Tennessee Estate Planning Law : Tennessee Estate Planning Lawyer & Attorney : Bryan Howard : Howard & Mobley Law Firm : Nashville, Chattanooga, Memphis

I came across an interesting article regarding estate planning for second marriages. The article highlights some of the most common issues faced by male business owners who have children from a prior marriage. Women, of course, face many of the same issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 I currently represent an 88 year old widower whose wife died less than 9 months ago. The wife’s estate is approximately $1.6 million. The husband’s assets, including a $1 million brokerage account that had been owned jointly with his wife, are worth approximately $1.8 million. Because the husband’s estate exceeds $1 million, his estate will owe more than $300,000 of estate taxes if he dies after January 1, 2011 and Congress does not change the tax laws prior to his death.

In an effort to reduce or eliminate his potential federal estate tax liability, I have recommended a disclaimer of the husband’s one-half survivorship interest in the brokerage account. If the husband chooses to file a disclaimer, his children will receive one-half of the brokerage account now, rather than following his death. Under federal law, the disclaimer will not be treated as a gift by the husband. This means that no federal gift or estate taxes will be charged on the $500,000 passing to his children.  The disclaimer will reduce his federal estate taxes by more than $200,000.

Tennessee treats a disclaimer of a joint brokerage account as a gift. The husband will have to pay $36,000 of Tennessee gift tax on April 15, 2011. Upon the husband’s death, the inheritance taxes imposed on his estate will be reduced by $36,000 as a result of the disclaimer. Therefore, the net effect of the disclaimer is to accelerate the payment of $36,000 from 9 months after the husband’s death to April 15, 2011.

The husband has a modest lifestyle and feels comfortable that he will have sufficient assets for his remaining lifetime after he executes the disclaimer. He also likes the idea of getting assets to his children sooner.

If we knew that Congress would change the federal estate tax exemption to $2 million or more prior to the husband’s death, it would be unnecessary to make the disclaimer. Unfortunately, the disclaimer must be filed within 9 months after the death of the wife. Congress has been in a stalemate for more than 9 years regarding the “estate tax fix.” Because the 9 month deadline will occur in a few weeks, the husband will have to make the disclaimer decision prior to finding out whether Congress changes the law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In recent years, I have seen a tremendous increase in the use of prenuptial agreements. I attribute this to high divorce rates, as well as increased awareness of the potential benefits of prenuptial agreements.

Death and divorce are the two primary circumstances governed by prenuptial agreements. Generally, the agreement details the provisions that will be made for the surviving spouse upon the death of the first spouse. The agreement also details the division of the couples’ assets upon divorce.

A recent case decided by the Tennessee Court of Appeals demonstrates the divorce protection provided by a prenuptial agreement. Mrs. Cummins spent more than $2 million buying two separate homes which were titled jointly in the names of Mr. and Mrs. Cummins. Due to the wording of the prenuptial agreement, Mrs. Cummins was awarded both homes.

Mr. Cummins claimed that he was entitled to 50% of the appreciation of the homes. The Court awarded all of the appreciation to Mrs. Cummins since she had paid all of the property taxes, insurance, and maintenance expenses associated with the homes.

Mrs. Cummins was very fortunate to receive 100% of the homes. Even when there is a prenuptial agreement, both spouses generally share in the value of homes that are titled jointly in the names of the couple. Mrs. Cummins could have saved the aggravation and expense of this lawsuit if she had titled the homes solely in her name.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Hawaii has become the 13th state to allow an individual to set up a trust for his or her benefit which is protected from the individual’s creditors. Unlike Tennessee, Hawaii’s law has limits on how much you can transfer to the trust and what kind of assets you can place in the trust. In addition to these restrictions, anyone who establishes such a trust must pay a tax to the state equal to 1% of the assets transferred to the trust. Hawaii is the only state that charges a tax to establish such a trust.

Because of this tax, it is unlikely that anyone other than a resident of Hawaii would use a Hawaii trust rather than a trust in one of the other 12 states. Tennessee’s asset protection trust law compares very favorably to the other asset protection trust states. The Tennessee legislature made several improvements to our law this spring in order to keep our law at the forefront. Tennessee is still the only Southeastern state that permits self-settled asset protection trusts. See the enclosed map for the other states.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 In less than 6 months, federal estate taxes are scheduled to return with an exemption of $1 million and a maximum rate of 55%. Numerous bills have been submitted to provide relief from these taxes. Most of the bills would increase the exemption to $3.5 million or more and decrease the top rate to 45% or less.

These bills have not passed because they would significantly decrease tax revenues. The latest such failure was an amendment offered to a Jobs Bill by Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Apparently the Senate decided against combining a large tax decrease with a bill that proposes to increase spending by $33.9 billion.

A lot of Senators are hesitant to pass another large spending bill. Many of these same Senators believe that taxes, including estate taxes, should be reduced. In the enclosed LA Times article, Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander explained why it is logical to support decreasing taxes while at the same time fighting increasing spending as follows: “If you’re going to spend more, you have to have a revenue source or you run up the debt.” Reducing taxes "reduces the amount of revenue we have to spend, and we should reduce spending by the same amount.”

What Lamar says by implication is that the national debt will increase if you reduce taxes without reducing spending. There appears to be a lot of support for reducing taxes. There does not appear to be a lot of support for spending less. It will be very difficult to solve the estate tax dilemna if the fix requires a commitment to decrease spending. I am counseling my clients to be prepared for the return of federal estate taxes in 2011 with the $1 million exemption and 55% top rate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 It is very typical for a Will to direct the Executor to pay the Decedent’s valid debts. When my clients own real estate encumbered by a mortgage, they often want the successor owner of the real estate to continue paying the mortgage. For these clients, I place a provision in their Wills giving the Executor the discretion to continue paying the mortgage until the successor owner takes over the payments.

When the successor owner of the real estate is also the residuary beneficiary of your estate, it may not matter whether your estate or the successor owner pays the mortgage. If your estate pays the mortgage, the residuary estate passing to the successor owner will be less. Nevertheless, it provides more flexibility for the successor owner if you allow the mortgage to remain in place. The successor beneficiary can pay off the mortgage early if there is not a need to maintain the mortgage.

Things are not as easy when the successor owner of the real estate is not the residuary beneficiary of your estate. Now it makes a big difference as to whether your estate or the successor owner pays the mortgage.

If you decide that you want the successor owner to pay the mortgage, there is another consideration. The bank may file a claim against your estate and require the Executor to pay the mortgage. Depending upon whether the successor owner was jointly liable on the debt, your estate may have a claim against the successor owner to pay at least a portion of the debt. If you do not want your Executor to be in the position of having to sue the successor owner of the house, you should condition any bequest to the successor owner on their agreement to assume the mortgage. If you take this approach, the bequest to the successor owner will be reduced to the extent, if any, that your estate is required to make payments on the mortgage.

There are 2 methods by which the successor owner can acquire the property.

First, when you own the property, your Will simply devises the property to the successor owner. You can make the devise conditional on the devisee’s assumption of the mortgage.

Alternatively, when you own the property as tenants by the entirety with your spouse or jointly with right of survivorship, the successor owner will acquire the property by operation of law. Your Will cannot require the successor owner to assume the mortgage. However, if your Will makes a bequest of other assets to the successor owner, this bequest can be conditioned upon the successor owner’s assumption of the mortgage. If the bequest is less valuable than the mortgage, the successor owner might forfeit the bequest rather than assume the mortgage.

In summary, you need to decide who you want to pay your mortgage and draft your Will accordingly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of my clients has been diagnosed with a rare disease that will very likely end her life in 2010. Due to the peculiar estate tax laws that apply to decedents dying in 2010, there are some unusual planning steps that my client and her husband are taking.

As a general rule, you want to make sure that the first spouse to die has sufficient assets titled in their name so that they can take maximum advantage of federal and Tennessee estate and inheritance tax exemptions. In 2009, the magic number was $3,500,000. This year, the amount is unlimited.

We previously split assets between the husband and the wife with each of them owning assets worth approximately $6 million. The husband is in the process of transferring most of his assets to his wife.

Another change that we are making is to create a revocable trust for the wife that will replace her will. The wife’s revocable trust will own her assets so that it will be unnecessary to probate her will. The revocable trust will transfer $1 million to a typical credit shelter trust of which the husband and children are beneficiaries. The remaining $11 million of assets will be transferred to a marital trust for the husband’s sole benefit during his lifetime. Assuming the wife dies when there is no federal estate tax, it will not be necessary to claim a marital deduction for the marital trust for federal estate tax purposes. We will elect to qualify for the marital deduction for Tennessee inheritance tax purposes so that no Tennessee taxes will be owed.

The overall result of this plan is that all of the couple's assets are eligible for a basis step up. Since the combined built-in appreciation of their assets is $4 million and there is $4.3 million of basis step up available, they will receive a full basis increase. Since they own some significant rental properties, the higher basis will increase the husband’s depreciation deductions.

More importantly, the $11 million marital trust will not be subject to federal estate taxes upon the husband’s subsequent death. This will be a tremendous advantage to the family if they do not ever have to worry about paying federal estate taxes.

In summary, simple planning steps are needed to take full advantage of the absence of federal estate taxes in 2010.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the sad things about my profession is that my clients eventually die. Some deaths are sudden and unexpected, but most deaths occur after an accident or illness that makes death imminent within a few days or perhaps a few weeks. Though I am sensitive to the feelings of grief and stress that my clients and their families are experiencing, I have the unpleasant task of explaining to my clients and their families the heavy penalties they will pay to the federal and Tennessee governments if they decline to take advantage of “last minute” tax reduction opportunities.

I am currently working with one of my clients who has been given a life expectancy of 2 months or less. Because my client is likely to die in 2010, some of the planning issues are unique. However, some of the planning opportunities are the same as they would be for a death in a different year. Some of the major issues we have considered:

1. Make sure all assets are owned by the Revocable Trust so that probate can be avoided. My client has done an excellent job of funding her revocable trust. However, she recently loaned some money to a friend and the Note is payable to her rather than her trust. We are doing a simple assignment of the Note to make sure that it is owned by her trust.
2. Make annual exclusion gifts of $13,000. My client is making gifts of $13,000 to all of her children and grandchildren, as well as to spouses of her children. At a minimum, this will reduce Tennesse inheritance taxes. If federal estate taxes are reinstated with an effective date prior to the date of my client’s death, or, if she survives until 2011, the gifts will also reduce federal estate taxes.
3. My client is converting her IRA to a Roth IRA.
4. My client’s revocable trust makes charitable bequests totaling $500,000. My client trusts her children to make these gifts. Therefore, she is amending her trust to give the money to her children. The children will pay Tennessee inheritance taxes on this bequest at the rate of 9.5%. However, they will receive charitable income tax deductions which will reduce their federal income taxes by approximately 35%. Furthermore, two of the children live in states with state income taxes. The charitable bequests will also reduce state income taxes. This plan will backfire if federal estate taxes are reinstated retroactively. If this were to happen, federal estate taxes would be higher than the income tax savings. In order to account for this possibility, the revocable trust will provide that if the children disclaim the bequest, then the bequest will go to the charities. This will allow the children to see what happens over the next nine months before they must decide whether to disclaim.
5. Should appreciated assets be sold to avoid losing the benefit of a capital loss carryover? Fortunately, no sales are necessary, because the carryover basis law that applies for decedents dying in 2010 allows the unused capital loss carryover to be added to the $1.3 million basis increase. My client’s executor will have more flexibility to avoid future capital gains if the capital loss carryover is preserved.
6. Finally, my client is researching her records regarding her income tax basis for several assets. She can find this information much more easily than her Executor.

Estate planning when death is imminent can reduce taxes and other problems. Even though the circumstances are unpleasant, the potential benefits are substantial. I have been told by some of my former clients and/or their families that they took comfort in their final days from the knowledge that financial matters were in good shape.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent article discussed the use of Inter Vivos Marital Trusts to reduce estate taxes. These trusts can also be used to provide asset protection from future creditors. When the objective is asset protection, the trust is designed differently.

One spouse transfers property to a trust for the benefit of the other spouse. If the donee spouse predeceases the donor spouse, the donor spouse becomes the beneficiary of the trust. The donor spouse’s retention of a successor beneficial interest in the trust represents the key distinction of a marital trust that is used for asset protection rather than reducing estate taxes.

This type of trust has always been exempt from future creditors during the donee spouse’s lifetime because it is a third party created spendthrift trust. When the donor spouse becomes the beneficiary, the trust has traditionally been available to all creditors of the donor spouse since the transfer was made to a trust of which the donor is a beneficiary.

A new Tennessee law will make these trusts exempt from the donor spouse’s future creditors after July 1, 2010. This means that one spouse can transfer substantially all of his or her assets to a trust and protect the assets from future creditors of both spouses.

Inter Vivos Marital Trusts may not be used to avoid the donor’s obligations to creditors that already exist at the time of the transfer to the trust. If the donor spouse does not retain sufficient assets to pay existing creditors, the preexisting creditors can attack the trust as a fraudulent conveyance.

Another potential benefit of an Inter Vivos Marital Trust is to make sure that the donee spouse has sufficient assets to utilize his or her federal estate tax exemption and Tennessee inheritance tax exemption. This will reduce estate taxes upon the surviving spouse’s death. No gift taxes will be payable if the donor spouse files timely federal and Tennessee gift tax returns which make a QTIP election.

For federal income tax purposes, the donor spouse will be taxed on all of the taxable income of the trust, including capital gains, during his or her lifetime. The donee spouse will be taxable on the ordinary income of the trust following the death of the donor spouse and may be taxed on some or all of the capital gains of the trust.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link