the donor has previously made taxable gifts of at least $1 million prior to 2011, the client can make an additional taxable gift of exactly $4 million in 2011 without having to pay gift tax. f. Gift Tax Effects if Donor Previously Made Taxable Gifts, But Under $1 Million Prior to 2011. Similarly, if the donor has made prior taxable gifts prior to 2011 of less than $1 million, the donor can make gifts of exactly $5 million less the amount of taxable gift made previously. Example ($900,000 of Prior Gifts). Assume the donor made gifts of $900,000 in 2009. Gift tax in 2009 on $900,000 gift:
Gift tax before credit (highest marginal rate is 39%)$ 306,800
Gift tax credit on $900,000- 306,800
Gift tax in 2011 on additional $4.1 million gift:
Gift tax on aggregate gifts of $5 million
(applying 35% rate), § 2502(a)(1)(a)$1,730,800
Less gift tax on prior $900,000 gift
(also applying 35% rate), § 2502(a)(1)(b)- 295,800
Gift tax on additional $4.1 million before credit
Credit on 2011 gift
Credit on $5.0 million applicable exclusion$1,730,800 Credit used on prior period gifts (35% rate)- 295,800 Credit left $1,435,000
Gift tax payable on 2011 gift
(4) Change in Estate Tax Calculation Method Regarding Effects of Prior Gifts. The estate tax calculation method is changed to reflect the effects of changing gift tax rates. The calculation method under § 2001(b) is to calculate the estate tax amount, before applying the unified credit or other credits, by the following approach:
• First, calculate a tentative tax on the combined amount of (A) the taxable estate, and (B) the amount of adjusted taxable gifts (i.e., taxable gifts made after 1976 other than gifts that have been brought back into the gross estate — just the tax using the rate schedule is calculated, without subtracting any credits), I.R.C. § 2001(b)(1),
• Second, subtract the amount of gift tax that would have been payable with respect to gifts after 1976 if the rate schedule in effect at the decedent’s death had been applicable at the time of the gifts (the Form 706 instructions for the “Line 7 Worksheet” clarify that the gift unified credit attributable to the applicable credit amount available in each year that gifts were made is used in calculating the gift tax that would have been payable in that year), I.R.C. § 2001(b)(2).TRA 2010 amends § 2001 to add new § 2001(g), which clarifies that in making the second calculation (under § 2001(b)(2)), the tax rates in effect at the date of death (rather than the rates at the time of each gift) are used to compute the gift tax imposed and the gift unified credit allowed in each year. The gift unified credit equals-- (1) the estate tax applicable credit amount for the year of the gift (§ 2505(a)(1)), less (2) the aggregate gift unified credits for preceding years (§ 2505(a)(2)), and as discussed in Item 4 b above regarding the calculation of the gift tax, TRA 2010 amends § 2505(a) to provide that in calculating the aggregate gift unified credits used in prior years under § 2505(a)(2), rates in effect for the year of each current gift are used in lieu of the actual rates of tax in effect during the preceding years.
a. General Estate Tax Effects of Prior Gifts. Generally speaking, the estate tax calculation method of § 2001(b) is designed (1) to tax the estate at the highest estate tax rate brackets, taking into consideration prior gifts (by determining the tax on the combined taxable estate plus adjusted taxable gifts and subtracting the taxes on just the adjusted taxable gifts), and (2) to reflect that the individual has already utilized unified credit that would otherwise be available at death for any taxable gifts made previously (this is done by reducing the amount of tax that is subtracted attributable to just the adjusted taxable gifts by the amount of unified credits attributable to those adjusted taxable gifts.) Practical Planning Pointer: By using the rates in effect at the date of death to calculate the gifts tax that would have been payable on the adjusted taxable gifts, the system grants an advantage to making gifts at a lower rate than the ultimate estate tax rate.
b. Impact of Gifts Utilizing $5 Gift Exemption on Later Estate Tax Calculation. Example 1 (Gift of $5 Million; Death in 2012). Assume A has an estate of $15 million and makes a $5 million gift (ATG) in 2011, and dies in 2012 with a taxable estate (TE) of $10 million. (Because death occurs within three years, any gift tax paid would be brought back into the estate, but a gift of $5 million in 2011 will not require the payment of any gift tax.)Gift Calculation. The gift is fully covered by the $5 million gift exemption, so no gift tax is due. Gift tax in 2011 on additional $4.1 million gift:
Tentative tax on TE + ATG ($15 million)
Less gift tax on ATGs using date of death rates
Gift tax on $5 million (35% top rate)
Less gift unified credit on $5M exclusion (35% rate)
- $1,737,800
Estate tax before unified credit
Less unified credit on $5 million exclusion
Conclusion. The total gift tax and estate tax is $3,500,000. If the gift had not been made, the estate tax on a $15 million taxable estate would have been the same $3,500,000. Making the gift did not cost any additional tax. The simple example neglects future appreciation and payments of income taxes. If the gift removed future appreciation or if the gift were made to a grantor trust and A paid income taxes on grantor trust income thus reducing her estate, the gift would have produced an overall savings — without having to pay a current gift tax. Example 2 (Gift of $5 Million; Death in 2013 and Assume Applicable Exclusion Amount Has Been Reduced to $3.5 Million and Rate Has Been Increased to 45%). Assume A makes a $5 million gift in 2011 and dies in 2013 after TRA 2010 has sunsetted. Assume the law is changed for 2013 so that the applicable exclusion amount is reduced to $3.5 million and the rate is increased to 45% (the 2009 system).
Gift Calculation. The gift is fully covered by the $5 million gift exemption, so no gift tax is due. Estate Tax Calculation
Tentative tax on TE + ATG ($15 million) (45% top rate)
$6,630,800
Gift tax on $5 million (45% top rate)
Less gift unified credit on $5M exclusion (45% rate)
- 2,130,800
6,630,800
Less unified credit on $3.5 million exclusion
- 1,455,800
Conclusion. The total gift tax and estate tax is $5,175,000. If the gift had not been made, the estate tax on a $15 million taxable estate would have been the same $5,175,000. Making the gift did not cost any additional tax, even if TRA sunsets and there is a later decrease in the applicable exclusion amount and increase in the gift tax rate. Stated differently, the estate ultimately receives just the benefit of the applicable exclusion amount at the individual’s death. However, future appreciation attributable to the gift or income taxes paid on gift assets in grantor trusts will reduce the gross estate that would otherwise be subject to estate taxes. Example 3 (Gift of $5 Million; Death in 2013 and Assume Applicable Exclusion Amount Has Been Reduced to $1 Million and Rate Has Been Increased to 55%). Assume A makes a $5 million gift in 2011 and dies in 2013 after TRA 2010 has sunsetted. Assume the law is changed for 2013 so that the applicable exclusion amount is reduced to $1 million and the rate is increased to 55% (the pre-2001 system).
Gift Calculation. The gift is fully covered by the $5 million gift exemption, so no gift tax is due.
Tentative tax on TE + ATG ($15 million) (55% top rate)
$7,890,800
Gift tax on $5 million (55% top rate)
Less gift unified credit on $5M exclusion (55% rate)
- 2,390,800
7,890,800
Less unified credit on $1 million exclusion
- 345,800
Conclusion. The total gift tax and estate tax is $7,545,000. If the gift had not been made, the estate tax on a $15 million taxable estate would have been the same $7,545,000. Making the gift did not cost any additional tax, even if TRA sunsets and there is a later dramatic decrease in the applicable exclusion amount and increase in the gift tax rate. The simple example neglects future appreciation and payments of income taxes. If the gift removed future appreciation or if the gift were made to a grantor trust and A paid income taxes on grantor trust income thus reducing her estate, the gift would have produced an overall savings — without having to pay a current gift tax.
Practical Planning Pointer: Making a taxable gift merely has the effect of excluding future appreciation of the gift property from the estate as well as income tax that the donor may pay on grantor trust income if the gift is made to a grantor trust. The estate ultimately receives just the benefit of the applicable exclusion amount at the individual’s death. As illustrated in this example, if an individual makes a $5 million gift in 2011 and the applicable exclusion amount is later reduced, the individual still has the benefit of making a $5 million gift (and shifting future appreciation and income payments attributable to a grantor trust) without taking away the estate’s right to take advantage of the applicable exclusion amount at death, whatever amount that might be. If the donor has not paid gifts taxes, the effect is that the estate is subject to estate tax (using rates in effect at the date of death) on the combined taxable estate plus adjusted taxable gifts, with the benefit of the unified credit that applies at the date of death. (The next examples address the effects if gift taxes have been paid during life.) Example 4 (Gift of $10 million in 2011; Death in 2012 With Same Exclusion and Rate). Assume A makes a gift of $10 million in 2011 and dies in 2012 with an estate of $5 million. (The gift tax paid will be added to the gross estate because A did not live three years after the transfer.)
Gift tax (before credit) on $10 million
Less unified credit on $5 million exclusion amount
Gift tax payable for 2011 gift
Tentative tax on TE (incl Gift Tax) + ATG ($15 million)
Gift tax on $10 million (35% top rate)
Conclusion. The total gift tax and estate tax is $1,750,000 gift tax plus $1,750,000 estate tax, or $3,500,000. If the gift had not been made, the estate tax on a $15 million taxable estate would have been the same $3,500,000. Making the gift did not cost any additional tax. The simple example neglects future appreciation and payments of income taxes. If the gift removed future appreciation or if the gift were made to a grantor trust and A paid income taxes on grantor trust income thus reducing her estate, the gift would have produced an overall savings.
Example 5 (Gift of $10 million in 2011; Death in 2013 With Exclusion of $3.5 Million and Top Rate of 45%). Assume A makes a gift of $10 million in 2011 and dies in 2013 with an estate of $5 million. (The gift tax paid will be added to the gross estate because A did not live three years after the transfer.) Assume that Congress has changed the applicable exclusion amount back to $3.5 million and has increased the top rate to 45% for 2013.
Less unified credit on $5 million exclusion amt
(at 45% top rate)
Gift tax on $10 million (45% top rate)
Less unified credit on $3.5 million exclusion (45% top
Conclusion. The total gift tax and estate tax is $1,750,000 gift tax plus $2,925,000 estate tax, or $4,675,000. If the gift had not been made, the estate tax on a $15 million taxable estate would have been 5,175,000. Making the gift saved $500,000 of combined tax. (The $10 million gift had a 35% tax rate apply to $5 million — the amount of the gift not covered by the $5 million exemption. If the gift is not made, that $5 million would have been taxed at 45%. The additional 10% of the $5 million amount accounts for the additional $500,000 that would be paid if the gift were not made.) Example 6 (Gift of $10 million in 2011; Death in 2013 With Exclusion of $1 Million and Top Rate of 55%). Assume A makes a gift of $10 million in 2011 and dies in 2013 with an estate of $5 million. (The gift tax paid will be added to the gross estate because A did not live three years after the transfer.) Assume that Congress has changed the applicable exclusion amount back to $1 million and has increased the top rate to 55% for 2013.
Tentative tax on TE (incl Gift Tax) + ATG ($15 million) (at
55% top rate)
Less gift tax on ATGs using DOD rates
Gift tax on $10 million (55% top rate)
(using 55% top rate)
Conclusion. The total gift tax and estate tax is $1,750,000 gift tax plus $4,795,000 estate tax, or $6,545,000. If the gift had not been made, the estate tax on a $15 million taxable estate would have been 7,545,000. Making the gift saved $1 million of combined tax. (The $10 million gift had a 35% tax rate apply to $5 million — the amount of the gift not covered by the $5 million exemption. If the gift is not made, that $5 million would have been taxed at 55%. The additional 20% of the $5 million amount accounts for the additional $1 million that would be paid if the gift were not made.)
Practical Planning Pointer: As a general rule, if a gift over the $5 million exemption amount is made and if the estate/gift tax rate is later increased, there will be savings equal to the difference in rates times the excess gift over the gift exemption amount. A change in the estate tax applicable exclusion amount alone does not result in a change of the combined estate and gift tax. Also, this example is designed so that there is no benefit of savings attributable to having gift taxes removed from the estate tax if the donor lives at least 3 years after the gift; this is on purpose to more readily compare the tax effects of making gifts attributable to changing rates and exclusion amounts. However, the advantage of having gift taxes removed from the estate is more pronounced as larger gift taxes are paid. Furthermore, this simple example neglects future appreciation and payments of income taxes. If the gift removed future appreciation or if the gift were made to a grantor trust and A paid income taxes on grantor trust income thus reducing her estate, the gift would have produced an even greater overall savings.
(5) GST Tax — Overview of Changes. The general GST effects of the amendments in TRA 2010 are summarized below. A more detailed discussion of changes and planning implications is in the subsequent GST Issues section of this summary.
a. GST Applicable Rate in 2010 is Zero. For all of 2010, the GST tax “applicable rate determined under section 2641(a)... is zero” for all generation-skipping transfers made in 2010. [TRA 2010 § 302(c).] This change in nomenclature makes clear that generation-skipping transfer may be made in further trust. This issue is discussed in Items 2a and 3 of the GST Planning Issues section.
b. GST Tax Applies After 2010. TRA § 301(a) in effect repeals § 2664 added by EGTRRA, which section provided that Chapter 13 would not apply to GST transfers after 2009. This change is made effective for transfers made after 2009. However, as discussed immediately above, TRA § 302(c) provides the special rule resulting in a zero GST tax for GST transfers in 2010.
c. GST Exemption of $5.0 Million for 2010. The GST exemption equals the estate tax “applicable exclusion amount under section 2010(c) for such calendar year.” I.R.C. § 2631(c). Because the estate tax applicable exclusion amount is changed to $5.0 million for 2010 (see item (1) above), [TRA § 302(a)(1)], the GST exemption is $5.0 million for 2010. This is important, because it clarifies that there is up to $5.0 million of GST exemption that can be allocated on a timely basis to transfers to trusts in 2010. (See Item 7 of the GST Issues section of this summary for a more detailed discussion of the applicability of the $5 million GST exemption in 2010 and planning implications in connection with that exemption.)
d. GST Exemption in Future Years. The GST exemption for 2011 will also be $5.0 million. The $5.0 million amount is indexed from 2010, beginning in 2012. (The GST exemption amount is the same as the estate tax applicable exclusion amount, and the estate tax exclusion amount is indexed beginning in 2012 as discussed in Item 1 above.) If the GST exemption amount is not changed by future legislation, after the TRA sunsets following 2012, the GST exemption will be $1.0 million, indexed from 1997.
e. GST Tax Rate After 2010. The “applicable rate” for determining the GST tax is the maximum estate tax rate times the inclusion of the trust. I.R.C. § 2641(a). Because the maximum estate tax rate is 35%, the GST rate is also 35% (except that the rate is zero for generation-skipping transfers in 2010).
(6) Section 2511(c) Deleted. Section 2511(c), added by EGTRRA, provides that transfers to non-grantor trusts are treated as gifts. That section, which has raised considerable confusion, is fortunately deleted.
(7) Sunset Provision of EGTRRA. Planners have been very concerned about the unintended possible effects of the sunset provision in EGTRRA following 2010. Section 901 of EGTRRA says that the Code will be interpreted as if the provisions of EGTRRA had never been enacted with respect to estates of decedents dying after, gift made after, and GST transfers after 2010. However, there are many taxpayer favorable provisions in EGTRRA that might conceivably expire under EGTRRA § 901. Most of these uncertainties are resolved for 2011 and 2012. TRA 2010 § 301(a) says that each Code provision amended by subtitles A or E of title V of EGTRRA “is amended to read as such provision would read if such subtitle had never been enacted.” Subtitle A contains I.R.C. § 2210, which says that Chapter 11 [containing the estate tax provisions] does not apply to decedents dying after 2009 (except as to certain distributions from QDOTs) and I.R.C. § 2664 (which says that Chapter 13 does not apply to GST transfers after 2009). Subtitle E contains the carryover basis provisions. The Code would be interpreted as if those provisions of EGTRRA had never been enacted. (The carryover basis provisions would still apply for 2010 decedents who elect to be subject to carryover basis instead of paying estate tax. TRA 2010 § 301(c) begins “Notwithstanding subsection (a) …”, and subsection (c) specifically states that the amendments in subsection (a) repealing the carryover basis provisions do not apply if the election is made.) All of the other provisions of EGTRRA would be given effect for 2011 and 2012, including the reduction of estate and gift tax rates (subtitle B), increase of unified credit exemption equivalent and GST exemption and setting the gift exemption at $1.0 million (subtitle C), replacing the state death tax credit with a state tax deduction (subtitle D), expansion of conservation easement rules for estate tax purposes (subtitle F), modifications of GST provisions, including automatic exemption allocations, retroactive allocations, qualified severances, modification of certain valuation rules, and the GST “9100 relief provisions”(subtitle G), and the relaxation of the requirements for deferred estate tax payments under I.R.C. § 6166 (subtitle H). This eliminates the concern about the effect of the sunset rule in EGTRRA on all of those other provisions for 2011 and 2012. However, TRA 2010 provides for temporary tax relief (generally for just two years), and TRA 2010 § 101(a) states that Section 901 of EGTRRA is applied by replacing “December 31, 2010” with “December 31, 2012.” This means that the sunset rule of EGTRRA is now delayed for two years, until following 2012. All of the uncertainties that we have had previously about the EGTRRA sunset provision remain, but are “punted forward” for two years to 2013.Effective Dates There are a variety of effective dates, described above for the various provisions.Interestingly, some of the changes are effective retroactively for all of 2010, mainly the re-enactment of the estate tax with a $5 million exclusion amount and 35% rate (but subject to the election to have carryover basis apply instead of the estate tax), technical computational details for calculating estate and gift taxes, increasing the GST exemption to $5.0 million for 2010, and clarifying that direct skip transfers in trust in 2010 will not result in the application of GST taxes when distributions are later made to the beneficiaries (at least to the oldest generation of direct skip beneficiaries when the trust is created).
Other changes are effective beginning in 2011. These include unification of the gift and estate exclusion amounts, and the portability of the unused estate tax exclusion amount.Several changes apply only to estates of decedents dying in 2010 prior to and GST transfers made in 2010 prior to the date of enactment — the provision allowing a delay in filing and paying tax until no earlier than 9 months after the date of enactment. Similarly, the extended period for making disclaimers from transfers arising by the death of a decedent applies only to decedents who die in 2010 before the date of enactment.
A very key change from the Baucus bill is that the changes to the gift tax in the Baucus bill (imposing a 45% rate) and reinstituting the GST tax on GST transfers applied to transfers after the date of introduction of that bill (December 2, 2010). This would have removed many opportunities for year-end transfer planning in December. Fortunately, TRA 2010 does not apply an effective date for gifts or GST transfers before 2011.
Several provisions in the Baucus bill, including some provisions that we have seen in various bills in the last several years, are not included in TRA 2010. The following provisions in the Baucus bill and several other proposals that have received some attention over the last several years were not included.
(1) Farmland. Estate taxes on farmland could be deferred under the Baucus bill until the farmland is sold or transferred outside the family or ceases to be used for farming. The executor would have to make a special election to exclude the farmland from the gross estate, attach a qualified appraisal of the farmland to the estate tax return, and file an agreement that provides for a never-ending estate tax recapture provision when the farmland is later sold, transferred outside the family, ceases to be used as farmland, or is encumbered by a nonrecourse indebtedness secured in whole or in part by the farmland. (There are complex provisions regarding the amount of the recapture tax payable by intervening generations, taking into account subsequent appreciation in the farmland, and requiring that “qualified heirs” file annual information returns describing whether any of the recapture triggering events has occurred.)
(2) Special Use Valuation. The Baucus bill would have increased the special use valuation adjustment amount from $750,000 (indexed to $1.0 million in 2010) under current law to $3.5 million (indexed from 2009 beginning in 2011). Therefore, up to a $3.5 million (indexed) reduction in value would have been allowed for farm or business property that satisfied the special use valuation requirements. This provision was effective for estates of decedents dying after and gifts made after 2009 (and therefore applied for 2010 decedents).
(3) GRAT 10-Year Minimum Term. The Baucus bill included the proposal in the President’s Budget Proposal for the last two years of a GRAT 10-year minimum term. Under the proposal, grantor retained annuity trusts must have a 10-year minimum term, the annuity amount cannot decrease in any year, and the remainder interest must have a value greater than zero determined at the time of the transfer to the trust. The Baucus bill would have applied this minimum 10-year GRAT provision to transfers after the date of enactment.At this point, there has been no indication whether the deletion of this provision reflects Congressional policy not to impose a 10-year minimum term on GRATs, or whether the Congressional writers are just saving this revenue raising provision for subsequent legislation. The discussions surrounding the passage of TRA 2010 did not include any element of needing revenue offsets to “pay for” the changes. Indeed, the entire package is viewed as an economy and job creation stimulus. At some point, in the future, the revenue impact of legislation will again matter, and revenue raisers, such as this one, may re-emerge.
(4) Consistency of Basis. The Baucus bill also included the consistency of basis proposal in the President’s Budget Proposal for the last two years The basis of property in the hands of heirs would be the same as its value as finally determined for estate tax purposes, and the basis of property in the hands of donees for purposes of determining loss would be limited by the fair market value (under I.R.C. § 1015) as finally determined for gift tax purposes. (This provision in the Baucus bill was retroactive, applying to “transfers for which returns are filed after the date of enactment.”) As with GRATs, the deletion of this provision may just mean that it is being saved for future legislation when revenue offsets will be needed because this is a revenue raising provision. (5) Gift Tax Separate Years for 2010 Gifts Before and After Date of Introduction. The Baucus bill would have resulted in different gift tax rates for gifts made in 2010 before and after December 2, 2010. A provision in the Baucus bill addressing the mechanics of reporting those gifts was not needed in TRA 2010.
(6) Section 2704. TRA 2010 (as well as the Baucus bill) does not contain any provisions addressing I.R.C. § 2704 (as requested in the President’s Budget Proposal the last two years). (This provision has not been included in any statutory proposal.)
(7) State Death Tax Deduction. The extension of the estate tax provisions of EGTRRA means that the state death tax credit does not get reinstituted in January (which would have caused the re­emergence of state death taxes in many states that just have a “federal credit pick-up system” and that therefore have no state estate taxes if there is not a federal death tax credit). Furthermore, some have speculated that as a revenue raiser, Congress may at some point delete the deduction for state death taxes that now exists under I.R.C. § 2058. That was not done in TRA 2010. Effects on Year-End Planning
The Baucus bill would have had a major impact on year-end planning. Many individuals have been waiting until the end of the year to make 35% gifts, to make direct skip gifts, and to make distributions to skip persons from trusts that are non-exempt for GST tax purposes, in order to make sure that the 45% gift tax rate and GST tax are not applied retroactively. There has been no prior public discussion of making the gift and GST tax provisions effective on the date of INTRODUCTION of a bill, and the inclusion of the date of introduction effective date in the Baucus bill was quite surprising. Fortunately, TRA 2010 has no such early effective date, and year-end planning opportunities will continue throughout the end of the year (if the legislation passes in its current form). The following is a general framework for year-end transfer planning strategies.
(1) Certainty. The passage of TRA 2010 provides a substantial degree of certainty regarding various effects of year-end planning transfers that we did not have previously.
(2) No Gift Tax Advantage of Making Gifts in 2010 Unless Donor is Willing to Pay Gift Tax. If TRA 2010 passes, there is generally no advantage to making gifts in December rather than in January if the donor does not want to pay gift tax. The rate would be the same (35%) if there is gift tax, and there is more gift exemption in January to cover gift transfers in case the IRS argues for higher gift values on audit. Furthermore, gifts before the very end of the year run the risk that the donor may die before the end of the year, in which event the carryover basis election could be made to avoid any transfer taxes at all on the estate assets. (One exception to this general rule is deathbed planning for estates that would not owe federal estate taxes under the $5.0 million estate exemption in 2010 under TRA 2010, but would owe significant state estate taxes. In many states, pre-death gifts (even deathbed gifts) are excluded from the estate for state estate tax purposes.)Furthermore, some planners indicate that there can be long term benefits of making gifts in December rather than January if (1) the donor is willing to pay current gift taxes, and (2) if future legislation were to decrease the exemptions and increase the rates from the levels set in TRA 2010. There are several contributing factors to tax savings by making gifts in 2010 in order to pay larger current gift taxes than if the gift is made in January. (1) Gift taxes are removed from the gross estate if the donor lives at least three years, resulting in some of the estate being taxes on a “tax­exclusive” basis. Making the gift in December involves paying greater taxes, so this potential advantage would be larger. (2) Paying transfer taxes on a portion of the estate at rates below the ultimate estate tax rate can save overall combined transfer taxes. This would be important if the estate tax rates were to be increased in the future. Each of these factors is addressed below.
a. Taxing Portion of Estate on Tax-Exclusive Basis if Donor Lives Three Years (By Removing Gift Tax From Taxable Base). If a donor lives three years after making a gift, any gift tax paid are removed from the gross estate. This can result in a significant overall tax savings. If a client is willing to entertain that planning strategy, making the gift in December, when there is only a $1 million gift exemption rather than the $5 million gift exemption that will apply in January, will result in a larger gift tax payment, which in turn results in a larger amount removed from the gross estate if the donor lives at least three years after making the gift. Detailed calculations would be required to determine the overall effects of paying additional gift taxes (taking into account the assumed appreciation rate of the transferred assets, the time value of the tax payments, and the assumed future level of estate tax exemption amounts and rates).
b. Taxing Portion of Estate at Lower Rates In Case Estate Tax Rates Rise in the Future. If gifts are made in December rather than January, savings results from paying gift taxes on a portion of the estate at a 35% rate if the later estate tax rate were to be increased (for example, to 45% or 55%). (See the examples in Item 5b of the General Summary of Estate, Gift and GST Tax Provisions section for a general discussion of the impact of gifts on later estate tax determinations.) The following examples compare making gifts in December and January, assuming that the estate tax rate at the date of death increases to 45%. The examples isolate the effect of the changing rates by not including the advantage of paying some of the tax on a tax-exclusive basis by removing the gift tax from the estate if the donor lives 3 years after making the gift. That factor would further increase the advantage of paying larger gift tax by making the gift in December (with a $1 million exemption) rather than in January (with a $5 million exemption). Example 1 (Gift of $10 million in January 2011; Death in 2013 With Exclusion of $3.5 Million and Top Rate of 45%). Assume A makes a gift of $10 million in January 2011 and dies in 2013 with an estate of $5 million. (The gift tax paid will be added to the gross estate because A did not live three years after the transfer.) Assume that Congress has changed the applicable exclusion amount back to $3.5 million and has increased the top rate to 45% for 2013. Gift Calculation
(using 45% top rate)
Example 2 (Gift of $10 million in December 2010; Death in 2013 With Exclusion of $3.5 Million and Top Rate of 45%). Assume A makes a gift of $10 million in December 2010 and dies in 2013 with an estate of $5 million. (The gift tax paid will be added to the gross estate because A did not live three years after the transfer.) Assume that Congress has changed the applicable exclusion amount back to $3.5 million and has increased the top rate to 45% for 2013. Gift Calculation
Less unified credit on $1 million exclusion amt
- 330,800
Less gift unified credit on $1M exemption (45% rate)
- 4,035,000
Observations Regarding Example 2. The total gift tax and estate tax is $3,150,000 gift tax plus $1,140,000 estate tax, or $4,290,000. If the gift had not been made, the estate tax on a $15 million taxable estate would have been 5,175,000. Making the gift saved $885,000 of combined tax. (The $10 million gift had a 35% tax rate apply to $9 million — the amount of the gift not covered by the $1 million exemption. If the gift were not made, that $9 million would have been taxed at 45%. The additional 10% of the $9 million amount would represent $900,000 of savings. This is offset by $15,000 of reduced savings because the gift tax credit on the $1 million of gift exemption was only in the 39% bracket. To get to the 45% bracket of credit, there would be an additional 2% of $250,000 (the $1,000,000 to 1,250,000 bracket) and 4% of 250,000 (the $1,350,000 to 1,500,000 bracket), or $15,000.) Comparison of Examples 1 and 2. January 2011 Gift, combined gift and estate tax: $1,750,000 + 2,650,000 = $4,400,000Dec. 2010 Gift, combined gift and estate tax:$3,150,000 + 1140,000 = $4,290,000 Savings by making gift in December rather than January: $ 110,000 Observe, if the donor had lived for three years after making the gift, so that the gift tax was excluded from the gross estate, resulting in paying transfer tax on a tax-exclusive basis on $9 million rather than just $5 million of the estate, there would have been even greater savings by making the gift in December rather than in January.
Practical Planning Pointer: If a donor is willing and able to pay current gift taxes, making a large gift in December rather than in January can result in significant overall tax savings attributable to (1) paying a portion of the transfer tax on a tax-exclusive basis if the donor lives three years after making the gift, and (2) paying a portion of the transfer tax at a lower rate if the estate tax rate increases above 35% by the time of the donor’s death. These savings would have to be offset by the lost time value of the gift tax payment as compared to paying estate tax at a later time (but the growth attributable to the retained gift tax amount would have been subject to estate tax).
(3) Significant GST Opportunities. The major year-end planning opportunities relate to GST planning. Opportunities to take advantage of the GST tax not applying to generation-skipping transfers in 2010 are significant. The GST planning opportunities include (1) direct skip gifts for grandchildren (or even for great-grandchildren), (2) making distributions from non-exempt trusts to remote beneficiaries (skip person beneficiaries) without the imposition of a GST tax, or (3) terminating non-exempt trusts this year and distributing assets to younger generation beneficiaries without the imposition of a GST tax. Furthermore, TRA 2010 makes clear that generation-skipping transfers can be made in trust without risking having GST tax apply to later transfers to the oldest generation level skip person beneficiaries of the trust when the transfer is made in 2010. (This is discussed in more detail in the following GST Issues section of this summary.)
(4) Retroactive Legislation Taxing Gifts and GST Transfers in 2010 is Extremely Remote. It seems extremely unlikely that the 2011 Congress will retroactively change the estate, gift and GST tax rules back into 2010, particularly changes that would adversely impact gifts and GST transfers made in 2010. The fact that Republicans will control the House and will pick up seats in the Senate make the likelihood such possible retroactive legislation, effective back into 2010, so remote as to be nonexistent.
(1) Sunset Rule Uncertainties. The sunset rule changes, discussed above in Item 7 of the General Summary of Estate, Gift and GST Tax Provisions section, remove many of the uncertainties we have had about the GST tax for 2010 and about whether and how the GST relief provisions in EGTRRA (increased GST exemptions, automatic allocation, qualified severances, “9100 relief” for late allocations, etc.) would still be given effect after 2010. Unfortunately, the relief under TRA 2010 only lasts for two years, and all the uncertainty will arise again following 2012. However, TRA 2010 shows how the EGTRRA adverse effects can easily be solved by a legislative change, and making that change is not controversial at all. There seems little doubt that the sunset will be further extended following 2012, or that the various estate, gift and GST changes in EGTRRA (other than the repeal of the estate tax with carryover basis and the repeal of GST tax) will be extended permanently. But with Congress, nothing can be certain.
(2) GST Applicable Rate in 2010 is Zero. For all of 2010, the GST tax “applicable rate determined under section 2641(a)... is zero” for all generation-skipping transfers made in 2010. [TRA 2010 § 302(c).]
a. Impact of Transfers in Trust. The change in nomenclature is particularly important because of its impact on direct skip gifts in trust for grandchildren (or more remote beneficiaries). This change clarifies that “direct skip” gifts for grandchildren to trusts that were made earlier in 2010 will not result in having the GST tax apply when distributions are made from the trust to the grandchild in later years. This provision replaces I.R.C. § 2664 as added in EGTRRA, which section says that Chapter 13 “does not apply to generation-skipping transfers after December 31, 2009.” While § 2664 results in a zero GST tax for direct skip gifts in 2010, saying that all of Chapter 13 does not apply raises the possibility that direct skip gifts in trusts may be subject to later GST taxation upon distribution to the beneficiary because the “move-down rule” in I.R.C. § 2653(a), which is in Chapter 13, would not apply. Under the new nomenclature, Chapter 13 (including the move-down rule as well as the rule in I.R.C. § 2642(c) saying that annual exclusion gifts to single beneficiary vested trusts have an inclusion ratio of zero) does apply to GST transfers in 2010 (so the potential uncertainty about direct skip gifts to trusts is resolved).
The same issue applies regarding a taxable distribution or taxable termination in 2010 that results in the assets passing to another trust. The move down rule will apply in that situation as well, because it applies whenever there is a generation-skipping transfer (even though the rate on the generation-skipping transfer in 2010 is zero).
b. Inclusion Ratio Is Not Automatically Zero for Generation Skipping Transfers in 2010. Under § 2641(a), the applicable rate is the “maximum Federal estate tax rate” times “the inclusion ratio with respect to the transfer.” The statutory language of TRA 2010 § 302(c), that the “applicable rate determined under section 2641(a)” is zero, does not make totally clear whether the “maximum Federal estate tax rate” is deemed to be zero or whether “the inclusion ratio” is zero. The argument could be made that if the result of the multiplication of the maximum estate tax rate times the inclusion ratio is zero, and if the maximum estate tax rate is set by statute, the inclusion must, by basic mathematical principles, be zero. If the inclusion rate is zero for any GST transfer made in 2010, direct skip gifts (which would be “generation-skipping transfers”) would arguably result in a trust with an inclusion ratio of zero for generations to come. However, nothing in the statutory language suggests that is the intended result. Apparently the intent is just to provide that there is no GST tax this year by saying that the applicable rate is zero, without a mathematical exercise of how that is achieved under the statutory formula. The more likely interpretation is that there is no GST tax on GST transfers in 2010, but transfers to trusts in 2010 do not automatically result in a zero inclusion ratio for the trust. GST exemption would have to be allocated to the transfer to result in a zero inclusion ratio. The Joint Committee on Taxation Technical Explanation agrees that the inclusion ratio will not be zero, but that the amendment means that the highest estate tax rate that is used in the formula is zero in 2010:
“…the generation skipping transfer tax rate for transfers made during 2010 is zero percent. The generation skipping transfer tax rate for transfers made after 2010 is equal to the highest estate and gift tax rate in effect for such year (35 percent for 2011 and 2012).” Joint Committee on Taxation Technical Explanation at 50.
In any event, the statute would have been clearer if it had stated that for purposes of § 2641(a), the “maximum Federal estate tax rate” would be deemed to be zero for generation-skipping transfers in 2010.
(3) Direct Skip Gifts in Trust. Under TRA 2010, direct skip gifts made to trusts in 2010 do not risk having the GST tax apply when the trust later makes a distribution to a grandchild-beneficiary. Taking advantage of this opportunity will require making a transfer that for sure is a direct skip.
a. Outright or Custodianship Gifts. A transfer directly to or to a custodianship for a grandchild (or more remote beneficiary) will clearly be a direct skip.
b. Gifts in Trust. For gifts in trust, we need to examine the definitional provisions in the GST rules.
(i) Move-Down Rule. The move-down rule of § 2653 applies if there is a generation-skipping transfer of property (a direct skip, taxable distribution of taxable termination, § 2611(a)) and the property is held in trust. The effect is that for purposes of applying the GST tax rules, the trust will be treated as if the transferor of such property were assigned to one generation above the highest generation of any person who has an “interest” in the trust immediately after the transfer. (So if a grandchild has an interest in the trust, the transferor level will be moved down to the child-level so that a subsequent distribution to a grandchild would not be distribution to someone two or more generations below the transferor that would generate a GST tax.
(ii) Skip Person Definition. The key is that for the move-down rule to apply, there must be a distribution to a skip person (whether it is a direct skip, taxable distribution or taxable termination). Skip persons are defined in § 2613. A trust is a skip person if (1) all “interests” in the trust are held by skip persons, or (2) if no person holds an “interest” in the trust and at no time may a distribution (including distributions on termination) be made to a non-skip person. I.R.C. § 2613(a)(2). As to item (2), the regulations add that if no one holds an immediate interest in the trust, for purposes of determining whether any distribution could be made to a non-skip person, a possible distribution that has a probability that is so remote as to be negligible (applying actuarial standards showing there is less than a 5% probability) is disregarded. Treas. Reg. § 26.2612-1(d)(2).
(iii) Interest Definition. An “interest” in a trust is defined in § 2652(c). A person holds an interest if, at the time the determination is made, the person (1) has a right (other than a future right) to receive income or corpus fro the trust, or (2) is a permissible current recipient of income or corpus. (There are other special rules if the trust is a charitable trust.) I.R.C. § 2652(c)(1). However, an interest that is used primarily to postpone or avoid any GST tax is disregarded. I.R.C. § 2652(c)(2). Also, the fact that a distribution may satisfy another person’s support obligation is disregarded if such use is discretionary or is pursuant to a UGMA or UTMA transfer. I.R.C. § 2652(c)(3).
(iv) Application of Definitions to Trusts. Under these definitions, a trust will be a skip person (and therefore, result in application of the move-down rule) if a second generation or more remote beneficiary must have a right to receive current distributions or is a permissible current recipient of distributions and if there are no interests held by non-skip persons. If that is the case, it does not matter that non-skip persons may be contingent remaindermen or future beneficiaries. (The possibility that non-skip persons may receive benefits in the future applies under the statute and regulations only if there are no persons that hold interests in the trust when it is created (for example if no distributions can be made to anyone for a period of years).
(v) “Generation Jumping.” If the distribution is made to a trust for great grandchildren only, the transferor will be moved down to the grandchild level, so that future distributions to the great grandchild will not be generation-skipping transfers. Some planners have termed this “generation jumping.”
(vi) Addition of Upper Generation Beneficiaries at a Later Time. Some planners suggest that some independent party (an independent trust, a trust protector, or any other than the donor) could provide that upper level generations could later be added as beneficiaries without causing the trust to lose its status as a skip person trust (resulting in application of the move-down rule). The older generation beneficiaries could only be added at a later time — long enough to provide comfort that such persons could not be viewed as having an interest in the trust currently. (Jonathan Blattmachr suggests waiting five years.) This would help to counter any argument that the non-skip person should be treated as an intended current beneficiary by implication or under some kind of application of a step transaction theory. Some planners even suggest that the trust agreement could provide that older generation beneficiaries would automatically become discretionary beneficiaries after a stated period of time — such as five years.) (vii) No Current Grandchildren. If an individual has no current grandchildren but would like to take advantage of the unique opportunity in 2010 to make transfers to direct skip trusts, considering having the individual make transfers to a trust for grandnieces or grandnephews (if the individual has any), or other beneficiaries who are in a generation assignment two generations below the individual. The trust could provide that any future grandchildren would also be potential beneficiaries. However, to avoid the rule disregarding nominal interests, consider providing for certain mandatory distributions to the existing grandnieces and grandnephews (or other designated second generation individuals) to avoid an argument that the trust was really just created for the benefit of non-existent grandchildren at the time it was created.
(4) Move-Down of Transferor vs. Allocation of GST Exemption to Trust. If the move-down rule applies, the transferor is merely moved to one generation above the oldest generation, but the trust does not become fully exempt. For example, if a direct skip is made to a trust for a grandchild, the move-down rule treats the trust as if the transferor were in the child-generation, so that a future distribution to a grandchild (one generation down from the transferor) is not subject to the GST tax. However, a distribution to a more remote beneficiary (whether on termination of the trust or during the term of the trust) would generate a GST tax if no GST exemption has been allocated to the transfer. On the other hand, if GST exemption is allocated to the transfer, so that the trust results in having a zero inclusion ratio, all future distributions from the trust to any generation levels of beneficiaries would be GST exempt. Donors 2010 will have to decide whether (a) to make direct skip transfers in trust (which could be unlimited in amount) and forego using up any GST exemption to allocate to the transfer, or (b) to make transfers to GST exempt trusts, which could last for as many generations as would be allowed under applicable rules against perpetuities, but which would be limited in amounts that be covered by the $5.0 million of GST exemption available in 2010. (5) Taxable Distributions or Taxable Terminations This Year May Be Made Without GST Tax. The Baucus bill would have eliminated the ability to make GST tax-free taxable distributions or taxable terminations from trusts after December 2, 2010. Under TRA 2010, distribution opportunities from non-exempt trusts remain before the end of 2010. As with direct skips, if taxable distributions or taxable terminations result in the assets being held in further trust, the move-down rule applies. Before TRA 2010, it was not clear that taxable distributions could be made in further trust for trust beneficiaries (for example under a decanting statute or pursuant to discretion granted to the trustee under the trust agreement) without the possible imposition of a GST tax when later distributions were made to those beneficiaries.
(6) Timing of Actual Distribution. Planners must make sure that the direct skip or taxable distribution occurs during 2010 to take advantage of the special opportunity available only during 2010 to have a GST tax rate of zero. There is nothing in the statute or regulations about specifically when title must pass under state law to determine when the direct skip, taxable distribution or taxable termination occurs. However, transfers that are mandated under the instrument should be treated as occurring on that date, even if the trustee does not make the physical transfer until a later date. (Otherwise, planners could manipulate the timing of the payment of GST taxes by merely delaying mandated distributions until a later year or years.) Similarly, a specific bequest under a will of a person who dies in 2010, that is vested and is not subject to the discretion of an executor as to the amount of the bequest, should be treated as occurring as of the date of death, even if the executor delays for years in making the physical distribution of assets satisfying the bequest. However, in light of the very special treatment of generation-skipping transfers in 2010, best practices would include making physical distribution of the assets, if at all possible, in 2010 in order to avoid any possible argument that the direct skip did not occur in 2010.Discretionary distributions, on the other hand, result in generation-skipping transfers occurring on the actual distribution date pursuant to the exercise of discretion.
A case that involved an agreement with the IRS regarding the timing of generation-skipping transfers, albeit in an unusual fact situation, is Robertson v. U.S., 97 A.F.T.R.2d 589 (N.D. Tex. 2006). That case involved a charitable lead annuity trust that passed to grandchildren at the end of the trust term. The trustee had total discretion as to what charities would receive distributions during the term of the trust, so no person held an “interest” in the trust during its stated term. The conclusion was that there was no taxable termination at the end of the stated term, because that required the termination “of an interest in property” and no person held an interest in the trust prior to the stated termination date. Therefore distributions from the trust were treated as taxable distributions. The IRS did not contest the position of the taxpayer that the taxable distributions occurred in the year following the stated termination date of the trust, and the parties stipulated that the date of actual distribution was the appropriate date for valuation of the GST amount and for applying the GST tax rate (the rate decreased in the year following the stated termination date of the CLAT). That stipulation seems to conflict with the generally accepted approach of treating transfers that are mandated in an instrument as occurring on the mandated vesting date.
(7) Testamentary Transfers From 2010 Decedents. The possibility that 2010 testamentary transfers are forever exempt from the GST tax would be eliminated under TRA 2010 because the estate tax would apply (or be deemed to apply) to 2010 decedents so the decedent would be a “transferor” under the GST definitions. TRA 2010 § 301(c)(last sentence). (Under the provisions of EGTRRA applicable in 2010, there was an argument that testamentary trusts created by 2010 decedents were exempt from the GST tax, because under the GST rules the “transferor” is the last person subject to a transfer tax, and decedents who die in 2010 are not subject to estate tax [before TRA 2010]. The definitions of skip persons and non-skip persons are tied to the definition of “transferors.” Non-skip persons are everyone other than skip persons (§ 2613(b)), and if skip persons cannot be identified because of the lack of a transferor, perhaps the whole world would constitute non-skip persons. If so, future transfers from the trust arguably would not be subject to GST tax.) TRA 2010 clearly removes that argument that had existed under EGTRRA.
(8) 2010 GST Exemption of $5.0 Million. Under TRA 2010, there is 2010 GST exemption of $5.0 million (because the estate tax exemption in 2010 is $5.0 million and the GST exemption is the same as the estate exemption, § 2631(c)). (Without this legislation, it appears that there is no GST exemption for 2010, because the GST exemption equals the estate tax applicable credit amount and in § 2010(c), as amended by EGTRRA, the table for the applicable credit amount ends with 2009; there is nothing listed for 2010 or beyond. While there is no GST exemption in 2010 under EGTRRA, in 2011 there may have been a GST exemption equal to $1.0 million, indexed for inflation since 1997, depending on how the “had never been enacted” rule was applied. See I.R.C. § 2631(c) (prior to amendment by the 2001 Act). That number is $1.34 million for 2010.)A possible exception to having $5 million of GST exemption for 2010 is that, as currently drafted, the statute arguably would not result in a 2010 GST exemption amount for estates that make the carryover basis election. In that circumstance, the “repeal of the repeal of the estate tax” under TRA § 301(a) does not apply, so literally chapter 11 does not apply to the estate. If chapter 11 does not apply, the amendment in TRA 2010 of I.R.C. § 2010 providing a $5.0 million applicable exclusion amount is irrelevant because § 2010 is in chapter 11 and it does not apply. An argument to the contrary is that the election for the estate tax not to apply under TRA § 301(c) applies only “with respect to chapter 11 of such Code and with respect to property acquired or passing from such decedent (within the meaning of section 1014(b) of such Code),” and therefore does not apply for GST purposes. Therefore, the reference in I.R.C. § 2631(c) to the “applicable exclusion amount under section 2010(c)” may continue to refer to the $5.0 million amount. The possibility of having no GST exemption for testamentary transfers in estates making the carryover basis election apparently is unintended (it certainly would be unjust to apply the GST tax scheme to testamentary transfers but not afford an opportunity to use GST exemptions). This result apparently is unintended, and the Joint Committee on Taxation Technical Explanation clearly takes the position that the $5 million GST exemption applies for 2010 decedents whether or not the carryover basis election is made: “The $5 million generation skipping transfer tax exemption is available in 2010 regardless of whether the executor of an estate of a decedent who dies in 2010 makes the election described below to apply the EGTRRA 2010 estate tax rules and section 1022 basis rules.” Joint Committee on Taxation Technical Explanation at 50 n.53. Having 2010 GST exemption of $5.0 million is very important for various reasons. First, consider electing out of automatic allocation of the 2010 GST exemption to direct skip gifts. Second, the $5.0 million of GST exemption can be allocated on timely filed returns, based on the values of gifts to trusts on the dates of the gifts in 2010. Third, there is $5.0 million of GST exemption that can be allocated to transfers in prior years on a late allocation.
a. Elect Out of Automatic Allocation for Direct Skip Transfers in 2010. The change in nomenclature in TRA 2010 to avoid saying that chapter 13 does not apply to GST transfers in 2010 has two important implications for direct skip gifts in trust: (1) Automatic allocation of GST exemption to the direct skip will occur under I.R.C. § 2632(b)(1) to the extent necessary to result in a zero inclusion ratio for the transfer unless there is an election out of such automatic allocation; and (2) the move-down rule of I.R.C. § 2653(a) will apply and the zero inclusion rule under I.R.C. §2642(c) for single beneficiary-vested annual exclusion gifts in trust will apply, so that future distributions to the grandchild-beneficiary of the trust will not be subject to the GST tax. These effects are discussed below.
There is generally automatic allocation of any unused GST exemption to direct skip gifts (whether or not in trust). I.R.C. § 2632(b)(1). Such automatic allocation to direct skip gifts can be avoided by electing out of automatic allocation on a timely filed gift tax return. I.R.C. § 2632(b)(3); Treas. Reg. § 26.2632-1(b)(1).
Under TRA 2010, the nomenclature that chapter 13 does not apply has been dropped, so § 2632(b)(1) would apply to all direct skips, whether or not in trust, but only “to the extent necessary to make the inclusion ratio for such property zero.” Therefore, automatic allocation will apply for direct skips generally (whether or not in trust), but will not apply to annual exclusion gifts to single beneficiary-vested trusts, because the inclusion ratio for such transfers is already zero under I.R.C. § 2642(c). (Under the law before TRA 2010, the same result may have occurred for direct skips in trust, though under a much more convoluted analysis. Under EGTRRA, chapter 13 does not apply to direct skips, so the automatic allocation rule of §2632(b)(1) would not apply. However, under the sunset rule of EGTRRA (before it was amended by TRA 2010), the Code would be interpreted as if EGTRRA had never been enacted with respect to future GST transfers, so the chapter 13 rules would be applied to have allocated GST exemption automatically to direct skip trusts when a later taxable distribution or taxable termination occurs with respect to that trust.)
TRA 2010 makes clear that the move-down rule of I.R.C. § 2653(a) would apply to direct skip gifts in trust in 2010. For example, if a direct skip gift is made in trust for the donor’s grandchild, the move-down rule would cause the grandchild’s parent to be treated as the transferor to the trust with respect to future transfers, so that subsequent transfers to the grandchild-beneficiary would not cause a GST tax to apply. In that circumstance, GST exemption that is automatically allocated to the trust would have been wasted if it is likely that distributions from the trust will ultimately be made to the grandchild-beneficiary. (On the other hand, if the intent is to keep the trust intact for the grandchild’s descendants, allocation of GST exemption to the trust would be appropriate and desirable.) Practical Planning Pointer: Planners must carefully examine all direct skip gifts in 2010 (whether or not in trust and whether inter vivos or by testamentary transfers) to determine whether a timely filed tax return should be filed electing out of automatic allocation.
b. Timely Allocation of 2010 GST Exemption. If a timely allocation is made, I.R.C. § 2642(b)(1)(B) says that the GST exemption allocation is made effective as of the date of the gift using values on that date. Late allocations are effective as of the date of the allocation, §2642(b)(3)(B), or as of the time the late allocation is made in 2011 (using values on that date, thus requiring allocation of GST exemption to the appreciation occurring up to that date). A late allocation cannot be filed until April 19, 2011 at the earliest (the due date is April 18). If the donor’s income tax return is extended, that automatically extends the gift tax return as well to October 15 (or October 17 in 2011). In 2011, a late return for the October deadline could not be filed until October 18, 2011. Before TRA 2010, there was no GST exemption in 2010 and it was unclear under the sunset rule whether 2010 GST exemption would be deemed to have existed with respect to generation-skipping transfers occurring after 2010. If there was no 2010 GST exemption, there would be a necessity of waiting to file a late allocation of 2011 GST exemption, based on the appreciated values at the time of the allocation. Fortunately, that potential problem has been resolved by TRA 2010. c. Late Allocations of 2010 GST Exemption to Transfers in Prior Years. Individuals sometimes wish to allocate more GST exemption to prior trust transfers than the individual has remaining. Having the additional $1.5 million of GST exemption (above the $3.5 million available in 2009) opens up the possibility of being able to allocate substantial additional GST exemption to prior trust transfers at current trust values. (However, this opportunity has minimal effect at this late date in 2010. The only benefit of making a late allocation currently, rather than waiting until 2010, is that the allocation could be made based on current values as opposed to values in January (or some later date).)
(9) 2010 Transfers Not Grandfathered. Transfers to trusts in 2010 are not grandfathered or exempt from the GST tax. Trusts with contributions in 2010 will be GST exempt only if GST exemption is allocated to those transfers.
(10) May Provide Clarity Regarding ETIPs. GST exemption cannot be allocated to transfers subject to an “estate tax inclusion period” (or ETIP) during which the assets would be included in the gross estate of the transferor (or his or her spouse). I.R.C. § 2642(f). An example is a transfer to a GRAT, because some or all of the trust may be included in the transferor’s gross estate if he or she dies during the GRAT term. GST exemption can be allocated at the end of the ETIP, and indeed there are rules for automatically allocating GST exemption at the end of the ETIP in certain situations. See Treas. Reg. § 2632-1(c). During 2010, chapter 11 did not apply under EGTRRA so arguably ETIPs ended as of January 1, 2010 because the trust assets would not have been included in the transferor’s gross estate if he or she died after 2009. There were questions as to whether the ETIP would be reinstated at the end of 2010 when the EGTRRA sunset occurred and the estate tax would again apply. If the ETIP terminated on January 1, 2010, could GST be allocated when the ETIP terminated in 2010 — even there is no GST exemption for 2010? EGTRRA raised many uncertainties regarding the treatment of ETIPs. The result of TRA 2010 is not clear, but TRA 2010 may remove many of the uncertainties. It would provide that the estate tax did continue to apply after 2009 (subject to the election of carryover basis instead). Does this mean that an ETIP that we thought had ended on January 1 really did not end, so the ETIP continues without interruption and the uncertain results under EGTRRA are no longer a concern?
Construction Issues (1) Formula Bequests. The change in the law raises various potential construction issues in construing formula bequests. For example, consider the effect of TRA 2010 in construing several possible types of formulas, keeping in mind that the estate tax and the $5 million applicable exclusion amount apply from January 1, 2010.
• “Maximum amount that can pass free of estate tax” now appears to mean $5 million rather than the entire estate.
• “An amount equal to the federal estate tax applicable exclusion amount” now appears to mean $5 million rather than zero. However, while the law seems to say that the amount passing under each of those formulas would be $5 million for decedents dying any time in 2010, there are various uncertainties. Observe that the resolution of each of these issues is a matter of state law, and as a practical matter will be determined in each separate case based on the equities of the case and what the parties can convince the court to be the testator’s intent.
a. Does Decision to Make Carryover Basis Election Change Construction? Does the construction of the formula change if the executor makes the carryover basis election? In that event, TRA 2010 § 301(c) says that the “repeal” of § 2210 in TRA 2010 § 301(a) does not apply, so Chapter 11 does not apply, so the amended § 2010(c) changing the applicable exclusion amount to $5 million for 2010 does not apply. If making the carryover basis election changes the formula bequest, the executor not only has to make decisions of whether the overall tax result is better to apply carryover basis than the estate tax (which depends on a variety of factors, included when the assets with low basis are likely to be sold or whether depreciation can be used to derive current tax benefits even without selling an asset) and how to treat beneficiaries fairly in implementing carryover basis and making the basis adjustments, but the executor also has to consider that the election may drastically change the amounts of the bequests passing under the will. A further complexity is that the carryover basis election is probably not due at least until the decedent’s final income tax return is filed (see I.R.C. § 6075(a)) and perhaps later. So the election may not be made until the fall of 2011, and the election could conceivably change the construction of the values of bequests assets passing under the will of a decedent who died perhaps as long as 21 months earlier.
b. Do Interests Passing Under Will Vest as of Date of Death Under State Law? The change in the law could be almost twelve months after the date of death in 2010 and arguably should not change the amounts passing under the will. Some state laws provide that assets passing under a will vest as of the moment of death, subject to the administration of the estate.
c. What if Assets Have Been Distributed? Does it make a difference if bequests have already been funded? Changing the construction based on the new law, which is now effective as of January 1, 2010, may require that beneficiaries refund previously distributed amounts. Will that change the court’s interpretation of the formula bequests?
d. Practical Scenario. Assume a fairly typical scenario of a situation in which the decedent’s children are not children of the surviving spouse and are hostile to the surviving spouse. Assume the will provided that the formula “tax-free” amount passes directly to the children and that the balance of the estate passes to the spouse. Assume the local court determines that amounts passing under the formula bequest depend on the carryover basis election. This means that if the executor makes the carryover basis election, in which event chapter 11 does not apply, the entire estate would pass to the children, but if the executor does not make the carryover basis election, only $5 million passes to the children and the balance passes to the surviving spouse. Assume the executor does not make the carryover basis election, so most of the estate passes to the surviving spouse. Later the children sue, and assume the court construes the formula bequest to mean that all of the estate passed to the children. That state law ruling would mean that although the estate is subject to the estate tax, nothing qualifies for the marital deduction. Furthermore, it may be too late at that point (perhaps several years later) to change the decision not to make the carryover basis election. (TRA 2010 § 301(c) states that the carryover basis election “shall be made at such time and in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary’s delegate shall provide. Such an election once made shall be revocable only with the consent of the Secretary…” Perhaps that would be a situation in which the IRS would permit a change in the election. Does it make a difference that in this circumstance, the executor chose not to make the election so perhaps did not file anything making an affirmative election but merely filed a timely estate tax return? (The statute, quoted above, says that an election into carryover basis is revocable only with the Secretary’s consent, and in this scenario there was never an election into carryover basis.)
(2) Construction in States With Legislation Tying Formula Bequests to 2009 Law. Seventeen states (including the District of Columbia) have statues that construe formula “tax-free” bequest clauses for 2010 decedents as referring to estate tax rules on December 31, 2009. (Those states are Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.) Will formula “tax-free” bequests in those states mean that $3.5 million continues to pass under the clause rather than $5 million that could pass without estate tax under TRA 2010? Most of those statue statutes say that the special construction applies only for 2010 decedents, but if the federal estate or generation-skipping transfer tax becomes effective before January 1, 2011, the statute will no longer apply as of the date the tax becomes legally effective. Various uncertainties will apply in these states in light of the changes by TRA 2010.
• If the state has passed a statute providing that formula bequests are construed as if 2009 law applied, will the bequest of the tax-free amount be limited to $3.5 million even though $5.0 million could pass to the bypass trust without incurring estate tax?
• Will state legislatures change their construction statutes?
• Will courts construe the formula to mean $5.0 million despite the state statute?
• For purposes of the sunsetting provision in a state construction statute, does TRA 2010 cause the federal estate tax to be legally effective as of January 1, 2010 so that the sunsetting provision applies as of January 1, 2010, meaning that the state construction statute does not apply at all?
• Does the carryover basis election change the result? (For example, if the carryover basis election is made, the estate tax does not apply so the state statute says the tax-free amount means $3.5 million, but if there is no election, the estate tax does apply as of January 1, 2010 so the state construction state does not apply and the tax-free formula means $5 million.)
• Observe the difficulty the executor faces isn addressing this uncertainty. If the tax-free formula bequest is $5 million if the estate tax applies but $3.5 million if carryover basis applies, Howard Zaritsky concludes: “Would you want to be that executor?”
(3) Formula Bequests Equal to GST Exemption Amount. The specific language used in a GST formula transfer must be closely reviewed to determine the effect of TRA 2010 on the formula. For example, if the formula transfer applies “if Chapter 13 does not apply,” that clause arguably is not triggered in light of TRA 2010, because it says that Chapter 13 does apply for all of 2010 (but the GST rate is zero). If the formula is an “amount that can pass free of GST tax,” that might be everything passing under the instrument. If the formula is an “amount equal to the GST exemption,” that would be $5 million under TRA 2010. That would be the starting point of the analysis, but this is still a state law construction issue, depending on the court’s interpretation of the intent of the specific instrument and donor.
Effects on Planning Going Forward
The $5.0 million gift exclusion amount (and GST exemption) beginning in 2011 will open up a new paradigm of thinking regarding transfer planning strategies. The ability to make transfers of up to $10 million per couple without having to pay gift taxes paves the way for many transfer planning opportunities that, with leveraging strategies, can transfer vast amounts of wealth outside the gross estate. A few examples of planning scenarios are highlighted below.
(1) Simple Gifts. The ability to move $5 million per individual ($10 million per couple) out of the gross estate opens up the possibility for many individuals to transfer as much as they would want to transfer to their descendants during life without any gift tax concerns.
(2) Gifts to Grantor Trusts. Making transfers to grantor trusts, where the donor continues to pay income taxes on the trust income, has a huge impact on the amounts that can be transferred over time. The trust assets compound free of income tax, and the payment of income taxes by the donor further depletes his or her estate (substantially over time). Simple $5 million (or $10 million for couples) gifts to grantor trusts can move huge amounts of value out of the donor(s)’ gross estates over time.
(3) Gifts and Sales to Grantor Trusts. The transfer planning opportunities of gifts to grantor trusts can be magnified by leveraging the amounts transferred with sales to the trusts. Sales to grantor trust transactions in the past often are complicated by the difficulty of transferring sufficient equity to the trust (typically by gifts) to justify selling large values to the trust for installment notes from the trust. The $5 million gift exemption ($10 million for couples) relieves many of those difficulties. For example, a couple could give $10 million to grantor trusts, and sell $90 million of assets to the trusts with extremely low interest rate notes. The couple would continue to pay all of the income taxes on the grantor trusts, further depleting their estates and allowing the trusts to compound tax-free.
(4) Advantage of Sales to Grantor Trusts Compared to GRATs. GRATs have the advantage of allowing transfers of future appreciation without incurring gift taxes. Sales to grantor trusts have various advantages over GRATs, including (most importantly) that GST exemption can be allocated to the grantor trust at the asset so that all appreciation in the trust is also GST exempt, but GST exemption cannot be allocated to GRATs until the end of the retained annuity term. Because there will not be as many concerns about making large gifts with the $5 million gift exemption, sales to grantor trusts make take on increased importance over the use of GRATs.
(5) Gift Splitting. If one spouse has most of the marital wealth, the couple can still take advantage of both spouses’ $5 million gift exemptions by making the split gift election.
(6) Leveraging Transfers Through Valuation Discounts. If the transferred assets are discounts to reflect lack of control or marketability, the value that can be transferred via the $5 million gift exemption is further expanded.
(7) Gifts of Undivided Interests. Gifts of undivided interests in real estate result in the donated interest being valued with a discount, and the remaining interest owned by the grantor at his or her death would also receive an undivided valuation discount. Transfers of undivided interests in real estate result in this double leveraging (both the transferred interest and the retained interest) of the amount that can be transferred with gifts. (8) Life Insurance Transfers. A limit on the amount of life insurance that can be acquired by an irrevocable life insurance trust is the amount that the insured can give to the trust to make future premium payments. Having $5 million ($10 million per couple) of gift exemptions to cover life insurance premium payments can buy a very large amount of life insurance coverage that can pass free of transfer tax to younger generations.
(9) Will Drafting. Should formulas in wills being drafted currently taking into consideration what should happen based on various possibilities of Congressional action (or inaction) in 2012? What if there is no Congressional action (think December 2009), and there is no estate tax but there is carryover basis in 2013?
(10) Voluntary Tax? Perhaps the notion of the estate tax being a “voluntary tax” will become a reality. Copyright © 2010 Bessemer Trust Company, N.A. All rights reserved. Home | About Us | Fellows | Membership | Publications | Foundation | Fellow Login | Media | Contact Us