ILNews

Duncan: Learn these estate planning changes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

After many years of complete uncertainty with the federal estate tax, there is now a law in place that provides some level of predictability. Further, in 2013, Indiana repealed its inheritance tax. Indiana’s inheritance tax was known as one of the most onerous of all the states and resulted in many snowbirds making Florida their permanent home.

Effects on estate planning

duncan-greg-mug Duncan

While the federal law was not the hoped-for outright repeal of the death tax, it does provide certainty and a permanent exemption at the highest historical levels – $5.34 million per person ($10.68 million for a married couple) in 2014. The law also made permanent “portability” of the exemption amount, which means that the portion not used by one spouse at death can now be used by the surviving spouse. The exemption amount (whether your own or obtained from a predeceased spouse) can now be used to make lifetime gifts or gifts at death, which is a tremendous advantage compared to the historical $1 million limit on lifetime gifts. The death tax rates have decreased over the years from a high of 55 percent to the current 40 percent rate.

This means that, for 99 percent of Americans, estate planning will shift away from death taxes. The focus will shift to life insurance, income tax and business-succession planning. For those of high affluence and whose estates exceed the exemption amount, planning will continue as usual, with particular attention to the impact of the new income tax laws on their plans. The trust and estate professional will need to hone skills to get up to speed with non-customary services to remain relevant and add value for clients.

For the married couple of modest means or who are affluent but whose estate does not exceed the high exemption of $10.68 million, complacency is not the answer. It is still necessary to plan.

What should practitioners review with clients?

Familiarity with the new income tax laws will take time, and prior estate planning techniques should be reviewed for tax law impacts. Many “old” trusts may need to be actively managed to minimize the income tax consequences. The net investment income tax can be very burdensome to many trusts.

Life insurance policies should be reviewed and managed. Many policies were purchased to pay death taxes at a time when the exemption was much lower – $600,000 (and the rates were much higher – 55 percent). As the imposition of the death tax becomes less of a factor, the liquidity afforded by life insurance may lose its luster in light of the premium outlays. These policies may not be needed, may be deployed in some other fashion (e.g., gifted to children or grandchildren to pay the ongoing premiums), or even possibly sold to the highest bidder in the life settlement market.

Family limited partnerships (commonly referred to as FLIPs) have been created by many families to help facilitate lifetime gifts. In light of the change in the death tax landscape, many families are re-evaluating the continued use of the FLIP. There are many income tax issues to consider with unwinding a FLIP, depending on the current owners: the duration of existence, whether property contributed had a built-in gain, and whether liquidating distributions are made pro rata under the treasury regulations, among other factors. Competent tax advice should be sought prior to liquidation.

One of the more interesting income tax issues to be managed and understood is the interaction between death taxes and income taxes in light of the “step-up” in basis rule. This rule says that most assets receive a change in basis at a person’s death. The new basis becomes the value on the date of death. Assume a person owns Eli Lilly & Co. stock that has a $0 basis. If the person sells the stock there would be capital gains tax on the sale proceeds. If the stock were gifted during lifetime to children and the children sell the stock, the children would have the same capital gains tax (gifted assets have a “carryover” basis to the donee, meaning that the donee receives the donor’s basis). By contrast, if the stock is left to children after a person’s death, and the children sell the inherited stock the day after death, there would be no capital gains tax. While this rule is commonly referred to as the “step-up” in basis, it can also result in a “step-down” in basis (e.g., publicly traded stock purchased for $100,000 during life but only worth $50,000 at death will result in a new basis of $50,000, and the possible income tax “loss” will vanish).

Assessing assets in light of changes

Out of fear of the death tax, most laypersons (and appraisers) assume that assets are to be valued at the lowest possible value after a person’s death. However, in light of the high exemption amounts and the step-up in basis rule, that may not be the case. Most people should want assets to be valued at the highest possible value as long as it does not exceed the death tax exemption amount. Thus, for hard-to-value assets (real estate or business interest), assuming a person’s estate will not exceed the exemption amount, most should want the value to be as high as reasonably possible so as to minimize future income taxes (or increase current depreciation expenses for depreciable assets). Most appraisers recognize that there is a range of reasonableness, and it may be necessary to educate appraisers to understand the issues or to merely state that you do not want the lowest possible value. Many are not familiar with these scenarios, and understanding these rules is critical to advising families on which assets to gift or sell during lifetime and advising estate administrators in order to minimize future income tax.

While the estate tax laws are great for our clients, there is still much work to be done. Estate plans or techniques that are dated by five years or more should be reviewed with a fresh perspective in light of the changes that have taken place over the last two years.•

__________

Greg J. Duncan is a partner in the Indianapolis office of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP. He practices in the areas of estate planning, probate and trust administration, estate and gift tax planning, estate litigation and nonprofit planning. He is a certified trust & estate lawyer by the Indiana Trust & Estate Specialty Board. He can be contacted at gduncan@bgdlegal.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT