Trump Savings Accounts

 

I was reading someone somewhere complaining about Michael and Susan Dell’s recent donation of $6.25 billion. 

The bitter are always with us, unfortunately. 

But it gives us a chance to talk about the new Trump savings accounts. I see that we even have a new tax form to (possibly) bulk-up our 2025 Form 1040 return.

What are they?

The Trump accounts are a twist on an IRA.

What is the twist?

One does not need earned income to contribute to a Trump account.

Anything else?

Trump accounts cease to be Trump accounts when the beneficiary turns age 18. These things are intentionally designed for infants, children and young adults who (likely) have not started working.

How are infants and children going to know how to open this account?

They do not need to. Their parent (more precisely, the person who can claim them on a tax return) will do so for them.

How will the parent/person do this?

Two ways:

·      There is a new tax form (Form 4547 - get it?)

·      There will be a new tax portal (trumpaccounts.gov) 

 

Will this account be with the government itself?

The Treasury will create the account with a “designated financial agent.” No, I do not know what that means. I do see where one can thereafter move the account - say to Fidelity, Schwab or Vanguard (as examples) - should one wish.

How do you know one can move the account?

Because I was looking at an ad from one of the investment companies.

What about free money?

Children born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028 will be eligible for a $1,000 seed contribution from the Treasury. There are requirements, such as a social security number, of course.

This period (2025 to 2028) BTW is called the “pilot program.”

What if the family makes too much money?

The “too much money” thing does not apply to the $1,000.

What is the July 4, 2026 date I have read about?

None of the government’ $1,000 seeding will occur before July 4, 2026.

What if you were born before 2025?

You still qualify to establish a Trump account, as long as you are under the age of 18 at the end of the year. You won’t get that $1,000, though.

Big deal. Why all this hullabaloo for $1,000?

One can put more than a $1,000 into the account.

The annual limit is $5 grand, and the $1 grand seed money does not count toward the $5 grand.

An employer can also put in $2.5 grand annually, but that $2.5 counts toward the overall $5 grand.

Who can contribute?

Parents of course, but also grandparents, other family members, and friends.

And Michael and Susan Dell.

Who qualifies for the Michael and Susan Dell Donation?

The $250 Dell donation reaches children age 10 and under but not eligible for the $1,000 Treasury seed contribution.

There is also an income test, although the test is by zip code and not household. The test is $150,000 or less of median income. Note that a child may qualify even if living in a wealthy household, if the median (not average) income for the zip code is $150,000 or less. The reverse is also true, of course.

What if I cannot put in $5 grand every year?

Put in what you can. Skip a year. Do not make the perfect the enemy of the possible.

Is there a tax deduction for this?

In general: no. Think of it as a Roth contribution.

I am uncertain about the employer ($2.5 grand) contribution, though. Generally, such expenses are deductible by an employer. I however expect that it will also be taxable to the employee, meaning that someone somewhere is paying tax.

Is there another way to get money into the account?

Yes. There is the usual stuff, such as rolling an account from one investment company to another.

The one that intrigues me is a contribution from a 501(c)(3) tax exempt. There is no explicit limit on these contributions, other than the overall (c)(3) requirement to benefit broad categories of beneficiaries and not just the select fortunates.

This, BTW, was the Dell contribution we referred to above: a $6.25 billion donation to contribute $250 each to 25 million children age 10 and under.

What if my parent/person fails to open an account?

Supposedly, the Treasury will open one if the child otherwise qualifies.

You think so?

Consider me cynical at the moment.

How is this thing taxed?

It is not: think IRA.

When can the child get to the money?

Figure that the child cannot until he/she turns age 18. If he/she can, something terrible has happened.

What about after age 17?

Then the Trump account gets wonky.

Supposedly this thing becomes a “regular” IRA account.

OK, but it would be a “regular” IRA account with nondeductible contributions in it. In tax lingo, we call this a “nondeductible” IRA, which has greatly lost favor since people have had access to Roth IRAs. Distributions from a Roth are (generally) tax-free. Distributions from a nondeductible are partially tax-free. There is even a tax form (Form 8606) for nondeductibles to track the numbers between taxable and nontaxable.

Inside wonk: you would not believe how difficult it can be to get (some) tax preparation software to run an IRA distribution through Form 8606 to calculate the taxable portion. I have seen more than one staff accountant give up in frustration.

I suppose Congress may further clarify/change the rules for this age-18 flip. I would like to see the flip go to full-Roth and not to this nondeductible-IRA yahtzee, but we will see.

A positive, though: since it flips to a “regular” IRA, you can make annual IRA contributions to it, if you wish. You will need earned income, of course.

Are there penalties for distributions?

You are not supposed to access IRA monies before age 59 ½. If you do, the distributions (adjusting for that wonky nondeductible IRA arithmetic) will be taxable.

In addition to income tax and unless for several permitted purposes (first house, higher education, adoption expenses and so on), there will also be a 10% penalty.

What does CTG think?

You can tell Trump accounts took water during passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill. There is stuff to both like and dislike.

Me? In general, I like.

Let’s say that you can put away $1,000 per year for 18 years. Add the government’s $1,000 seed. Assume market rate of returns, low investment fees and the money remaining untouched (remember: it is not taxed while within the IRA) for 40 to 50 years.

What an incredible gift and legacy to a grandchild.

Checks Not Cashed In Time Includible In Taxable Estate

 

Let’s talk about an issue concerning gifts.

We are not talking about contributions – such as to a charity - mind you. We are talking gifts to individuals, as in gift taxation.

The IRS spots you a $16,000 annual gift tax exemption. This means that you can gift anyone you want – family, friend, stranger – up to $16,000 and there is no gift tax involved. Heck, you don’t even have to file a return for such a straightforward transaction, although you can if you want. Say that you give $16,000 to your kid. No return, no tax, nothing. Your spouse can do the same, meaning $32,000 per kid with no return or tax.

That amount covers gifting for the vast majority of us.

What if you gift more than $16,000?

Easy answer: you now have to file a return but it is unlikely there will be any tax due.

Why?

Because the IRS gives you a “spot.”

A key concept in estate and gift taxation is that the gift tax and the estate tax are combined for purposes of the arithmetic.

One adds the following:

·      The gifts you have reported over your lifetime

·      The assets you die with

One subtracts the following:

·      Debts you die with

·      Certain spousal transfers and charitable bequests we will not address here.

If this number is less than $12.06 million, there is no tax – gift or estate.

Folks, it is quite unlikely that the average person will get to $12.06 million. If you do, congrats. Chances are you have been working with a tax advisor for a while, at least for your income taxes. It is also more likely than not that you and your advisor have had conversations involving estate and gift taxes.

Let’s take a look at the Estate of William E. DeMuth, Jr.

In January, 2007 William DeMuth (dad) gave a power of attorney to his son (Donald DeMuth). Donald was given power to make gifts (not exceeding the annual exclusion) on his dad’s behalf. Donald did so from 2007 through 2014.

In summer, 2015, dad’s health began to fail.

Donald starting writing checks for gift in anticipation that his dad would pass away.

Dad did pass away on September 11.

Donald had written eleven checks for $464,000.

QUESTION: Why did Donald do this?

ANSWER: In an attempt to reduce dad’s taxable estate by $464,000.

Problem: Only one of the eleven checks was cashed before dad passed away.

Why is this a problem?

This is an issue where the income tax answer is different from the gift tax answer.

If I write a check to a charity and put it in the mail late December, then income tax allows me to claim a contribution deduction in the year I mailed the check. One could argue that the charity could not receive the check in time to deposit it the same tax year, but that does not matter. I parted with dominion and control when I dropped the check in the mail.

Gift tax wants more from dominion and control. One is likely dealing with family and close friends, so the heightened skepticism makes sense.

When did dad part with dominion and control over the eleven checks?

Gift tax wants to see those checks cashed. Until then, dad had not parted with dominion and control.

Only one of the checks had cleared before dad passed away. That check was allowed as a gift. The other ten checks totaled $436,000 and potentially includible in dad’s estate.

But there was a technicality concern an IRS concession, and the $436,000 was reduced to $366,000.

Still, multiply $366,000 by a 40% tax rate and the issue got expensive.

Our case this time was the Estate of William E DeMuth, Jr., T.C. Memo 2022-72.

Marty McFly and Future Interests In A Trust

Let’s talk about gift taxes.

Someone: What is an annual gift tax exclusion?

Me: The tax law allows you to gift any person on the planet up to $14,000 a year for any reason without having to report the gift to the IRS. If you are married, your spouse can do the same – meaning you can team-up and gift up to $28,000 to anybody.

Someone: What if you go over $14,000 per person?

Me: It is not as bad as it used to be. The reason starts with the estate tax, meaning that you die with “too many” assets. This used to be more of an issue a few years back, but the exclusion is now north of $5.4 million. There are very few who die with more than $5.4 million, so the estate tax is not likely to impact ordinary people.

Someone: What does the gift tax have to do with this $5 million?

Me: Congress and the IRS saw gifting as the flip side of the coin to the estate tax, so the two are combined when calculating the $5.4 million. Standard tax planning is to gift assets while alive. You may as well (if you can) because you are otherwise going to be taxed at death. Gifting while alive at least saves you tax on any further appreciation of the asset.

Someone: Meaning what?

Me: You will not owe tax until your gifts while alive plus your assets at death exceed $5.4 million.

Someone losing interest: What are we talking about again?

Me: Riddle me this, Batman: you transfer a gaztrillion dollars to your irrevocable trust. It has 100 beneficiaries. Do you get to automatically exclude $1,400,000 ($14,000 times 100 beneficiaries) as your annual gift tax exclusion?

Someone yawning: Why are we talking about this?

Me: Well, because it landed on my desk.

Someone: Do you make friends easily?

Me: Look at what I do for a living. I should post warnings so that others do not follow.

Someone looking around: How about hobbies? Do you need to go home to watch a game or anything?

Me: There is a tax concept that becomes important when gifting to a trust. A transfer has to be a “present interest” to qualify for that $14,000 annual exclusion.

Someone resigned: And a “present interest” is?

Me: Think cash. You can take it, frame it, spend it, make it rain. You can fold it into a big wad, wrap a hundred-dollar bill around it and pull the wad out every occasion you can.

Someone: What is wrong with you?

Me: Maybe it’s just me that would do that.

Me: I tell you what a “present interest” is not: cash in a trust that can only be paid to you when some big, bad, mean trustee decides to pay. You cannot party this weekend with that. You may get cash, but only someday … and in the future.

Someone: Hence the “future?”

Me: Exactly, Marty McFly.

Someone surprised: Hey, there’s no need ….

Me: Have you ever heard of a Crummey power?

Someone scowling: Good name for it. Fits the conversation.

Me: That is the key to getting a gift to a trust to qualify as a present interest.

Someone humoring: What makes it crummy?

Me: Crummey. That’s the name of the guy who took the case to court. Like a disease, the technique got named after him.

Someone looking at watch: I would consider a disease right about now.

Me: The idea is that you give the trust beneficiary the right to withdraw the gift, or at least as much of the gift as qualifies for the annual exclusion. You also put a time limit on it – usually 30 days. That means – at least hypothetically – that the beneficiary can get his/her hands on the $14 grand, making it a present interest.

Someone: I stopped being interested ….

Me: Have you heard of a “in terrorem” provision?

Someone: Sounds terrifying.

Me: Yea, it’s a great name, isn’t it? The idea is that – if you behave like a jerk – the trustee can just cut you out. Hence the “terror.”

Someone: I cannot see a movie coming out of this.

Me: Let’s wait and see what Ben Affleck can do with it.

Me: I was looking at a case called Mikel, where the IRS said that the “in terrorem” provision was so strong that it overpowered the Crummey power. That meant that there was no present interest.

Someone: Can you speed this up?

Me: The transfer to the trust was over $3.2 million ….

Someone: I wish I could meet these people.

Me: The trust also had around 60 beneficiaries.

Someone: 60 kids? Who is this guy – Mick Jagger?

Me: Nah, his name is Mikel.

Someone: I was being sarcastic.

Me: Mikel was Jewish, and he put a provision in the trust that beneficiary challenges to a trustee’s decision would go to a panel of 3 persons of Orthodox Jewish faith, called a beth din.

Me: I suppose if the beth din sides with the trustees, the beneficiary could go to state court, but then the in terorrem provision would kick-in. The beneficiary would lose all rights to the trust.

Someone: So some rich person gets cut-off at the knees. Who cares?

Me: The IRS said that the in terrorem provision was strong enough to make the gift a future interest rather than a present interest. That meant there was no $14,000 annual exclusion per beneficiary. Remember that there were around 60 beneficiaries, so the IRS was after taxes on about $800 grand. Not a bad payday for the tax man.

Someone: Sounds like they can afford it.

Me: No, no. The Court disagreed with the IRS. The taxpayer won.

Someone backing away: What was the court’s hesitation?

Me: The Court felt the IRS was making too many assumptions. If the beneficiaries disagreed with the trustees, they could go to the beth din. The beth din did not trigger the in terrorem. The beneficiaries would have to go to court to trigger the in terrorem. The Court said there was no reason to believe the beth din would not decide appropriately, so it was unwilling to assume that the beneficiaries were automatically bound for state court, thereby triggering the in terrorem provision.

Someone leaving: Later Doc.

CTG University: Part One

Let's discuss a famous tax case, and then I will ask you how you would decide a second case based on the decision in the first.

We are going back to 1944, and Lewis received a $22 thousand bonus.  He reported it on his 1944 tax return. It turns out that the bonus had been calculated incorrectly, and he returned $11,000 in 1946. Lewis argued that the $11,000 was mistake, and as a mistake it should not have been taxed to him in 1944. He should be able to amend his 1944 return and get his taxes back. This had an extra meaning since his tax rate in 1946 was lower (remember: post-war), so if he could not amend 1944 he would never get all his taxes back.

The IRS took a very different stand. It pointed out that the tax Code measures income annually. While arbitrary, it is a necessary convention otherwise one could not calculate income or the tax thereon, as there would (almost) always be one or more transactions not resolving by the end of the year. Think for example of writing a check to the church on December 31 but the check not clearing until the following year. The Code therefore taxes income on a "period" concept and not a "transactional" concept. With that backdrop, Lewis would have a deduction in 1946, when he returned the excess bonus.

The case went to the Supreme Court, which found that the full bonus was taxable in 1944. The Court reasoned that Lewis had a "claim of right," a phrase which has now entered the tax literature. It means that income is taxable when received, if there are no restrictions on its disposition. This is true even if later one has to return the income. The reasoning is that there are no limits on one's ability to spend the money, and there is also no immediate belief that it has to be repaid. Lewis had a deduction in 1946.

Looks like the claim of right is a subset of "every tax year stands on its own."

Let's roll into the 1950s. There was a company by the name of Skelly Oil. During the years 1952 through 1957 it overcharged customers approximately $500 thousand. In 1958 it refunded the $500 thousand.

You can pretty much see the Lewis and claim-of-right issue.

But there was one more fact.

Skelly Oil had deducted depletion of 27.5%. Depletion is a concept similar to depreciation, but it does not have to be tied to cost. Say you bought a machine for $100,000. You would depreciate the machine by immediately expensing, allocating expense over time or whatever, but you would have to stop at $100,000. You cannot depreciate more than what you spent. Depletion is a similar concept, but without that limitation. One would deplete (not depreciate) an oil field, for example. One would continue depleting even if one had fully recovered the cost of the field. It is a nice tax gimmick.

Skelly Oil had claimed 27.5% depletion against its $500,000 thousand or so, meaning that it had paid tax on a net of $366,000.

Skelly Oil deducted the $505,000 thousand.

Skelly Oil had a leg up after the Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks and Lewis decisions, as every tax year was to stand on its own. It refunded $505,000, meaning it had a deduction of $505,000. Seemed a slam dunk.

The IRS said no way. The $505,000 had a trailer attached - that 27.5% depletion - and wherever it went that 27.5% went. The most Skelly Oil could deduct was the $366,000.

But the IRS had a problem: the tax Code was based on period reporting and not transactional reporting. The 27.5% trailer analogy was stunning on the big screen and all, but it was not tax law. There was no ball hitch on the $505,000 dragging depletion in its wake.

Here is the Supreme Court: 

[T]he Code should not be interpreted to allow respondent 'the practical equivalent of double deduction,' *** absent a clear declaration of intent by Congress."

The dissent argued (in my words):           

So what? Every year stands on its own. Since when is the Code concerned with the proper measurement of income?

Odd thing, though: the dissent was right. The Lewis decision does indicate that Skelly Oil had a $505,000 deduction, even though it might not have seemed fair. The Court reached instead for another concept - the Arrowsmith concept. 

[T]he annual accounting concept does not require us to close our eyes to what happened in prior years."

There is your ball hitch. The concept of "net items" would drag the 27.5% depletion into 1958. "Net items" would include revenues and deductions so closely related as to be inseparable. Like oil revenues and its related depletion deduction.

The Court gave us the following famous quote: 

In other situations when the taxes on a receipt do not equal the tax benefits of a repayment, either the taxpayer or the Government may, depending on circumstances, be the beneficiary. Here, the taxpayer always wins and the Government always loses."

And over time the Skelly Oil case has come to be interpreted as disallowing a tax treatment where "the taxpayer always wins and the Government always loses." The reverse, however, is and has always been acceptable to the Government.

But you can see something about the evolution of tax law: you don't really know the law until the Court decides the law. Both Lewis and Skelly Oil could have gone either way.

Now think of the tax law, rulings and Regulations being published every year. Do we really know what this law means, or are we just waiting our turn, like Lewis and Skelly Oil?