Retirement Watch : wills

The Multi-State Estate Plan

Bob Carlson — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:30:00 GMT

Readers with homes or other property in more than one state need to give special attention to their estate plans. Each state has different rules and requirements, and your estate might have to run probate proceedings in each state. There is more work involved for either you or your executor or both.

There are lawyers who advise drafting separate wills and other estate planning documents for each state involved. You shouldn't need to do that much work. The estate plan, however, does need to recognize that multiple states are involved and make appropriate adjustments.

An estate generally must go through the probate process in order for title to the assets to be transferred to the beneficiaries. Real estate is probated in the estate where it is located. Personal property is probated in the deceased's state of residence, even if he or she dies in another state.

Occasionally there is a dispute over a person's state of residence, but that doesn't happen often. When you have houses in more than one state, part of your estate plan should be to clearly establish one state as the legal residence to avoid a dispute over your residence.

When there will be probate in more than one state, the same will can be submitted in probate proceedings in the different states. Each state, however, sets its own qualifications for wills, trusts, powers of attorney, medical directives, and other documents. Some have more requirements than others. For example, some states require only two witnesses to a will while others require three. Louisiana, because it is based on French law, has its own peculiar rules.

Estate planning attorneys, especially when they know that a person spends a significant time in more than one state, will draft a will so that it is valid in every state except Louisiana. The documents are written to comply with the state that has the toughest requirements. Be sure your estate planner knows where your different assets are located and where your time is spent. The planner then should ensure the will is valid at least in the relevant states.

The same strategy should be used with trusts. A trust is resident in and controlled by the law of the state where the trustee is located. A trust should be written, however, so the trustee or the location can be changed. To avoid problems with those changes, a trust should be written to be valid in as many states as possible.

Another way to deal with the potential of estate proceedings in more than one state is to plan your estate to avoid the cost and inconvenience of having the estate probated in two or more states.

One way to minimize probate is to create a revocable trust. The trust can hold a few key assets, such as real estate that is held outside the state of primary residence. Or it can hold title to all your assets. Anything owned in a trust does not have to be probated. The trust agreement should state how a successor trustee is determined and how the assets are managed and distributed. A will still would be needed for assets not held in the trust, but assets in the trust would avoid probate.

Another option to avoid probate for real estate is to own it through a partnership, LLC or trust. The partnership or LLC interests are personal property and could be probated with the rest of your personal property. The real estate would avoid probate.

Another way to avoid the probate problem is to establish joint title with right of survivorship for major properties. There are pitfalls to this, as I have discussed in past issues of Retirement Watch and don’t have space for here, but it might be an appropriate strategy for married couples whose estates are small enough to avoid estate taxes.

Your other estate documents also should be drafted to comply with the requirements of all states you frequent. These could include the general power of attorney, financial power of attorney, health care power of attorney or proxy, health care advanced directive, and living will. The health care documents should be drafted to comply in as many states as possible, because the governing law will be the state in which you need the medical care.

With a financial power of attorney, the key is to make the document acceptable to the financial institutions holding your accounts. Most institutions require that the power be filed with them in advance, and many will acknowledge only powers using their own forms or approved by their attorneys before they are needed.

Spending time or owning assets in multiple states adds a few complications to an estate plan. An experienced estate planner who has all the information can smooth out the complications and make the estate administration process easier. With a little work, you can avoid having probate cost extra time and money.

Bob Carlson is editor of the monthly newsletter Retirement Watch and the web site www.RetirementWatch.com. He also is author of the books The New Rules of Retirement and Invest Like a Fox…Not Like a Hedgehog.

Why Estate Planning Details are Important

Bob Carlson — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:24:00 GMT

In this post we discuss two key issues that don’t draw much attention but are keys to the success or failure of your wealth transfer plans. They probably are not what you’d expect. Meeting a plan’s goals often does not hinge on the “headline issues” of trusts, family limited partnerships, and the like. The nitty gritty details are more important, such as stating who pays debts and taxes, ensuring the estate has enough cash, and choosing executors and trustees. I regularly remind my readers of the details requiring attention and provide recommendations.

Here are a couple of issues that don’t get much attention but deserve more of your time.

A recent court case shows what happens when details are overlooked.

A man owned a farm, sold it, and incurred capital gains taxes. He died before the year ended and before paying the taxes on the sale or filing his tax return for the year. His oldest son was named executor of the estate. It turned out a younger son was a joint owner with right of survivorship with his father of the farm and inherited the rights to the farm's checking account after it was sold. The checking account held the sale proceeds, minus mortgage repayments.

Because the farm and its checking account were held as joint owners with right of survivorship, the younger son automatically became sole owner of the farm business and its assets when the father died. The older son as executor oversaw the probate estate and had control of those assets. But the farm assets never were part of the probate estate, and the executor never had an interest in or control over the farm assets.

Yet, the estate and its executor are responsible for all taxes of the estate and the deceased. In this case, the executor was liable for the father's final income tax return and the taxes due under it. The IRS assessed the executor for the capital gains taxes from the sale of the farm. The executor went to court to challenge this, saying his brother should pay the taxes since he had the money.

The court said it had no choice but to rule for the IRS. The executor is responsible for paying the taxes on the deceased's final income tax return. The brother who served as executor could sue the other brother for the money, but he first had to pay the IRS the money.

Here we have a division within a family and an estate without cash to pay its bills, because the father either didn’t seek advice or received bad advice. The father did not pay estimated taxes that included capital gains taxes on the sale of the farm, and he did not ensure the estate had money to pay the taxes and other bills. He might not have been aware the farm would be included in the taxable estate though the executor had no rights to it.

Several key details were neglected that should be part of every estate plan. Estimate the cash flow for the estate. Be sure there are enough liquid assets to pay its obligations. The will should state who is responsible for paying taxes on the assets. Otherwise, one group of beneficiaries could pay taxes on assets received by another group of beneficiaries.

Otherwise, your estate could end up fighting with the IRS, and your family members fighting with each other. (U.S. v. Guyton, No. 3:07-cv-00273, D.C. Fla, May 7, 2009)

Giving Gifts — and a Lecture

Grandparents are filling only half their roles these days. They are providing financial help to their grandchildren. In fact, they increased their financial aid as the economy worsened. Unfortunately, they are providing financial aid without much advice.

About 63% of grandparents say they provided some form of financial assistance to their grandchildren over the last five years, according to a survey for the MetLife Mature Market Institute, an affiliated organization of MetLife Inc., the insurance company. The assistance over the five years averaged $8,661. The survey was of adults over age 45 who have grandchildren under age 25. About 40% of the gifts went toward "general financial support," while 26% was for educational expenses and 21% was to help grandchildren through major life events. Because of the declining economy, about 26% of grandparents said they increased support for grandchildren.

Despite the generosity with wealth, most grandparents are not generous with their advice and wisdom. About 68% of the grandparents said they provided no financial guidance to their grandchildren. Lower-income grandparents are more likely to give advice, with 83% of those earning $35,000 or less saying they warn their grandchildren to avoid large debts and to maintain financial security. Only 65% of those with incomes between $50,000 and $74,999 talked about finances with their grandchildren.

It is admirable that so many grandparents are willing to give now to help their grandchildren receive educations and establish a firm financial foundation. But it is a mistake to give money or other wealth without some guidance, or ensuring the grandchildren receive good advice elsewhere. Financial literacy is taught in very few schools. Most high school graduates lack basic financial skills such as balancing a checkbook and understanding a mortgage or other debt instrument. If the parents try to provide lessons, the grandchildren are likely to ignore them.

Grandparents are more likely to be listened to, and they can provide a lot of hard-earned wisdom. Grandparents can teach with authority principles such as avoiding debt, starting to save and invest early in life, living within one's income, working hard, and saving both for a rainy day and for specific goals.

Debt management is probably the lesson most grandchildren could benefit from. Their parents, like most of their generation, probably never learned the lessons of how to use credit wisely. Also, the credit picture is much more complicated than it used to be, with many different kinds of debt available but objective information about the credit hard to find.

Grandparents should not give only wealth. They should give lectures and advice. Even a simple request that the grandchild read a basic book, such as The Richest Man in Babylon by George Clason, as a condition of receiving a gift can go a long way. The book is both entertaining and enlightening for most people, regardless of age. But the best advice would be direct from you.

Articles with helpful discussions on my members web site discuss compound returns, mutual funds for small investors, and financial lessons youngsters need to know. Share this and other advice with your grandchildren so they will remember it when key decisions have to be made. It also will make your financial gifts more valuable, making it more likely your wealth is well-used.

Who Will Benefit from Your IRA?

Bob Carlson — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:17:00 GMT

One of the most important decisions about an IRA is naming the beneficiary or beneficiaries. There are many candidates for the biggest mistake made by IRA owners, and a leading contender is the failure to name a beneficiary or naming the wrong beneficiary.

If no beneficiary is named, the estate is the beneficiary. When an estate or another non-individual is a primary beneficiary, the entire IRA must be distributed within five years after the original owner's passing. The estate, as the beneficiary, will owe income taxes on the distributions, in addition to any estate taxes due on the value of the IRA. An IRA owner should never fail to designate at least one qualified individual as primary beneficiary and should never name the estate or other non-individual as a primary or contingent beneficiary. The only exceptions are when there is no interest in allowing heirs to use the tax deferral of the IRA and for certain trust that are allowed to defer distributions.

Since new regulations were issued in 2001 and 2002, the choice of beneficiary is not fixed and does not affect required minimum distributions. The major consideration in naming the beneficiary is: Who should receive the IRA in light of the goals, tax issues, and any other factors that are important to the owner?

After deciding on the primary beneficiary or beneficiaries, the owner also should name contingent beneficiaries. These are people who inherit if the primary beneficiaries are not available or disclaim the inheritance. Naming contingent beneficiaries can be part of a good strategy. The estate executor names the Designated Beneficiary of an IRA by the end of September of the year after the owner passed away. The DB's age determines the required minimum distributions for the IRA. The DB must be on the list of primary or contingent beneficiaries.

Naming contingent beneficiaries allows the executor and heirs to adjust the estate plan if circumstances have changed. Primary beneficiaries who believe it is best for the family that someone else inherit the IRA can disclaim their rights. Disclaimers can continue until the "right person" is available to be named DB. That cannot happen unless contingent beneficiaries are named.

Customized Beneficiary Forms

When naming beneficiaries, it often can be best not to use the Beneficiary Designation forms provided by IRA custodians. A number of estate planners draft their own forms and have them reviewed and approved by the custodians.

One value to a custom beneficiary form is it allows the owner to name more than one primary beneficiary and leave them unequal shares, something that often is difficult or not possible with standard forms. A custom form ensures that the form lists all the beneficiaries the owner wants named. Another benefit to a custom form is, if there are disclaimers or premature deaths of beneficiaries, contingent beneficiaries will succeed primary beneficiaries in the desired order and not in an order dictated by the IRA custodian.

While a standard form might work for many people, those with multiple beneficiaries or less-than-standard situations should consider having their estate planners draft custom forms and file them with the IRA custodian.

The IRA owner also should consider who would receive the share of a beneficiary who dies prematurely — either before inheriting a share of the IRA or after distributions to heirs begin. Should the share go to the children of the beneficiary, or should it be shared by the other primary beneficiaries? Or should it go to a different contingent beneficiary?

The choice is up to the IRA owner, but it has to be stated in the designation form. Otherwise, most IRA custodians have a default position they implement absent instructions from the IRA owner. State law also might establish a default position. The IRA owner should consider the issue and make the choice clear in the designation form.

Another issue: Suppose a beneficiary or contingent beneficiary is young or cannot be trusted to handle the IRA properly. Then, it might be appropriate to name a trust as the beneficiary of the IRA. Naming a trust also is appropriate when the intended beneficiary has special needs.

A trust that is an IRA beneficiary must have precise terms in order to take advantage of the IRA’s tax deferral. With the wrong trust terms, the IRA balance must be distributed and taxed on an accelerated schedule. The help of an experienced estate planner is needed to set up the trust properly.

Splitting IRAs

When there are multiple objects of affection, one option is to name them as joint primary beneficiaries. An alternative is for the IRA owner to split the IRA into separate IRAs, naming a separate beneficiary and a group of contingent beneficiaries for each. IRS regulations allow beneficiaries who jointly inherit an IRA to split it. Yet, not all beneficiaries know about this right or are able to agree to execute it. The owner might find it wise to split the IRA now rather than leaving that to the estate administration process.

I frequently emphasize that an estate owner who plans to leave something to charity should consider using the IRA to do so. Unlike other beneficiaries, the charity will fully benefit from the IRA. Charities are tax-exempt. A charity can withdraw the entire IRA balance and not owe income taxes on it. In addition, naming a charity as beneficiary avoids the estate tax. The IRA is included in the estate, but there is an offsetting charitable contribution deduction for the amount left to the charity.

Because non-charitable heirs benefit more by receiving non-IRA assets, leaving the IRA to a charity can be a good deal for all involved. When the estate owner plans to leave part of the estate to charity and there are enough non-IRA assets for other beneficiaries, the owner should consider leaving all or part of the IRA to charity while leaving the other assets to non-charitable beneficiaries.

When considering IRA beneficiaries as part of an estate plan, there are a couple of other strategies I frequently recommend that you should consider as alternatives.

One strategy is to avoid all this by emptying your IRA early. Distribute all or most of the IRA, pay the taxes, and invest the after-tax amount. That gives you more flexibility over how to give away the balance and probably gives the heirs a larger after-tax amount in the long term. This can be appropriate for someone with a large IRA and other income or assets to maintain the standard of living. It also is best if you expect the after-tax account to have 10 years or more to growth and compound before money is withdrawn.

Another strategy is to convert the traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. This does not avoid the choice of beneficiary, but it makes the distributions tax free. Keep in mind it costs money to convert to a Roth IRA.

I have discussed the details of both of these strategies in past issues of Retirement Watch and in my book, The New Rules of Retirement.

Designating IRA beneficiaries is a neglected step in many estates. Take care to designate beneficiaries with care and use a custom beneficiary designation form if necessary. Taking these steps can increase the after-tax wealth of your heirs by tens of thousands of dollars. A will or living trust has no influence on who inherits your IRA or other qualified retirement account. Only the beneficiary designation form counts. Make your designations carefully, update them as needed, keep copies of all forms, and be sure the executor knows where the forms are.

Avoiding Estate Planning Mistakes

Bob Carlson — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:40:00 GMT

The success or failure of an estate plan often depends on small details. Amid all the big picture issues (taxes, trusts, gifts, business interests), these matters may seem too small to deserve much time. Don’t have that attitude. It could cost you and your heirs.

Don’t make these very common estate planning mistakes.

* Overlooking non-probate assets. These assets are excluded from the “probate estate” and avoid the probate process, so their disposition is not covered by the will. (They likely are included in the gross estate for tax purposes.) They are covered by law or by contract. These assets include IRAs, employer retirement plans, life insurance, and annuities. Living trusts and all the assets in them also avoid probate.

Retirement plans, annuities, and life insurance have beneficiary designations that must be completed, either as a section of the account application or contract or in a separate document. For each of these non-probate assets, the custodian or account sponsor looks only at the forms in its records. Whoever is listed as beneficiary gets the asset. Often, a beneficiary designation form was completed many years ago, perhaps before the owner was married or had children. In the ensuing years, the owner’s marital or family situation could change. Yet, many people forget about their designation forms and do not update them.

Every estate owner should keep a copy of all beneficiary designation forms and review them every couple of years. More frequent updates are necessary as family situations, goals, and objects of affection change.

A related mistake is not to name contingent beneficiaries. These are needed because a beneficiary might pre-decease the owner or otherwise be unable to inherit. Another reason to have contingent beneficiaries is the primary beneficiaries might realize that due to changed circumstances it would be better for all concerned if someone else inherits the asset. The named beneficiary (or beneficiaries) could file a document known as a disclaimer, refusing the inheritance. The account then would go to the next contingent beneficiary.

* Many people set up living trusts but neglect to fully implement them or update them as needed.

One often overlooked detail with living trusts is that ownership of assets must be transferred to them. Only the assets legally owned by the trust avoid probate and are controlled by the trust’s terms. Too many people do not do the work of transferring the legal title of homes, vehicles, and financial accounts to their trusts, making the trusts useless.

It also is important to check with financial institutions to determine if they need a copy of the trust on file. A number of financial institutions are hesitant to recognize succession clauses in a living trust unless a copy of the trust agreement was filed with them in advance or they have other proof of the initial trustee's intent before transferring power over the accounts.

As with a will, there also might be a need to change trustees and beneficiaries. There should be successor clauses for beneficiaries and trustees that automatically make changes in certain circumstances. The clauses should be carefully written, updated as needed, and the successors made aware of the situation.

* A financial power of attorney is essential to every estate plan. Most estate plans focus on one's demise, but the possibility of disability also must be considered. Someone should have legal authority to manage the finances during a period of disability. If plans haven't been made, loved ones must go to court to have someone appointed. At that point, the owner has no control over the choice.

One reason to get started on the POA is that most financial institutions require that a copy of their own POA form be signed and on record to be effective. They might not accept the form drafted by an attorney or might delay its acceptance for some time. They also might not accept a form that is not filed with them until the principal is disabled.

* There are other details that are part of a complete estate plan. Parents of minor children should designate guardians in case of the demise of both parents. An estate owner also should create a beneficiary book that contains most important financial documents, plus descriptions and locations of other assets and records. There also should be instructions for the estate executor and those who inherit special assets. Funeral, memorial service, and burial instructions can be suggested by the estate owner and should be included in the book. I have discussed all these issues in more detail in regular issues of my newsletter, Retirement Watch.

Over the years estate planning has become synonymous with tax planning. There are other issues that are as least as important as taxes. A goal of estate planning is to manage assets and transfer them as efficiently as possible to the objects of one’s affection. Reducing taxes is part of that process, but there are other aspects that also affect how much of the assets reach loved ones and how efficiently that transfer occurs.

The Four Goals of Legacy Planning

Bob Carlson — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:29:00 GMT

Perhaps one of the worst effects of high estate taxes is the way tax planning diverts attention from other important estate planning issues. For many years, I have stressed that estate planning is about much more than taxes, but most people believe estate planning and estate tax planning were the same thing. Though wrong, it was understandable when the lifetime estate tax exemption was $600,000. Many "modest millionaires" who considered themselves middle class would be hit by high estate and gift taxes without planning.

Unfortunately, the idea that estate planning is all about tax reduction still is widely held. With the estate tax exemption at $3.5 million and likely to stay there or higher, many people simply are neglecting estate planning. Since estate taxes are not going to be a problem for them, they see no reason to put together a plan.

One way to avoid falling into this trap is to think about legacy planning instead of estate planning. Everyone needs a legacy plan, even those with less than $1 million in assets. With a new estate tax law likely to come down the pike this year and stabilize the tax picture, 2009 is a good time to put together your legacy plan.

Legacy planning has four key goals. Consider these goals and how to accomplish them. Working with an estate planner will be easier and faster when you understand legacy planning this way, and it will make meeting these goals easier and more likely.

Financial security for you and the objects of your affection is a priority of legacy planning.

Though few people realize it, putting yourself first should come be the priority of legacy planning. Establishing a legacy involves giving to or providing things (not necessarily money) for others. Yet, you are best able to give to others when your own standard of living is secure. You won’t be able to give to or provide for others when your own situation is precarious. As the plan is developed, keep returning to the question of whether a strategy would put your standard of living at risk under some circumstances. The sharp decline in asset prices in 2008 brought that home to many people.

Once comfortable with your financial security, establish goals for the ultimate disposition of your wealth. Often, the spouse is the first beneficiary of the wealth. After that, children, grandchildren, and charities are the usual recipients of the wealth. You need to decide who will benefit from your estate, the order in which they will benefit, and the amount or percentage of your wealth they should receive.

After determining who should benefit from the wealth, the next issue is how they will benefit. That issue often is determined by the other goals of legacy planning.

Continuing the management and caretaking of the estate is the next goal. If you are like most people, you have been calling the shots if not doing all the management. Too many estates, regardless of their size, dwindle rapidly after the first owners pass them on. Often the successors did not understand how the assets were to be managed or did not share the values and outlook of the founder.

This issue is particularly important with small businesses. The founding owner must decide who will own the business, who will benefit from its income, and who will manage the business. Those are three separate categories and do not have to consist of the same person or people. A key to successful legacy planning for a business, however, is to have a succession plan in place and to follow it. Succession planning is an issue we have discussed in my newsletter, Retirement Watch from time to time.

Even estates without businesses need to address the issue of the stewardship transition. It could be that the people you want to benefit from the wealth are not likely to manage it well over the long term. In that case, you want to consider trusts and other arrangements that separate management and ownership. It is important to recognize that those who benefit from the assets do not have to be the managers.

Protecting the estate is another key element of the plan. This goal is particularly important to small business owners and professionals. They feel a greater need to protect assets from potential creditors and lawsuits. But others might need asset protection from those sources as well as disgruntled family members, irresponsible family members, and ex-family members in divorces.

There are simple, low-cost vehicles that will protect assets, including different ways to hold title to assets, IRAs, annuities, and umbrella liability insurance. These work for estates of any size. For larger estates, there are vehicles that can be used to protect assets, including trusts and limited partnerships. Your fears, needs, and the various methods can be discussed with your estate planner. The key is to identify the assets you want protected and the potential harms from which you want protection. Surprisingly, the size of the estate often is not a factor. Many estate planners report that the worst fights are over the smaller estates.

The legacy plan must address the potential tax burden. Once you have established who should benefit from the wealth, you want to transfer the wealth to them in the ways with the lowest possible tax bill that meet your other goals. For many estates, that has become easier each year for about a decade, but easier tax reduction probably won't continue after 2009.

One reason many people do not develop estate plans is they do not realize how valuable the estate is and the potential tax burden. There often are "hidden assets" that are included in the taxable estate such as annuities, life insurance, IRAs, and some trusts. Other people "forget" about some of their assets or do not know their true value.

Even when federal estate taxes are not a problem, state inheritance or estate taxes could be. A number of states have these taxes, and some impose taxes on estates or assets with values as low as $250,000.

Income taxes on beneficiaries also need to be considered in the plan. For example, the beneficiaries of IRAs face an income tax burden many people overlook. That burden is one reason it might benefit you or your heirs to empty an IRA early, pay the taxes, and put the IRA assets in a taxable account to compound over the years. If you do not consider income taxes, your beneficiaries could benefit from far less of your wealth than you expected.

Planning a legacy involves far more than reducing estate taxes. It is time to start determining your goals and putting your plan together. Once the new estate tax law is final, push forward with the final details and implementation.

The Trickiest Part of Estate Planning

Bob Carlson — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:32:00 GMT

ways to efficiently distribute the residuary estate while reducing the probability of a will fight or family dispute. The appropriate method for your estate depends on family dynamics and your understanding of them.

Here are some strategies to consider. You have to decide which works best for your family.

§ If you are confident there won’t be problems, you can leave the residuary estate to the children and let them decide how to divide the items. Or you can name one of the children as executor and let the executor decide how to divide the residuary estate. The will might direct the executor to divide the residuary in equal shares among the children. Or it might direct the children to agree on a division under the executor’s direction. Many families are able to reach an amicable division this way.

If you are afraid emotions might take over, consider one of the other methods.

§ There is one surefire way to avoid conflicts. Direct the executor to sell everything that can be sold and distribute the cash to the heirs. Unsold items would be given to charity. Heirs who want a particular item or items can buy them at the sale. The executor decides on the sale process, and it should be one that does not allow one heir to have an advantage over others in obtaining an item.

§ Instead of listing each item of property and who should get it, you can label items as you decide who should receive them. You might put labels on the backs of artwork and on the bottoms of sculptures and furniture. Though the designations are not legally binding, you can mention them in the will as your preference for the executor to follow, and the executor and heirs usually respect them. Yet, you will have many items that cannot be labeled in this way. Worse, an unhappy family member can switch a label or claim that a label was switched or is not really your handwriting.

§ You can give the heirs an opportunity to agree on a distribution, then provide a back up if they do not agree. For example, the will can state the residuary estate will be distributed as agreed to by the beneficiaries, but if they do not agree within a certain time, the executor will sell or give away the residuary estate.

§ Finally, you can create a lottery system. You can decide on the system yourself or instruct the executor to use a lottery system of his or her own choosing. There are a number of possible lotteries.

The most common lottery probably is for the heirs to draw straws or names to determine the selection order. In the first round, the children each choose an item in the order drawn. In the next round, the selection order is reversed. Then they return to the initial order, and so on. If there are only two heirs, they can flip a coin to determine the first round order. The winner of the flip can be given the choice of either going first and picking one item or going second and picking two items.

Under this system, heirs pick the items that are of most value to them. That might be a problem if you want the heirs to receive equal value, either monetarily or sentimentally. In that case, one suggestion is to have the executor assign a value to each item and keep track of the selections. If heirs end up with unequal monetary values, the difference is made up with cash. Another approach is to allow heirs to choose only from items of relatively equal value in each round. That approach, however, is time-consuming and might not be practical with all estates.

Another lottery strategy is to let the heirs decide how to value items. There are a couple of ways to implement this strategy.

In one approach, each heir can assign a number of points to each item. By giving the items points, they are deciding how important each item is to them. After everything is valued this way, in the first round each person gets one item on which he or she placed more points than anyone else did.

The points assigned to the items are not likely to be equal. The person who assigned the most points to the item that he won doesn't select again. Instead, the others pick one or more items to which they assigned points until the total points of their items equal the total the first person placed on his or her item. For example, the first heir might "win" property to which he assigned 100 points; the second heir might have assigned 70 points to his winning item. The second heir gets to pick one or more items to which he assigned a total of 30 points before the second round begins.

A variation is to give each heir the same number of points as though they were dollars. They use the points to bid for items in the estate. If an item is particularly important to an heir, he might bid all or most of his points to ensure getting it. Under this approach, the heirs might end up with items of unequal economic value. But that should be acceptable because the heirs have determined the personal value of each item. More details on these two approaches are in the book, The Universe and The Teacup by K.C. Cole (Harcourt Brace & Co.; $13.00 paperback).

To make any of these systems work better, most estate planners recommend that in-laws not be involved. They seem to complicate an already complicated process.

If your estate is taxable, you need to keep taxes in mind. Someone must pay taxes on the items in the residuary estate (and the rest of the estate). You need to work with your estate planner to decide where the tax payments will come from.

Distributing the personal items can be the most complicated and difficult process of an estate. That is a reason some people distribute or dispose of many personal items as part of their planning process. One way to improve the results is to prevent surprises. Ask heirs and potential heirs if any of the items are of special value to them. Once you have made a decision, let the heirs know generally how the property will be handled. Estate planners generally believe that estate disputes and hard feelings are triggered more by surprises than anything else.

Your IRA and Your Heirs

Bob Carlson — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:22:00 GMT

The unfortunate fate of many IRAs shows why everyone needs an estate plan, even when the value of the estate is far below the taxable level. Few people are aware of what could happen to their IRAs when the next generation inherits them. Most people, and discussions of IRAs, focus on building the balance through contributions and investments. If your IRA is a meaningful portion of your estate, however, you better consider what will happen to it. Effective estate planning strategies for IRAs tend to be different from the rest of the plan.

An estate plan for IRAs should answer these questions: What will be the bills for estate taxes and income taxes? Who will pay those taxes? Who will receive the IRA? In what form will the IRA be received?

There is a great deal of confusion about how inherited IRAs are taxed. The value of the IRA will be included in the owner's estate. Unlike other assets, ownership of the IRA cannot be given away during life or put into a trust for the benefit of others. If the IRA owner's estate will be large enough to incur estate taxes, the owner has to use other assets to reduce the tax or purchase life insurance to pay the estate tax. Most likely the IRA also will incur any state death or inheritance taxes.

Estate taxes can be avoided when the surviving spouse is the sole primary beneficiary of the IRA. The IRA’s value will be included in the owner’s estate, but there will be an offsetting marital deduction when the spouse inherits.

When estate taxes are incurred on an IRA the next issue is: Who pays the taxes attributable to the IRA?

Most standard wills provide that estate taxes are paid from the residuary estate or from the surviving spouse's share. Other estates apportion the taxes against specific assets or shares of the estate. If the IRA is a large percentage of the estate and taxes are paid from the residuary estate or surviving spouse's share, the taxes attributable to the IRA could really shrink the after-tax value of the shares paying the taxes.

Having the taxes attributable to the IRA paid by the beneficiaries of the IRA could create problems. If the beneficiaries do not have sufficient other assets to pay the taxes, they will have to take a distribution from the IRA to pay the taxes. The distribution will be included in their gross income for income tax purposes, so they will have to take an extra amount to pay the income taxes on the distribution they take to pay the estate taxes.

The best solution depends on the particular estate and the beneficiaries. The IRA owner should take care to consider how much the estate taxes will be and which part of the estate will pay them or whether life insurance should be purchased to pay the taxes.

After the payment of estate taxes isre resolved, or even if estate taxes are not an issue, there are income taxes to consider.

Unlike when other assets are inherited, there also will be income taxes due when the beneficiary takes distributions from the IRA. The beneficiary pays the same income taxes on distributions that the owner would have paid. These taxes cannot be avoided, and the fact of them might influence who is named beneficiary of the IRA or how much is left to different beneficiaries.

A non-IRA asset is more valuable to an heir than an IRA of equal value is, because there will be income taxes due on distributions from the IRA. The heir really inherits only the after-tax value of the IRA. The non-IRA asset, on the other hand, can be sold and no capital gains taxes would be due on the appreciation that occurred during the owner's holding period.

The income taxes due on IRA distributions are a reason to consider making charitable gifts with the IRA instead of other estate assets. The IRA will be included in the estate, but there will be an offsetting charitable contribution deduction, for no net estate tax. In addition, a charity that is named beneficiary of an IRA will not owe income taxes when it takes distributions, so it will benefit from the full value of the IRA. If there is an inclination to make charitable gifts through the estate, it often is better to make the gifts through an IRA and maximize the non-IRA assets left to other heirs.

You do not have to leave the entire IRA to a charity. If the IRA’s value exceeds the amount you want to leave to charity, leave a portion of the IRA to charity and a portion to other heirs. Or split the IRA into two, leaving one entirely to charity and the other to other beneficiaries.

Another issue is the beneficiary selection, if it is not to be a charity. An IRA owner wants to be sure to name one or more beneficiaries. Failure to do so, or naming the estate as beneficiary, removes the tax deferral benefits of the IRA. Distributions will be required from the IRA on an accelerated schedule.

Naming the beneficiary is not as complicated as it used to be. Before 2001 and 2002 regulations, the beneficiary choice greatly influenced the amount of the required minimum distributions during the owner’s lifetime. Now, an IRA owner should consider only which beneficiary he or she really wants to receive the IRA.

In most cases, the surviving spouse is the primary beneficiary and the children are contingent beneficiaries. In larger estates, the owner might name a charity to receive at least some of the IRA as discussed above.

Yet, it makes a lot of sense for an IRA owner to have a back up plan for the beneficiary selection. The regulations allow the estate executor to name the Designated Beneficiary by September 30 of the year after the year of the IRA owner's death. In most cases, there won't be any reason to change from the standard practice of naming the surviving spouse as beneficiary. But circumstances can change, and the regulations allow the executor to adapt to changing circumstances.

For the executor to take advantage of the flexibility, the IRA owner must name contingent beneficiaries on the beneficiary designation form. The Designated Beneficiary named by the executor must be on the list of primary and contingent beneficiaries named by the owner.

When more than one person is beneficiary of an IRA, the beneficiaries can split the IRA into separate ones, but they might not realize this or the IRA custodian might be resistant to it. If the beneficiaries do not split the IRA, the age of the oldest determines the required minimum distributions from the IRA. In addition, the beneficiaries have to agree on management of the IRA and on the policy for taking distributions that exceed the required minimum.

The IRA owner should ensure that the beneficiaries know they can split the IRA. The owner also should check the IRA custodian’s policy for splitting inherited IRAs. Some discourage it or charge fees. Some IRA owners decide to split their IRAs themselves, naming one primary beneficiary for each.

Instead of leaving the IRA directly to individual beneficiaries, the owner might want to name a trust as beneficiary. The trust can control when distributions are made to the beneficiary. This arrangement might increase income taxes, however, and tricky rules must be followed when drafting the trust. Do not name a trust as IRA beneficiary without working with an estate planning attorney who is experienced in this area. The wrong language in the trust can terminate the tax deferral benefits of the IRA and require distributions on an accelerated schedule.

Because of the income and estate taxes and the nuances of naming beneficiaries, some IRA owners choose to empty their IRAs early, pay the taxes, and invest the after-tax assets in taxable accounts. Once out of the IRA, the assets can be given away as part of the estate plan or can be invested for long-term gains.

Emptying the IRA early generally is a strategy for those who have sufficient assets outside the IRA to support their standard of living or have such large IRAs that they consider the IRA primarily a savings account or something to be left to the next generation. If the strategy is used, it is best to empty the IRA as early as possible, because time is needed to make up for paying the income taxes early. I discuss the strategy in detail in my book, The New Rules of Retirement and have discussed it in past issues of Retirement Watch.

For similar reasons, people convert traditional IRAs into Roth IRAs, which also is discussed in those sources.

IRA owners need to know that wills and living trusts have no effect on an IRA. Only the beneficiary designation form on file with the custodian determines who inherits an IRA. IRA owners need to keep copies of the form and review it regularly. They also should check with the IRA custodian to be sure it has the current form on file.

The ABCs and XYZs of Trusts

Bob Carlson — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:17:00 GMT

Trusts are fairly simple. Lawyers and estate planners make them seem more complicated than they are. That’s too bad, because to ensure they have effective estate plans nonlawyers need to understand the different types of trusts and how they work.

Trusts used to be for only the very wealthy or for special situations. But now trusts are included in many estate plans, because they can help achieve so many goals. Almost everyone needs a working knowledge of trusts, and you should brush up on them before the estate tax is changed later in 2009.

A trust is simply a contract with three parties. The parties can be groups, because more than one person can share any of the roles. A person can have more than one role, even all three.

One party to the contract is the grantor or creator. This is the person who wrote the trust agreement and usually puts all the assets in the trust. Another party is the trustee. The trustee agrees to manage the assets according to the terms of the trust agreement and the law. Legally the trustee acts as owner of the assets, but the actions the trustee can take are limited by the trust agreement. In addition, the assets cannot be reached by personal creditors of the trustee.

The third party is the beneficiary. Beneficiaries have rights to receive income or principal or both according to the terms of the trust agreement, and the trust assets are managed for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Sometimes beneficiaries have other rights, such as the ability to change trustees or name who receives their interests after they pass away. Either the beneficiaries or grantor normally can sue the trustee for violating the trust agreement or mismanaging the assets.

Trusts are very flexible. There are few limits to the terms that can be put in the trust agreement. To make their work easier, lawyers have shorthand names for trusts that are designed to achieve specific goals. The tax law also gives names to trusts with certain provisions. The flexibility and different names can make trusts seem confusing.

In general, it is easiest to think of trusts in four categories. In each category there are two possible labels. Most trusts have a label from more than one category and some from each category.

Living vs. post mortem. A living trust simply is a trust created during the grantor's lifetime. A post mortem trust is one created in or as part of the will. A living trust often is given the Latin name inter vivos trust.

Keep in mind a trust can be created but not funded. For example, a grantor and trustee can sign the trust agreement. That creates the trust. But the trust has no effect and there is no business for it to do unless property is transferred to it. It is not unusual for grantors to create trusts then fail to transfer title to any assets to them. Also a trust can be created during life but funded under the will.

When most people hear the phrase "living trust" they actually are thinking of a revocable living trust, which we will discuss next.

Revocable vs. irrevocable. A living trust can be revocable or irrevocable. In a revocable trust, the grantor reserves the right to revoke the trust or change its terms. The right to change might apply to some terms or to all the trust terms. For example, the grantor might reserve only the right to change the beneficiaries but not the rest of the terms. An irrevocable trust is what the name says. Its terms cannot be changed by the grantor after the trust agreement is signed.

A very common trust is the revocable living trust. It is used to avoid probate in states with high probate costs or long probate procedures, especially California and Florida.

Under the revocable living trust the grantor transfers title to almost all his or her property to the trust, including homes, cars, checking accounts, investment accounts, and household furnishings. The grantor and grantor's spouse usually are both the initial trustees and beneficiaries. They generally treat the property the same as they did before the trust was formed, except everything must be in the trust's name, and they manage it as trustees. The trust agreement spells out who succeeds them as trustees and beneficiaries.

Property owned by a trust is transferred to the next generation of beneficiaries under the terms of the trust agreement. A will has no effect, and property owned by a trust avoids the probate process. There is no public recording of the trust, and the trustees do not have to ask a court to transfer title to heirs. Instead, the trust agreement controls. That is why a revocable living trust also is called a will substitute.

There are serious tax differences between revocable and irrevocable trusts. When a grantor creates a revocable trust, the grantor is treated as the owner of the property for tax purposes, and the trust assets are included in the grantor's taxable estate. Income and gains of the revocable trust generally are taxed to the grantor as earned, whether or not money is paid from the trust to the grantor.

Irrevocable trusts can reduce income and estate taxes. When properly structured, irrevocable trust property is not included in the grantor's estate, and trust income and gains are taxed to either the trust or the beneficiary instead of the grantor. While irrevocable trusts can reduce taxes, they really must be irrevocable and the grantor cannot have the right to retrieve the property or be paid the income.

Income vs. total return. The next category refers to how annual payouts to the beneficiary are determined. Traditionally, the income beneficiaries of a trust receive only income earned by the trust's assets. Income generally is defined as interest, dividends, royalties, and rents. Capital gains are not income. They are added to trust principal. A standard trust term is to pay all income to the grantor’s spouse for life. After the spouse's demise, the children receive the remaining trust principal.

The income trust has become less feasible as interest rates declined and the cost of living increased. Income stays the same or declines as the income beneficiary's cost of living rises. The trustee could try to increase income by investing in riskier income vehicles, but that puts the principal at risk. Another tension is the remainder beneficiaries want some of the trust invested for growth. Otherwise, the purchasing power of their remainder interest declines because of inflation. But the needs of the income beneficiary discourage growth investing.

A total return trust solves these problems. The “income beneficiary” is paid either a percentage of the trust assets or a fixed amount. The trustee does not worry about restricting payouts only to income. Instead, the trustee invests for long-term growth with a diversified portfolio. The income beneficiaries can be paid from income, capital gains, or principal. The total return trust is the better way to structure trust payouts today.

Discretionary vs. nondiscretionary. This category refers to the trustee's ability to vary distributions or payouts. In a nondiscretionary trust, the trustee is told in the trust agreement how much to distribute to income beneficiaries each year or how to calculate the distributions. The trustee also is told when to distribute principal and how much to distribute. For example, one third of the principal might be distributed to a beneficiary upon turning age 21, another third at 25, and the remainder at 30.

A discretionary trust allows the trustee to exercise judgment at least part of the time. The trustee might distribute to the surviving spouse all income earned by the trust plus whatever principal or capital gains are needed to maintain the spouse's standard of living in the trustee’s judgment. Or the trustee might be able to withhold any distribution when the trustee believes it is in a beneficiary's best interest, such as when the beneficiary has a substance abuse or gambling problem.

These are the broad ways of categorizing trusts. There are many specialized trusts. There are charitable trusts (several types of them), dynasty trusts, grantor retained annuity trusts, grantor retained income trusts, and many more. These specialized trusts usually are used to accomplish certain goals at a minimum tax cost, and the tax law dictates the details of the trusts. But each of these specialized trusts also can be defined by the categories we discussed. They are specialized trusts within the categories.

Now, you know the basics of trusts. You can intelligently review and discuss estate plan options, know the key questions to ask about a trust and the consequences of the answers. You are ready to put together a more effective estate plan and to avoid having a trust you don't need or that does not meet your goals.

Safe Ways to Give Wealth

Bob Carlson — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:49:00 GMT

Gift giving is the surest way to reduce estate taxes, help loved ones of all ages, and establish a legacy. Yet, many people are hesitant to make significant gifts to loved ones, because of some potential pitfalls. Those pitfalls, however, can be avoided with some shrewd and creative giving strategies.

Potential givers see several risks in making substantial gifts. The wealth could be wasted or spent unwisely by the recipients. Simple mismanagement by an unsophisticated heir might cause the money to disappear in scams or unwise investments. The wealth also could be dissipated though gambling, substance abuse, or bankruptcy. A common concern is that part of the wealth eventually could leave the family in a divorce.

While these risks are real, there are ways to give that reduce or eliminate the risks without the expense and inconvenience of trusts. As I have stated in past posts, this is a good time to make estate planning gifts, because asset values are down. Estate and gift taxes are based on the value of property. The lower the value of property is when it leaves your hands, the lower the transfer taxes. The benefits of making gifts today can be reaped while protecting wealth from these and other perils. Consider these strategies for structuring gifts.

529 plans. College savings plans authorized under section 529 of the tax code have become one of the best estate planning vehicles in recent years, while tax law changes have diminished the value of other vehicles. Most states now offer multiple 529 plan options, and any person can set up an account for the benefit of someone else and contribute to it. Contributions qualify for the annual gift tax exclusion, currently up to $13,000 per year. In addition, up to five years' worth of exclusions can be used in one year for a tax free lump sum contribution of up to $65,000. The money given to the account is out of the donor’s estate. Under many state plans the owner has some choices over how the account is invested. The IRS generally restricts investment changes to one per year, though the limit is suspended for 2009.

Income and gains in the account compound tax free. Withdrawals are tax free if they are used for qualified education expenses of the beneficiary.

A distinctive advantage of the 529 plan is the owner can retrieve assets from the account for any reason. There is no tax penalty if the owner asks for the return of the assets, though the plan sponsor can impose a penalty of up to 10%. The owner also can change the plan beneficiary at any time. The return of income and gains earned by the account is taxable if they are not used for qualified education expenses.

Some states limit the duration of an account to a number of years or to the 25th or 30th birthday of the initial beneficiary. Others have no time limit.

A 529 college savings plan provides a tax-free way to remove assets from an estate, place them in a tax-free savings vehicle, and benefit an heir. But the beneficiary has no current control of the assets and can be denied future access if the situation changes. The donor can retrieve the assets if his or her needs change.

Bill paying assistance. Many people hesitate to make gifts because they are concerned the gifts will be wasted. They would like to help loved ones but do not want their gifts funding frivolous expenditures or being lost in unwise investments.

One way to prevent that outcome is to make direct payments on behalf of the beneficiary. The beneficiary never touches the money, and the gifts pay for what the donor intended. For example, checks for education or medical expenses can be written and sent directly to the provider. Some people pay directly for vacations, summer camps, furniture, clothing, cars, and whatever other expenses they want to help with.

Direct payment of gifts qualifies for the annual gift tax exclusion. In addition, qualified education and medical expense payments made directly to the provider qualify for unlimited gift tax exclusions.

Purchasing services is safer than paying for assets. Assets can be divided in a divorce or sold or pawned to fund other spending. Another possible disadvantage is that paying for items might put loved ones in the habit of asking for assistance whenever they want something. A better approach is to have a plan in which gifts for the year are discussed and set or even multi-year plans are developed.

Home equity match. Suppose loved ones need an expensive item, but the parents are not able or willing to part with a large lump sum or want to stay within the annual gift tax exclusion limit. A strategy, if the children have adequate home equity and credit, is for the children to make the purchase with a home equity loan. The parents then can agree to make all or part of the loan payments either directly or by sending money to the children. This allows the parents to help the children, stay within the gift tax exemption amount, and spread the payments over time in manageable amounts. The children deduct the interest.

Expense matching. Some donors to charities make challenge matches. They offer to match, up to a maximum amount, whatever amount the charity raises from other donors for a specific purpose. Parents can do the same with children. If the children need or want a car, for example, the parents can offer to match whatever amount the children spend. The match does not have to be dollar for dollar. The parents can offer to pay fifty cents for every dollar the children pay, for example.

Some parents believe it is important the children have some of their own assets in a major expenditure. The cost sharing makes it more likely that the children will choose wisely and take care of the asset. It also makes the children less dependent on the parents.

Marital agreements. When gifts are not made because the parents do not want to risk that they will be divided in a divorce, parents should discuss this with the children. The problem could be remedied with a premarital or postmarital agreement stating any lifetime gifts or estate bequests received by one spouse will not be considered part of the marital estate to be divided in a divorce. Many parents and grandparents will not make estate planning gifts unless there is such a marital agreement.

Maintaining separate accounts. In many states assets owned before a marriage plus gifts and inheritances are not included in the marital estate if they are not commingled with other assets. Parents should check the state's treatment of the gifts, and then can require that their gifts be kept in separate financial accounts

Trusts. Of course, the classic way to protect assets is by placing them in trusts. In this post we have offered a number of ways to protect assets without the expense and restrictions of a trust. When the strategies discussed here do not meet the donor’s goals, trusts can be fashioned to accept tax-free gifts, take property out of an estate, protect assets, and provide incentives for the beneficiaries.

Estate owners have legitimate concerns about what might become of their estate planning gifts. These concerns can be resolved with some creative gift giving, enhancing the lives of loved ones while protecting hard-earned wealth.

Bob Carlson is editor of the monthly newsletter Retirement Watch and the web site www.RetirementWatch.com. He also is author of numerous books and reports, including The New Rules of Retirement and Invest Like a Fox…Not Like a Hedgehog.

IRA Inheritance Disasters: A Case Study

Bob Carlson — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:55:00 GMT

One point I try to emphasize regularly in my newsletter and web site is the importance of the beneficiary designation form for IRAs, pensions, annuities, and a few other assets. Yes, a will or living trust are very important to your estate plan. They do not, however, control the disposition of all your assets. Assets that avoid the probate process are not controlled by your will or trust. Only the beneficiary designation form on file with the IRA sponsor or other custodian of the assets determines who receives the assets after you.

A recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court shows how important it is to keep your beneficiary forms up to date.

William Kennedy worked at DuPont and had a wife and daughter. He named his wife as beneficiary on the retirement plan's designation form and did not name a contingent beneficiary. Decades later, he and his wife divorced, and Mrs. Kennedy waived her rights to Mr. Kennedy's retirement benefits as part of the settlement. The waiver was not in the form of a qualified domestic relations order as defined in the tax law, which the plan would be required to follow. Since the waiver was not a QDRO, the plan documents controlled the account.

Unfortunately, Mr. Kennedy never changed his beneficiary designation form with DuPont. (He did change the designation form for another retirement plan at DuPont, naming his daughter as beneficiary.) He retired in 1998 and began receiving benefits. He died in 2001. Dupont then paid $402,000 to the former Mrs. Kennedy as beneficiary of the account.

The daughter sued DuPont, saying her father clearly intended that his ex-wife not inherit the retirement benefits. The ex-wife, she said, was compensated by other means and waived any rights to the benefits.

The Supreme Court held DuPont had no responsibility to the daughter. DuPont was bound to follow the employee's instructions on the forms filed with the employer, no matter how old and out-of-date they might seem. The ex-wife's waiver of her rights to the benefits did not amount to an assignment of the rights to the daughter. It was the employee’s job to update the forms if he changed his mind. The plan administrator is not able or required to review anything else to determine who should receive the benefits. Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, US Supreme Court, Jan. 26, 2009.

The bottom line as we have said many times is your beneficiary designation forms control what happens to your retirement benefits, and you need to keep those forms up to date. This is true for retirement plans, annuities, life insurance, and other non-probate assets. You need to review the beneficiary designations at least every couple of years or when there is a major life event. Keep copies of the forms and write “superceded” or something similar on out-of-date forms, in case the custodian loses the forms. Be sure your executor knows where to find your copies of the forms.

Asset Declines=A Planning Opportunity - Part 2

Bob Carlson — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:46:00 GMT

Last week we discussed how today’s economic distress creates estate planning opportunities. Because of today’s reduced asset values, estate owners can shift assets out of their estates tax at much lower tax cost than they could have a year or two ago. We went over basic strategies for taking advantage of the situation. This week, let’s look at ways to leverage these strategies.

Family loans. Many families like the concept of loans to family members. If you might need the money in the future, a loan lets you provide benefits to family members now while retaining future access to the wealth. The IRS requires you to charge a minimum interest rate on a family loan to avoid income and gift taxes. The minimum rates are based on treasury debt rates. Because the Federal Reserve has been pushing down short-term rates and investors have been reducing intermediate and long-term rates in the flight to safety, the required minimum rates are low. The rates are changed monthly, and depend on the loan's maturity or term. They are known as “federal applicable interest rates” and are published monthly by the IRS in its Internal Revenue Bulletin.

Family loans are very flexible, but here is how one common strategy works. You lend $100,000 to a child for five years. Let's say the law requires you to charge 2% interest. Your child can invest that money for five years. If the investments earn more than 2% annually, the child keeps that excess return. You receive the $100,000 plus 2% annual interest after five years.

Alternatively, you could lend the money to allow a child to buy a home in today's depressed market. You might set the term of the loan at 10 years. There are several actions the child could take by the end of 10 years. The home could be sold at a profit, with the child keeping the return above the interest rate you charge. Or once the credit markets loosen, the child could refinance the home with a traditional mortgage and return the borrowed money plus interest to you.

The benefits of the family loan can be increased with a variation. If you do not need the money to maintain your standard of living, each year you can use the annual gift tax exclusion to forgive the interest and part of the principal. This shifts the money and future appreciation out of your estate tax free over time while enabling your children to benefit from having the cash now.

In some circumstances a minimum interest rate need not be charged on a family loan if the principal is low enough. I won’t go into the details here. They are available in the members’ section of my web site at www.RetirementWatch.com and also from www.irs.gov.

Grantor retained annuity trusts. Today's low interest rates make these trusts a potentially great opportunity.

The grantor creates a trust that pays a fixed income to him for life or a period of years. After that the remainder of the trust goes to the beneficiaries. The present value of the remainder is a gift. The present value is determined by IRS tables, and current interest rates are a factor in determining the amount of the gift. The lower the interest rates, the smaller the value of the gift. If the return actually earned on the asset exceeds the IRS interest rate, the excess becomes a tax-free gift to the heirs.

A GRAT should be created with assets that are expected to appreciate rapidly within a few years or earn high income. Studies show value is maximized by creating a GRAT to last two years. After the trust expires, consider creating a new trust with different assets.

Charitable trusts. If you are inclined to make significant charitable gifts, consider making them now through a charitable trust. In particular, charitable lead annuity trusts are most advantageous when rates are low.

The CLAT pays income to a charity for a period of years. The payments are either a percentage of the trust’s value or a fixed annual amount. After the income period expires, the remainder in the trust goes to the other beneficiaries, usually the children of the trust creator.

The present value of the remainder for the children is a taxable gift when the trust is created. Again, because of today's low interest rates the taxable gift will be less than at other times. In addition, the combination of low interest rates and low asset values create the potential that the appreciation of trust assets will significantly exceed the income paid to the charity and the amount on which gift taxes were paid. The result could mean a significant amount of wealth is transferred tax free to heirs.

The creator of a CLAT can take a tax deduction for the present value of the gift to the charity. Doing so, however, obligates him to pay taxes on the income and gains of the trust. Foregoing the deduction avoids the taxes on the income and gains. The CLAT is irrevocable. Once created, you cannot get the money back or change the terms of the trust.

Today's low interest rates and decline in asset values present estate planning opportunities. Some of these are straightforward and easy to implement. Others, such as trusts and family loans, should be done only with the help of a tax or estate planning expert. Once the current crises end, the benefits from making the moves now could be significant.

Bob Carlson is editor of the monthly newsletter and web site Retirement Watch at www.RetirementWatch.com. He also is the author of The New Rules of Retirement and Invest Like a Fox…Not Like a Hedgehog.

The Neglected Step: Preparing Your Heirs

Bob Carlson — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:17:00 GMT

Many estate plans ultimately fail. The problems are not with the plans. The owners spent a fair amount of time and money preparing and executing the plans. They are sound plans that, if properly executed, would meet the goals.

The problems with many estate plans tend to occur in the final stage. One final stage problem is the heirs are not prepared to receive the wealth. They mishandle it. Or they did not know what was intended, so they do the wrong things. The results are squandered wealth, overpaid taxes, and lost opportunities. Inheritance mismanagement usually falls into one of three categories. Each of these types of mistakes could be avoided if estate owners understand their heirs and take the time to prepare them for the inheritances—or prepare the inheritance for them.

§ Not knowing the rules. Sometimes heirs can reap the full intended benefits of an inheritance only if they know to take certain actions, or to avoid other actions. This often is the case when the tax law is involved, as when an IRA is inherited.

For example, heirs must know not to allow the IRA custodian to retitle the IRA in their names. The deceased owner's name must remain as part of the account name if the heirs want to maximize tax deferral. Heirs also must know when to begin required minimum distributions, how to compute them, and which paperwork to complete. Otherwise, they lose the benefit of the tax deferral. They have to distribute the entire IRA within a short time and pay income taxes on the distribution.

IRAs are not the only area where heirs need to know what to do. They are one major example. Unique assets—businesses, real estate, collectibles—often require special treatment. Or the original owner has unique knowledge about how to maximize the follow of these assets.

An estate plan should ensure that heirs have the advice and information they need to make the right decisions and make them on time. I have long recommended that part of an estate plan include a letter to the executor and perhaps heirs with the basic instructions and supplemented by a notebook containing the appropriate documents, contact information, and any detailed instructions. The executor should know your intentions so these can be explained to the other heirs.

The heirs might not want to follow your advice. They might want to take all the money out of the IRA and spend the after-tax amount, for example. But they should do so knowing the alternatives and fully considering them.

§ Inheritance as a shrine. Some heirs will not use, change, or spend an inheritance. They view it as a legacy their loved one intended or as a memorial of the loved one. They come to believe that any change of the inheritance is a sign of disrespect or a loss of the final connection with their loved one.

Heirs in his mindset might be unwilling to make any changes in an investment portfolio. If they inherited a portfolio overloaded with a particular stock, they feel obligated to hold all the shares of that stock regardless of what is happening with the company. The company might be well past its growth phase and in decline. But the stock is considered the family legacy and not to be sold. Or they believe that the entire portfolio was never supposed to be changed. As the markets and the securities in the portfolio experience changes, the heirs will not allow any changes.

The truth is that many people do not sell long-term holdings during their lives because they do not want to pay the capital gains taxes. They know when heirs inherit they get to increase the tax basis to the current fair market value and can sell without paying taxes. But they do not communicate this to their heirs, so the heirs think the asset had some special value or meaning.

The same attitude might be taken towards assets such as real estate or collectibles. The heir might inherit the family vacation home. Perhaps the heir cannot afford to own and maintain it or does not have the time or money to visit it very often. But he or she believes it would be improper to sell the home. So instead of being a valuable asset it is a cash drain that produces neither financial nor personal benefits.

Once again, the solution is to make clear your thoughts about an asset and your advice. There are few assets that you should expect heirs to hold indefinitely and pass to their heirs. Assets that fall into that category should be clearly identified. You should explain why the asset is unique and should be held, so heirs can tell when circumstances have changed. You also should leave enough other assets so the heirs have sufficient income to pay any costs of ownership. If the heirs do not have the knowledge to properly manage inherited assets, such as an investment portfolio, recommend one or more sources of advice to guide them. Do not let your inheritance to them become a burden.

§ The windfall mentality. There are some people who, after receiving a windfall, do not feel the need to manage it for the long term. They view it as found money that should be used to justify taking higher risks, satisfying short-term desires, or purchasing items they would not buy with their own income or assets. Heirs with these attitudes usually go through an inheritance fairly quickly and spend it in ways that provide little for the future other than memories.

If you do not mind your loved ones treating their inheritance this way, there are no steps you need to take. Leave them what you have and let them do as they please.

You might know your loved ones well enough to realize that they will not take a windfall mentality with their inheritance. Some people are reassured after discussing the issue with loved ones and reiterating their hopes in a letter to heirs.

If you do not want the inheritance treated as a windfall and do not feel assured that your heirs will manage it properly, consider a trust. The trust can limit the spending of the heirs and preserve the assets for the future.

The bottom line is if you have intentions or preferences concerning an inheritance, you should say so. Either discuss it with your heirs now or state it in a letter to them as part of your estate plan.

Some good advice to give heirs is that they first should use an inheritance to eliminate their debts. Next, the assets should become part of their retirement fund or their children’s college funds. If they are well-funded for retirement, they can consider spending it in other ways. But providing a comfortable retirement should be their first use. If the inheritance is spent, the preference should be on items that increase wealth instead of on depreciating items that temporarily enhance life style. If you are leaving IRAs or either tricky assets, be sure the heirs are properly advised on the tax implications and other decisions.

Finally, whatever assets you leave try to ensure they are managed properly. If your heirs do not have enough knowledge, recommend some trusted advisors who can steer them toward good decisions.

Bob Carlson is editor of Retirement Watch and www.RetirementWatch.com where this article originally appeared. He also is the author of The New Rules of Retirement and Invest Like a Fox…Not Like a Hedgehog.

Trustee Strategies for the 21st Century

Bob Carlson — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:04:00 GMT

Trusts are part of more and more estate plans. Often trusts are used to hold and manage assets for younger generations.

Sometimes the beneficiaries are too young or inexperienced to manage the assets. Other times the older generation is afraid the younger generation might not resist temptations to spend direct gifts.

The success of an estate planning strategy involving a trust often hinges on the choice of trustee and the structure of the trustee’s job. The intentions of many estate plans have been stymied when the wrong trustees were appointed. A trustee can ignore or misunderstand a trust grantor's intentions. Or after a professional trustee or trust company is appointed, the original professional trustee might disappear in a series of promotions, job shifts, or corporate mergers. The new trustees are not as well-versed in the trustor’s intentions. Changing trustees is an increasingly common problem with all the havoc in the financial services industry.

Trust grantors need to give as much consideration to the choice of trustee as they do to the other details of the estate plan.

One strategy becoming more and more popular is to appoint more than one trustee or to divide the trustee duties among two or more trustees. There are different ways to use this specialization approach.

The original way to divide duties among trustees was simple. An institutional trustee would be appointed to handle the administration and "back office" duties. This trustee would retain custody of the assets, implement the investment transactions, prepare tax returns, and perform other duties of this type. The other trustee often would be a family member or trusted advisor to the family. This trustee would decide on the amount of distributions and make investment decisions or hire investment advisors.

A variation is to appoint co-trustees, usually one family member and an institutional trustee. The trustees have equal power. No action can occur unless each trustee agrees to it. In practice, the institutional trustee defers to the family member on issues of distributions and sometimes on investment strategy. The family member reviews the tax returns and other documents but defers to the institution on their preparation.

Still another variation is to appoint a committee of at least three trustees, usually selected from family members, friends or advisors, and an institution. The trustee agreement might require unanimity for any decision or allow an action to proceed after at least two trustees agree.

More recently, trust creators have been carving the trustee duties into separate compartments or roles and appointing a separate trustee for each role. Each trustee has sole authority over his or her sphere of responsibility.

The most logical division of duties is: investments, distributions, and administration and recordkeeping. The administration and recordkeeping (which includes custody of the assets) normally is assigned to an institutional trustee. Sometimes an account is opened with a broker or mutual fund, and the family CPA handles the taxes and recordkeeping. The other two functions can be assigned to either individuals or to committees of trustees. A committee of family members, perhaps with a third party such as a family advisor, might determine distributions. Another committee or perhaps a trusted financial advisor can make the investment decisions or hire investment managers.

The functions also could be split among institutions. A money management firm could be the trustee that oversees investments, while a bank or trust company could be in charge of custody, administration, and recordkeeping.

A variation is to appoint one or more persons as trustee with oversight of one of the functions, but the trustee is allowed to hire or delegate to others the actual performance of the functions. For example, a person or committee could be the trustees who oversee the trust's investments. Instead of making the individual investment decisions, they could hire money managers or consultants or otherwise delegate the details of the portfolio. Delegation does not relieve the trustees of their fiduciary responsibility for the results. They have to hire carefully, monitor the performance, and make changes if performance is unsatisfactory.

The advantage of splitting the trustee duties is specialists oversee each function. An institution likely is best at administration, custody, and tax preparation. Family members and friends probably best know the grantor's intentions regarding distributions. Specialization of investment management should reduce risk and increase returns.

There also are disadvantages with splitting trustee duties.

Costs are likely to increase with multiple trustees. Friends and family members might serve without compensation. Institutional trustees, however, often offer lower fees for a package deal that includes all trustee duties. They won't proportionately reduce costs to perform only the administration, custody, and recordkeeping, for example. An investment specialist firm also might or might not charge more than an institution would to manage the portfolio.

If something goes wrong with the trust the legal ramifications of dividing trustee duties are not settled. It is important to delineate each trustee's duties and responsibilities in the trust agreement. This could increase the cost of creating the trust. Part of the agreement should include a dispute resolution procedure that eliminates or reduces the risk of court action or of actions not being taken because trustees cannot agree.

Several states have changed their laws to encourage split trustee duties. Delaware, South Dakota, and a few others have laws establishing what they call "directed trusts" that allow a split in trustee duties. Under these laws, trustees in one area are not liable for improper actions of trustees in the other areas.

Income taxes also might rise with multiple trustees. A trust is considered resident in the state where the trustee resides. If there are multiple trustees and they reside in more than one state, each state might claim the trust as a resident and impose income taxes. Research on the issue is needed before trustees are selected.

An increasingly popular tool is to appoint a trust protector. This function is common in foreign trusts and recently made its way to the U.S. A trust protector is not a trustee but is a third party who oversees the trust and trustees and has broad power to protect the trust. The protector may remove and replace a trustee, change the trust's home or situs, resolve disputes between co-trustees, veto investment decisions, change trust distributions, change trust terms under unforeseen circumstances, resolve disputes between trustees and beneficiaries, or even terminate the trust.

Not all states have laws recognizing or defining the protector role. There are unresolved issues such as: What are the trustees' roles when the protector has such broad powers? Who, if anyone, oversees the protector? There also needs to be a mechanism by which a successor protector is appointed.

Trustees can mean the difference between the success and failure of an estate plan. Today, trust grantors have far more options than they did only a few years ago. They must carefully consider not only the choice of trustees but also the structure of the job.

Four Estate Planning Mistakes to Avoid

Bob Carlson — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:03:00 GMT

Estate planning and tax reduction will be returning to the front burner for many people. Congress was unable to pass a permanent estate tax reduction in recent years, but a permanent law is likely in 2009 or 2010.Changes in Washington made permanent repeal of the estate tax unlikely, but something similar to the law as of 2009 is likely to be permanent.

As readers re-focus on their estate plans, they should take care to avoid the four main types of errors committed by estate owners. These errors do not concern taxes or probate. The most common mistakes involve family dynamics. These mistakes either create harmful relationships within the family or lead to mismanagement of wealth. Even an estate plan that eliminates taxes can fail if it does not avoid these mistakes.

Giving too soon. Many estate owners allow heirs full access to their inheritances when they become adults or shortly thereafter. Some parents or grandparents reason that the heirs are adults. They can drive, vote, and join the military, so they should be trusted with their inheritances. Others believe the heirs have shown themselves to be responsible and will be able to handle the inheritance.

Being mature and responsible is not the same thing as being able to handle a relatively large sum of money. Young adults, even mature ones, rarely think about the long term, or they might treat something given to them differently from the way they treat something they earned.

Some parents and grandparents say they aren't concerned about what happens to their wealth. They are going to give the money to the people they want to have it. Whatever happens to the wealth is not their concern.

Yet, giving an inheritance too soon can be bad for a young person. The heir might believe that the money will last forever and neglect career opportunities or engage in some personally destructive behavior.

The damage from giving money too soon is most likely when the young person has not been involved in discussions about money with the older generations and has not learned how to handle money. Parents and grandparents should realize that managing an allowance is not similar to investing an inheritance and establishing a long-term spending policy. Estate owners need to take care before giving a young person unrestricted access to wealth.

Giving too late. Some estate owners will not make lifetime gifts, no matter how financially comfortable they are. This can create several problems. One problem is that children or grandchildren might not receive anything until they are nearing their own retirement. Receiving the wealth earlier, or at least being certain of receiving it, might have changed life decisions. The wealth could have helped enhance their lives and those of their children. More importantly, giving only through the will leaves the children to manage the estate at the same time they are coping with their grief.

At a minimum, parents and grandparents should discuss their plans with the heirs. The heirs should be given some idea of what they will inherit, when they will receive it, and suggestions about how to handle it. Ideally, children receive portions of their inheritance over time so they get used to it and learn how to manage it.

Too many controls. Some people like to give and retain control at the same time. The classic way is to leave wealth to a trust with controls and incentives. These trusts can be beneficial. They encourage young people to stay in school or hold jobs in order to benefit from the wealth. They also spread out distributions, so people become comfortable with the wealth and learn how to manage it. But the trusts also can go too far.

An incentive trust might penalize someone whose passions do not include higher education or a high-paying job. Or the trust might be written so narrowly that it does not take into account a number of situations that could arise. Some trusts actually are written so that beneficiaries feel encouraged to have additional children. Restrictive trusts also can breed hostility and frustration among the heirs as they get older and realize their parents or grandparents did not trust them to act responsibly.

Incentive trusts can be useful in some situations. But their creators must carefully consider the incentives and how the trust will be administered. An incentive trust generally should be a way of safeguarding assets until the heirs are likely to be mature enough to manage the money. It should not be a way to control people for life or be a substitute for imparting values during life.

Giving too much. Warren Buffett used to say that his goal was to give his children enough money that they can do anything but not so much that they can do nothing. In some estates, the children receive the entire estate without real consideration of other options, including other family members or entities outside the family, such as charities.

If the children have done well on their own, it might be better not to give them everything. Or if the children simply are not responsible, they might be better off with a relatively small inheritance.

There can be benefits to both the family and the estate owner from considering several generations and beneficiaries outside the family when there is enough wealth involved. For example, the charitable contributions can be structured in ways that get the heirs involved in the giving and teach them about philanthropy.

Giving unequal amounts. There is another problem in some estate plans that is not really a mistake but needs to be carefully managed. Estate owners need to be careful when giving unequal amounts to children.

There can be good reasons to give unequally. Perhaps a child has done very well financially and does not need the wealth. Or one child might have demonstrated that he or she cannot be trusted with an inheritance. But unequal inheritances can create hard feelings toward the parents. They also can create animosity and jealously among the siblings. The situation can be more inflamed when there is a family business. Often, one or more siblings are not qualified to have a significant role in the business, or the parents believe that one person needs to be in control.

Most of these problems can be minimized through communication. Parents and grandparents need to make their plans known ahead of time. This gives everyone a chance to become familiar with the plan and allows for questions and discussion. It also gives a child or grandchild the opportunity to demonstrate that the plan is wrong.

Some estate planners recommend having social workers or psychologists help with the discussion, having the discussion moderated by the estate planner, and even videotaping the discussions.

One goal of estate planning is to get assets to the intended beneficiaries in an efficient way. But this should be done in ways that do not harm family members or make family relationships worse. It can be done in ways that improve family dynamics.

Bob Carlson is editor of Bob Carlson's Retirement Watch and author of The New Rules of Retirement and Invest Like a Fox...Not Like a Hedgehog. This posting is adapted from materially previous published in Retirement Watch. www.RetirementWatch.com

Your Retirement Plan and the New Washington

Bob Carlson — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:44:00 GMT

Come January, Democrats will be in charge all over Washington. They campaigned on a theme of change, and we should expect major changes. The questions are which changes and how will they affect your retirement finances?

I will focus on the changes I think are most likely to occur. When evaluating the prospects for change, it is important to keep in mind the tension that will exist in the New Washington. Congress will be run by very liberal politicians who have a long list of legislation they wanted to pass for many years. These wish lists generally involve higher spending, more government control and regulation, rewarding favored activities and punishing others, and of course higher taxes. The new President, on the other hand, wants to be re-elected and probably recognizes that the country is center-right, not liberal, on most issues. There will be tension between the President and Congress, and the great unknown is which one will prevail. I assume that for at least the first couple of years the President will have the upper hand and will be able to move the more extreme liberal measures to the back burner.

Here are things you should prepare for over the next year or two. Other changes might be coming after that.

Medicare: This health program for those over 65 is approaching bankruptcy. Social Security will begin spending more than it receives in a few years. Medicare passed that point long ago. It soon will have exhausted the “trust fund” set up for it and rapidly is taking a larger share of the federal budget.

A few years ago “means-tested” premiums began as we discussed in Retirement Watch. Premiums increase as a beneficiary’s income rises. Similar changes are likely to occur. Premiums for higher income beneficiaries could rise even more and some types of care might not be covered for higher income beneficiaries. Or deductibles and co-payments also might be means-tested. Higher income beneficiaries might be required to cover the first $5,000 to $10,000 of their medical expenses in addition to paying higher premiums.

The government might have a stronger role in “negotiating” drug prices. Medicare prices are a basis for prices providers charge to private insurers. If the government negotiates very low prices, manufacturers might conclude that some drugs are unprofitable to produce or reduce research spending on new drugs.

The government also might take over the Part D prescription drug program instead of allowing private insurers to compete for beneficiaries.

Medicare Advantage plans also might take a hit. Democrats in Congress have targeted these since returning to the majority after the 2006 election. These plans run by private insurers receive higher reimbursements than other Medicare plans but usually offer greater benefits. Democrats want to eliminate them and bring everyone back into traditional Medicare.

Greater use of technology is likely to be mandated across the medical profession, and the government will assume cost savings from this move. It also is a way of pushing costs from the government to the private sector. That could affect the quality or availability of care for a while and increase costs on care not covered by Medicare.

Estate tax: Congress has to address the estate tax soon. The current law eliminates the estate tax for 2010 and returns to the 2001 law beginning in 2011. Congress is unlikely to let either the expiration or return to 2001 law occur.

The most likely outcome is, after a great deal of debate, something similar to current law will be enacted. That means the estate tax exemption will be fixed at $3.5 million and might be indexed for inflation. The top estate and gift tax rate will be 45% or 46%, though it could go up to 50%. It will be interesting to see if the lifetime gift tax exemption remains capped at $1 million or is allowed to rise. Also unclear is whether the current step-up in basis that is allowed for inherited assets will continue or whether heirs will have to take the deceased’s basis and pay capital gains taxes on appreciated that occurred during the deceased’s ownership.

Retirement plans: Here is a sleeper issue that came up only in the last month. Many in Congress do not like President Bush’s “ownership society” concept, and they view 401(k) plans as part of that. They are looking at ways to change qualified retirement plans.

A longstanding goal was to require private employers to provide minimum pensions. That might be replaced by a plan to have the government take over private pensions. Recent committee hearings highlighted a plan that eventually would eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) plans and give individuals a window during which they would receive some benefits for converting their private 401(k) plans into government retirement plans. This approach clearly has support from congressional leaders, but its support beyond that is unclear.

Investing: Anticipate some surprises here. Presidents are not able to implement all their campaign proposals. Congress and circumstances can change the plans. Don’t invest based on campaign rhetoric. Wait until proposals are closer to becoming laws.

There could be a positive surprise in the change of power. The financial problems largely have developed into a confidence problem. People do not trust current leadership or the information it puts out. Financial companies do not know what to expect from the government, so they are hoarding cash to protect themselves. Investors simply are not buying anything with risk, and financial firms are not doing business.

Some shrewd moves by the new President in the next few weeks could start to restore confidence at least temporarily. Appointment of a popular choice for Treasury Secretary and announcement of an effective tax cut and regulatory reform plan could spur optimism among investors.

Of course, stumbles on any or all of these issues could extend the crisis. Further down the road, higher taxes, spending, and regulation could reverse any positive trends. But there is an opportunity now to restore optimism even as the economic slump deepens for the next quarter or so.

Congress also could squander the opportunity. There is a movement to expand the government rescue plan to include a range of industries and to impose very tight regulations on financial and other firms taking government money that effectively nationalizes them. A move in that direction would further diminish investor confidence.

Don’t believe simple analyses of how the new administration will affect investments. It is normal for analysts to look at campaign proposals and target companies they believe will benefit from the proposals. Those forecasts almost never work out. Ignore analysts who recommend that you buy “green companies” and short defense contractors and health care companies. Wait for detailed plans to be proposed and make their way through Congress.

Taking action simply on the new election of politicians can be a risky business. I have outlined what I think are the most likely changes over the next few years. But be prepared for surprises. You need to build a cash cushion in your retirement plan for the possibility of paying a higher share of medical expenses. Be ready to revise your estate plan sometime next year or early in 2010. Keep an eye out for early signs of changes in retirement plans and be ready to move your assets into other types of accounts in case a major change is in the works. With your portfolio, don’t fall for obvious analysis. There is the potential for surprise in the next few weeks.