Repeal of the Federal Estate Tax - Here's the Bad News

no picture

Under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the federal estate tax was repealed for 2010.  This repeal, however, is only effective through December 31, 2010.  The federal estate tax returns in 2011, at the rates and exemptions in effect in 2001 when EGTRRA was effective.
   

Although bills were introduced in Congress in 2009 to repeal the repeal, possibly to retain the $3.5 million estate tax exemption and 45% maximum tax rate in effect in 2009, nothing was accomplished.  So we have reached 2010 with less taxes on the books – why is this a bad thing?
   

First of all, the federal estate tax has not been permanently repealed, but only disappears for one year.  At midnight on January 1, 2011, it returns with a vengeance – with an exemption of only $1 million and a maximum tax rate of 55%.  In addition, most commentators and practitioners are unsure that the estate tax has truly disappeared for 2010.  The Democratic leadership of both the House and the Senate has indicated that they may attempt to pass legislation with an effective date retroactive to January 1, 2010.  This retroactive imposition of a tax will undoubtedly face legal challenges, specifically that such a law is unconstitutional.  The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has upheld such retroactive legislation in the past, most recently during the Clinton administration.
Review Your Estate Plan
   

Those clients who will be primarily affected by the 2010 estate tax repeal are those clients whose Wills or Trusts use a formula clause to divide property into shares, usually between the surviving spouse and children.  One typical formula that has been used by attorneys for their clients for many years allocates as much property as possible to children or other descendants without triggering a federal estate tax, with the balance passing to the spouse.  In 2009, this type of formula would have directed $3.5 million to the children, since that was the federal estate tax exemption in 2009.  In 2010, this same formula will direct the entire estate to the children, since there will be no estate tax due, and nothing will pass to the surviving spouse. 
   

Another type of formula clause that has often been used directs the exclusion amount to the children, and the balance to the spouse.  This formula, however, will result in nothing passing to the children since there is no exclusion amount in 2010, and everything will pass to the surviving spouse.  Although there will be no estate tax due at the first spouse’s death in 2010, this may actually be a worse scenario than the first:  if the surviving spouse dies in 2011, owning all of the property previously held by both spouses, and with only a $1 million exemption available, there may be substantial estate tax paid at the second spouse’s death.
New Basis Rules
   

Now here’s the real bad news -- the repeal of estate tax in 2010 brings with it a change to the rules on carryover basis.  Congressional officials estimated that an extension of the 2009 estate tax ($3.5 million exemption, 45% maximum rate) would have resulted in taxes on approximately 6,000 estates, but the carryover basis changes will result in taxes on over 70,000 estates.
   

Prior to 2010, the carryover basis rules provided for a “stepped-up” basis as of a decedent’s date of death.  The beneficiaries inherited property from an estate at the property’s fair market value on the date of death, not the decedent’s basis (usually the purchase price).   If an asset was sold by the estate or the beneficiary fairly close to the date of death, this often resulted in little or no capital gain, and little or no corresponding capital gains tax, since the stepped-up basis would have been close to the sales price.
   

The basis rules for inherited property have drastically changed for 2010.  The basis of property received from a decedent will now be calculated at either the decedent’s basis or the fair market value as of the date of death, whichever is lower.  For example, if the beneficiary inherits the decedent’s residence, which the decedent purchased in 1970 for $50,000, and which is now worth $400,000, the beneficiary receives the property with a basis of $50,000.  When the beneficiary sells the residence at its fair market value, the beneficiary will pay capital gains tax on the difference between the basis of $50,000 and the sales price of $400,000.
   

The new rules include a “Special Basis Adjustment” of $1.3 million.  This provides that this amount may be added to the basis of various estate assets (as allocated by the executor or administrator) to increase the basis of such assets from the decedent’s basis to the fair market value at the date of death.  In addition, the surviving spouse will have an additional $3 million that may be added to the decedent’s basis for various assets passing to the spouse, to increase the basis to the fair market value at the date of death.
 

What To Do Now?
The changes to the estate tax, and the changes that may occur within the next year, make it an uncertain future, with no clear overall answer for everyone.  These changes must be considered in light of each client’s individual circumstances, and in fact, may have to be reviewed again if Congress changes the law.  Should you wish to review your Will and estate planning documents, or have any questions as to how your estate plan may be affected, please do not hesitate to contact us.

IRS Circular 230 disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter(s) addressed herein.

Contesting a Will - State Court or Federal Court

no picture

Lawsuits over the validity of a Last Will and Testament have become a common form of litigation around the country, as well as in the State of New Jersey.  Preparing an estate plan is something that is necessary and something that everyone should take care of while they are in an appropriate physical and mental state.   However, there are no rules as to when estate planning must be done.   Some individuals plan their estates well in advance.  Others wait until the last minute.  Some make sure that they frequently update their estate plans.  Others ignore what has to be done.  The result of late planning is often litigation.


In addition to the act of getting estate planning done, many other factors play into the fact that so many probate estates end up in litigation.  As families grow away from each other, natural suspicions arise.  Did someone influence the preparation of the Will?  Was the maker of the Will competent?  How were the assets divided?  How long was the marriage?  The questions are virtually endless.


In a recent case decided in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the Federal District had to decide whether there was appropriate subject matter jurisdiction for the Federal District Court to hear probate matters.  In the matter of Berman v. Berman, 2009 WL 1617758 (D. N.J.) the case involved allegations of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity to execute a Will, among other claims.   The plaintiff filed the case in the New Jersey State Court, Probate Division and the defendant removed the case to the Federal District Court.  The central issue for consideration was whether the Federal District Court could hear the dispute between the parties, which included probate issues.


The Federal District Judge noted that the United States Supreme Court had recognized a "probate exception" to otherwise proper federal jurisdiction.  Accordingly, when a case may otherwise qualify to be heard in Federal Court, the Federal Court would not have jurisdiction where the matter involved (1) the probate or annulment of a will; (2) administration of a decedent's estate; or (3) the assumption of jurisdiction of over property that was in the custody of the probate court.


Since the case in Berman involved questions of the validity of a Will, the Court determined that the "probate exception" applied and that the case had to be heard in the State Court.   The case was therefore remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division.

Contesting a Will In New Jersey

no picture

It is an eventuality that virtually all of us will face sometime during our lives, the loss of a loved one.  Whether this loved one is one of your parents, a sibling, a relative, or a friend, litigation may arise concerning the Probate of their Will in order to administer their Estate.  Estate litigation is often emotional, costly and is similar in the emotions it evokes to that of a divorce proceeding.  Often times, the Executor of the Estate may use the Estate’s assets to defend the Will.  On the other hand, a contestant of the Will must often pay their own counsel fees with only a possibility of being reimbursed by the Estate.  As such, a person challenging a Will should first evaluate the value of the Estate and their potential gain as compared to the expenses they may incur in seeking that relief .  In addition, a party should consider the emotional trauma which is very prevalent in Estate litigation.  An Executor of the Estate or beneficiary whose bequest is being challenged has no other alternative than to defend against the challenge being brought against their interest or a challenge against the Will itself. 
 

In the State of New Jersey, there are essentially two ways in which an individual may challenge a Will.  The first way is to allege that the decedent lacked the requisite capacity the date the Will was executed.  This is a fairly low standard to meet, as the decedent need only be aware that he/she possesses assets, and in addition, that he/she wishes to transfer these assets to certain other individuals.  In levying a challenge in this regard, the Court may review medical records and other information concerning the decedent’s physical and mental health in order to determine if this individual possessed the requisite mental capacity on the day the Will was executed.  The medical records are relevant as they may demonstrate physical or mental conditions which could suggest that the decedent may have lacked the capacity to execute a Will on the date the Will was executed.  This often involves the need for expert witnesses to review medical records, and thereafter, to render their opinion as to the capacity of the decedent on the date the Will was executed. 
 

The other way in which an individual may challenge a Will concerns an allegation of undue influence.  Simply put, undue influence means that the Will does not reflect the true intentions of the decedent, but instead, reflects the wishes of an individual who asserted their influence over the Testator, thereby rendering the Will inconsistent with the Testator’s true wishes.  In order to prove a claim of undue influence, the contestant must first establish that there existed a confidential relationship between the decedent and the party which is alleged to have unduly influenced the Testator.  A confidential relationship exists when the Testator and another individual shared a relationship where trust or confidence is naturally reposed by the decedent with this individual.  Another instance under which a confidential relationship arises is in an attorney/client relationship where there is a fiduciary relationship between the parties. 
 

Once the contestant of the Will has established the existence of  a confidential relationship, he/she must establish suspicious circumstances with regard to the creation and execution of the Will.  Once this has been achieved, the Court can shift the burden of proof upon the proponent of the Will to demonstrate the validity of this document. 
 

After a lawsuit has been commenced, the Court will often recommend that the parties consider mediation in an attempt to resolve the matter without the need for additional litigation.  Often, the parties are able to resolve the litigation through Mediation without the parties incurring additional expenses.  If a case cannot be resolved through mediation, the case will move forward through discovery, and thereafter, to Trial.  Once an Estate litigation matter is scheduled for Trial, the parties should be aware that the Trial will not be heard before a jury, but rather is decided by a Chancery Judge that hears probate matters.  Once the Judge renders his/her decision, either side may make an application for fees to the Estate. 
 

If the party prevails in contesting the Will, the Will could revert to a previous Will, if said document still exists, or the individual could be deemed as having died without a Will.  Thereafter, the Court may appoint an independent Executor if the named Executor is disqualified.  If the Will is not invalidated by the Court, then it will be probated in the manner which had been sought to be probated by the Executor originally.  Thereafter, the Estate litigation will conclude.

Beneficiaries of Retirement Assets

no picture

Rosemary D. Durkin, Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Trusts & Estates group, authored the article Beneficiaries of Retirement Assets: One of the most basic and important aspects to review, for the February 16, 2009 edition of the New Jersey Law Journal. Ms. Durkin discusses the steps that should be taken when reviewing retirement assets, and warns that the failure to review and update the beneficiary designations for a client’s retirement assets may result in the client’s estate becoming the recipient of the retirement assets.

 

You can read the full article online here.

Claim of Undue Influence Resolved by Court Before Death of Testator

no picture
A will is obviously prepared when a individual is still alive.  A will contest usually comes about after the individual dies.  However, a California Appellate Court has recently decided that when a conservator secures Court approval of an estate plan while the individual is still alive, any challenge to the will must be made at that time and not after the individual dies.


In the case of Murphy v. Murphy, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Docket No. A115177, a dispute arose between siblings after their father had a stroke and could no longer operate his business.  The son was concerned that his sister was exercising undue influence over the father, and, with Court approval, hired a conservator to wind down the business and deal with the father's assets.  At that time the son learned that his father's will left all assets to his sister and none to him.

The conservator sought Court approval, through a substituted judgment, to re-execute the living trust containing the same division of property and the Probate Court authorized the conservator to do so.  This resulted in the implementation of a living trust and pour over will that effectively disinherited the son.  The son was on notice of the plan but did not challenge the trust terms at that time.

 

Following the father's death, the son filed suit against his sister alleging breach of an oral contract, undue influence, intentional interference with contractual relation and fraud.  The Trial Court issued a judgment in favor of the son and imposed a constructive trust over one half of the father's property.

 

On appeal, the California Appellate Court reversed the decision of the Trial Court finding that the son's claims were barred by the principles of collateral estoppel.  In the appeal, the parties agreed that the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel to a substituted judgment order presented an issue of first impression. While the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not bar a second action from being filed, it did preclude a party to an action from re-litigating in a second proceeding matters that had been litigated and determined in a prior proceeding.

 

The threshold requirements to prevent an issue from being re-litigated are: 1) the issue is identical to that decided in the former proceeding; 2) the issue was actually litigated in the former proceeding; 3) the issue was decided in the former proceeding; 4) the decision in the former proceeding was final and on the merits; and 5) preclusion is sought against a person who was a party or was in privity to the former proceeding.

 

This  decision appears to be the first decision in the country to provide that attacks on wills would be barred after the estate owner dies, if there has been a court-approved substituted judgment will the testator was still alive.  The opinion essentially bulletproofs the will of a person found incompetent and placed under the protection of a conservator, if the Court approves a revised estate plan with appropriate notice being given to all parties in interest who may have any basis to object.

Estate Tax Changes in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001

no picture
If Benjamin Franklin were still alive, his oft-quoted statement would likely have been: “In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes, and politics.”  The estate tax changes in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 stand as a testament to the absurd results made possible when politicians are permitted to write tax law.  Tax law that are dictated by political agenda hurt everyone.


Although the 2001 changes altered the structure of the estate tax, they were temporary, leaving pundits certain that the law would be changed or made permanent before long.  They were wrong.  The law has remained unchanged for the past 7 years, preventing families from engaging in meaningful planning based on a reliable and predictable tax law.  The federal budget deficit makes it now unlikely that the changes will become permanent.


The absurdity for New Jersey residents is reflected in the chart below, which shows the effect of the 2001 estate tax changes on three estates:


  Estate #1 Estate #2 Estate #3
Value $1,000,000 $10,000,000 $100,000,000
2008 $33,200 More Tax $607,820 Savings $2,047,460 Savings
2009 $33,200 More Tax $1,282,820 Savings $2,722,460 Savings
2010 $33,200 More Tax $3,727,400 Savings $39,187,400 Savings
After 2010 $33,200 More Tax No Difference No Difference



The federal estate tax debate is unlikely to end.  It serves as a useful political tool, allowing opponents of the tax to demonstrate concern for its impact on family businesses and farms, while allowing supporters of the tax to point to repeal as yet another clash between the haves and the have-nots.  The only question remaining is whether the uncertainty will ever end.

Estate & Wealth Planning for Women

no picture
Rosemary D. Durkin, Shareholder and member of Stark & Stark's Trusts & Estates Group, will be a guest speaker at the October 23, 2007 and November 7, 2007 seminar, Estate & Wealth Planning for Women, presented by Merrill Lynch.

These seminars will focus on important issues women need to face when planning for retirement, addressing the financial well-being of their future generations, and providing sufficient income for a lifetime. Women live an average of 5-7 years longer than men, the average life expectancy for women is 80-years old, 80% of women will be responsible for their own finances and estate planning, and most women are unaware that without proper planning, up to 55% of their estate could go to the government.

Join hosts Susana Lugones and Katherin Romero, Financial Advisors from Merrill Lynch, and Rose Durkin in this free educational seminar.

While the seminar is free, dinner will be provided and a reservation is required. To register, please contact Susana Lugones at 866-243-4311 or by email.

Proof of confidential Relationship Creates Heavy Burden on a Party Receiving a Gift

no picture
In a case recently decided by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey (In the Matter of the Estate of Samia Balgar, Docket No.  A-6621-04T5) the Appellate Court dealt with an issue concerning the disposition of certain joint bank accounts on the death of one of the parties to the account.
In this case, the decedent had executed a will leaving her estate equally to her five daughters, with one of the daughters, the defendant in this case, being the executor.  At the same time as the will was executed, the defendant was designated as the decedent's power of attorney.  At issue were several bank accounts that were jointly held by the decedent and the defendant.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had coerced her mother into transferring most of her assets into these joint bank accounts.
The Trial Court determined that there was a confidential relationship between the defendant and the decedent and that the defendant did not submit sufficient proofs to rebut the presumption of undue influence that arises once a confidential relationship is found.
The Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court that the defendant had not made her burden of proof, even in light of the fact that the plaintiffs failed to set aside the statutory presumption that a survivor takes the funds in an account on the death of the other party, as is required by the applicable statute, N.J.S.A. 17:16-5(a). 
The Appellate Court noted that based upon the confidential relationship, the defendant had to prove that there was no undue influence and that the defendant's  proofs had to be based upon the standard of "clear and convincing evidence".  The Court noted that to prove a case by clear and convincing evidence, the evidence offered must produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegation sought to be established"...and "must be so clear, direct, and weighty and convincing as to enable the judge or jury to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." 
In matters where it is alleged that a confidential relationship existed between a decedent and a party receiving a transfer or gift, the party contesting the transfer or gift must only must only prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a confidential relationship existed.  Once that is done, the party that received the transfer or gift is charged with meeting an extremely high standard of proof.  In this case, as in many others, the defendant was unable to meet this burden.

Estate Planning for Baby Boomers

no picture

Steven Friedman, Chair of the Trusts and Estates group, authored Baby Boom Legacy: With Estate Taxes Likely to Fluctuate, Planners are Wise to Focus on Nontax Objectives for the February 5 edition of the New Jersey Law Journal.

You can read the article here.

 

Annuities Included in Bankruptcy Estate

no picture

Timothy Duggan, Chair of the Bankruptcy & Creditor's Rights Group, authored You Can't Always "Trust" an Annuity for the January 15, 2007 edition of the New Jersey Law Journal.  The article discussed a recent case where annunities that did not qualify as trusts were included in a bankruptcy estate.

You can read the article here.