The Consistent Basis Rule

 

I was talking to two brothers last week who are in a partnership with their two sisters. The partnership in turn owns undeveloped land, which it sold last year. The topic of the call was the partnership’s basis in the land, considering that land ownership had been divided in two and the partnership sold the property after the death of the two original owners. Oh, and there was a trust in there, just to add flavor to the stew.

Let’s talk about an issue concerning the basis of property inherited from an estate.

Normally basis means the same as cost, but not always. Say for example that you purchased a cabin in western North Carolina 25 years ago. You paid $250 grand for it. You have made no significant improvements to the cabin. At this moment your basis is your cost, which is $250 grand.

Let’s add something: you die. The cabin is worth $750 grand.

The basis in the cabin resets to $750 grand. That means – if your beneficiaries sell it right away – there should be no – or minimal – gain or loss from the sale. This is a case where basis does not equal cost, and practitioners refer to it as the “mark to market,” or just “mark” rule, for inherited assets.

There are, by the way, some assets that do not mark. A key one is retirement assets, such as 401(k)s and IRAs.

A possible first mark for the siblings’ land was in the 1980s.

A possible second mark was in the aughts.

And since the property was divided in half, a given half might not gone through both marks.

There is something in estate tax called the estate tax exemption. This is a threshold, and only decedents’ estates above that threshold are subject to tax. The threshold for 2024 is $13.6 million per person and is twice that if one is married.

That amount is scheduled to come down in 2026 unless Congress changes the law. I figure that the new amount will be about $7 million. And twice that, of course, if one is married.

COMMENT: I am a tax CPA, but I am not losing sleep over personal estate taxes.

However, the exemption thresholds have not always been so high. Here are selected thresholds early in my career: 

		Estate Tax
Year		Exclusion
1986		500,000
1987- 1997		600,000
1998		625,000

I would argue that those levels were ridiculously low, as just about anyone who was savings-minded could have been exposed to the estate tax. That is – to me, at least – absurd on its face.

One of our possible marks was in the 1980s, meaning that we could be dealing with that $500,000 or $600,000 estate threshold.

So what?

Look at the following gibberish from the tax Code. It is a bit obscure, even for tax practitioners.

Prop Reg 1.1014-10(c):

               (3) After-discovered or omitted property.

(i)  Return under section 6018 filed. In the event property described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is discovered after the estate tax return under section 6018 has been filed or otherwise is omitted from that return (after-discovered or omitted property), the final value of that property is determined under section (c)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.

(A) Reporting prior to expiration of period of limitation on assessment. The final value of the after-discovered or omitted property is determined in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section if the executor, prior to the expiration of the period of limitation on assessment of the tax imposed on the estate by chapter 11, files with the IRS an initial or supplemental estate tax return under section 6018 reporting the property.

(B) No reporting prior to expiration of period of limitation on assessment. If the executor does not report the after-discovered or omitted property on an initial or supplemental Federal estate tax return filed prior to the expiration of the period of limitation on assessment of the tax imposed on the estate by chapter 11, the final value of that unreported property is zero. See Example 3 of paragraph (e) of this section.

(ii) No return under section 6018 filed. If no return described in section 6018 has been filed, and if the inclusion in the decedent's gross estate of the after-discovered or omitted property would have generated or increased the estate's tax liability under chapter 11, the final value, for purposes of section 1014(f), of all property described in paragraph (b) of this section is zero until the final value is determined under paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section. Specifically, if the executor files a return pursuant to section 6018(a) or (b) that includes this property or the IRS determines a value for the property, the final value of all property described in paragraph (b) of this section includible in the gross estate then is determined under paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.

This word spill is referred to as the consistent basis rule.

An easy example is leaving an asset (intentionally or not) off the estate tax return.

Now there is a binary question:

Would have including the asset in the estate have caused – or increased – the estate tax?

If No, then no harm, no foul.

If Yes, then the rule starts to hurt.

Let’s remain with an easy example: you were already above the estate exemption threshold, so every additional dollar would have been subject to estate tax.

What is your basis as a beneficiary in that inherited property?

Zero. It would be zero. There is no mark as the asset was not reported on an estate tax return otherwise required to be filed.

If you are in an estate tax situation, the consistent basis rule makes clear the importance of identifying and reporting all assets of your estate. This becomes even more important when your estate is not yet at – but is approaching – the level where a return is required.

At $13.6 million per person, that situation is not going to affect many CPAs.

When the law changes again in a couple of years, it may affect some, but again not too many, CPAs.

But what if Congress returns the estate exemption to something ridiculous – perhaps levels like we saw in the 80s and 90s?

Well, the consistent basis rule could start to bite.

What are the odds?

Well, this past week I was discussing the basis of real estate inherited in the 1980s.

What are the odds?

The Gallenstein Rule

 

It is a tax rule that will eventually go extinct.

It came to my attention recently that it can – however – still apply.

Let’s set it up.

(1)  You have a married couple.

(2)  The couple purchased real estate (say a residence) prior to 1977.

(3)  One spouse passes away.

(4)  The surviving spouse is now selling the residence.

Yeah, that 1977 date is going to eliminate most people.

We are talking Section 2040(b).

(b)  Certain joint interests of husband and wife.

(1)  Interests of spouse excluded from gross estate.

Notwithstanding subsection (a), in the case of any qualified joint interest, the value included in the gross estate with respect to such interest by reason of this section is one-half of the value of such qualified joint interest.

(2)  Qualified joint interest defined.

For purposes of paragraph (1), the term "qualified joint interest" means any interest in property held by the decedent and the decedent's spouse as-

(A)  tenants by the entirety, or

(B)  joint tenants with right of survivorship, but only if the decedent and the spouse of the decedent are the only joint tenants.

In 1955 Mr. and Mrs. G purchased land in Kentucky. Mr. G provided all the funds for the purchase. They owned the property as joint tenants with right of survivorship.

In 1987 Mr. G died.  

In 1988 Mrs. G sold 73 acres for $3.6 million. She calculated her basis in the land to be $103,000, meaning that she paid tax on gain of $3.5 million.

Someone pointed out to her that the $103,000 basis seemed low. There should have been a step-up in the land basis when her husband died. Since he owned one-half, one-half of the land should have received a step-up.

COMMENT: You may have heard that one’s “basis” is reset at death. Basis normally means purchase cost, but not always. This is one of those “not always.” The reset (with some exceptions, primarily retirement accounts) is whatever the asset was worth at the date of death or – if one elects – six months later.  Mind you, one does not have to file an estate tax return to trigger the reset; rather, it happens automatically. That is a good thing, as the lifetime estate tax exemption is approaching $13 million these days. Very few of us are punching in that weight class.

Someone looked into Mrs. G’s situation and agreed. In May 1989 Mrs. G filed an amended tax return showing basis in the land as $1.8 million. Since the basis went up, the taxable gain went down. She was entitled to a refund.

Three months later she filed a second amended return showing basis in the land as $3.6 million. She wanted another refund.

This time she caught the attention of the IRS. They could understand the first amended but not the second. Where were these numbers parachuting from?

I am going to spare us both a technical walkthrough through the history of Code section 2040.

There was a time when joint owners had to track their separate contributions to the purchase of property, meaning that each owner would have his/her own basis. I suppose there are some tax metaphysics at play here, but the rule did not work well in real life. Sales transactions often occur decades after the purchase, and people do not magically know that they need to start precise accounting as soon as they buy property together. Realistically, these numbers sometimes cannot be recreated decades after the fact. In 1976 Congress changed the rule, saying: forget tracking for joint interests created after 1976. From now on the Code will assume that each tenant contributed one-half.

That is how we get to today’s rule that one-half of a couple’s property is included in the estate of the first-to-die. By being included in an estate, the property is entitled to a step-up in basis. The surviving spouse gets a step-up in the inherited half of the property. The surviving spouse also keeps his/her “old” basis in his/her original one-half. The surviving spouse’s total basis is therefore the sum of the “old” basis plus the step-up basis.

Mr. G died before 1977.

Meaning that Mrs. G was not subject to the new rule.

She was subject to the old rule. Since Mr. G had put up all the money, all the property (yes, 100%) was subject to a step-up in basis when Mr. G died.

That was the reason for the second amended return.

The Court agreed with Mrs. G.

It was a quirk in tax law.

The IRS initially disagreed with the decision, but it finally capitulated in 2001 after losing in court numerous times.

Mind you, the quirk still exists. However, the population it might affect is dwindling, as this law change was 47 years ago. We only live for so long.

However, if you come across someone who owned property with a spouse before 1977, you might have something.

BTW this tax treatment has come to be known by the widow who litigated against the IRS: the tax-nerds sometimes call it “the Gallenstein rule.”

IRA Changes For 2020

 The issue came up last week with a retired client, so let’s talk about it.

What is going on in 2020 with your IRAs?

There are several things here, so let’s go step-by-step:

(1)  Do you have to take a minimum required distribution (MRD) if you turned 70 1/2 in 2020?

ANSWER: No. The new age requirement is age 72.

(2)  What if I turned 70 ½ in 2019 and delayed my initial MRD until 2020?

ANSWER: Thanks to the CARES Act, that initial MRD is delayed one more year – until 2021.

(3)   I am well over 70 ½.  Do I have a MRD for 2020?

ANSWER: No. You can take money out, but you are not required to.

(4)  What if I already took out my MRD?

ANSWER: There are two answers, depending on when you took the MRD.

(a) If you took the MRD in January 2020, there is nothing you can do at this point.

(b)  If you took the MRD after January 31, 2020, you have until July 15, 2020 to return the money.

BTW there is a possible tax trap here. You are allowed only one non-trustee-to-trustee rollover (meaning you received and cashed the check with the intent of paying it back within 60 days) within a rolling 12-month period. If you did this in 2019, you need to check whether you are caught within this 12-month dragnet.

(5)  I have an inherited IRA account. Is there any change for me?

ANSWER: If the decedent passed away before 2020, you do not have an MRD for 2020.

There is a technical point in here if one was waiting five years before emptying the inherited IRS account: 2020 will not be counted as a year. In effect, you now have six years to empty the account rather than five.

(6)  I am having cash-flow issues as a consequence of the virus-related lockdown. I am thinking about tapping my IRA in order to get through. Is there something for me?

ANSWER: There are several changes.

(1) The 10% penalty for pre-age-59 ½ payouts for COVID-related reasons is waived on distributions up to $100,000.

(2) The income tax on the distribution still applies, but the tax can be paid over three years.

(3) And you also have 3 years to put the money back in the IRA. If you do, the money restored will be treated like a qualified rollover.

a.    Remember, this is taking place over 3 years. It is possible that you will have paid income tax on some or all of the money you restore in your IRA. If so, you can file an amended return and get your income tax back.

(7)  I am taking “substantially equal periodic payments” from my IRA. I am under age 59 ½ and needed the money. Is there a break for me?

ANSWER: A SEPP program allows one to avoid the penalty for early withdrawals, but it comes at a price: on has to take withdrawals over a given period of time.

A SEPP is not the same as a MRD, so the new rules do not apply to you.

(8)  Is it too late to fund my IRA for 2019?

ANSWER: Normally, you have until April 15 of the following year to fund an IRA. For 2019, that deadline has been extended to July 15, 2020.

New Life Expectancy Tables For Your Retirement Account

On November 7, 2019 the IRS issued Proposed Regulations revising life expectancy tables used to calculate minimum required distributions from retirement plans, such as IRAs.

That strikes me as a good thing. The tables have not been revised since 2002.

There are three tables that one might use, depending upon one’s situation. Let’s go over them:

The Uniform Lifetime Table

This is the old reliable and the one most of us are likely to use.

 Joint Life and Last Survivor Expectancy Table

This is more specialized. This table is for a married couple where the age difference between the spouses is greater than 10 years.

The Single Life Expectancy Table

Do not be confused: this table has nothing to do with someone being single. This is the table for inherited retirement accounts.

Let’s take a look at a five-year period for the Uniform Lifetime Table:

Age	Old	New	Difference
71	26.5	28.2	1.7
72	25.6	27.3	1.7
73	24.7	26.4	1.7
74	23.8	25.5	1.7
75	22.9	24.6	1.7

If you had a million dollars in the account, the difference in your required minimum distribution at age 71 would be $2,275.

It is not overwhelming, but let’s remember that the difference is for every remaining year of one’s life.

As an aside, I recently came across an interesting statistic. Did you know that 4 out of 5 Americans receiving retirement distributions are taking more than the minimum amount? For those – the vast majority of recipients – this revision to the life expectancy tables will have no impact.

Let’s spend a moment talking about the third table - the Single Life Expectancy Table. You may know this topic as a “stretch” IRA.

A stretch IRA is not a unique or different kind of IRA. All it means is that the owner died, and the account has passed to a beneficiary. Since minimum distributions are based on life expectancy, this raises an interesting question: whose life expectancy?

COMMENT: There is a difference on whether a spouse or a non-spouse inherits. It also matters whether the decedent reached age 70 ½ or not. It is a thicket of rules and exceptions. For the following discussion, let us presume a non-spouse inherits and the decedent was over age 70 ½.

An easy way to solve this issue would be to continue the same life expectancy table as the original owner of the account. The problem here is that – if the beneficiary is young enough – one would run out of table.

So let’s reset the table. We will use the beneficiary’s life expectancy.

And there you have the Single Life Expectancy Table.

As well as the opportunity for a stretch. How? By using someone much younger than the deceased. Grandkids, for example.

Say that a 35-year old inherits an account. What is the difference between the old and new life expectancy tables?

                                Old             48.5

                                New            50.5

Hey, it’s better than nothing and – again – it repeats every year.

There is an odd thing about using this table, if you have ever worked with a stretch IRA. For a regular IRA – e.g., you taking distributions from your own IRA – you look at the table to get a factor for your age in the distribution year. You then divide that factor into the December 31 IRA balance for the year preceding the distribution year to arrive at the required minimum amount.

Point is: you look at the table every year.

The stretch does not do that.

You look at the table one time. Say you inherit at age 34.  Your required minimum distribution begins the following year (I am making an assumption here, but let’s roll with it), when you are age 35. The factor is 48.5. When you are age 36, you subtract one from the factor (48.5 – 1.0 = 47.5) and use that new number for purposes of the calculation. The following year you again subtract one (47.5 – 1.0 = 46.5), and so on.

Under the Proposed Regulation you are to refer to the (new) Single Life Expectancy Table for that first year, take the new factor and then subtract as many “ones” as necessary to get to the beneficiary’s current age. It is confusing, methinks.

There are public comment procedures for Proposed Regulations, so there is a possibility the IRS will change something before the Regulations go final. Final will be year 2021.

So for 2020 we will use the existing tables, and for 2021 we will be using the new tables.

Can Creditors Reach The Retirement Account Of A Divorced Spouse?

Let’s say that you divorce. Let say that retirement savings are unequal between you and your ex-spouse. As part of the settlement you receive a portion of your spouse’s 401(k) under a “QDRO” order.

COMMENT: A QDRO is a way to get around the rule prohibiting alienation or assignment of benefits under a qualified retirement plan. I generally think of QDROs as arising from divorce, but they could also go to a child or other dependent of the plan participant.

Your QDRO has (almost) the same restrictions as any other retirement savings. As far as you or I are concerned, it IS a retirement account.

You file for bankruptcy.

Can your creditors reach the QDRO?

Sometimes I scratch my head over bankruptcy decisions. The reason is that bankruptcy – while having tax consequences – is its own area of law. If the law part pulls a bit more weight than the tax part, then the tax consequence may be nonintuitive.

Let’s segue to an inherited IRA for a moment. Someone passes away and his/her IRA goes to you. What happens to it in your bankruptcy?

The Supreme Court addressed this in Clark, where the Court had to address the definition of “retirement funds” otherwise protected from creditors in bankruptcy.

The Court said there were three critical differences between a plain-old IRA and an inherited IRA:

(1)  The holder of an inherited IRA can never add to the account.

(2)  The holder of an inherited IRA must draw money virtually immediately. There is no waiting until one reaches or nears retirement.

(3)  The holder of an inherited IRA can drain the account at any time – and without a penalty.

The Court observed that:

Nothing about the inherited IRA’s legal characteristics would prevent (or even discourage) the individual from using the entire balance of the account on a vacation home or sports car immediately after bankruptcy proceedings are complete.”

The Court continued that – to qualify under bankruptcy – it is not sufficient that monies be inside an IRA. Those monies must also rise to the level of “retirement funds,” and – since the inheritor could empty the account at a moment’s notice - the Court was simply not seeing that with inherited IRAs.

I get it.

Let’s switch out the inherited IRA and substitute a QDRO. With a QDRO, the alternate payee steps into the shoes of the plan participant.

The Eighth Circuit steps in and applies the 3-factor test of Clark to the QDRO. Let’s walk through it:

(1)  The alternate payee cannot add to a QDRO.

(2)  The alternate payee does not have to start immediate withdrawals – unless of required age.

(3)  The alternate payee cannot – unless of required age - immediately empty the account and buy that vacation home or sports car.

By my account, the QDRO fails the first test but passes the next two. Since there are three tests and the QDRO passes two, I expect the QDRO to be “retirement funds” as bankruptcy law uses the term.

And I would be wrong.

The Eighth Circuit notes that tests 2 and 3 do not apply to a QDRO. The Court then concludes that the QDRO has only one test, and the QDRO fails that.

The Eighth Circuit explains that Clark:

… clearly suggests that the exemption is limited to individuals who create and contribute funds into the retirement account.”

It is not clear to me, but there you have it – at least if you live in the Eighth Circuit.

No bankruptcy protection for you.

Our case this time for the home gamers was In re Lerbakken.

Rolling Over An Inherited IRA

I am not a fan of the 60-day IRA rollover.

I admit that my response is colored by being the tax guy cleaning-up when something goes awry. Unless the administrator just refuses a trustee-to-trustee rollover, I am hard pressed to come up with a persuasive reason why someone should receive a check during a rollover.

Let’s go over a case. I want you to guess whether the rollover did or did not work.

Taxpayer’s mom died in 2008.

Mom had two IRAs. She left them to her daughter, who received two checks: one for $2,828 and a second for $35,358.

The daughter rolled over $35,358 and kept the smaller check.

On her tax return, she reported gross IRA distributions of $38,194 (there is a small difference; I do not know why) and taxable distributions of $2,828.

She did not have an early distribution penalty, as that penalty does not apply to inherited accounts.

The IRS flagged her, saying that the full $38,194 was taxable.

What do you think?

Let’s go over it.

There is no question she was well within the 60-day period.

The money went into an IRA account. This is not a case where monies erroneously went into something other than an IRA.

This was the daughter’s only rollover, so we are not triggering the rule where one can only roll IRA monies in this manner once every twelve months.

The Court decided that the daughter was taxable on the full amount.

Why?

She ran face-first into a sub-rule: one cannot rollover an inherited account, with the exception of a surviving spouse.

The daughter argued that she intended to roll and also substantially complied with the rollover rules.

Here is the Tax Court:

The Code’s lines are arbitrary. Congress has concluded that some lines of this kind are appropriate. The judiciary is not authorized to redraw the boundaries.”

This is a polite way of saying that tax rules sometimes make no sense. They just are. The Tax Court, not being a court of equity, cannot decide a case just because a result might be viewed as unfair.

The Court did not address the point, but there is one more issue at play here.

There are penalties for overfunding an IRA.

Say that you can put away $6,500. You instead put away $10,000. You have overfunded by $3,500.

So what?

You have to get the excess money out of there, that’s what.

Normally I recommend that the $3,500 be moved as a contribution to the following year, nixing the penalty issue.

Let’s say that you do not do that. In fact, you do not even know to do that.

For whatever reason, the IRS examines your return five years later. Say they catch the issue. You now owe a 6% penalty on the overfunding.

That’s not bad, you think. You will pay $210 and move on.

Nope.

It is 6% a year.

And you still have to get the $3,500 out.

Except it is now not $3,500. It is $3,500 plus any earnings thereon for five years.

Say that amount is $5,500, including earnings.

You take out $5,500.

You have five years of 6% penalties. You also have tax on $2,000 (that is, $5,500 minus $3,500).

If you are under 59 ½ you probably have an early-distribution penalty on the $2,000.

Plus penalties and interest on top of that.

I like to think that the Tax Court cut the taxpayer a break by not spotlighting the overfunding penalty issue.

Our case this time was Beech v Commissioner.