The IRS released Revenue Ruling 2023-2 explaining that assets in a trust which is not included in the estate of the decedent don’t receive a “step-up” in income tax basis. This is the case even if the trust is taxed to the grantor for income tax purposes. This confirms the plain language of the statute and what we’ve long known.
Although many Estate Plans have a Revocable Trust as the foundation for the plan, Wills play an important role in a comprehensive Estate Plan. Alarmingly, most Americans don’t have a Will even though they know it’s important. As National Make-a-Will month comes to a close, let’s explore the often overlooked and neglected Estate Planning document, the Will.
Most spouses create Estate Plans that are intertwined. The plans work well on numerous levels allowing the spouses to benefit the surviving spouse and then distributing their joint assets to their children upon the death of the survivor. Even in a second marriage situation, it’s possible for the first spouse to die to create a trust benefitting the surviving spouse for life, but then going to children from a prior relationship upon the surviving spouse’s death. What happens when two spouses die at the same time or so close in time that it’s impossible to determine who died first? Most documents contain what’s called a “simultaneous death” clause that indicates that one spouse will be deemed to have survived the other to address just that issue. Thankfully, even if the documents lack that provision, or contain conflicting provisions, nearly every state has enacted the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act which also addresses the issue.
The SECURE Act of 2019 altered the landscape for IRAs significantly when signed into law. Just when advisors gained a level of comfort with the SECURE Act, the United States Treasury Department issued Regulations in early 2022 requiring RMDs under the 10-year Rule in years 1-9. After realizing that many individuals were unaware of that requirement, the Internal Revenue Service responded by issuing Notice 2022-53 suspending the requirement to take RMDS in 2021 and 2022. SECURE 2.0 came at the end of 2022 ushering in some welcome changes but adding unnecessary complexity to our retirement world by increasing the age at which certain individuals needed to begin taking RMDs. Individuals born in 1951 found themselves in the unusual situation of having taken what they thought were RMDs in 2023 required under SECURE before realizing that SECURE 2.0 delayed their RBD. For some, that meant a distribution from the IRA that was not an RMD, but for which the usual 60—day roll over deadline had already expired. The IRS issued Notice 2023-54 in response.
As the Baby Boomer Generation retires and eventually dies, the greatest transfer of wealth will occur and according to many sources, it will dwarf any prior wealth transfer. This transfer gives those anticipated to inherit the wealth a great opportunity to open the lines of communication with their families to plan for the shift that has already started.
Individuals often have reservations about seeking out an attorney’s help with their Estate Plan. Sometimes they worry about the cost, other times they think that they can do it on their own, and sometimes they die before the thought of creating an Estate Plan ever crosses their mind. Unfortunately, the issues that arise from a lack of proper Estate Planning on death don’t care who we are. As this blog demonstrates, even celebrities struggle with creating a comprehensive Estate Plan.
Usually women sue their husband’s estate to enforce their right to the elective share of their husband’s estate. Of course, it’s not just wives that sue the estate of their husbands, but both husbands and wives who sue the estates of their spouses, be they husbands or wives. Enforcement of the elective share usually results from a lawsuit, although sometimes its enforcement of provisions of an Estate Plan that cause the lawsuit. This article isn’t about a lawsuit over the right to an elective share, rather it’s about a clever attempt at avoiding one state’s slayer statute.
When Estate Planning practitioners talk about the “Holy Grail” of Estate Planning, they generally mean the intentionally defective grantor trust which includes the assets contributed to it in the grantor’s income tax for income purposes but excludes such assets from the grantor’s estate for estate tax purposes. The 529 plan provides yet another example of the “Holy Grail” in Estate planning by allowing tax-free growth, control of the plan until the death of the grantor without estate tax inclusion, and protections in the event of bankruptcy, among other things.
Clients create Estate Plans to work in a certain way. They raise their concerns with the drafting attorney and a qualified Estate Planning attorney includes safeguards to ensure that the plan works as intended and desired yet contains provisions flexible enough to change if circumstances require a change. Almost all of us have read or heard of cases in which the plan did not work as intended and litigation ensured. In fact, we often read about them in the news. The Diller v. Richardson case represents an important lesson for attorneys and consumers alike about what happens when an attorney decides to ignore their responsibilities to a client and helps another client obfuscate an Estate Plan.
Clients create Estate Plans to work in a certain way. They raise their concerns with the drafting attorney and a qualified Estate Planning attorney includes safeguards to ensure that the plan works as intended and desired yet contains provisions flexible enough to change if circumstances require a change. Almost all of us have read or heard of cases in which the plan did not work as intended and litigation ensured. In fact, we often read about them in the news. The Diller v. Richardson case represents an important lesson for attorneys and consumers alike about what happens when an attorney decides to ignore their responsibilities to a client and helps another client obfuscate an Estate Plan.