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

Tennessee has enacted a new law that will allow Courts to modify the terms of a Will to achieve the decedent’s probable tax objectives. Because the decedent will not be available, the Court will have to rely upon guidance from the decedent in the Will or another document and/or testimony from the decedent’s estate planning attorney and/or other advisors who were aware of the decedent’s tax objectives.

Courts will prefer to rely upon written guidance from the decedent. Therefore, I plan to add a new paragraph to Wills that I draft stating “I want my family to pay the least amount of federal and state, estate, inheritance, income and generation-skipping transfer taxes.” This provision will need to be modified for testators who do not mind paying higher taxes when it allows them to better accomplish their objectives.

When the decedent does not provide guidance of his or her tax intentions in the Will or another document, the Court will have to rely upon testimony from the decedent’s advisors and/or family members. I can envision cases where this works well. I also anticipate more difficult cases where determining the decedent’s intent will be more problematic for the Court.

The new law will become effective July 1, 2010. However, the Court is allowed to provide that the modification has retroactive effect.

The new law only applies to Wills and not revocable trusts. However, the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code already contains provisions that allow a Court to modify the terms of a trust to achieve the Settlor’s tax objectives. T.C.A. § 35-15-416.
 

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

I am surprised by the number of cases involving prenuptial agreements that fail to accomplish the intended purpose. When the agreements do not work, it is generally because the parties fail to follow the proper procedures. The parties should be represented by separate counsel and must make a full disclosure of their assets to each other. Further, the agreement should be signed prior to the eve of the wedding.

In the Estate of Joseph Brightman Cooper, the proper procedures were not followed. First, there was no listing of the assets of each party.  Apparently, Mr. Cooper told his bride that he owned a house with 18 to 20 acres. Mrs. Cooper testified that Mr. Cooper neglected to tell her about the cattle and farm equipment that were located on the farm. Mr. Cooper may have assumed that she knew about the cattle and equipment since she had lived in the same community, had visited his home on several occasions, and had known him for 20 years prior to the marriage. It also appears that Mrs. Cooper was not represented by an attorney.

After Mr. Cooper died, Mrs. Cooper did not like the provisions made for her in Mr. Cooper’s Will and asked the Court to award her 40% of the estate. The Court ruled that she could not receive part of the house and farm because she had known about this property when she signed the prenuptial agreement. However, since Mr. Cooper had failed to tell her about the cows and equipment located on the farm, she could receive 40% of the value of these assets as well as 40% of all other assets owned by the estate.

The Coopers’ prenuptial agreement only covered property owned by the spouses at the time of the marriage. This is very unusual. Most prenuptial agreements eliminate elective share rights with respect to all property belonging to the estate of the first spouse to die.

Mrs. Cooper received approximately $185,000 from Mr. Cooper’s estate. In addition to paying $185,000 to Mrs. Cooper, the estate paid significant legal fees. The prenuptial agreement was partially successful because it prevented Mrs. Cooper from receiving any portion of the house and 18 acres.  I did not know Mr. Cooper, but presume that his intent in signing the prenuptial agreement was to prevent his wife from claiming an elective share of his estate. His intent was thwarted due to his failure to follow proper procedures.

There are three lessons to be learned from this case. First, if you want to make sure that your children receive what you want from your estate, make sure the prenuptial agreement is properly drafted and follows the proper procedures. Second, if you want to be able to receive a share of your spouse’s estate upon his or her death, do not sign a prenuptial agreement, or, alternatively, negotiate for the amount that you want to receive in the event of death and include this in the prenuptial agreement. Third, if you are a surviving spouse and signed a prenuptial agreement, all may not be lost. The Cooper case is one of several Tennessee cases that have allowed a surviving spouse to claim an elective share of the decedent’s estate despite having signed a prenuptial agreement.
 

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

Our firm is assisting Executors and Trustees with the administration of several estates and revocable trusts of decedents who have died during 2010. Administering these estates has presented numerous challenges.

The first problem is that we do not know whether federal estate taxes will be reinstated retroactively. We are advising the Executors that there are two different sets of laws that could apply, either the law that is currently on the books, or another law that has not yet been written. We are guessing that a retroactive law, if one is enacted, will be similar to the law that existed as of December 31, 2009; however, there are no guarantees.

If there is no federal estate tax, this is great news for most of our estates. However, the price to be paid for having no federal estate taxes is carryover basis. I was not practicing law in the late 1970’s when the prior version of carryover basis was the law, but have been forewarned by various practitioners who were practicing during that time period. Carryover basis is even worse than I had imagined.

We are advising Executors to assume that carryover basis is the law. This means that the Executor needs to ascertain the cost basis of the decedent’s assets unless the total value of the assets is less than $1.3 million, or is less than $4.3 million if the decedent was married and leaves at least $3 million of assets to the spouse or a qualified marital trust. Fortunately, most publicly traded securities held in brokerage accounts now list the cost basis. Determining the cost basis of various other assets such as furniture, artwork, real estate and interests in closely held businesses is not so easy.

One revocable trust has a large holding in a single stock. The stock has performed well since the time of the decedent’s death and the Trustee would like to sell a substantial portion of this position. However, the decedent’s basis in the stock was very low and the beneficiaries do not want the Trustee to sell and incur a large capital gains tax. If carryover basis is repealed and stepped-up basis is restored, everyone will be delighted to sell the stock. By the time the law is settled, the value of the stock may have declined precipitously.

Another revocable trust makes a large charitable bequest that will only occur if federal estate taxes are reinstated retroactively. Neither the charity nor the alternate takers can make plans until the law is settled.

Another estate holds significant real estate holdings. The Executor would prefer not to sell the real estate in the current market. Sales are not necessary if there are no federal estate taxes, but sales will be necessary if federal estate taxes are reinstated retroactively. Waiting until the law is settled may be too late to raise money in time to pay taxes if that becomes necessary.

There are numerous income tax planning issues that must be addressed due to carryover basis and all of its complicated rules. There are also carryover basis strategies that should be considered prior to death when you know that death is imminent but have at least a few days to make changes. I plan to discuss these strategies in a future article.

Because of the Tennessee inheritance tax, Executors still have to obtain date of death values, and perhaps alternate valuation date values, for all assets owned by the decedent. This means that Executors for estates of 2010 decedents have more to do than ever before.

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

The Tennessee legislature has enacted the Tennessee Community Property Trust Act of 2010. If the Governor signs the bill, the new law will allow resident and nonresident married couples to convert their property to community property by transferring the property to a new type of trust known as a Tennessee Community Property Trust. Alaska is the only other state that allows residents of common law states to voluntarily convert some of their assets to community property.

There are three types of benefits that a Tennessee Community Property Trust will provide. First, community property is a property ownership system that provides for equal ownership of property by husband and wife, including a sharing in the appreciation and income from the property. Some couples may find this equality and sharing arrangement to be a preferred form of property ownership.

Second, community property receives a significant federal income tax advantage. At the death of the first spouse to die, both spouses’ interests in the community property will be eligible to receive a basis increase (not to exceed fair market value), up to a maximum increase of $4,300,000 in 2010, and a full basis adjustment to the fair market value of the property for deaths in 2011 and later years. As a result, there will be no capital gains tax payable if the first spouse dies in 2011 or later and the property is sold for its value after the first spouse’s death. Further, the increased basis will allow for increased depreciation deductions for business and investment depreciable property. If the property had been jointly-owned by the husband and wife in a common law state such as Tennessee, only one-half of the property would receive such an adjustment in basis.

Assume that in 1983 John and Martha Brown paid $200,000 for a farm that is worth $600,000 at the time of John’s death in 2011. Federal tax law allows Martha to increase the income tax basis of John’s half of the farm to $300,000 (one-half of the fair market value of the entire farm). Martha’s basis for her half of the farm will remain at $100,000 (one-half of the original purchase price). Thus, Martha’s total basis in the farm will be $400,000. When Martha sells the farm for $600,000, she will realize a capital gain of $200,000 and pay a federal capital gains tax of $40,000. Federal tax law would allow Martha to increase the basis of the farm to $600,000 if the farm had been held in a Community Property Trust. Thus, when Martha sells the property, she will not pay any capital gains tax.

The third advantage of a Tennessee Community Property Trust is the division of assets owned by the trust for purposes of  funding a credit shelter trust upon the death of the first spouse and obtaining fractional interest discounts upon the death of the surviving spouse. Funding the credit shelter trust and obtaining fractional interest discounts will reduce Federal estate tax and Tennessee inheritance tax upon the death of the surviving spouse. These same advantages can be obtained by converting ownership to tenancy-in-common; however, tenancy-in-common will not allow the favorable income tax advantage discussed above.

A Community Property Trust has the following requirements:
(1) It must declare that the trust is a Tennessee Community Property Trust and contain certain language that gives notice of the consequences of the trust;
(2) At least one trustee must be Tennessee resident or a Tennessee bank or trust company; and
(3) It must be signed by both spouses.

If the spouses divorce, the trust will terminate and the trustee must distribute one-half of the trust assets to each spouse. When property is distributed from a community property trust, it will no longer constitute community property. The equal division of the trust assets upon divorce may be different than the division that would have occurred if assets had not been transferred to the trust.

A debt incurred by only one spouse before or during marriage may be satisfied from that spouse’s one-half share of a community property trust and a debt incurred by both spouses during marriage may be satisfied from all of the trust assets. Thus, a Tennessee Community Property Trust has inferior creditor protection to tenancy by the entirety ownership, and should not be utilized by couples with potential creditor problems.

The new law will become effective July 1, 2010. I expect that Tennesseans will establish a lot of these trusts in July of 2010, similar to the wave of Tennessee Investment Services Trusts that were established in July of 2007 when the Tennessee Investment Services Trust Act became effective. It will take longer for Tennessee banks and trust companies to market the advantages of this opportunity to nonresidents. The advantages will be greater for nonresidents who live in states that impose income taxes on capital gains and rental income.
 

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

People who die in 2010 do not have to pay federal estate taxes (unless Congress enacts a retroactive change in the law). However, most people have assumed that there would be federal estate taxes at the time of their death. Based on this assumption, numerous Wills have formulas that are based on the federal estate tax system. In many cases, these formulas are either difficult or impossible to interpret in the current environment. These broken formulas will lead to distorted estate plans and needless litigation.

The Tennessee legislature has taken a bold move to revise wills of people dying in 2010 which contain references to the federal estate tax system. On Monday, March 1, 2010, the House approved SB 3045, which had previously been approved by the Senate. Assuming the bill is signed by the Governor, all references to the federal estate and generation-skipping transfer tax laws will be interpreted as they applied with respect to estates of decedents dying on December 31, 2009.

In order for the new law to apply, the Will must:

1. contain a formula referring to the "unified credit," "estate tax exemption," "applicable exemption  amount," "applicable credit amount," " applicable exclusion amount," "generation-skipping transfer tax exemption," "GST exemption," "marital deduction," " maximum marital deduction," or " unlimited marital deduction."
2. measure a share of an estate or trust, based on the amount that can pass free of federal estate taxes or the amount that can pass free of federal generation-skipping transfer taxes; or.
3. is otherwise based on a similar provision of federal estate tax or generation-skipping transfer tax law.

The new law will apply to decedents who die after December 31, 2009, but before January 1, 2011. The new law will also apply to formulas contained in revocable trusts.

The new law will not apply if:

1. federal estate taxes are reinstated retroactive to January 1, 2010;
2. the Will or trust is executed or amended after December 31, 2009;
3. the Will or trust manifests an intent that a contrary rule will apply if the decedent dies on a date on which there is no then-applicable federal estate or generation-skipping transfer tax;
4. the Executor, or Trustee of a revocable trust, and all beneficiaries who would be affected by the new law, opt for the new law not to apply within nine months of the decedent's death; or
5. the Executor, or any affected beneficiary, files a court proceeding within 12 months following the decedent's death, and convinces the court that the decedent intended for the formula to be construed based upon the law as it existed after December 31, 2009.

The great majority of wills that I have drafted over the last several years will actually work better without the new law. In order to get the full benefit allowed by the absence of federal estate taxes, the family will be forced to opt out of the new Tennessee law. There is always a danger that one or more family members will withhold their consent as a bargaining chip or because they are disappointed with the Will.

I knew several of my clients had a problem. I have been busy preparing codicils and amendments to revocable trusts to correct these problems. Though I hope to identify and fix all of the problem documents, it is certainly possible that one of my clients could die before fixing the problem and I will be glad that the new law was passed.

The new law will help numerous individuals who were unable to make changes or chose not to amend their documents. However, in some cases, the new law will be harmful and will force families to sign a unanimous agreement or file a court proceeding. In all cases, it is better to make sure that your documents clearly state your wishes without having to rely on the new law, or a lawsuit, or a document to be signed by your family after you die.
 

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