A Skeleton Return And Portability

 

The amount for 2025 is $13.99 million.

This is the lifetime exclusion amount for combined gift and estate taxes. You can give away or die with assets up to this amount and owe neither gift nor estate tax. This amount is per person, so – if married – you and your spouse have a combined $27.98 million.

Next year that amount resets to $15 million, or $30 million for a married couple.

Let’s say it: most of us do not need to sweat. This is a high-end issue, and congrats if it impacts you.

What I want to talk about is the portability of the lifetime exclusion amount.

Tax practice brings its own acronyms and (call it) slang.

Here is one: DSUE, pronounced Dee-Sue and referring to the transfer of the lifetime exclusion amount from the first spouse-to-die to the second.

Let’s use a quick example to clarify what we are talking about. 

• Mr. and Mrs. CTG have been married for years.
• They have not filed gift tax returns in the past, either because they have not made gifts or gifts made have been below the annual gift exclusion. The exclusion amount for 2025 is $19,000, for example, so only a hefty gift would be reportable.
• Mr. and Mrs. CTG have a combined net worth of $20 million.
• For simplicity, let’s assume that all CTG marital assets are owned jointly.

 At a net worth of $20 million, one might be concerned about the estate tax.

Except for one thing: we said that all assets are owned jointly.

Let’s say that Mr. CTG passes away in 2026 when the lifetime exclusion amount is $15 million. His share of the joint estate is $10 million ($20 million times ½), well within the safety zone. There is no estate tax due.

Let’s go further. Let’s say that Mrs. CTG dies later in 2026.

Her net worth would be $20 million ($10 million - her half - and $10 million from Mr. CTG).

Could she have an estate tax issue?

First impression: yes, she could. She exceeded the lifetime exclusion amount by $5 million ($20 million minus $15 million).

In income tax we are used to numbers being combined when filing as married-filing-jointly. This is estate tax, though. That MFJ concept … does not apply so neatly here.

We can even create our own tax headache by having the first-to-die leave all assets to the surviving spouse.

And there is the point of the DSUE: whatever lifetime exclusion amount the first-to-die doesn’t use can be transferred to the surviving spouse. In our example, $5 million ($15 million minus $10 million) could be transferred. If Mrs. CTG dies shortly after Mr. CTG, her combined exclusion amount would be $20 million (her $15 million and $5 million from Mr. CTG). Since combined assets were $20 million, there would be no estate tax due. It’s not quite the simplicity of married-filing-jointly, but it gets us there.

Moving that $5 million from Mr. CTG to Mrs. CTG is called “portability,” and there are rules one must follow.

The main rule?

          A complete and properly prepared estate return must be filed.

Practitioners who work in this area know how burdensome a complete and properly prepared estate tax return can be. The return requires full disclosure of assets and liabilities, including descriptions and values, not to mention documentation to support the same. Here are a few examples:

•  Do you own stock? If yes, then each stock position must be valued at the date of death (or six months later, an alternative we will skip for this discussion). How do you do this? Perhaps your broker can help. If not, there is specialized software available.
•  Do you own 401(k)s or IRAs? If so, one needs to know who the beneficiaries are.
•  Do you own a business? If so, you will need a valuation.
•  Do you own real estate? If so, you will need an appraiser.

Let’s be blunt: there are enough headaches here that someone could (understandably) pass on filing that first-to-die estate tax return.

Fortunately, the IRS realized this and allowed a special rule when filing an estate tax return solely for DSUE portability.

Yes, we see the usual tax gobbledygook, but the IRS is spotting us a break when preparing the Form 706. 

• You can use (good faith) estimates. You do not have to hire appraisers and valuation specialists, for example.
• However, the special rule only applies if all property goes to the surviving spouse (the marital deduction), to charity (the charitable deduction), or a combination of the two.

Can you fail the special rule?

Yeppers.

Let’s look at the Rowland case.

Fay Rowland passed away in April 2016. She did not have a taxable estate.

The surviving spouse (Billy Rowland) passed away in January 2018. He did have a taxable estate.

Note the fact pattern: they will want to transfer Faye’s unused lifetime exemption (that is, the DSUE) to Billy, because he is in a taxable situation.

Fay’s Trust Agreement (effectively functioning as a will) instructed the following:

• 20% to a foundation
• 25% to Billy
• The remainder to her grandchildren

Fay filed an estate tax return reporting everything under the special rule: showing zero for individual assets but a total for all combined assets.

Billy’s estate return reported a DSUE (from Fay) of $3.7 million.

The IRS bounced Billy’s DSUE.

Off to Tax Court they went.

The Court agreed with the IRS.

Why?

Take a look at the special rule again.

• Assets passing to Billy qualify as a marital deduction.
• Assets passing to the foundation qualify as a charitable deduction.
• Assets passing to the grandchildren …. do not qualify for the special rule.

Fay’s estate tax return showed all assets as qualifying for the special rule. This was incorrect. The return should have included detailed reporting for assets passing to the grandchildren, with simplified reporting for the assets passing to Billy or the foundation.

Fay did not file a complete and properly prepared estate return.

The failure to do so meant no DSUE to port to Billy.

Considering that the estate tax rate reaches 40%, this is real money.

What do I think?

I have seen several DSUE returns over the last year and a half. Some have been straightforward, with all assets qualifying for the special rule. We still had to identify assets and obtain estimated values, but it was not the same amount of work as a full Form 706.

COMMENT: Practitioners sometimes refer to this special-rule Form 706 as a “skeleton” return. Skeleton refers to one providing just enough information on which to drape a portability election.

Then we had returns with a combination of assets, some qualifying for the special rule and others not. This is a hybrid return: nonqualifying assets are reported in the usual detail, while assets qualifying for the special rule are more lightly reported.

Fay’s estate tax return should have used that hybrid reporting.

Our case this time was Estate of Billy S Bowland v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-76.

Blowing An Estate Tax Deduction

 

Let’s talk about the Estate of Martin W. Griffin.

Martin Griffin (Martin) was married to Maria Creel.

Martin created a revocable trust known as the Martin W. Griffin Trust.

COMMENT: A revocable trust means that the settlor (Martin in this case) can undo the trust. When that happens, the trust is disregarded and Martin and his revocable trust are considered the same person for tax purposes. The classic revocable trust is a “living trust,” which has no effect until one dies. Its purpose is not tax-driven at all and is instead to avoid probate.

Martin next created the MCC Irrevocable Trust.

COMMENT: Irrevocable means that Martin cannot undo the trust. He might be able to tweak a thing or two at the edges, but he cannot do away with the trust itself.

The Irrevocable Trust had the following language in the trust agreement:

The trust shall distribute the sum of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) to the trustee then serving …. for the benefit of Maria C. Creel. From this bequest, the trustee … shall pay to Maria C. Creel a monthly distribution, as determined by Maria and Trustee to be a reasonable amount, not to exceed $9,000 ….”

You see the word “Estate” in the case name. The issue in this case is estate tax, and it involves passing assets at death to one’s surviving spouse. There are two general ways to do this:

·       You simply transfer the asset to the surviving spouse.

An example here is a principal residence. The deed is in both spouse’s names. When you die, the house transfers directly to her (I am assuming you are the husband). She can then do what she wants: she can keep the house, sell the house, rent it or whatever. She has unfettered control over the house.

·       You transfer a right – but not all the rights – to the asset.

Let’s stay with the above example. You instead transfer a life estate to your wife. Upon her death the house goes to your children from your first marriage. She no longer has unfettered control over the asset. She cannot sell the house, for example. She has some – but not all – incidents of ownership.

The reason this is important is that the estate tax will allow you to deduct category (1) assets from your taxable estate, but category (2) assets have to go through an additional hoop to get there.

Here is the relevant Code section:

26 U.S. Code § 2056 - Bequests, etc., to surviving spouse

(7) Election with respect to life estate for surviving spouse  

(A) In general In the case of qualified terminable interest property—  

(i) for purposes of subsection (a), such property shall be treated as passing to the surviving spouse, and

(ii) for purposes of paragraph (1)(A), no part of such property shall be treated as passing to any person other than the surviving spouse.  

(B) Qualified terminable interest property defined For purposes of this paragraph—  

(i)In general The term “qualified terminable interest property” means property—

(I) which passes from the decedent,

(II) in which the surviving spouse has a qualifying income interest for life, and

(III) to which an election under this paragraph applies.

Section 2056 addresses the hoops we are talking about. If you are transferring less than total and unfettered rights to an asset, you want to make sure that you are transferring enough to qualify the asset as “qualified terminable interest property.” If you do, you get a subtraction for estate tax purposes. If you do not, there is no subtraction. 

It takes a lot to get to an estate tax in 2025 (given the lifetime exemption), but – if you do – the rate ramps to 40% rather quickly.  

Back to Martin.  

The Irrevocable Trust transferred enough to qualify as qualified terminable interest property.

Here is the Court:

The $2 million bequest is not QTIP. It is terminable interest property that does not qualify for the marital deduction and is includible in the estate.”

Huh? What happened?

Go back to (B)(iii) above:

(III) to which an election under this paragraph applies.

How do you make the election?

You include the asset on Schedule M of Form 706 (that is, the estate tax return):

That’s it. It is not complicated, but it must be done. The Code requires it.

Someone missed this while preparing Martin W Griffin’s estate tax return.

Yep, I expect a malpractice suit.

Wiping Out An Inherited IRA

I came across an unfortunate tax situation this week.

It has to do with IRAs and trusts.

More specifically, naming a trust as a beneficiary of an IRA.

This carried a bit more punch before the tax law change of the SECURE Act, effective for 2020. Prior to the change, best planning for an inherited IRA frequently included a much younger beneficiary. This would reset the required distribution table, with the result that the monies could stay in the IRA for decades longer than if the original owner had lived. This was referred to as the “stretch” IRA. The SECURE Act changed that result for most beneficiaries, and now IRAs have to distribute – in general – over no longer than 10 years. 

Trusts created a problem for stretch IRAs, as trusts do not have an age or life expectancy like people do. This led to something called the “look-through” or “conduit” trust, allowing one to look-through the trust to its beneficiary in arriving at an age and life expectancy to make the stretch work.

The steam has gone out of the conduit trust.

One might still want to use a trust as an IRA beneficiary, though. Why? Here is an example:

The individual beneficiary has special needs. There may be income and/or asset restrictions in order to obtain government benefits.

What is the point, you ask? Doesn’t the IRA have to distribute to the individual over no more than 10 years?

Well … not quite. The IRA has to distribute to the trust (which is the IRA beneficiary) over no more than 10 years. The trust, in turn, does not have to distribute anything to its individual beneficiary.

This is referred to as an accumulation trust. Yes, it gets expensive because the trust tax rates are unreasonably compressed. Still, the nontax objectives may well outweigh the taxes involved in accumulating.

There is something about an inherited IRA that can go wrong, however. Do you remember something called a “60-day rollover?” This is when you receive a check from your IRA and put the money back within 60 days. I am not a fan, and I can think of very few cases where I would use or recommend it.

Why?

Because of Murphy’s Law, what I do and have done for over 35 years.

You know who can do a 60-day rollover?

Only a surviving spouse can use a 60-day rollover on an inherited IRA.  

You know who cannot do a 60-day rollover on an inherited IRA?

Anyone other than a surviving spouse.

It is pretty clear-cut.  

I am looking at someone who did not get the memo.

Here are the highlights:

·      Husband died.

·      The wife rolled the IRA into her own name (this is a special rule only for surviving spouses).

·      The wife died.

·      A trust for the kids inherited the IRA.

No harm, no foul so far.

·      The kids wanted to trade stocks within the IRA.

So it begins.

·      The IRA custodian told the kids that they would have to transfer the money someplace else if they wanted to trade.

No prob. The kids should have the IRA custodian transfer the money directly to the custodian of a new IRA that will let them trade to their heart’s content.

·      The kids had the IRA custodian transfer the money to a non-IRA account owned by the trust.

And so it ends.

The kids were hosed. They tried a Hail Mary by filing a private letter request with the IRS, asking for permission to put the money back in the IRA. The IRS looked at the tax law for a split second … and said “No.”

The IRS was right.

And, as usual, I wonder what happened with calling the tax advisor before moving around not-insignificant amounts of money.  

One can point out that taxes would have been payable as the kids withdrew money, and an inherited IRA has to distribute. If mom died in 2020 or later, the IRA would have to be distributed over no more than 10 years anyway.

Still, 10 years is 10 years. If nothing else, it would have given the kids the opportunity to avoid bunching all IRA income into one taxable year.

Not to mention paying for a private letter ruling, which is not cheap.

I hope they enjoy their stock trading.

The cite for the home gamers is PLR 202125007.

A Puff Piece

 

Although we do not condone her inconsistency, we find it is merely puffery in an attempt to obtain new employment and of no significance here.”

There is a word one rarely sees in tax cases: puffery.

Puffery is an exaggeration. It approaches a lie but stops short, and presumably no “reasonable” person would believe what is being said or take it literally. The distinction matters if one’s puffery can be used against them as a statement of fact.

Let’s look at the Robinson case.

Mr Robinson had a lawn care business. Beverly Robinson had a job at Georgia Pacific, but in 2007 she started working at the lawn care business. She did the billing. She was also listed on the business checking account, but she never wrote checks.

She must have been the face of the business through, as for 2007 through 2009 most of the Forms 1099 to the business were sent in her name.

In 2010 the marriage went south. Mr Robinson moved out, and Beverly’s dad chipped-in to pay the mortgage on her house. Needless to say, she was not working at the company with all that going on.

In 2011 they filed a joint tax return for 2010. The return showed tax due of approximately $43 grand. She must have separated hard from the business, as no Forms 1099 were issued to her; all the Forms 1099 were issued to him.

COMMENT: I do not understand filing a joint tax return with someone you are likely to divorce. In Beverly’s defense, though, she did not realize that she had an option. They hired a tax preparer (likely because of the business), but the preparer never explained that the option to file separately existed.

In 2011 she was telling the IRS that they could not pay the 2010 tax debt. She also asked about innocent spouse status.

In 2012 they file a joint 2011 tax return. She was working again at another Georgia Pacific facility and had tax withholdings. The IRS took her withholdings and applied them to the 2010 tax year.

COMMENT: That is how it works.

In 2013 Beverly needed to find a new job. She uploaded her resume on a jobseeker website. She listed her Georgia Pacific gig. She also listed Robinson Lawn Care and embellished her duties, especially glossing over the fact that she no longer worked there.

In 2013 Mr Robinson somehow forced his way back into her house. She called the police and was told that they could not evict him since the two were still married.

In October, 2013 she filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.

About time. The year before Mr Robinson had fathered a child with another woman. In 2013 he started paying her child support.

The divorce became final in 2014. Mr Robinson agreed to assume the 2010 tax due.

Riiiight.

In 2015 she files for innocent spouse because of that 2010 tax debt and the IRS continuing to take her refunds.

The IRS turned down her request.

One of the requirements is that the tax liability for which the spouse is seeking relief belong to the “nonrequesting” spouse. In this case, the nonrequesting spouse was Mr Robinson.

He testified that he had moved out of the house in 2013. Oh, he also remembered Beverly working in the business in 2010.

Not good.

The IRS looked at certain Florida registrations that showed her name through 2014.

They also pointed out that she was a signatory on the business checking account.

Then they looked at her resume on that jobseeker website.

The Court was having none of it.

As for Mr Robinson:

Throughout the trial Mr. Robinson’s testimony was relatively inconsistent, and we give it little value.”

As for the registrations:

Although petitioner is listed as the registered owner of Robinson Lawn Care from December 1998 to December 2014, we find the reason for her filing the fictitious name--that her former husband worked during the day--is a sufficient explanation for why she is listed instead of Mr. Robinson. Moreover, she did not sign any State filings in 2010 or thereafter.

As for the checking account:

Similarly we find that petitioner’s name on the business account is not persuasive support for respondent’s position as Mr. Robinson had control of that account and she never wrote checks on it.

The Court pointed out that none of the 2010 Forms 1099 were made out to her, in clear contrast to prior tax years.

We saw above the Court’s comment on her puffery.

It was clear who the Court believed – and did not believe.

The Court decided that she was entitled to innocent spouse relief.

She cut it close, though.

Our case this time was Beverly Robinson v Commissioner of Internal Revenue T.C. Memo 2020-134.

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.