Using A Fancy Trust Without An Advisor

 

I am a fan of charitable remainder trusts. These are (sometimes) also referred to as split interest trusts.

What is an interest in a trust and how can you split it?

In a generic situation, an interest in a trust is straightforward:

(1) Someone may have a right to or is otherwise permitted to receive an income distribution from a trust. This is what it sounds like: if the trust has income, then someone might receive all, some or none of it – depending on what the trust is designed to do. This person is referred to as an “income” beneficiary.

(2) When there are no more income beneficiaries, the trust will likely terminate. Any assets remaining in the trust will go to the remaining beneficiaries. This person(s) is referred to as a “remainder” beneficiary.

Sounds complicated, but it does not have to be. Let me give you an example.

(1)  I set up a trust.

(2)  My wife has exclusive rights to the income for the rest of her life. My wife is the income beneficiary.

(3)  Upon my wife’s death, the assets remaining in the trust go to our kids. Our kids are the remainder beneficiaries.

(4)  BTW the above set-up is referred to as a “family trust” in the literature.

Back to it: what is a split interest trust?

Easy. Make one of those interests a 501(c)(3) charity.

If the charity is the income beneficiary, we are likely talking a charitable lead trust.

If the charity is the remainder beneficiary, then we are likely talking a charitable remainder trust.

Let’s focus solely on a charity as a remainder interest.

You want to donate to your alma mater – Michigan, let’s say. You are not made of money, so you want to donate when you pass away, just in case you need the money in life. One way is to include the University of Michigan in your will.

Another way would be to form a split interest trust, with Michigan as the charity. You retain all the income for life, and whatever is left over goes to Michigan when you pass away. In truth, I would bet a box of donuts that Michigan would even help you with setting up the trust, as they have a personal stake in the matter.

That’s it. You have a CRT.

Oh, one more thing.

You also have a charitable donation.

Of course, you say. You have a donation when you die, as that is when the remaining trust assets go to Michigan.

No, no. You have a donation when the trust is formed, even though Michigan will not see the money (hopefully) for (many) years.

Why? Because that is the way the tax law is written. Mind you, there is crazy math involved in calculating the charitable deduction.

Let’s look at the Furrer case.

The Furrers were farmers. They formed two CRATs, one in 2015 and another in 2016.

COMMENT: A CRAT is a flavor of CRT. Let’s leave it alone for this discussion.

In 2015 they transferred 100,000 bushels of corn and 10,000 bushels of soybeans to the CRAT. The CRAT bought an annuity from a life insurance company, the distributions from which were in turn used to pay the Fullers their annuity from the CRT.

They did the same thing with the 2016 CRT, but we’ll look only at the 2015 CRT. The tax issue is the same in both trusts.

The CRT is an oddball trust, as it delays - but does not eliminate – taxable income and paying taxes. Instead, the income beneficiary pays taxes as distributions are received.

EXAMPLE: Say the trust is funded with stock, which it then sells at a $500,000 gain. The annual distribution to the income beneficiary is $100,000. The taxes on the $500,000 gain will be spread over 5 years, as the income beneficiary receives $100,000 annually.

Think of a CRT as an installment sale and you get the idea.

OK, we know that the Furrers had income coming their way.

Next question: what was the amount of the charitable contribution?

Look at this tangle of words:

§ 170 Charitable, etc., contributions and gifts.

           (e)  Certain contributions of ordinary income and capital gain property.

(1)  General rule.

The amount of any charitable contribution of property otherwise taken into account under this section shall be reduced by the sum of-

(A)  the amount of gain which would not have been long-term capital gain (determined without regard to section 1221(b)(3)) if the property contributed had been sold by the taxpayer at its fair market value (determined at the time of such contribution),

This incoherence is sometimes referred to as the “reduce to basis” rule.

The Code will generally allow a charitable contribution for the fair market value of donated property. Say you bought Apple stock in 1997. Your cost (that is, your “basis”) in the stock is minimal, whereas the stock is now worth a fortune. Will the Code allow you to deduct what Apple stock is worth, even though your actual cost in the stock is (maybe) a dime on the dollar?

Yep, with some exceptions.

Exceptions like what?

Like the above “amount of gain which would not have been long-term capital gain.”

Not a problem with Apple stock, as that thing is capital gain all day long.

How about crops to a farmer?

Not so much. Crops to a farmer are like yoga pants to Lululemon. That is inventory - ordinary income in nerdspeak - as what a farmer ordinarily does is raise and sell crops. No capital gain there.

Meaning?

The Furrers must reduce their charitable deduction by the amount of income that would not be capital gain.

Well, we just said that none of the crop income would be capital gain.

I see income minus (the same) income = zero.

There is no charitable deduction.

Worst … case … scenario.

I found myself wondering how the tax planning blew up.

In July 2015, after seeing an advertisement in a farming magazine, petitioners formed the Donald & Rita Furrer Charitable Remainder Annuity Trust of 2015 (CRAT I), of which their son was named trustee. The trust instrument designated petitioners as life beneficiaries and three eligible section 501(c)(3) charities as remaindermen.”

The Furrers should have used a tax advisor. A pro may not be necessary for routine circumstances: a couple of W-2s, a little interest income, interest expense and taxes on a mortgage, for example.

This was not that. This was a charitable remainder trust, something that many accountants might not see throughout a career.

Yep, don’t do this.

Our case this time is Furrer v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-100.

Blowing Up A Charitable Remainder Trust

I was helping a friend (and fellow CPA) with a split-interest trust this busy season.

Let’s review the tax jargon in this area.

A split-interest means that there are (at least) two beneficiaries to the trust, one of which is a charity.

There are two main types of split-interest trusts:

(1)  The charity gets use of the trust assets first, after which the assets go to the noncharitable beneficiaries.

This sounds a bit odd, but it can work with the right asset(s) funding the trust. Let’s use an example. Say that you own a modest suburban strip mall. You have a solid tenant or two, providing reliable cash flow. Then you have a theater which barely survived COVID, and that only with major rent concessions.

This might be an excellent asset for a charitable lead. Why? First, you have reliable cash flow to support the annuity to the charity. Second, you have an underperforming asset (the theater) which is likely to outperform (whether as a theater or as something else) during the term of the trust.

The tax calculations for a lead use IRS-published interest rates. If you can fund the lead using assets with greater earning power than the IRS interest rate, you can leverage the math to your advantage.

How? Let’s say that the IRS expects you to earn 4 percent. You are confident you can earn 8 percent. You design the lead so that the amount “expected” to remain after the charitable term is $100. Why even bother with it for $100? Because the IRS is running the numbers at 4%, but you know the numbers are closer to 8%. You are confident there will be assets there when the charitable term is done, even though the IRS formula says there won’t be.

Your gift tax on this? Whatever tax is on $100. What if there is a million dollars there when the charitable term is done? Again, the gift is $100. It is a wonky but effective way to transfer assets to beneficiaries while keeping down estate and gift taxes.

(2) There is another split-interest trust where the noncharitable beneficiary(ies) get use of the assets first, after which the remainder goes to charity.

Once again, the math uses IRS-provided interest rates.

If you think about it, however, you want this math to break in a different direction from a lead trust. In a lead, you want the leftover going to the noncharitable beneficiary(ies) to be as close to zero as possible.

With a remainder, you want the leftover to be as large as possible. Why? Because the larger the leftover, the larger the charitable deduction. The larger the charitable deduction the smaller the gift. The smaller the gift, the smaller the estate and gift tax.

You would correctly guess that advisors would lean to a lead or remainder depending on whether interest rates were rising or falling.  

What is a common context for a remainder? Say you are charitably inclined, but you do not have Bezos-level money. You want to hold on to your money as long as possible, but you also want to donate. You might reach out to your alma mater (say the University of Kentucky) and ask about a charitable remainder trust. You receive an annuity for a defined period. UK agrees because it knows it is getting a donation (that is, the remainder) sometime down the road.

Are there twists and quirks with these trusts? Of course. It is tax law, after all.

Here is one.

Melvine Atkinson (MA) died in 1993 at the age of 97. Two years prior, she had funded a charitable remainder trust with almost $4 million. The remainder was supposed to pay MA approximately $50 grand a quarter.

I wish I had those problems.

Problem: the remainder never paid MA anything.

Let’s see: 7 quarters at $50 grand each. The remainder failed to pay MA approximately $350 grand before she passed away.

There were secondary beneficiaries stepping-in after MA’s death but before the remainder went to charity. The trust document provided that the secondary beneficiaries were to reimburse the trust for their allocable share of federal estate taxes on MA’s estate.

Of course, someone refused to agree.

It got ugly.

The estate paid that someone $667 grand to go away.

The estate now did not have enough money to pay its administrative costs plus estate tax.     

The IRS was zero amused with this outcome.

It would be necessary to invade the charitable remainder to make up the shortfall.

But how would the IRS invade?

Simple.

(1)  The remainder failed to pay MA her annuity while she was alive.

(2)  A remainder is required to pay its annuity. The annuity literally drives the math to the thing.

(3)  This failure meant that the trust lost its “split interest” status. It was now just a regular trust.

a.    This also meant that any remainder donation to charity also went away.

MA’s remainder trust was just a trust. This just-a-trust provided the estate with funds to pay administrative expenses as well as estate taxes. Further, there was no need to reduce available cash by the pending donation to charity … because there was no donation to charity.

My friend was facing an operational failure with a split-interest trust he was working with this busy season. His issue with not with failure to make distributions, but rather with another technical requirement in the Code. I remember him asking: what is the worst possible outcome?

Yep, becoming just-a-trust.

Our case this time was Estate of Melvine B Atkinson v Commissioner, 115 T.C. No. 3.

RERI-ng Its Ugly Head - Part Two

Let’s continue our story of Stephen Ross, the billionaire owner of the Miami Dolphins and of his indirect contribution of an (unusual) partnership interest to the University of Michigan.

What made the partnership interest unusual was that it represented a future ownership interest in a partnership owning real estate. The real estate was quite valuable because of a sweet lease. When that ship came in, the future interest was going to be worth crazy money.

That ship was a “successor member interest” or “SMI.”

We talked about the first case, which went before the Tax Court in 2014 and involved legal motions. The case then proceeded, with a final decision in July, 2017.

COMMENT: Yes, it can take that long to get a complex case through Tax Court. Go after Apple, for example, and your kid will likely be finishing high school before that tax case is finally resolved.

The SMI was purchased for $2.95 million.

Then donated to the University of Michigan for approximately $33 million.

COMMENT: This is better than FaceBook stock.

After two years, the University of Michigan sold the SMI (to someone related to the person who started this whole story) for around $2 million.

OBSERVATION: Nah, FaceBook stock would have been better.

Now RERI was in Court and explaining how something that was and will be worth either $2 or $3 million is generating a tax deduction of $33 million.

And it has to do with the SMI being “part of” of something but not “all of” something.  SMI is the “future” part in “all of” a partnership owning valuable leased real estate in California.

The concept is that someone has to value the “all of” something. Once that is done, one can use IRS tables to value the “part of” something. Granted, there are hoops and hurdles to get into those tables, but that is little obstacle to a shrewd tax attorney.

Ross found a shrewd tax attorney.

Virtually all the heavy lifting is done when valuing the “all of” part. One then dumps that number into the IRS tables, selects a number of years and an interest rate and – voila! The entrée round, my fellow tax gastronomes, featuring a $33 million tasty secret ingredient.

The pressure is on the first number: the “all of.”

This will require a valuation.

There are experts who do these things, of course.

Their valuation report will go with your tax return.  No surprise. We should be thankful they do not also have to do a slide presentation at the IRS. 

And there will be a (yet another) tax form to highlight the donation. That is Form 8283, and – in general – you can anticipate seeing this form when you donate more than $5,000 in property.

There are questions to be answered on Form 8283. We have spoken about noncash donations in the past, and how this area has become a tax minefield. Certain things have to be done a certain way, and there is little room for inattention. Sometimes the results are cruel.

Form 8283 wants, for example:

·      A description of the property

·      If a partial interest, whether there is a restriction on the property

·      Date acquired

·      How acquired

·      Appraised fair market value

·      Cost

I suspect the Court was already a bit leery with a $3 million property generating a $33 million donation.

And the Court noticed something …

The Form 8283 left out the cost.

Yep, the $3 million.

Remember: there is little room for inattention with this form.

Question is: does the number mean anything in this instance?

Rest assured that RERI was bailing water like a madman, arguing that it “substantially complied” with the reporting requirements. It relied heavily on the Bond decision, where the Court stated that the reporting requirements were:

“… directory and not mandatory”

The counterpunch to Bond was Smith:

“ the standard for determining substantial compliance under which we ‘consider whether … provided sufficient information to permit … to evaluate the reported contributions, as intended by Congress.’”

To boil this down to normal-speak: could RERI’s omission have influenced a reasonable person (read: IRS) to question or not question the deduction. After all, the very purpose of Form 8283 was to provide the IRS enough information to sniff-out stuff like this.

Here is the Court:

“The significant disparity between the claimed fair market value and the price RERI paid to acquire the SMI just 17 months before it assigned the SMI to the University, had it been disclosed, would have alerted respondent to a potential overvaluation of the SMI”

Oh oh.

“Because RERI failed to provide sufficient information on its Form 8283 to permit respondent to evaluate its purported contribution, …we cannot excuse on substantial compliance grounds RERI’s omission from the form of its basis in the SMI.”

All that tax planning, all the meetings and paperwork and yada-yada was for naught, because someone did not fill-out the tax form correctly and completely.

I wonder if the malpractice lawsuit has already started.

The Court did not have to climb onto a high-wire and juggle dizzying code sections or tax doctrines to deny RERI’s donation deduction. It could just gaze upon that Form 8283 and point-out that it was incomplete, and that its incompleteness prejudiced the interests of the government. It was an easy way out.

And that is precisely what the Court did.

RERI-ng Its Ugly Head - Part One

Here is the Court:

The action involves RERI Holdings I, LLC (RERI). On its 2003 income tax return RERI reported a charitable contribution of property worth $33,019,000. Respondent determined that RERI overstated the value of the contribution by $29,119,000.”

That is considerably more than a rounding error.

The story involves California real estate, a billionaire and a university perhaps a bit too eager to receive a donation.

The story is confusing, so let’s use a dateline as a guide.

February 6, 2002 

Hawthorne bought California real estate for $42,350,000. Technically, that real estate is in an LLC named RS Hawthorne LLC (Hawthorne), which in turn is owned by RS Hawthorne Holdings LLC (Holdings).

Holdings in turn is owned by Red Sea Tech I (Red Sea). 

February 7, 2002 

Red Sea created two types of ownership:

First, ownership for a period of time (technically a “term of years,” abbreviated TOYS).

Second, a future and successor interest that would not even come into existence until 2021. Let’s call this a “successor” member interest, or SMI. 

QUESTION: Why a delayed ownership interest? There was a great lease on the California real estate, and 2021 had significance under that lease.

March 4, 2002     

RERI was formed.

March 25, 2002

RERI bought the SMI for $2,950,000.

August 27, 2003

RERI donated the SMI to the University of Michigan.

A key player here is Stephen Ross, a billionaire and the principal investor in RERI. He had pledged to donate $5 million to the University of Michigan. 

Ross had RERI donate the SMI. 

The University agreed to hold the SMI for two years, at least, before selling.

Do you see what they have done? Start with a valuable piece of leased real estate, stick it in an LLC owned by another LLC owned by another … ad nauseum, then create an LLC ownership stake that does not even exist (if it will ever exist) until 2021.

What did RERI donate to the University of Michigan?

You got it: the thing that doesn’t exist for 18 years.

I find this hard to swallow.

“Successor” LLC interests are sasquatches. You can spend a career and never see one. The concept of “successor” makes sense in a trust context (where they are called “remaindermen”), but not in a LLC context. This is a Mary Shelly fabrication by the attorneys.

So why do it?

Technically, the SMI will someday own real estate, and that real estate is not worth zero.

RERI hired a valuation expert who determined it was worth almost $33 million. This expert argued that the lease on the property – and its reliable series of payments – allowed him to use certain IRS actuarial tables in arriving at fair market value (the approximately $33 million).

Wait. It gets better.

The two years pass. The University sells the property … to an entity INDIRECTLY OWNED by Mr. Ross for $1,940,000.

This entity was named HRK Real Estate Holdings, LLC (HRK).

More.

HRK had already prearranged to sell the SMI to someone else for $3 million.

Still more.

That someone donated the same SMI and claimed yet another deduction of $29,930,000.

REALITY CHECK: This thing sells twice for a total of approximately $5 million but generates tax deductions of approximately $63 million.

Yet more.

Who did the valuation on that second donation? Yep, the same guy who did RERI’s valuation.

The IRS disallowed RERI’s donation to zero, zip, zilch, nada. The IRS was clear: this thing is a sham.

And there begins the litigation.

How something can simultaneously be worth $33 million and $2 million?

This is all about those IRS tables.

Generally speaking, the contribution of property is at fair market value, usually described as the price arrived at between independent buyers and sellers, neither under compulsion to sell or buy and both informed of all relevant facts.

Except …

For annuities, life estates, remainders, reversions, terms of years and similar partial interests in property. They are not full interests so they then have to be carved-out and adjusted to present value using IRS-provided tables.

OBSERVATION: Right there, folks, is why the attorneys created this Frankenstein. They needed to “separate” the interests so they could get to the tables.

RERI argued that it could value that real estate 18 years out and use the tables. Since the tables are concerned only with interest rates and years, the hard lifting is done before one gets to them.

Not so fast, said the IRS.

That real estate is in an LLC, so it is the LLC that has to be valued.  There are numerous cases where the value of an asset and the value of an ownership interest in the entity owning said asset can be different – sometimes substantially so. You cannot use the tables because you started with the wrong asset.

But the LLC is nothing but real estate, so we are back where we started, countered RERI.

Not quite, said the IRS. The SMI doesn’t even exist for 18 years. What if the term owner mortgages the property, or sells it, or mismanages it? That SMI could be near worthless by the time some profligate or incompetent is done with the underlying lease.

Nonsense, said RERI. There are contracts in place to prohibit this.

How pray tell is this “prohibited?” asked the IRS.

Someone has to compensate the SMI for damages, explained RERI.

“Compensate” how? persisted the IRS.

The term owner would forfeit ownership and the SMI would become an immediate owner, clarified RERI.

So you are making the owner of a wrecked car “whole” by giving him/her the wrecked car as recompense, analogized the IRS. Can the SMI at least sue for any unrecovered losses?

Uhhhh … no, not really, answered RERI. But it doesn’t matter: the odds of this happening are so remote as to not warrant consideration.

And so it drones on. The case goes into the weeds.

Who won: the government or the billionaire?

It was decided in a later case. We will talk about it in a second post.

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.