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

I discourage the use of a marital trust for a surviving spouse when the decedent’s children from a prior marriage will be the remainder beneficiaries. Such trusts have an inherent conflict of interest and should be avoided when possible.

Most marital trusts base the payments to the surviving spouse on the trust’s income. The surviving spouse wants the Trustee to purchase investments that produce a lot of income. Conversely, the stepchildren prefer the Trustee to invest in assets that will appreciate in value over time.

When a marital trust is the only practical solution, I recommend a marital unitrust, which works as follows: The surviving spouse receives the greater of the income earned by the trust or five percent (5%) of the value of the trust determined as of the beginning of each calendar year. In order to reduce volatility in the amount of the annual payments to the spouse, payments should be based on a 3 year average of the value of the trust.

The Trustee invests in a mixed portfolio of equities and fixed income investments. Principal assets will need to be liquidated each year to make the payments to the spouse because income will be significantly less than 5%.

The spouse wants growth because it will increase distributions in the future without reducing current distributions. The Trustee’s job will be much easier to accomplish because the spouse and the stepchildren will have the same goals.  
 

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

You should carefully consider your answer if a friend or family member asks you to serve as his or her executor.

Most first time executors underestimate the number of tasks that must be completed by an executor. There is potential liability if something bad happens. For example, the beneficiaries want you to keep a certain asset and the value of the asset suddenly declines for reasons beyond your control.

Executors have to make difficult decisions. What is best for the estate as a whole may not be the best for particular beneficiaries. Finally, beneficiaries can be challenging to deal with. Beneficiaries often view the executor as preventing them from receiving their inheritance.

Keith Keisling sent me the following poem which summarizes some of the potential headaches faced by an executor.

THE EXECUTOR

I had a friend who died and he,
On earth so loved and trusted me,
That ere he quit this earthly shore,
He made me his executor.
He tasked me through my natural life,
To guard the interests of his wife,
To see that everything was done,
Both for his daughter and his son.
I have his money to invest,
And though I try my level best,
To do what wisely, I’m advised,
My judgment oft is criticized.

His widow once so calm and meek,
Comes, hot with rage, three times a week,
And rails at me, because I must,
To keep my oath appear unjust.
His children hate the sight of me,
Although their friend I’ve tried to be,
And every relative declares,
I interfere with his affairs.
Now when I die I’ll never ask,
A friend to carry such a task,
I’ll spare him all such anguish sore,
And leave a hired executor.

---Today and Tomorrow, Edgar A. Guest
(Chicago: Reilly & Lee Company, 1942)
 

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

Wealthy grandparents often make gifts to their grandchildren. A grandparent can give $13,000 per year to each grandchild without incurring gift tax. If gifts are made over several years, estate taxes upon the death of the grandparents can be substantially reduced.

There is a hidden trap in making gifts. The danger is that your grandchild may get divorced in the future. Some states consider all property owned by either spouse to be marital property which is subject to a 50/50 division upon divorce.

The problem is illustrated by a family that I now represent. The grandmother made gifts of stock of the family business to her granddaughter in the 80s and 90s. The grandmother died in 1997. Two years later, her granddaughter married a man the grandmother never met.

I did not know the grandmother, but have represented the grandmother’s daughter for the last several years. The daughter continued her mother’s pattern of making annual exclusion gifts to her daughter. Rather than direct gifts, the gifts were made to a Cristofani Trust (pdf) that benefits the daughter’s husband and all of her children and grandchildren.

The granddaughter recently obtained a divorce in a state that treats all property owned by either spouse as marital property. In accordance with state law, the judge awarded one-half of the granddaughter's stock in the family business to the granddaughter’s husband.  The net result is that when the grandmother made gifts to her granddaughter, she was also making a gift to her granddaughter’s future ex-husband.

The stock awarded to the ex-husband was subject to a Shareholder’s Agreement, which allowed the company to purchase the stock from the ex-husband. As you might imagine, the family was upset about having to buy back the stock.

The laws of the states where the grandmother and granddaughter lived at the time of the gifts would not have included the gifts in the marital estate if the granddaughter had obtained a divorce in either one of those states. However, division of property is determined by the state in which the couple resides at the time of the divorce.

Fortunately, because the gifts by the daughter were made to a trust, these gifts were protected in the divorce. The moral of this story is to consider making gifts to a properly designed trust in order to reduce the chance that the donee will lose part of the gift if they subsequently obtain a divorce in the wrong state.
 

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

Family limited partnerships (or LLCs) are often used to obtain valuation discounts for estate and gift tax purposes. Appraisers typically conclude that the fair market value of an interest in a family limited partnership (“FLP”) is at least 35% less than the value of the assets owned by the FLP.

The IRS dislikes these discounts and has successfully challenged the discounts in several court decisions. As a general rule, the taxpayers were "sloppy" in the cases that the IRS has won. Errors were made either in funding, distributions, or record keeping.

When the FLP is properly funded and administered, taxpayers are able to substantiate the discounts. For every case in which the IRS has successfully disallowed discounts, there are many others where the court approved a discount or the IRS agreed to a discount without going to trial.

A case in point is the recent Rayford L. Keller et al v. United States decision. Mrs. Williams was in the hospital, dying from cancer. Six days before her death, she signed documents to establish an FLP to be funded with $240 million of bonds and $10 million cash.

The assets were not transferred to the FLP until one year after she died. Nevertheless, the Court ruled that her family was entitled to a 47.5% discount on the value of the bonds and cash that were transferred to the FLP.

I do not recommend waiting until death is imminent to establish an FLP. It is far better to establish the FLP when you have several years to live, and then to make gifts or sales of FLP interests when that is appropriate.

Detailed summary of Keller case by Steve Akers of Bessemer Trust Company, N.A.

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