Posts Tagged ‘Jill Sugarman’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Statutory glitch reduces portable estate tax exclusion for some surviving spouses

Thursday, March 31st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

Effective for estates of decedents dying after 2010 and before 2013, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (2010 Tax Relief Act) allows a deceased spouse’s unused estate tax exclusion to be shifted to the surviving spouse. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) has released an errata sheet pointing out an error in the statutory language defining “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.” As explained below, the current statutory language may result in a lower-than-intended exclusion for the surviving spouse of an individual who was previously married and received a portable estate tax exclusion from his or her former spouse. The JCT says a technical correction may be needed to fix the defect.

Background. A credit (the “unified credit”) is allowed against the estate tax imposed on U.S. citizens and residents. The credit is equal to the tentative tax on the “applicable exclusion amount,” determined under the estate tax rate schedule.

Pre-2010 Tax Relief Act law did not allow for any unused portion of a decedent’s applicable exclusion amount to be used by the estate of the decedent’s surviving spouse.

Portable exclusion. Under the 2010 Tax Relief Act, for estates of decedents dying after 2010 and before 2013, the applicable exclusion amount is the sum of (1) the “basic exclusion amount” and (2) in the case of a surviving spouse, the “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.”

The basic exclusion amount is $5 million with an adjustment for inflation after 2011.

The “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount” is the lesser of:

(1) the basic exclusion amount, or

(2) the excess of the basic exclusion amount of the last deceased spouse dying after December 31, 2010, of the surviving spouse, over the amount on which the tentative tax on the estate of the deceased spouse is determined.

A deceased spousal unused exclusion amount may not be taken into account by a surviving spouse unless the executor of the estate of the deceased spouse files an estate tax return on which the amount is computed, and makes an election on the return that the amount may be taken into account by the surviving spouse. The election, once made, is irrevocable. No election may be made if the estate tax return of the deceased spouse is filed after the due date (including extensions) for filing the return.

A surviving spouse may use the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount in addition to his or her own $5 million exclusion for taxable transfers made during life or at death.

Illustration 1: Husband 1 dies in 2011, having made taxable transfers of $3 million and having no taxable estate. An election is made on his estate tax return to permit Wife to use his deceased spousal unused exclusion amount. As of his death, Wife has made no taxable gifts. Thereafter, Wife’s applicable exclusion amount is $7 million (her $5 million basic exclusion amount plus $2 million deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 1), which she may use for lifetime gifts or for transfers at death. (Committee Report)

If a surviving spouse is predeceased by more than one spouse, the amount of unused exclusion that is available for use by the surviving spouse is limited to the lesser of $5 million or the unused exclusion of the last deceased spouse.  This so-called “last deceased spouse” limitation applies whether or not the last deceased spouse has any unused exclusion, and whether or the estate of the last deceased spouse makes a timely election to allow the surviving spouse to use the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.

Illustration 2: Assume the same facts as in illustration (1), except that Wife subsequently marries Husband 2. He predeceases Wife, having made $4 million in taxable transfers and having no taxable estate. An election is made on his estate tax return to permit Wife to use his deceased spousal unused exclusion amount. Although the combined amount of unused exclusion of Husband 1 and Husband 2 is $3 million ($2 million for Husband 1 and $1 million for Husband 2), only Husband 2′s $1 million unused exclusion is available for use by Wife because the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount is limited to the lesser of the basic exclusion amount ($5 million) or the unused exclusion of the last deceased spouse of the surviving spouse. Thereafter, Wife’s applicable exclusion amount is $6 million (her $5 million basic exclusion amount plus $1 million deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 2), which she may use for lifetime gifts or for transfers at death. (Committee Report)

Remarried surviving spouses who predecease new spouse. The following illustration, based on an example in the Committee Report, says that if a surviving spouse remarries, and then dies survived by a new spouse, the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount included for the surviving spouse’s estate is determined by taking into account the deceased spouse’s applicable exclusion amount and not just the basic exclusion amount.

Illustration 3: Assume the same facts as in Illustrations 1 and 2, except that Wife predeceases Husband 2. Following Husband 1′s death, Wife’s applicable exclusion amount is $7 million (her $5 million basic exclusion amount plus $2 million deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 1). Wife made no taxable transfers and has a taxable estate of $3 million. An election is made on Wife’s estate tax return to permit Husband 2 to use Wife’s deceased spousal unused exclusion amount, which is $4 million (Wife’s $7 million applicable exclusion amount less her $3 million taxable estate). Under the provision, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount is increased by $4 million, i.e., the amount of Wife’s deceased spousal unused exclusion amount. (Committee Report)

This view does not seem to reflect Code Sec. 2010(c)(4), which states that the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount equals the lesser of the basic exclusion amount (i.e., $5 million), or the excess of the basic exclusion amount of the last deceased spouse of such surviving spouse over the amount on which the tentative estate tax is determined under Code Sec. 2001(b)(1) on the estate of such deceased spouse. Rather, under the current statutory language, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would seem to be increased by only $2 million.

The JCT Errata sheet confirms that the current statutory language does not support the conclusion in Illustration 3. It does so by adding a footnote to the example in the Committee Report on the 2010 Tax Relief Act. The footnote states that a technical correction may be necessary to replace the reference to the basic exclusion amount of the last deceased spouse of the surviving spouse with a reference to the applicable exclusion amount of such last deceased spouse, so that the statute reflects Congressional intent.

Under the technical correction, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would be increased by $4 million.

Under the technical correction, it would be possible for the new spouse’s applicable exclusion amount to exceed $10 million, the combined amount of the basic exclusion amount of the surviving spouse and the new spouse. For example, if, in Illustration 3, the Wife’s taxable estate were only $1 million, then Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would be increased by $6 million (Wife’s applicable exclusion amount of $7 million less $1 million of taxable transfers). Thus, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would be $11 million (Wife’s spousal unused exclusion amount of $6 million, plus Husband 2′s basic exclusion amount of $5 million).

Allowing a surviving spouse to wind up with a more than $10 million applicable exclusion amount is somewhat inconsistent with the last spouse limitation. That’s because the last spouse limitation prevents a spouse who survived two or more deceased spouses from getting an applicable exclusion amount that exceeds the combined basic exclusion amounts of a husband and wife. This combined figure presently is $10 million, but could exceed $10 million with inflation adjustments after 2011.

There is no word on when this or any other technical corrections may be forthcoming. Hopefully, IRS will address the matter when it provides guidance on the new portable exclusion.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

A Trip to the Hospital May Put Assisted Living Residents on Medicaid at Risk of Eviction

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

Elderlaw Attorney Jill E. Sugarman tells us that assisted living facility residents covered by Medicaid are at risk of being evicted if they leave the facility, even for a temporary hospitalization.  The National Senior Citizen’s Law Center (NSCLC) warns of this problems in a recently released White Paper. Ironically, Medicaid officials in most states have the power to prevent these evictions but in most cases are not exercising it.

Most state Medicaid programs pay for services not just in nursing homes but in assisted living facilities, which are meant to provide a home-like alternative to nursing homes. But there is a crucial difference between nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The Nursing Home Reform Law authorizes Medicaid to pay a nursing home to hold a room for a Medicaid recipient who is temporarily absent due to hospitalization and entitles the resident to return to the first-available room.

In contrast, Medicaid does not make similar payments on behalf of residents of assisted living facilities and the facilities are not required to give admission priority to returning residents. This difference in treatment, the NSCLC asserts in its report, “Medicaid Payment for Assisted Living: Residents Have a Right to Return After Hospitalization,” diminishes the value of assisted living facilities as a community-based alternative to nursing home care. If assisted living facilities truly seek to offer “home or community-based” services, says the advocacy group, residents should have the peace of mind of knowing that they won’t be evicted if they are absent for a few days or weeks.

The NSCLC points out that in most cases states could remedy the situation. Most states pay for assisted living care though a Medicaid waiver program. In 2000, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) advised states that it would authorize the issuance of “retainer payments” to Medicaid waiver home and community based service providers during a Medicaid recipient’s temporary absence, such as for hospitalization. The guidance described the retainer payments as being comparable to room-hold payments for nursing home residents. However, it appears that most of the states either do not understand the federal guidance or have not implemented it. Exceptions include Georgia, Illinois, Montana and Washington, all of which make retainer payments to assisted living facilities on behalf of residents who are temporarily absent.

The NSCLC makes a number of recommendations:

  • CMS should clarify that Medicaid-funded retainer payments are available for temporary absences from an assisted living facility;
  • State governments should authorize retainer payments up to the federally allowed maximum;
  • Federal Medicaid law should be changed to entitle residents of assisted living facilities to room holds, room-hold payments and readmission to the next available room after temporary absences;
  • Room holds should apply regardless of the reason for an absence.

To view NSCLC’s White Paper and other materials on the issue, including a News Release and a Policy Brief, click here.

For more information regarding Medicaid planning, contact Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. at jsugarman@mclaughlinquinn.com or by phone at 401-421-5115 ext. 215.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning

Protecting Your House After You Move Into a Nursing Home

Sunday, October 24th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

While you generally do not have to sell your home in order to qualify for Medicaid coverage of nursing home care, it is possible the state can file a claim against your house after you die. If you get help from Medicaid to pay for the nursing home, the state must attempt to recoup from your estate whatever benefits it paid for your care. This is called “estate recovery,” and given the rules for Medicaid eligibility, the only property of substantial value that a Medicaid recipient is likely to own at death is his or her home. If possible, you should consult with an attorney before entering a nursing home, or as soon as possible afterwards, in order to discuss ways to protect your home.

In those states that have implemented the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, the home is not counted as an asset for Medicaid eligibility purposes if the equity is less than $500,000 ($750,000 in some states). In all states, you may keep your house with no equity limit if your spouse or another dependent relative lives there.

Transferring a Home
In most states, transferring your house to your children (or someone else) may lead to a Medicaid penalty period, which would make you ineligible for Medicaid for a period of time. There are circumstances in which it is legal to transfer a house, however, so consult an attorney before making any transfers. You may freely transfer your home to the following individuals without incurring a transfer penalty:

  • Your spouse
  • A child who is under age 21 or who is blind or disabled
  • Into a trust for the sole benefit of a disabled individual under age 65 (even if the trust is for the benefit of the Medicaid applicant, under certain circumstances)
  • A sibling who has lived in the home during the year preceding the applicant’s institutionalization and who already holds an equity interest in the home
  • A “caretaker child,” who is defined as a child of the applicant who lived in the house for at least two years prior to the applicant’s institutionalization and who during that period provided care that allowed the applicant to avoid a nursing home stay.

While you can sell your house for fair market value, it may make you ineligible for Medicaid and you may have to apply the proceeds of the sale to your nursing home bills.

Lien on Home
Except in certain circumstances, Medicaid may put a lien on your house for the amount of money spent on your care. If the property is sold while you are still living, you would have to satisfy the lien by paying back the state. The exceptions to this rule are cases where a spouse, a disabled or blind child, a child under age 21, or a sibling with an equity interest in the house is living there.

Estate Recovery
If your spouse, a disabled or blind child, a child under age 21, or a sibling with an equity interest in the house, lives in the house, the state cannot file a claim against the house for reimbursement of Medicaid nursing home expenses. However, once your spouse or dependent relative dies or moves out, the state can try to collect.

But there are some circumstances under which the value of a house can be protected from Medicaid recovery. The state cannot recover if you and your spouse owned the home as tenants by the entireties or if the house is in your spouse’s name and you have relinquished your interest. If the house is in an irrevocable trust, the state cannot recover from it.

In addition, some children or relatives may be able to protect a nursing home resident’s house if they qualify for an undue hardship waiver. For example, if your daughter took care of you before you entered the nursing home and has no other permanent residence, she may be able to avoid a claim against your house after you die. Consult with an attorney to find out if the undue hardship waiver may be applicable.

For more information on Medicaid planning, please contact Elderlaw Attorney Jill E. Sugarman at 401-421-5115 or by e-mail at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning

10 Reasons to Create an Estate Plan Now

Sunday, October 24th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

Many people think that estate plans are for someone else, not them. They may rationalize that they are too young or don’t have enough money to reap the tax benefits of a plan. But as the following list makes clear, estate planning is for everyone, regardless of age or net worth.

1. Loss of capacity. What if you become incompetent and unable to manage your own affairs? Without a plan the courts will select the person to manage your affairs. With a plan, you pick that person (through a power of attorney).

2. Minor children. Who will raise your children if you die? Without a plan, a court will make that decision. With a plan, you are able to nominate the guardian of your choice.

3. Dying without a will. Who will inherit your assets? Without a plan, your assets pass to your heirs according to your state’s laws of intestacy (dying without a will). Your family members (and perhaps not the ones you would choose) will receive your assets without benefit of your direction or of trust protection. With a plan, you decide who gets your assets, and when and how they receive them.

4. Blended families. What if your family is the result of multiple marriages? Without a plan, children from different marriages may not be treated as you would wish. With a plan, you determine what goes to your current spouse and to the children from a prior marriage or marriages.

5. Children with special needs. Without a plan, a child with special needs risks being disqualified from receiving Medicaid or SSI benefits, and may have to use his or her inheritance to pay for care. With a plan, you can set up a Supplemental Needs Trust that will allow the child to remain eligible for government benefits while using the trust assets to pay for non-covered expenses.

6. Keeping assets in the family. Would you prefer that your assets stay in your own family? Without a plan, your child’s spouse may wind up with your money if your child passes away prematurely. If your child divorces his or her current spouse, half of your assets could go to the spouse. With a plan, you can set up a trust that ensures that your assets will stay in your family and, for example, pass to your grandchildren.

7. Financial security. Will your spouse and children be able to survive financially? Without a plan and the income replacement provided by life insurance, your family may be unable to maintain its current living standard. With a plan, life insurance can mean that your family will enjoy financial security.

8. Retirement accounts. Do you have an IRA or similar retirement account? Without a plan, your designated beneficiary for the retirement account funds may not reflect your current wishes and may result in burdensome tax consequences for your heirs (although the rules regarding the designation of a beneficiary have been eased considerably). With a plan, you can choose the optimal beneficiary.

9. Business ownership. Do you own a business? Without a plan, you don’t name a successor, thus risking that your family could lose control of the business. With a plan, you choose who will own and control the business after you are gone.

10. Avoiding probate. Without a plan, your estate may be subject to delays and excess fees (depending on the state), and your assets will be a matter of public record. With a plan, you can structure things so that probate can be avoided entirely.

For more information on getting started with your estate plan, contact Estate Planning Attorney Jill E. Sugarman at 401-421-5115 or by e-mail at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax planning

McLaughlin & Quinn Attorneys to Present 14th Annual Tax Update Seminar

Sunday, October 24th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

Join the attorneys from McLaughlin & Quinn as they present at SCORE’s 14th Annual Tax Update Seminar on Friday, December 4, 2010 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Warwick, Rhode Island.  This seminar will qualify for up to 8 hours of CPE.

SCORE is the Service Corps of Retired Executives.  Small business owners can tap into the vast resources of the retired executives at SCORE for assistance in all aspects on running a small business.  The funds raised at the 14th Annual Tax Update Seminar will support the good work done by the men and women of SCORE.

Register on-line at www.McLaughlinQuinn.com soon.  Space is limited.  Register before November 3 to receive the earlybird discount.

We hope to see you there at this great event.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Current Events, McLaughlin & Quinn News, Seminars, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Recent Tax Developments, Part 9

Friday, October 15th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

The following is the ninth in a series of blog posts providing a summary of the most important tax developments that have occurred in the past three months that may affect you, your family, your investments, and your livelihood. Please call us for more information about any of these developments and what steps you should implement to take advantage of favorable developments and to minimize the impact of those that are unfavorable.

Over-the-counter drug costs will no longer be reimbursable.

Effective January 1, 2011, unless prescribed or insulin, the cost of over-the-counter medicines cannot be reimbursed from flexible spending arrangements (FSA), health reimbursement arrangements (HRA), Health Savings Accounts (HSA) and Archer Medical Savings Accounts (Archer MSA). The IRS has issued guidance explaining that an individual may be reimbursed for over-the counter medicines or drugs, so long as the individual obtains a prescription for the medicines or drugs. It also makes clear that expenses incurred for over-the-counter medicines or drugs purchased without a prescription before January 1, 2011 may be reimbursed tax-free at any time by an employer-provided plan, including an FSA or HRA, under the terms of the employer’s plan.

For more information, please contact Partner Moore McLaughlin at 401-421-5115 ext 212 or by e-mail at mmclaughlin@mclaughlinquinn.com.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

RI Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Introduces Estate Tax Reform Bill

Thursday, July 15th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

S. 3533, 111th Cong., 2d Sess. (June 23, 2010), the “Responsible Estate Tax Act of 2010,” introduced by Senators Bernard Sanders (I-Vermont), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), would:

  • Retroactively reimpose the estate tax and GST tax;
  • Adopt an applicable exclusion amount and GST exemption of $3.5 million per person;
  • Adopt a progressive rate structure, under which a 45% rate would apply on the taxable estate up to $10 million, 50% on the taxable estate above $10 million and below $50 million, and 55% on taxable estates above $50 million, and a 10% surtax on estates above $500 million;
  • Enact two loophole closures included in President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget, requiring consistent valuation for transfer and income tax purposes, and requiring a 10-year minimum term for GRATs;
  • Eliminate the use of valuation discounts for entities that do not operate an active trade or business;
  • Allow reduction in the gross estate under Code Sec. 2032A , special use valuation for family farms and certain closely held business real estate, by up to $3 million; and
  • Expand the rules for conservation easements through increasing the maximum exclusion amount to $2 million and increasing the base percentage to 60%.
No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized

Online Legal Documents Company Sued Over Flawed Estate Plan

Sunday, June 27th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

LegalZoom, one of the most prominent sellers of do-it-yourself wills and other estate planning documents, is the target of a class action lawsuit in California charging that the company engages in deceptive business practices and is practicing law without a license.

The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 27, 2010, by Katherine Webster, who is the niece of the late Anthony J. Ferrantino and the executor of Mr. Ferrantino’s estate.

Knowing that he had only a few months to live, Mr. Ferrantino asked Ms. Webster in July 2007 to help him use LegalZoom to execute a will and living trust. Based on LegalZoom’s advertising, Ms. Webster says she believed that the documents they created would be legally binding and that if they encountered any problems, the company’s customer service department would resolve them.

But after the living trust documents were created and signed, Ms. Webster could not transfer any of her uncle’s assets into the trust because the financial institutions that held his money refused to accept the LegalZoom documents as valid. Ms. Webster tried to get help from LegalZoom, with no success. The trust was still not funded when Mr. Ferrantino died in November 2007.

Ms. Webster was forced to hire an estate planning attorney, who petitioned the court to allow the post-death funding of the trust. The attorney then had to convince the banks to transfer the funds — a more difficult task following Mr. Ferrantino’s death. The attorney also discovered that the will LegalZoom created for Mr. Ferrantino had not been properly witnessed. All this cost Mr. Ferrantino’s estate thousands of dollars.

legalzoomThe lawsuit claims that Ms. Webster and others like her relied on misleading statements by LegalZoom, including that LegalZoom carefully reviews customer documents, that it guarantees its customers 100 percent satisfaction with its services, that its documents are the same quality as those prepared by an attorney, and that the documents are effective and dependable.

“Nowhere in the [company's] manual do defendants explain that using LegalZoom is not the same as using an attorney and that its documents are only ‘customized’ to the extent that the LegalZoom computer program inputs your name and identifying information, but not tailored to your specific circumstances,” the lawsuit states, adding that “the customer service representatives are not lawyers and cannot by law provide legal advice.”

Ms. Webster is suing not only on her behalf but on behalf of anyone in California who paid LegalZoom for a living trust, will, living will, advance health care directive or power of attorney. The lawsuit estimates this class embraces more than 3,000 individuals.

“LegalZoom’s business is based on nurturing the false sense of security that people do not need to hire a traditional attorney,” says San Francisco attorney Robert Arns, one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit. “The complaint points out that LegalZoom advertises that you don’t need a real attorney because its work is legally binding and reliable. That’s misleading. Improperly prepared estate planning documents are a ticking time bomb that can result in improper tax consequences and other items that could cost the estate and heirs huge sums.”

“LegalZoom preys on people when they’re at their most vulnerable, when they are of advanced age or poor health and need a will or a living trust,” adds San Francisco elder abuse attorney Kathryn Stebner, Ms. Webster’s lead counsel.

One of the defendants named in the suit is LegalZoom co-founder Robert Shapiro, who appears on the LegalZoom Web page and TV ads and who is best-known for being one of O.J. Simpsons attorneys.

This is not the first suit against LegalZoom. In December 2009, a Missouri man who paid LegalZoom to prepare his will sued the company for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law (Janson v. LegalZoom). The lawsuit is also seeking class action status. LegalZoom is trying to have the case removed from Missouri state court to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Estate Planning attorney, Jill E. Sugarman, has encountered documents adopted from an on-line document preparation service.  “In many instances, the documents themselves are not flawed, but the client has either used the wrong form and has left out important provisions,” says Jill.

If you are truly concerned about your estate planning needs and want to ensure that the documents you use are legally binding and appropriate for your particular needs, contact Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com or by phone at 401-421-5115.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning

What Is the Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax?

Monday, June 14th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

The estate tax gets all the press, but if you are leaving property to a grandchild, there is an additional tax you should know about. According to Jill E. Sugarman, Esq., elderlaw and estate planning attorney at McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC, the generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax is a tax on property that is passed from a grandparent to a grandchild (or great-grandchild) in a will or trust. The tax is also assessed on property passed to unrelated individuals more than 37.5 years younger. Like the estate tax, it is currently repealed, but is scheduled to return in 2011.

Generation Skipping TaxThe GST tax was designed to close a loophole in the estate tax. Normally, grandparents would leave their estates to their children, incurring estate taxes. Then the children would pass on the estates to the grandchildren, incurring estate taxes again. Wealthy individuals realized they could leave their estates to their grandchildren directly and avoid one set of estate taxes. Congress established the GST tax to prevent this by taxing transfers to related individuals more than one generation away and to unrelated individuals more than 37.5 years younger.

A GST tax is imposed even when property is left in trust for a grandchild. For example, suppose a grandparent sets up a trust that leaves income to her children for life and then the remainder to her grandchildren. The part of the trust left to the grandchildren will be subject to a GST tax.

The GST tax has tracked the estate tax rate and exemption amounts. In 2009, the federal government exempted $3.5 million from the tax and the tax rate was 45 percent. The GST tax expired in 2010 along with the estate tax, but it is scheduled to return in 2011. Unless Congress acts in the meantime, the 2011 GST tax exemption amount will be $1 million and the tax rate will be 55 percent.

For more information on estate taxes, contact Founding Partner F. Moore McLaughlin, IV, CPA, Esq. at 401-421-5115 ext 212 or by e-mail at MMcLaughlin@McLaughlinQuinn.com or Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. at 401-421-5115 ext 217 or by e-mail at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax planning

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »