Why It Makes Sense to Let a Charity
“Use” Your Money
The Grantor Charitable Lead Annuity
Trust

Bruce Leahy and his wife LeeAnn have had a long relationship
with a local private elementary school and serve on the board of directors for
two other charitable organizations. As
year-end approaches, Bruce finds that he is due to receive a significant bonus
from his employer, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, for a patent and some
cutting-edge research that Bruce guided through the regulatory process. While he and his wife are comfortable now,
they cannot afford to give up the bonus with an outright gift to charity. However, they feel that they can do without
the money for the next eight years.
Rather than give the entire bonus, they have opted to use a grantor lead
trust and provide annual support to charity while they are working. The CLAT generates an immediate income tax
deduction of $342,270 even though the future payments to charity take place
over eight years. This deduction will
help offset some of their increased income tax liability, and that makes it a
little more helpful since Bruce’s bonus will push them into the top marginal
bracket this year. In effect, this plan
allows the Leahys to loan the money’s use to support their philanthropic
interests as long as they reacquire their “seed money” before retirement.
|
Year |
Beginning Principal |
5.00% Growth |
Annual Payment |
Remainder |
|
1 |
$1,000,000 |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
$1,000,000 |
|
2 |
$1,000,000 |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
$1,000,000 |
|
3 |
$1,000,000 |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
$1,000,000 |
|
4 |
$1,000,000 |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
$1,000,000 |
|
5 |
$1,000,000 |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
$1,000,000 |
|
6 |
$1,000,000 |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
$1,000,000 |
|
7 |
$1,000,000 |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
$1,000,000 |
|
8 |
$1,000,000 |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
$1,000,000 |
|
Totals: |
$1,000,000 |
$400,000 |
$400,000 |
$1,000,000 |
As it turns out, the current and extraordinarily low §7520
rate of 3.6% makes their gift planning an especially attractive option. When the applicable federal rate (AFR) is
this low, the lead annuity trust, private annuities, grantor retained annuity
trusts and charitable gifts of the remainder interest in a farm or personal
residence are most tax efficient. For
donors who regularly make annual charitable contributions and may not always
itemize or qualify for a Schedule A deduction, the use
of a lead trust now gives them an effective way to deduct their philanthropic
support and do it up front.
By making annual contributions of
$50,000 to their donor advised fund, the Leahys could create an account that
functions like a quasi-private foundation with the infrastructure and oversight
of a 501(c)3 public charity. This strategy allows Bruce and LeeAnn to
pre-fund their DAF while they are in a position to use their combined salaries
to maintain lifestyle and still make judicious future distributions over many
years. With most community foundations,
the families have the ability to continue making recommendations for grants
over several generations, and involve heirs with charity.
For people trying to reduce gift or estate taxes, there is a
related lead trust that gives up the income tax deduction in favor of an estate
and gift tax deduction. This non-grantor
trust, paying income to charity with the remainder distributed to heirs, also
makes sense during this period of historically low discount rates. For individuals who do not need the principal
back, the use of a non-grantor lead trust would generate a gift tax
deduction for the same amount mentioned above; therefore, the donor is able to
reduce the taxable transfer to the heirs from $1,000,000 to only $657,730. If there is growth inside this trust, then
this growth passes tax-free to heirs too.
Professional advisors should note that it is critically important to manage
investments carefully inside a non-grantor CLAT, as it is a complex, tax-paying
trust, unlike the more common charitable remainder trust. However, with the Leahys grantor trust, where
trust principal eventually reverts to the donor, tax on any income earned is at
the donor’s marginal tax rate. Therefore, the Leahys’ lead trust will invest
in a combination of tax-free municipal bonds and a few non-dividend paying
growth stocks to keep the trust from spinning off unwanted taxable income. Unlike the grantor trust that receives its
entire tax deduction up front, the non-grantor trust receives charitable income
tax deductions offsetting income otherwise taxed at compressed trust rates via annual
charitable distributions. A good financial and estate plan creates a
cohesive strategy that will have an ongoing impact on philanthropic activities
important to the Leahy family.

© 2002 -- Vaughn W. Henry
Gift and Estate Planning Services --
217.529.1958 -- 217.529.1959 fax -- VWHenry@aol.com
On the web at gift-estate.com

CONTACT US FOR A FREE
PRELIMINARY CASE STUDY FOR YOUR OWN CRT SCENARIO or try your own at Donor Direct. Please note -- there's much more to estate and charitable planning than simply running software calculations, but it does give you a chance to see how the calculations affect some of the design considerations. This is not "do it yourself brain surgery". When is a CRUT superior to a CRAT? Which type of CRT is best used with which assets? Although it may be counter-intuitive, sometimes a lower payout CRUT makes more sense and pays more total income to beneficiaries. Why? When to use a CLUT vs. CLAT and the traps in each lead trust. Which tools work best in which planning scenarios? Check with our office for solutions to this alphabet soup of planned giving tools.