Does A Charitable Remainder Trust Have To Be Charitable?

Over the years I have been able to work with very wealthy people. That level of wealth allows the tax attorneys and CPAs to bring out their toys. Granted, there may not be as many toys as when I came out of school, but the toys can still be impressive.

A favorite is the charitable remainder trust.

The concept is simple: you transfer money or other assets to a charity. They in turn agree to pay you an amount for a number of years, which may be the rest of your life. When you pass away, the balance of the trust (the remainder) goes to the charity.

Let’s add some horsepower under the hood:

(1)   You fund the trust with appreciated assets: real estate or stocks, for example. Odds are the trustee will sell the assets, either immediately or over time, to free-up the cash with which to pay your annuity.

Here is the tax gimmick: if you sold the stock or real estate, you would have a big tax bill. The trust sells the stock or real estate and you have … nothing. It’s like a Penn and Teller show!

(2)   Since the trust does not pay tax, more money is left to invest. This could allow larger annual payouts to you, a larger donation at the end, or a combination of the two.

(3)   I exaggerated a bit. While the trust does not pay tax, you will pay tax every year as you receive your payment. Still, you are paying over a period of years, likely a better result than paying immediately in the year of sale.

(4)   You get an immediate tax deduction for the part of the trust that will go to charity. Even if that is decades off, you get a tax deduction today.  

There are some crazy mathematics when working with this type of trust. The answer can vary wildly depending upon age, assumed rates of return (for the invested assets), discount rates (for the passage of time), whether you take an dollar annuity or a percentage annuity, the amount of the annuity and so on.

And then advisors have added bells and whistles over the years. For example, it is possible to put a “limit” on the annual annuity. How? One way is to restrict the annuity to the “income” of the trust. If the income exceeds the annuity, then the annuity is paid in full. If the annuity exceeds the income, then the annuity gets reduced.

Add one more bell and whistle: let’s say that the annuity gets a haircut. Can that reduction accumulate and be carried-over to be paid in the future, or is it forever lost? You can design the trust either way.

A charitable remainder trust with this income limit is referred to as a “NIMCRUT.” Yes, the “NI” stands for net income. Working in this area is like learning a foreign language.

Now, let’s talk about the Estate of Arthur Schaefer. We said the mathematics are crazy, as each piece can move the answer and there seems to be an endless supply of pieces. That “NI” we talked about is itself a piece. Can “NI” blow up our trust?

Mr. Schaefer settled two charitable remainders trusts during his lifetime, one for each son. He made them “NIMCRUTS,” with the provision that any income limitation would carryover and be payable in a later year, if able. Schaefer of course took a tax deduction for the charitable part.

OBSERVATION: These two trusts would also be gifts (to the sons) and trigger a gift tax return.

But he included one more thing: he set the annuity payouts fairly high – 10% for one trust and 11% for the other.

That creates a problem. If you expect the trust to pay out 10% (or 11%) a year, you better invest in stocks that are going to go exponential or you will eventually run out of money. There will be nothing left for the charity. Heck, there may not be anything left for the two sons.

No problem, said the trustee. You see, if the trusts do not have enough income (remember: NIMCRUT), then the 10% or 11% will never be paid. Those trusts can never run out of money. 

Problem, said the IRS. Throwing that NIMCRUT in there is fancy shoes and all, but you cannot take the NIMCRUT limit into account when that is the only way that the charity will ever receive a penny. Maybe Schaefer should have toned-down the 10% or 11% thing a bit and not put so much pressure on the NIMCRUT limit to get these trusts to work.

The matter wound up in Tax Court.

NOTE: Schaefer passed away and it was his estate that was litigating with the IRS. This happened because of the way the estate tax and the gift tax overlap, but we will spare ourselves the tortuous details.

It appears that there was a very sharp tax attorney behind these two trusts, looking at quotes by the Court:

            “We find the text of section 664(e) ambiguous.”

            “The regulations are less clear.”

But there is danger when a tax attorney walks out on a narrow ledge:

“… where a statute is ambiguous, the administrative agency can fill gaps with administrative guidance to which we owe the level of deference appropriate under the circumstances.”

Oh, oh. “Administrative” here means the IRS.

            “… we find the Commissioner’s guidance to be persuasive.”

And so the estate lost, meaning that somewhere in here the charitable donations were lost. Someone was writing the IRS a check.

Charitable remainder trusts are great tax vehicles. I have worked with them to a greater or lesser degree for over two decades, but one has to have some common sense. It is a “charitable” remainder trust. Something has to go to charity. Granted, the mathematics may border on Big Bang Theory, but the overall concept still applies. If it takes a high-powered attorney to parse the tax Code to the Tax Court, the deal may not be for you.

Obama’s $3 Million IRA Cap

We have received several calls on the proposed $3 million cap on 401(k)s and IRAs. Some of those discussions have been spirited.

What is it? Equally important, what is it not?

The proposal comes from the White House budget. Here is some text:

The budget will also show how we can provide targeted tax relief to strengthen the economy, help middle class families and small business and pay for it by eliminating tax loopholes and make the tax system more fair. The budget will include a new proposal that prohibits individuals from accumulating over $3 million in IRAs and other tax-preferred retirement accounts. Under current rules, some wealthy individuals are able to accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving. The budget would limit an individual’s total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per person per year in retirement, or about $3 million in 2013."

Let us point out several things:

(1)    The proposal would not force monies out of an existing retirement plan. It would instead prevent new monies going into a plan.

This raises a question: should one draw enough to reduce the balance below $3 million, would one be able to again contribute to the plan?

(2)    The proposal uses the term tax “preferred” rather than tax “deferred.”  This indicates that the proposal would reach Roth IRAs. Roth IRAs are not tax deferred, as there is no tax when the funds come out. They instead are tax “preferred.”

There is some rhyme or reason to this proposal. $205,000 is the current IRC Section 415 limit on funding defined benefit (think pension) plans. The idea here is that the maximum tax deduction the IRS will allow is an amount actuarially necessary to fund today a pension of $205,000 sometime down the road. The closer one is to retirement, the higher the Section 415 amount. The farther one is, the lower the Section 415 amount. This proposal is somewhat aligning limits on contribution plans with existing limits on benefit plans.

(3)    The $3 million is an arbitrary number, and presumably it would change as interest rates and actuarial life expectancies change over time. If longevity continues to increase, for example, the $3 million may be woefully inadequate. Some planners consider it inadequate right now, at least if one is trying to secure that $205,000 annual annuity.

(4)    Would the annuity amount increase with inflation? Assuming an average inflation rate of 4.5 percent, one would lose almost three-quarters of a fixed annuity’s purchasing power over 30 years.

The frustrating thing about the proposal is that it affects very few people. The Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates that only 1% of investors have enough to be subject to this rule. This of course feeds into the perceived anti-success, anti-wealth meme of this White House.

(5)    The amount of money to be raised over a decade is also chump change for  the federal government: less than $10 billion.

Something to remember is that account balances in 401(k), SEP, SIMPLE and regular IRA accounts will be taxable eventually. IRAs are subject to minimum distribution rules, for example. The larger the balances, the more the government will take in taxes. Dying will not make the tax go away. In fact, it may serve to accelerate required distributions to a beneficiary and taxes to the government.

The budget was dead on arrival at Capitol Hill. Let us hope that less ideologically rigid minds on the Hill keep it so.

Facebook and Tax Planning With Trusts

You may know that Facebook is going public. This means an IPO, hotly anticipated and all but guaranteed to make the founders incredibly wealthy. You may have read about Eduardo Saverin, who has renounced his U.S. citizenship and intends to become a resident of Singapore. There is discussion about tax motivations for his expatriation. Could be. Singapore has more lenient tax treatment of capital gains than the U.S. To be fair, Saverin only became a U.S. citizen in 1998, so his ties may not be as strong as that of a natural-born citizen.

I intend to blog about on Saverin and his tax implications, but for today I wanted to talk about founder Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook’s prospectus lists eight “annuity trusts” set up by insiders, including Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz, Sean Parker, Sheryl Sandberg, Reid Hoffman and Michelle Yee. These trusts hold approximately 22 million shares, which could be worth around $700 million at IPO.

You can afford a lot of tax planning with $700 million. The insiders have not spoken about this matter, nor should one expect them to. I have been reading tax commentary speculating that these trusts are grantor retained annuity trusts, also called GRATs. I agree. Let’s talk about it.

A GRAT is used to shift wealth from one taxpayer to another. In my experience, it has been from one generation to another.

The GRAT has to pay-out a stream of payments to its settlor (the grantor). The payment stream is called the annuity. There are two more considerations: how much to pay out and for how long. The shortest GRAT I have seen is two years. At the end of the term, the remaining money in the GRAT goes to the beneficiary.

All right, so the settlor gifts the remaining money in the GRAT. There may be gift tax, depending on the amount of money gifted. There is a version of a GRAT where “nothing” passes at the end, so the gift is zero. Why the quotation mark around “nothing?” Ah, there is where tax planners make their money.

You see, “nothing” does not actually mean nothing. In this area of the tax world, “nothing” can be something, and quite a lot of something. The “nothing” is a mathematical calculation and not an actual dollar amount. The key to the calculation is the interest rate. 

Say that I put $1 million into a GRAT. I want payments over ten years. I have to use an interest rate, because payments are being made over time. The IRS publishes minimum interest rates for this purpose. As long as I use their interest rate (or higher), there is no problem. Say that their interest rate is 5% and I am looking to zero-out the GRAT. In year one I would take out $150,000 ($1,000,000 divided by 10 years plus $1,000,000 times 5%). What if the money was invested in something that pays – or appreciates – at more than 5%? That is the key that starts the GRAT engine. Let’s say that the investment actually pays 10%. The GRAT is paying out 5%, or only ½ of its actual earnings. The trust is accumulating, isn’t it? Let it accumulate for 10 years and I can transfer a tidy sum at the end. However, for IRS purposes I am deemed to have transferred zero, zippo, nada, because the IRS allows me to assume that the investment is paying only 5%. According to IRS math, there is no money left over to accumulate. Ten years of zero is zero. There is no gift. There is no gift tax. The IRS cannot be wrong.

Let’s go back to the Facebook insiders. What interest rate do they have to use? Last time I checked it was around 1.6%. Do you think there is an accumulation possibility here with Facebook stock? Yes, I think so.

I am not making this up. I wish I could have been one of the advisors.

Actually, I wish I could have been one of the insiders.