Categories
New Articles

“Nothing happens around here until someone sells something

“Nothing happens around here until someone sells something

Malpractice Issues XV

“Nothing happens around here until someone sells something.”

 

Unfortunately, there are still financial services companies pitching charitable trusts like loaves of bread, commodities sold to consumers who depend on their advisors for objective financial advice.  Until advisors move from a commodity selling mentality to a values based, client-oriented consulting practice where all of the financial and estate planning tools are used in an integrated process, they run the chance of offering limited choices and potential harm to their clients.  Add to that mixture the competing multi-disciplinary planning team approach pushed by law and accounting firms offering financial products and services, the traditional insurance and brokerage community may soon be on the outside looking in.  While there is nothing wrong with an insurance agent selling a risk management product like an insurance policy or deferred annuity, not all estate planning clients need those products.  This necessitates a change in business practices, because avoiding clients with a desire to establish a charitable estate plan simply because neither a life insurance policy nor annuity sale will occur is extremely short sighted.  Worse yet, brokers border on the unethical when they steer clients away from advisors who can implement other necessary aspects of a plan simply because they will not generate commissionable sales.

 

What avoidable problems are charitable trust planners experiencing today?  Too many disgruntled trust creators were lead to believe their trust investments would continue to outperform the market.  With the prolonged bear market in recent years, trust makers have learned that CRUT income beneficiaries may actually receive declining payments instead of optimistically forecast increasing payouts.  Too high payouts that eroded the value of the trust’s principal and with less money at work, the trust may not recover enough financial strength to be useful over the income beneficiary’s life expectancy.  While the 10% remainder rule introduced in 1997 precluded a life payout CRT for young donors, historically low §7520 rates may further derail many annuity trusts (CRAT) and gift annuities (CGA).  These and many other errors created by over-enthusiastic product sellers have cast an unappealing light on legitimate charitable planning, which otherwise offers truly motivated clients a great opportunity to create tax efficient philanthropy.

 

imageMany advisors have been to marketing seminars and were issued financial “hammers”, and everything begins to look like nails.  Unfortunately, quite a few insurance and mutual fund companies consistently promote the CRT, not for its philanthropic purposes, but to sell wealth replacement life insurance and as a way to take illiquid assets and swap them for proprietary investments.  With the recent bear market, many of these product-oriented charitable trust sales have come back to haunt their promoters when they turned out to be short-term solutions to a marketing problem and created a lot of unhappy clients in the meantime.

 

In pitching the advantages of a CRT, many advisors stress capital gains avoidance.  In reality, it is only capital gains deferral, and that depends as much on the replacement investments held by the CRT as to those that were initially placed in trust.  Unfortunately, tax efficiency inside a CRT is not widely understood or even appreciated as an important factor of client satisfaction.  Improperly managed, the CRT becomes an ordinary income pump instead of a more tax efficient means to distribute realized capital gains in an orderly way.  If clients are not under some pressure to liquidate an entire portfolio of appreciated assets via the CRT, maybe they would be better off selling a few shares every year for income, and paying the temporarily reduced tax on those annual conversions.  Thanks to JGTRRA 2003, capital gains tax liabilities make number crunching even more important since the lower 15% capital gain rate coupled with the new 15% dividend rate has changed the dynamics.  If the client is primarily motivated to save tax, and not motivated by altruism, then why bother with a CRT?  Advisors who remain focused on the client’s needs will stay out of trouble and will gain more referrals from happy clients in the future

Subscribe to Henry & Associates’

Gift and Estate Planning Discussions

Want to be kept up to date

on CRT planning issues?

Join our mailing list!

Check our Trust and Planning Archive Hosted by Henry & Associates at Charitable Trust Planning

sectionbreak

logo

VWH www.gift-estate.com

PhilanthroCalc for the WebCONTACT 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.

Categories
New Articles

“Nothing happens around here until someone sells something

“Nothing happens around here until someone sells something

Malpractice Issues XV

“Nothing happens around here until someone sells something.”

 

Unfortunately, there are still financial services companies pitching charitable trusts like loaves of bread, commodities sold to consumers who depend on their advisors for objective financial advice.  Until advisors move from a commodity selling mentality to a values based, client-oriented consulting practice where all of the financial and estate planning tools are used in an integrated process, they run the chance of offering limited choices and potential harm to their clients.  Add to that mixture the competing multi-disciplinary planning team approach pushed by law and accounting firms offering financial products and services, the traditional insurance and brokerage community may soon be on the outside looking in.  While there is nothing wrong with an insurance agent selling a risk management product like an insurance policy or deferred annuity, not all estate planning clients need those products.  This necessitates a change in business practices, because avoiding clients with a desire to establish a charitable estate plan simply because neither a life insurance policy nor annuity sale will occur is extremely short sighted.  Worse yet, brokers border on the unethical when they steer clients away from advisors who can implement other necessary aspects of a plan simply because they will not generate commissionable sales.

 

What avoidable problems are charitable trust planners experiencing today?  Too many disgruntled trust creators were lead to believe their trust investments would continue to outperform the market.  With the prolonged bear market in recent years, trust makers have learned that CRUT income beneficiaries may actually receive declining payments instead of optimistically forecast increasing payouts.  Too high payouts that eroded the value of the trust’s principal and with less money at work, the trust may not recover enough financial strength to be useful over the income beneficiary’s life expectancy.  While the 10% remainder rule introduced in 1997 precluded a life payout CRT for young donors, historically low §7520 rates may further derail many annuity trusts (CRAT) and gift annuities (CGA).  These and many other errors created by over-enthusiastic product sellers have cast an unappealing light on legitimate charitable planning, which otherwise offers truly motivated clients a great opportunity to create tax efficient philanthropy.

 

imageMany advisors have been to marketing seminars and were issued financial “hammers”, and everything begins to look like nails.  Unfortunately, quite a few insurance and mutual fund companies consistently promote the CRT, not for its philanthropic purposes, but to sell wealth replacement life insurance and as a way to take illiquid assets and swap them for proprietary investments.  With the recent bear market, many of these product-oriented charitable trust sales have come back to haunt their promoters when they turned out to be short-term solutions to a marketing problem and created a lot of unhappy clients in the meantime.

 

In pitching the advantages of a CRT, many advisors stress capital gains avoidance.  In reality, it is only capital gains deferral, and that depends as much on the replacement investments held by the CRT as to those that were initially placed in trust.  Unfortunately, tax efficiency inside a CRT is not widely understood or even appreciated as an important factor of client satisfaction.  Improperly managed, the CRT becomes an ordinary income pump instead of a more tax efficient means to distribute realized capital gains in an orderly way.  If clients are not under some pressure to liquidate an entire portfolio of appreciated assets via the CRT, maybe they would be better off selling a few shares every year for income, and paying the temporarily reduced tax on those annual conversions.  Thanks to JGTRRA 2003, capital gains tax liabilities make number crunching even more important since the lower 15% capital gain rate coupled with the new 15% dividend rate has changed the dynamics.  If the client is primarily motivated to save tax, and not motivated by altruism, then why bother with a CRT?  Advisors who remain focused on the client’s needs will stay out of trouble and will gain more referrals from happy clients in the future

 

©2003 — Vaughn W. Henry

Subscribe to Henry & Associates’

Gift and Estate Planning Discussions

Want to be kept up to date

on CRT planning issues?

Join our mailing list!

Check our Trust and Planning Archive Hosted by Henry & Associates at Charitable Trust Planning

sectionbreak

logo

VWH www.gift-estate.com

Vaughn W. Henry

PhilanthroCalc for the WebCONTACT 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.

Categories
New Articles

Malpractice Issues XI – Henry & Associates

Seminar selling is a great marketing tool; it’s something designed to answer questions, present the speaker as a problem solver, motivate prospects, and generate referrals.  In this particular case, an elderly couple attended a seminar at the local senior center.  The seminar, co-hosted by a charity and three insurance agents, pushed charitable remainder trusts (CRT) by stressing how real estate makes for a problematic inheritance (e.g., estate and/or capital gains tax, liquidity, management concerns, etc.)  In rapidly growing states like California, every senior attending that seminar had a substantial percentage of their net worth in real estate.

imageSpeaker #1 met with elderly clients later and told them a CRT was the perfect tool for them.  Although their estate was valued at $1,200,000 and taxes shouldn’t have been an issue, he scared them with tales of high estate taxes and lack of liquidity.  They agreed to do a CRT benefiting the co-sponsoring charity and the charity’s development officer met with them.  Speaker #1 sold life insurance to fund a “Wealth Replacement Trust” or Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT).  Speakers #2 and #3 handled the reinvestment of the real estate sales proceeds.  Speaker #3 is married to the charity’s representative, but this isn’t disclosed.

Speaker #1 brought in his attorney, arranged for insurance coverage, and while insurance is often useful, these clients are high-risk and uninsurable, resulting in a $40,000 premium instead of the projected $10,000.  Further complicating the planning, the rental properties used to fund the CRT had mortgages, and debt encumbered charitable trusts are tax bombs waiting to explode.  To save the sale, Speaker #2 (also a mortgage broker) arranges to transfer the rental property mortgages to the family home.  The charity’s representative also tries to save the sale by telling clients that they can increase the CRT payout rate by replacing the relevant page of the already signed and irrevocable document.  Speaker #1 continues to try to save the sale by implying that premiums will be much lower in years after the second year (he misrepresented that fact).  Speaker #3 also tried to save the sale by telling the clients that their CRT will simply repay the new mortgage on their home in full, once the trust was finalized

imageThe attorney didn’t draft the ILIT until the insurance policy has been in force for over a month.  No one bothered to tell the clients that they needed a qualified appraisal on the transferred properties, so no income tax deduction was available, but that was not a major issue since the clients had almost no income, so the deduction wouldn’t have helped much anyway.  The speakers told clients repeatedly that the income from the CRT would cover the insurance premiums, so clients were writing checks from the charitable trust accounts directly to the insurance company.  Over the next two years, no one did any trust accounting or advised the clients that trust accounting would be required.  Speakers #2 and #3 invested the CRT assets into a deferred annuity earning 6%, even though the CRT payout rate was set at 10%, producing a declining  income stream.  When all the dust settled, the clients had only $200,000 left outside of the CRT, an unaffordable and collapsing insurance policy, a decreasing annual income, and a staggering bill for the accounting work needed to re-file past years’ tax returns and pay penalties and interest.

What were the motivations for all of these shenanigans?  Speaker #1 earned a $30,000 commission.  Speaker #2 earned $4,500 in mortgage broker fees, speakers #2 & #3 earned $12,000 in annuity commissions, and the charity’s representative (married to Speaker #2) earned a percentage-based bonus for bringing in the gift.  Too bad, there should have been some consideration for the client/donor and there wouldn’t have been litigation generated.  If you aim for immediate gratification, you’re likely to do great harm with your toxic planning to all involved.

Subscribe to Henry & Associates’
Gift and Estate Planning Discussions

Want to be kept up to date
on CRT planning issues?

  Join our mailing list!

Check our Trust and Planning Archive

Hosted by Henry & Associates at Charitable Trust Planning

sectionbreak
logo
VWH www.gift-estate.com

Vaughn W. Henry

PhilanthroCalc for the WebCONTACT 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.

Categories
New Articles

Why It Makes Sense to Let a Charity “Use” Your Money

Why It Makes Sense to Let a Charity “Use” Your Money

Why It Makes Sense to Let a Charity “Use” Your Money

The Grantor Charitable Lead Annuity Trust

image

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 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.

 

Text Box: © 2002 -- Vaughn W. Henry Gift and Estate Planning Services Springfield, IL 62703-5314 217.529.1958 -- 217.529.1959 fax VWHenry@aol.com www.gift-estate.com

 

Categories
New Articles

Investment Hypo within a CRT – Part II – Henry & Associates

Investment Hypo within a CRT – Part II – Henry & Associates

Are You Tax Efficient Inside Your CRT (Part II)



image

       Continuing with the case study for John Anderson, a 72 year-old brokerage firm client, and his $1 million worth of low basis real estate.  His broker has suggested the use of a CRAT, rather than a CRUT.  The broker’s rationale is that John’s age and need for security leans more heavily towards a fixed dollar payment of an annuity trust, as compared to the variable payout produced by the unitrust. 

 

On the other hand, John is a sophisticated investor who believes in maintaining a diversified portfolio.  He is also concerned about inflationary erosion of his purchasing power, and he reminded the broker that his mother and father both lived well into their mid-90’s  Because of these factors, he has decided to make use of a variable payout charitable remainder unitrust (CRUT).

 

However, the final nail in the CRAT coffin was when John reviewed the history of CRAT performance and realized that funding a CRAT with capital gain assets might mean that his payouts would be trapped in tax inefficient tier one ordinary income distributions.

image

     

        Why is it important to invest tax efficiently? 

 

       Under the fiduciary accounting system, a CRT funded with appreciated assets and inefficiently managed pays the cost by receiving more highly taxed, tier one ordinary income.  The accompanying IRS data on charitable remainder trusts specifically deals with annuity trusts (CRAT) but contains a valuable lesson about CRT investment management gone wrong.  What conclusions should investment advisors take from these three graphs?

1.   The trusts are typically funded with appreciated assets.  If sold, realized gains would generate federal liabilities taxed at 20%.

2.   The appreciating CRAT value is often due to net ordinary income, short-term gain (taxed at ordinary rates) and long term gains.

3.   The CRAT contains significant pre-contribution appreciation and potential tier two (unrealized capital gain) income.  Unfortunately, the distributions contain mostly tier one ordinary income from interest, rents, dividends, royalties and short-term gains.

image

 

       With tax managed sales and purchases, John should be able to receive more tier two income.  Regrettably, most trustees wind up trading in a capital asset for an ordinary income payout.  That suggests a higher standard of investment advice and management should be available to CRT trustees.  Very few trustees or their professional investment managers really understand the limitations of investing inside a charitable trust, even those with very large charitable trusts ($10 million and above) are inefficient. In addition to that group, there are many large charities with trusts under management that may not truly understand how different the management of a CRT is from their endowment accounts.  Seek competent and experienced advisors to achieve the best results for your income and remainder beneficiaries.

 

Subscribe to Henry & Associates’

Gift and Estate Planning Discussions

Want to be kept up to date

on CRT planning issues?

Join our mailing list!

Check our Trust and Planning Archive Hosted by Henry & Associates at Charitable Trust Planning

sectionbreak

logo

VWH www.gift-estate.com

Vaughn W. Henry

Henry & Associates

Gift and Estate Planning Services

PhilanthroCalc for the WebCONTACT 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.

Categories
New Articles

But for Rotten Luck Some People Would Have No Luck at All – Henry & Associates

But for Rotten Luck Some People Would Have No Luck at All – Henry & Associates

Butfor Rotten Luck Some People Would Have No Luck at All

Malpractice Coverage – X

Don’t Leave Home without It

 

tenth in a series on design and implementation issues)

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

 

 

Categories
New Articles

Investment Hypotheticals Within a CRT – Henry & Associates

Investment Hypotheticals Within a CRT – Henry & Associates

Are You Tax Efficient Inside Your CRT?



       John Anderson, a 72 year-old confirmed bachelor, has $1 million worth of low basis real estate at the edge of town.  While it has been steadily appreciating, he has a desire to relocate to warmer climes, so John has decided to sell and move to a golfing community and enjoy his retirement.  As an electrical engineer, John is very comfortable evaluating ledgers and exploring his options in minute detail, so he has decided to make use of a charitable remainder trust to minimize the $225,000 tax on his capital gains liabilities and retake control of his social capital.  While he understands the philosophical and mechanical concepts behind the CRT, his broker has limited experience with investing inside a tax-exempt §664 trust and has proposed a series of products for the CRT when the property sells.  When comparing options for a 5% quarterly payout, John assumed an average 9% annual return, but wanted to know how much spendable income he could expect from his trust if he used different asset allocations from the all-ordinary to the all-appreciation models.

 

image

image

 

     How important is it to invest tax efficiently? 

 

       In John Anderson’s case, a CRUT funded with $1 million of appreciated assets, the difference in net spendable income is significant.  John is a conservative investor and his broker proposed a series of income type securities.  However, his broker initially chose an investment model with an annuity and bond portfolio under the mistaken notion that he needed a guaranteed income stream to meet the unitrust payment.  Nevertheless, by doing so, the broker will have turned a capital asset into a highly taxed ordinary income pump.  Over John’s life expectancy, a unitrust producing all tier one distributions from fixed income investments will shortchange him by $170,000.  Instead, if he moves the selected investment allocation model from the 100% ordinary income portfolio with $1,050,564 of income up towards the 100% capital appreciation portfolio, he produces $1,222,910 over the life of the trust.  By doing so, the broker puts more money into John’s pocket without negatively affecting the charity’s interest.

image

 

©2002 — Vaughn W. Henry

Gift and Estate Planning Services —SpringfieldIL 62703-5314

217.529.1958 — 217.529.1959 fax — [email protected]

on the web at gift-estate.com

       When John suggested a tax efficient, equity driven portfolio, the broker’s next reaction was to suggest a more aggressively managed brokerage account.  The problem with investment accounts, if a lot of trading occurs, is that short-term gains taxed at ordinary income rates in an active account may not perform as well as one with a “buy and hold” philosophy, or one with tax managed sales and purchases.  Another problem occurs if portfolio managers make use of margined stock until trades clear or buy partnership investments.  While these wire house actions are generally legitimate inside an individual’s account, they poison the CRT with unrelated business income and debt-financed assets, and that loses the CRT its exempt status.  If that happens in the first year of the trust’s existence, then the sale of the contributed asset becomes a taxable event.  Since John funded his CRT with the expectation that it would minimize his capital gains liability, this creates serious problems.  If a broker is willing to gamble on his or her E&O or malpractice coverage, this mistake might slip by, but it would be better to avoid the problems in the first place by understanding the limitations of investing inside a charitable trust.  Even if investment advisors are used to working with retirement or endowment accounts, they may not truly understand how different a CRT is.  Seek competent and experienced advisors for best results.

 

Subscribe to Henry & Associates’

Gift and Estate Planning Discussions

Want to be kept up to date

on CRT planning issues?

Join our mailing list!

Check our Trust and Planning Archive Hosted by Henry & Associates at Charitable Trust Planning

sectionbreak

logo

VWH www.gift-estate.com

PhilanthroCalc for the WebCONTACT 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.

image

Categories
New Articles

Investment and Management Decisions Within a CRT – Henry & Associates

CRAT or CRUT?

Selecting the RightTrust for Your Needs

 

One would think a simple “either – or” decision would be the easiest to make, but as it turns out it is not always so straightforward.  Take the choice of charitable remainder trust.  Which works better for the client – the annuity or one of the unitrust variations?  Well, many prospective trust makers throw the choice back to their advisors, assuming that because there is a legal, financial planning, or accounting professional designation or degree that their advisors know what is best.  As it turns out, that’s not necessarily so since so many professionals now specialize and can’t be expected to know all the problems associated with every tax planning situation, and few know anything about §664 split interest trusts.  It is not reasonable to expect litigators and general practitioners to know about obscure tax rules any more than a psychiatrist would be competent to perform a kidney transplant.  The possession of an MD, CFP, CPA, or JD designation only provides a framework for future knowledge and experience.  What is most important is the practical application of that knowledge, and with charitable remainder trusts, there are precious few professionals who have ever seen one, much less understand them.  As an example of the compartmentalization found among professionals, examine the planning that went into former President and Mrs. Clinton’s 1997 tax returns.  Arguably, while theClintonshave access to lots of qualified counsel and even possess law degrees themselves, they still made serious blunders in their charitable and estate planning.  If the first family cannot get it right, it should come as no shock that the majority of clients will not get it right either.

 

TheClintonspaid $291,755 in federal income taxes over the two years.  But they could have paid $167,532 less by having royalties from “It Takes a Village,” Mrs. Clinton’s book about child rearing, sent directly from the publisher to a charitable fund instead of taking the money as income, paying taxes and giving away the difference.  The charities would have come out ahead, too, collecting 22 percent more than the $840,000 they received. 

“It Takes a President to Overpay the IRS”, New York Times,April 19, 1998

 

For most planners who don’t specialize in charitable planning, their assumption that a CRAT is best for old folks and a CRUT is best for younger donors isn’t necessarily the best way to make a decision about a trust that’s irrevocable.  This is especially true when the timeline of the CRT, something with which a donor must deal for years, is considered.  Disagreements among advisors often pop up over investments inside a CRT since few financial advisors really understand the fiduciary accounting peculiarities of investing for a tax-exempt CRT.  Because a charitable trust invests over a long time horizon, and the trust does not usually pay income tax on its growth or income, chasing returns and reacting day to day is not the style of investing that works best for the CRT.  Add to the long term view the very real concern about avoiding unrelated business income that may be unintentionally created when a broker uses a margin account, acquires partnerships or other working interests that expose the trust to “toxic income” that loses the CRT its tax-exempt status.

 

A well drafted CRUT allows, even encourages, additional contributions; however, it is not an option in the annuity trust.  Trustees need to properly fund the CRAT and be extra cautious to ensure that it is just one straightforward transaction and not in bits and pieces over a period of days.  With a charitable remainder annuity trust (CRAT), the payout is irrevocably set in a fixed dollar amount at the inception of the trust, and this rigidity creates several potential problems for trustees managing the trust and its investments.

 

Which trusts work best?  Sometimes knowing which trust will not work is a good place to start.  For example, if a donor contributes cash or publicly traded stock, that is a workable solution, but if undeveloped land goes into to a CRAT, the downside risks are numerous.

  1. Will the asset produce enough income to meet the required income distributions?  A CRAT may not defer required distributions and being illiquid is not an excuse.
  2. If the asset is not an income-producing asset, is it readily marketable to make the required distributions?
  3. If the CRAT does not have enough liquidity to meet the obligations of the trust, is the asset easily partitioned in order that the income beneficiary can receive an in-kind distribution?  As an added insult, those in-kind distributions typically trigger capital gains tax liabilities, so the beneficiary receives his or her land back and has a tax bill to boot.  That is a recipe for an unhappy client – advisor relationship.
  4. Was the contribution of the asset matched with enough additional cash to pay insurance, property taxes, maintenance, marketing, and operating expenses?  Remember, there can only be one contribution in a CRAT, so any cash transfer has to occur simultaneously with the transfer of the real estate deed.
  5. Generally speaking, a CRAT is a better tool for a donor unconcerned with eroding purchasing power, and it is typically used for clients with little tolerance for volatility and short term needs, i.e., less than ten years, otherwise inflationary pressures diminish the value of the income distributions.
  6. The minimum annuity paid at least annually must be at 5%, but cannot exceed 50% of the initial fair market value of the assets contributed to the trust.  In most cases to prevent trust exhaustion, a CRAT paying out more than 6.5% is a concern.
  7. After the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 passed, the charity’s calculated remainder interest must be worth at least 10% of the value initially transferred to the trust.  This severely restricts young individuals from having a life income interest in any CRT, and restricts payouts to lower levels for many trusts, especially if there are more than two income beneficiaries.
  8. Because there is a very real possibility of a CRAT collapse in a poor investment environment, these trusts must also meet a 5% probability test [Rev Rul 77-374].  If the trust fund has a greater than 5% chance that it will exhaust before the trust terminates and passes to the charity, then the trust will not produce an income tax deduction or qualify as a CRT.

 

image

CRAT vs. CRUT invested in a growth mutual fund

1/1/1990–1/1/2002

 

 

Too many trustees take an ultra- conservative and shortsighted investment approach to preserve principal.  However, prudent investment management is important if the income distributions are going to be tax efficient and the remainder value is to appreciate for the benefit of the charitable beneficiary.  As an example of a well balanced equity approach, an annuity trust (CRAT) established on January 1, 1990 and funded with $250,000 that purchased diversified GFAA shares (after fees) would produce significant gains, even with the fixed dollar annual income distributions of $12,500 (5% of the initial value) made through the end of the trust period.  While this specific trust is historically accurate in depicting annual returns even through several real market corrections, there is no guarantee of similar performance in the future; however, this particular fund has produced a trust remainder value of $928,488 as of12/31/2001

 

Using exactly the same investment vehicle and historical time horizon as the CRAT above, a 5% charitable remainder unitrust (CRUT) that pays a fixed percentage of the trust (annually revalued, so the payouts vary with the trust’s investment performance), yet it still produces a significant return of $765,884 for the remainder beneficiary and the income interest is enhanced to offset the effects of inflation.  A variable payout CRUT takes a percentage of a well-invested and diversified trust and increases in value. The CRUT in the example produced $273,444 of aggregated income over the twelve year period.  Compared to the CRAT’s income payments of just $150,000, it should be obvious that the variable payout unitrust offers more opportunity for growth if the investment performs properly.  Besides having a greater opportunity for an improved income stream, an equity based trust investment tends to produce more tier two (realized capital gains) income.  Remember, realized gain taxed at the more efficient 20% rate leaving the income beneficiary with more spendable income, rather than being penalized at the highest marginal ordinary federal rate of up to 38.6%.

 

 

Select Appropriate Charitable Remainder Trust

 

 

Which CRT Works Best?

 

§ 644 Trust Options

CRAT

SCRUT

FLIPCRUT

NIMCRUT

Is Current Income Needed?

 

 

Y**

Y***

Spigot Income or Deferral Strategy Allowed?

 

 

Y**

Y***

Contribution of Hard-to-value Illiquid Assets

 

N/Y

 

 

Multiple Contributions Allowed

 

 

 

 

Fixed and Secure Income Desired

 

N*

N*

N*

Easy to Understand

 

 

 

 

Preferred for Younger Income Beneficiary

 

 

 

 

Flexible

 

 

 

 

* Depends on payout rates that are lower than CRT investment portfolio’s performance

 

 

** Depends on FLIP triggering event

*** Depends on underlying assets inside CRT

 

 

sectionbreak
logo
VWH www.gift-estate.com

PhilanthroCalc for the WebCONTACT 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”. Knowing when a CRUT is superior to a CRAT or which type of CRT is best used with which assets and what investments “poison the trust” is critical. Although it may be counter-intuitive, sometimes a lower payout CRUT makes more sense and pays more total income to beneficiaries. Why? When should you use a CLUT vs. CLAT and what are the traps found 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.

image
Categories
New Articles

Choices, it’s all about choices, helping clients find their way – Henry & Associates

Choices, it’s all about choices.

imageThis is a case study about a curmudgeon client best known for the attention he lavishes on the bottom line of his businesses.  He is known to be opinionated, completely wrapped up in his business activities, unwilling to give up control and notoriously difficult to work with, previously going through six or eight estate and financial planning teams.  His tax and legal advisors were frustrated since they’d been unable to put a plan in place, having failed to move him off center into a decision making mode, but his pressing health concerns prompted them to take another crack at solving the problems.

Jeff Anderson arranged for a wealth counseling session after being exposed to a seminar program on zero estate tax planning.  Considering how a little creative, nontraditional thinking might solve some of his estate tax problems, he decided to pursue some options.  Jeff, in his mid 60’s, is a self made entrepreneur who made his money in the hardscrabble oil and gas industry, making and losing several fortunes along the way.  Sitting down with the client and his advisors, we reviewed his past estate plans and goals.  He started off by saying, “I don’t like insurance, I don’t want to buy any of it and every planner who sees me tries to sell me something.  What have you got to offer so I don’t have to pay any tax?”  A good response might be, “I don’t know, tell me about your goals and concerns first.”  A lot of his prior planning had been short sighted, but by rearranging pieces on his financial chessboard, it appeared that there were several new options available to the family.  So after doing a quick snapshot review of the balance sheet, income and estate tax liabilities on that day, it was agreed that with his current plan, his family would receive 46.7% of his estate and various government taxing authorities would receive 53.3%.   Asked how he felt about that inequity, and he said he was very upset about that distribution fact pattern. 

imageJeff and his wife Ellyn have children from prior marriages, and each has divergent interests and planning goals.  Jeff, who has the bulk of the estate assets in his name is in remission from a past bout with cancer and is somewhat concerned that if he doesn’t get proactive with his planning, a significant portion of his estate will default to the IRS.  What was unsaid, but was an issue is what would happen if he predeceased his wife and his wealth passed to one of her ne’er do well children instead of his family. 

The traditional estate planning approaches weren’t motivating, as he didn’t feel like he had unneeded wealth to give away.  He was unwilling to sacrifice significantly in his lifestyle in order to pass wealth to heirs.   Jeff wanted to provide a comfortable income stream for his surviving spouse, but she was inexperienced dealing with investments and he didn’t want to enrich her at the expense of his children or lose control of his family’s wealth.  For a client like that, it’s easiest to separate the issues of control from ownership, since it’s what’s owned is what’s taxed.

imageWe discussed his priorities in life and tried to foresee how his family’s concerns would develop over the next ten or twenty years.  Asked how he would redistribute his estate if given a choice, he opined that if he could avoid paying any tax at all, he’d split his estate 80/20 between his kids and charity, especially if he knew the charity was going to be sensible with his money.  Jeff said, “I’m not all that charitable, although I give something to charity every year.  I don’t think they respect the amount of work it took me to be able to make that gift and they fritter my money away on silly projects or poorly supervised programs.  If I could direct those funds, I could do it better.” 

While his heirs possessed varied talents, Jeff felt that being exposed to a family foundation might help his grandchildren develop a better value system, improve their business skills and independence.  Although his estate was significant, the charitable component of this plan made more sense with a donor advised fund (DAF) inside a community foundation instead of a private foundation.  These organizations are 501(c)3 public charities with sub-accounts through which families can make recommended grants to community organizations of interest to them.  While the family DAF still has the ability to help research and fund charitable interests, it offers professional assistance, infrastructure and should prevent the heirs from abusing the authority to make grants to inappropriate causes.

Planned giving is situational; few clients come into a planner’s office to ask about doing a FLIP NIMCRUT any more than a patient is likely to walk into a surgeon’s office and ask for a cholecystectomy.  Professional advisors and development officers need to help their clients meet personal goals by passing down a value system.  Good interviewing techniques and an empathetic approach to coaching clients about their opportunities will elicit those values driven responses that point to specific tools that will help build successful plans.

Will every client become a philanthropist, albeit a reluctant one?  No, but if a client fully understands the available options, most opt to do something that benefits a community project if it’s properly presented.  While there’s no philanthropy gene, there is a desire amongst many people to create some sense of significance, and leaving something to charity is one way of making a mark that will last.

Categories
New Articles

Learning Experiences in CRT Design – Henry & Associates

Learning Experiences in CRT Design – Henry & Associates

Learning Experiences in CRT Design with Families

What to do when a couple isn’t insurable and a wealth replacement trust using life insurance isn’t economically affordable?  A typical solution is to name children as successor income beneficiaries to the CRT.  Factor in the §1089 TRA-97 10% charitable remainder requirement and naming younger income beneficiaries becomes much more difficult.  Many advisors have also forgotten another area in the Code that might cause them further difficulty in beneficiary planning.   Although there’s a natural desire of a client to include children in a CRT, advisors must explain that when a non-spouse is included as an income beneficiary, there’s a taxable gift involved.  If the trust names the spouse and children, then not only are the children receiving taxable gifts, so is the spouse, as the unlimited marital deduction* is lost.  There are solutions in a family situation when using a multi-generational CRT that might be worth considering:

1. To avoid making a taxable gift to a child when creating an inter-vivos CRT, retain the right to revoke the income interest by Will.  Since the gift is incomplete, the value of the CRT’s income interest becomes an estate tax liability if the right to receive income hasn’t been revoked.  In the meantime, the income beneficiary ages and the charitable remainder increases, and that may reduce the transfer cost.  Unless the trust value appreciates significantly, the estate tax value to the heir will be less than the original gift tax value.

* Because of ERTA (1981), a person can gift during lifetime or leave a surviving spouse his/her entire estate free of the federal estate tax, no matter the amount, except for certain terminable interests in property.  Now, only non-terminable or “qualified” terminable interests are eligible as unlimited marital deductions under I.R.C. §2056(b).  What’s terminable?  A terminable interest means the interest will end at the spouse’s death; for example, a life income interest in a trust.  The purpose of the terminable interest rule has been to deny any marital deduction at the first spouse’s death if the property will escape taxation at the second spouse’s death.  There are two “qualified” terminable interests under Code §2056(b) that qualify for gift and estate tax marital deductions.  One is for a “qualifying income interest for life” that passes to the surviving (donee) spouse from the deceased (donor) spouse with the following three conditions:

(1) a surviving spouse must be entitled to all the income from the property, payable annually or at more frequent intervals;

(2) no person can have a power to appoint any part of the property to any person other than the surviving spouse;

(3) the executor must elect to deduct the property on the federal estate tax return. This election is irrevocable. Note that a trust that paid the spouse an income for a term of years (rather than life) could not qualify, nor could a trust that terminated on the occurrence of a contingency (such as the spouse’s remarriage) PLR 8347090 (8-26-83).

The other qualifying terminable interest happens when the surviving spouse is the only income beneficiary of a charitable remainder trust.  The surviving spouse need not have a life income interest, as an income interest limited to just a period of years could still qualify I.R.C. §2056(b)(8).  The IRS, in Technical Advice Memorandum 8730004, noted that a CRT with two successive non-charitable beneficiaries lost the use of the marital deduction. The ruling related to a testamentary charitable remainder trust in which the decedent had named a surviving spouse followed by another non-charitable beneficiary. The Service ruled that since the Code specifies a surviving spouse to be the only non-charitable beneficiary, the interest, therefore, did not qualify for the marital deduction §2056(b)(8).  — ACCESS AUS 1997

CONTACT US FOR A FREE PRELIMINARY CASE STUDY FOR YOUR OWN CRT SCENARIO