Monthly Archive for March, 2009

Estate Tax News: Proposed Exemption Fixed at $3.5 Million

On 3/26, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.):

announced legislation that would make existing tax breaks permanent for working families and individuals including the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and lower middle-income tax rates among other provisions. The measures were originally passed as part of tax legislation in 2001 and 2003, but are set to expire in 2010. Baucus unveiled his proposal after a Finance Committee hearing today that examined the affect of the current economy and the U.S. tax code on America’s middle class.

“Today we’re offering a piece of certainty during an uncertain time for millions of hardworking, honest Americans. These measures are not excessive or outrageous, but timely and targeted, and will build on earlier efforts to stabilize the economy,” said Baucus. “By guaranteeing a little extra cash in the pocket of working moms and dads, and by making sure that the AMT and the estate tax can move with the economy, we avoid sweeping tax increases for millions of American families. By promising spouses tax fairness in marriage, giving help to those helping others through adoption, and by giving lower-wage workers confidence at a critical time, we can restore our footing, and begin to climb back to a position of national strength and economic security.” 

The estate tax is the biggest piece of this particular legislation, in my opinion anyways:  Rather than being repealed in 2010 (as its set to do under current law), the estate tax exemption would sit at $3.5 million and be indexed for inflation in $10,000/year increments starting in 2011.  The tax rate would be fixed at 45% – the same as it is now.  The biggest news though is the “marital deduction portability.”  Under the proposed law, when one spouse passes away, their estate can pass to the surviving spouse without the need for a credit shelter trust.  If the surviving spouse passes away with an estate larger than the then applicable individual exemption amount, they can elect to use the “aggregate deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.”  The use of the first deceased spouse’s deduction requires an election on the tax return of the second to die and can be up to the full amount of the unused exemption.  Thus, $7 million can pass free of estate tax on the death of the second spouse.

Greg Herman-Giddens of the North Carolina Estate Planning Blog, wisely writes:

If this bill becomes law, the first tendency of many couples with [federally] taxable estates will be to revise their wills or trusts to do away with the credit-shelter (bypass) trusts.  However, there will still be compelling reasons to have such trusts.  With a credit-shelter trust, growth in the value of the assets is also protected from estate taxes, while that is not necessarily true if a couple relies on exemption portability.  In addition, the credit shelter (or marital) trust provides valuable protection from mismanagement, creditors, and future spouses.

Awesome Greg.  I couldn’t have said it better myself.

A full summary of the bill is below:

The Taxpayer Certainty and Relief Act of 2009

I. Permanent Middle Class Tax Relief

Individual Tax Rates. Current ordinary income tax rates are imposed at 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35%. These tax rates expire at the end of 2010. The proposal would make permanent the 10, 25, and 28% tax rates. (The 15% tax rate is already permanent law.)

Capital Gains and Dividends. The proposal would make permanent the reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends for taxpayers in the 10, 15, 25, and 28 percent brackets. The 2003 tax bill created a new tax rate of 15 percent (5 percent for low-and middle-income taxpayers, going to zero percent in 2008) for dividends. Prior to passage of this bill, dividends were taxed at ordinary income rates. The 2003 bill also reduced the capital gains tax rate from 20 percent (10 percent for low- and middle-income taxpayers) to 15 percent (5 percent for low- and middle-income taxpayers, going to zero percent in 2008). These reduced tax rates were originally set to expire at the end of 2008, but were extended until the end of 2010 in the “Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005″ (TIPRA).

Child Tax Credit.Generally, a taxpayer may claim the child tax credit to reduce income tax liability by up to $1,000 for each qualifying child under the age of 17. If the amount of a taxpayer’s child tax credit is greater than the amount of the taxpayer’s income tax liability, the taxpayer may receive a refund if the income threshold is met. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 set the income threshold for child tax credit refundabilityat $10,000 (indexed). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act decreased the threshold for the 2009 and 2010 tax years to $3,000. The proposal would make these changes to the child tax credit permanent.

Marriage Penalty. A “marriage penalty” exists when the combined tax liability of a married couple filing a joint return is greater than the sum of the tax liabilities of each individual computed as if they were not married. A “marriage bonus” exists when the exemption amounts and rate brackets are larger for the joint returns filed by married couples than for singles’ returns. As part of the 2001 tax cuts, the standard deduction for married filers was scheduled to increase annually until 2009. In addition, the bill eliminated the marriage penalty in the 15% tax bracket and for the earned income tax credit. The marriage penalty relief expires on December 31, 2010. The proposal would make the marriage penalty relief permanent.

Dependent and Child Care Credit.The dependent care credit allows a taxpayer a credit for paid child care expenses for qualifying children under the age of 13 and disabled dependents. The credit is 35% of eligible expenses. This rate decreases by 1% for each $2,000 of income above $15,000, but the rate never falls below 20%. Eligible expenses are limited to $3,000 for one child, and $6,000 for two or more children. (After 2010, the amount of eligible expenses returns to the pre-2001 amounts of $2,400 for one child and $4,800 for two or more. In addition, the 35% credit rate decreases to 30% and the income threshold decreases to $10,000.) The proposal would make 2009 law permanent.

Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC is a refundable tax credit available to low wage workers. Because the credit is refundable, a taxpayer will receive a refund if the amount of the EITC is greater than the amount of the income tax liability or if no income tax liability exists. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act increased the credit rate for taxpayers with three or more children from 40% to 45% and increased the phase out range for all married couples filing a joint return (regardless of the number of children) by $1,880. The proposal would make these changes permanent.

Adoption Credit and Adoption Assistance Programs. Current law allows a maximum adoption credit of $10,000 per eligible child and a maximum exclusion of $10,000 per eligible child. These benefits are phased-out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income in excess of certain dollar levels. These tax incentives go back to $5,000 per child ($6,000 for child with special needs) after 2010. The proposal would make 2009 law permanent.

II. Permanent Alternative Minimum Tax Fix

For the 2009 tax year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided a patch for the AMT, setting the exemption amount at $46,700 (individuals) and $70,950 (married filing jointly), and allowed the personal credits against the AMT. When this patch expires, the exemption amounts will return to $33,750 (individuals) and $45,000 (married filing jointly) and the personal credits will not be allowed against the AMT. The proposal would make the 2009 exemption levels permanent and index them for inflation. In addition, the proposal will permanently allow the personal credits against the AMT.

III. Permanent Estate Tax Relief

Under current law, U.S. citizens and residents must pay taxes on transfers of property both during life and at death. These taxes are due under three separate tax systems: the estate tax, the generation-transfer skipping tax, and the gift tax. Currently, the top tax rate for all three taxes is 45%. Both the estate and generation-skipping transfer taxes currently have a $3.5 million exemption for individuals ($7 million for couples). The gift tax has an exemption of $1 million ($2 million for couples). For the 2010 tax year, the estate and generation skipping transfer taxes are repealed. In the same year, the gift tax rate will fall to 35%. In 2011, the estate, generation skipping transfer, and gift taxes are scheduled to revert back to pre-2001 levels, with an exemption of $1 million, a 55% rate, and a 5% surtax on large estates.

Thanks to this story at Scottrade for the great detail.

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Reverse Mortgages After The Obama Stimulus – More Options

I wrote previously about reverse mortgages and their uses, but this seemed worth commenting on.  Looks like the stimulus package has beefed up the loan amounts available and capped some of the fees:

Reverse mortgages have been around for a while, but because of recent changes now look more appealing. Last month, the economic stimulus package raised the maximum loan amount to $625,500 from $417,000, at least for this year.

New federal guidelines, meanwhile, expand the reach of the loans and make them slightly more affordable. They cap the fees, which had drawn many complaints for their size and even allow borrowers to use a reverse mortgage to buy a primary residence.

Finally some good news for older people suffering the “triple whammy of declining income, falling home values and dwindling savings from Wall Street’s meltdown.”

These things are complex though and the right set of circumstances must be met before a reverse mortgage is advisable.  It is usually better (and easier/cheaper) to downsize or try to refinance your existing  mortgage.  Your best bet?  Contact a skilled estate planning attorney and let them analyze your situation because some amount of thought should go into this by someone who does this stuff for a living.

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Oops…

Big ups to Saul Elnadav of Vishnick McGovern Milizio LLP!  Saul is the pulbisher of the New York Trusts & Estates Law Blog.  Saul wrote me last night to let me know that my RSS feed wasn’t working properly, which I was completely unaware of.

I think the mix-up happened when I linked all of my feeds (RSS, Atom, XML, etc.) to my FeedBurner account so I could manage everything from one place, but I guess I screwed up.  So, despite my flurry of posts these last 60 days or so, my feed wasn’t being published at all.  Oops.

Problem solved though.  So now, thanks to Saul, you can again revel in my glorious wit and inspiration.

Thanks Saul.  And keep up the great work on your site as well!

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Dana-Faber Cancer Institute Says: Pious Fight Death Hardest

An interesting article from Slashdot today linking to this BBS story:

A US study suggests that people with strong religious beliefs appear to want doctors to do everything they can to keep them alive as death approaches. The study, following 345 patients with terminal cancer, found that ‘those who regularly prayed were more than three times more likely to receive intensive life-prolonging care than those who relied least on religion.

The BBC story says:

Those who regularly prayed were more than three times more likely to receive intensive life-prolonging care than those who relied least on religion.

The team’s report was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

It suggests that such care, including resuscitation, may make death more uncomfortable.

Just over 30% of those asked agreed with the statement that religion was “the most important thing that keeps you going”.  

The poster on /. opines:

one would think that a strong belief in an afterlife would lead to a more resigned acceptance of death than nonbelievers who view death as the end of existence, the annihilation of consciousness and the self. Perhaps the concept of a Judgment produces death-bed doubts? (‘Am I really saved?’) Or, given the Judeo-Christian abhorrence of suicide, and the belief that it is God who must ultimately decide when it is ‘our time,’ is it felt that refusing aggressive life support measures or resuscitation is tantamount to deliberately ending one’s life prematurely?

I don’t know that I have any specific thoughts, other than to say that this is the opposite of what I would have expected.

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Anna Nicole Smith Case Update(s)

Special thanks up front to Professor Berry for these updates.  Without his lasting diligence I would have been forced to get my news from other, much less reputable places ;) .

1.   Linking to this post at The Daily News, the Good Professor reports that a writ was filed before the U.S. Supreme Court asking that lawyers for the late Anna Nicole Smith be allowed to start collecting on $88 million awarded her by a Santa Ana judge from her husband’s estate.

The writ, filed with the court [on March 9, 2009], asks in the alternative that the heirs of Smith’s husband, Texas oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall, post a bond in that amount to assure that the money is there when when the legal battle concludes. * * *

However, David Margulies, who represents the heirs of J. Howard Marshall and his son, E. Pierce Marshall * * * denied the award by U.S. District Judge David Carter in 2002 is still valid.

Margulies said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Carter’s award, finding that he overstepped the jurisdiction of the Probate Court.

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006 found that Smith had the right to pursue a claim on her husband’s estate, it did not uphold the $88 million award, Margulies said.

2.   According to the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times. Anna Nicole’s boyfriend and lawyer, Howard K. Stern and her doctors Sandeep Kapoor and Khristine Eroshevich, have been charged with the felonies of conspiracy to provide drugs to an addict and unlawfully prescribing a controlled substance.  Mr. Stern was further accused of funneling the drugs to Smith from 2004 to January 2007, a few weeks before she died of an overdose.  Not looking good for him.  Professory Berry is linking to this CNN story.

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Best. Law Review. Title. Ever!

Is It Really Possible to Do the Kessel Run in Less than Twelve Parsecs and Should It Matter?

It looks to be a great article about the myriad little inaccuracies in sci-fi films and what happens when we accept these inaccuracies  as fact.   The sub-title is Science in Film and its Policy Implications.

Special thanks to this morning’s Volokh Conspiracy for pointing this one out.  Without it I would have probably never been able to apply such awesome tags as, “Han Solo” and “Kessel Run.”

What’s the big deal about the above?  A parsec is a unit of distance, not time.

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

AMT TidBits

Fairmark:  “AMT Deficit” Goes On-Budget; Change Has Profound Implications, by Kaye A. Thomas:

The Obama administration is poised to make a stunning change in budget policy. The change will add over $1 trillion to the projected federal debt — and that’s good. It puts an end to a charade that has persisted in past administrations, both Democratic and Republican. The “AMT deficit” is going to go on-budget.

Bloomberg:  Obama Showers Wall Street Fees With Muni Stimulus, by Jeremy R. Cooke:

The stimulus law promotes municipal bonds by removing the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, penalty from debt sold to fund private activities such as airport runways and student loans. It also increases the size of bond issues qualified for tax exemptions when bought by commercial banks.

Special thanks to Professor Paul L. Caron of the TaxProf Blog.

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Another Ohio T&E Blog!

Bradley B. Wrightsel has been a friend and collegue for a number of years and has apparently been posting his own blog (The Ohio Estate Planning, Trust & Probate Law Blog) for a few of those years.  And I had no idea!  I’m so embarassed.

Brad and his father Doug Wrightsel have been practicing together for years and run a small firm that does fantastic work for individuals and their families.  Doug is one of the city’s most venerable attorneys.

Brad’s blog is focused (as mine is) on trust and estate planning and probate law in Ohio and is directed towards the consumer and their everyday questions.  He’s had the blog for a while but only recently appeared to really gear up and focus on developing his own style and substance.  Looks to be a great resource as a legal FAQ for the citizens of Ohio.

Thanks Brad.  Keep posting!

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Debts Owed By A Decedent/Their Estate

An interesting, and disappointing article this morning from the NYT, “You’re Dead? That Won’t Stop the Debt Collector.”  I’m not disappointed in the NYT, its a fine article I guess, rather, I’m disappointed by the number of people who are apparently willing to pay the debts of their deceased relative(s):

The people on the other end of the line often have no legal obligation to assume the debt of a spouse, sibling or parent. But they take responsibility for it anyway.

Troubling…

In Ohio, if an individual passed away owning a debt, that debt becomes a debt of their estate.  In order to collect that debt, the creditor has 6 months from the date of decedent’s death to make a claim against the estate or the claim is forever barred.  (See R.C. 2117.06) …  Forever!

In order to make a claim, the creditor just has to send notice to the fiduciary (Executor or Administrator) of decedent’s estate, in a writing that hopefully gives the fiduciary enough information to make judgement as to the claim’s validity.  What does “writing” mean?  Case law in Ohio has left the definition pretty, broad…  It just has to be written down; some form, any form of writing will do…  I suppose it should legible, but that’s really it.  So long as that writing is received within 6 months from decedent’s death, you have made a valid claim.  (Whether the fiduciary accepts or rejects the claim is a whole separate matter.)

Ok, well what happens if someone has passed away but their estate hasn’t been opened yet so there is no fiduciary appointed by the court to serve?  In that case, as a  creditor, you can open the estate yourself even if your only reason for doing so is to collect a debt.  I see it all the time.  Hell, I do it all the time.

So, don’t just go paying a decedent’s debts…  Make the creditors work for it!  Or, if you’re a creditor, call a probate attorney who knows what they’re doing to make the claim on your behalf.  I wrote an article on this that was published a while ago, so I would qualify as one of those people to call, but please just call someone.  Money is tight right now so don’t go making deals to pay someone else’s debts if you don’t have to.

Don’t even get me started on Franklin County Local Rules (e.g. 62.1, hint hint)…  Very few people understand that rule – why its there, why it says what it does, how to comply with it, etc…

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

This Is A Good Idea

Gutsy.  And a good idea.

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post