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.

Valuing a Questionable Business

 

Starting with a 46-page case soon after finishing tax season may not have been my best idea.

Still, the case is a hoot.

Here is the Court:

Backstabbing, infidelity, and blackmail – not the first words that come to mind in relation to a baby products company.”

We are talking about Kaleb Pierce and his (ex) wife Ms. Bosco.

Early on Pierce sought to make money any way he could. At age 16 he purchased an ice cream truck, for example. He met Bosco and they married in 2000. Several children soon followed.

That ice cream truck was not going to suffice. He switched to selling timeshares. He then switched to painting houses.

In 2005 they had another child. Bosco had an idea relating to nursing newborns, and Pierce had his next business idea. He reached out to Chinese manufacturers to make wristbands for nursing mothers. He set up a website, attended tradeshows and whatnot.

His idea was not an initial success.

But there was someone at the tradeshow who was successful. Pierce wanted to partner with them, but they were not interested, Pierce then decided to duplicate their company and run them out of business.

The model was easy enough: he would manufacture the product in China, undercut the existing retail price and then reduce that already-undercut price to zero by use of promotional codes. Where is the money, you ask? He would charge a shipping fee. Considering that the price was already reduced to zero, he figured he could press his thumb on the shipping fee as his profit point.

He was right, but not fully. In the early days, the products were sometimes shipped to customers showing the actual shipping cost. Those customers were not amused.

But Pierce could make money.

And the model was simple: appropriate someone’s product, create a website to pitch it, have the product manufactured cheaply, make money hand over fist. Mind you, the products were all directed at nursing mothers, so the window to market and sell was limited. He had to strike hard and fast. He also had to keep introducing new products, as he continually needed something on which to hang a shipping charge.

The company was called Mothers Lounge (ML). ML sold each product through a different subsidiary. This separation of business was vital to give the appearance that the companies were unrelated. Even so, many customers found that the same company was selling the products. They requested that different orders be shipped together, which ML could not do, of course. ML had reached a point where 97% of its revenues came from that free- just-pay-shipping model.

How did it turn out?

In his own words:

He “never imagined that he was going to be this successful.”

But then ….

Pierce had an extramarital affair.

Someone added a tracker to Pierce’s software that tracked his keystrokes and found out about the affair.

Someone sent a box with a letter demanding $100,000 by the following week or said someone would tell Bosco about the affair.

Pierce told Bosco about the affair first. The news shattered her. She no longer trusted him. She forbade him from attending tradeshows. He responded by sending employees in his place, but it was not the same. His employees were not as … creative … at recognizing … opportunities as Pierce. Eventually he stepped down as CEO to deal with his family.

The business was not the same.

But Pierce and Bosco were still printing money. He did what a nouveau-riche entrepreneur would do: he started estate planning.

It is here that we get back to tax.

They created a trust. The trust in turn created an operating company. Pierce and Bosco each gifted 29.4% ownership to the trust. They also sold a 20.6% interest to the operating company owned by the trust.

The tax lawyers were busy.

There was a gift tax return, which meant that ML needed a valuation.

The IRS selected the gift tax returns (one by each spouse) for audit.

Pierce and Bosco fired their valuation expert and hired another.

That is different, methinks.

The new expert came in with a lower number. Pierce and Bosco told the IRS that – if anything – they had overreported the gift. What was the point of the audit?

The IRS was not buying this. The IRS argued that the two had underreported the gift by almost $5 million. Remember that the gift tax rate is 40%, so this disagreement translated into real money. The IRS also wanted penalties of almost $2 million.

Off to Tax Court they went.

The Court discussed valuation procedures for over twenty pages, the detail of which I will spare us. The Court liked some things about Pierce and Bosco’s valuations (remember they had two) and also liked some things about the IRS valuation. Then you had the unique facts of Mothers Lounge itself, a business which was not really a business but was nonetheless quite profitable. How do you value a business like that, and how do you adjust for the business decline since the blackmail attempt? The IRS argued that ML could return to a more traditional business model. The Court noted that ML could not; it was a different animal altogether.

The decision is a feast for those interested in valuation work. The Court was meticulous in going through the steps, but it was not going to decide a number. Truthfully, it could not: there was too much there.

The Court instead made an interim decision under Rule 155, a Tax Court arcana requiring the two parties to perform – and agree to – calculations consistent with the Court’s reasoning.

And the Court will review those results in a future hearing.

Our case this time was Pierce v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-29.

Section 643 and MSTs

 

I came across the following recently on LinkedIn:

 

The line of tax code that 99% of CPAs can’t understand for some reason.

And because they don’t understand this they make their clients tax planning convoluted and unnecessary.

26 U.S. Code § 643

(3) Capital gains and losses
Gains from the sale or exchange of capital assets shall be excluded to the extent that such gains are allocated to corpus and are not (A) paid, credited, or required to be distributed to any beneficiary during the taxable year, or (B) paid, permanently set aside, or to be used for the purposes specified in section 642(c). 

Stop, just stop.

There is a lot of nonsense going around on social media concerning something called - among other things – a “nongrantor, irrevocable, complex, discretionary, spendthrift trust.”

I just call it a “643 trust.” It is probably unfair as Section 643 has its legitimate place in the Code, but I simply cannot repetitively spray multisyllabic spittle when referring to these.

They have many forms, but one thing is key: Section 643. I met last year with someone who was hawking these things but was unable to find a CPA with his elevated mastery of the tax Code.

Uh huh. Elevator is down the hall, pal.

Let’s walk through these trusts.

The tax Code has numerous sections. Go to Chapter 1 Subchapter J and you will find sections dealing with trusts. You will note that they all have numbers between 641 and 692.

Section 643 is between 641 and 692. We are in the right place.

Trust taxation is not the easiest thing to understand. There are weird concepts. Then there are uncommon terms, such as:

 

·       The grantor – the person who transfers assets to the trust.

·       The income beneficiary – the person entitled to income distributions.

·       The residuary beneficiary – the person entitled to the remainder of the trust when the income beneficiaries are done.

·        Irrevocable trust – a trust where the grantor cannot amend or end the trust after its creation.

·       Complex trust – a trust that can accumulate (that is, retain) its profit.

·       Trustee – the person managing trust assets for the benefit of trust beneficiaries. A trustee is required to act in the best interest of the beneficiaries.

·       Discretionary trust – a trust allowing a trustee the power to decide how and when to distribute assets (including income) to beneficiaries.

Believe it or not, there are also several definitions of income, such as:

 

·       Fiduciary accounting income – income as defined by the trust instrument and state law.

·       Distributable net income – the maximum income available to the trustee for distribution to beneficiaries.

·       Taxable income – income as defined by the tax Code.

And - yes - you can get different answers depending on which definition of income you are looking at.

Why is that?

One reason is possible tension between different beneficiary classes. Say that you create a trust for your son and daughter as income beneficiaries. Upon their death, the remaining trust assets (called corpus) goes to the grandkids, who are the residuary beneficiaries. Your kids may want something to be considered income, as they are entitled to income distributions. The grandkids may prefer something not be considered income, as that something would not be distributed and thereby remain in the trust until eventual distribution to them.

What are common friction points between income and residuary beneficiaries? Here are two repetitive ones: capital gains and depreciation.

For example, one may consider depreciation as a reserve to replace deteriorating physical assets. In that case, it makes sense to allocate depreciation to the residuary beneficiaries, as the assets will eventually go to them. Then again, accountants routinely include depreciation as a current period expense. In that case, depreciation should go to the income beneficiaries along with other current period expenses.

Back to our multisyllabic spittle trust (MST).

Look at Section 643(b):

    26 U.S. Code § 643 - Definitions applicable to subparts A, B, C, and D

(b) Income.

For purposes of this subpart and subparts B, C, and D, the term "income", when not preceded by the words "taxable", "distributable net", "undistributed net", or "gross", means the amount of income of the estate or trust for the taxable year determined under the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law. Items of gross income constituting extraordinary dividends or taxable stock dividends which the fiduciary, acting in good faith, determines to be allocable to corpus under the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law shall not be considered income.  

What is this Section trying to do?

Looks like it is trying to define “income” and failing rather badly at it.

Look at the last sentence:

… which the fiduciary, acting in good faith, … shall not be considered income.”

Hmmmmm.

But read the first sentence:

… when not preceded by the words “taxable ….”

Seems to me that last sentence could be the solution to the Riemann Hypothesis and it would not matter once you put the word “taxable” in front of “income.”

Let’s move on to Section 643(a):

Distributable net income.

For purposes of this part, the term “distributable net means, with respect to any taxable year, the taxable income of the estate or trust computed with the following modifications —  

(3) Capital gains and losses         

Gains from the sale or exchange of capital assets shall be excluded to the extent that such gains are allocated to corpus and are not (A) paid, credited, or required to be distributed to any beneficiary during the taxable year, or (B) paid, permanently set aside, or to be used for the purposes specified in section 642(c).  

(4) Extraordinary dividends and taxable stock dividends  

… there shall be excluded those items of gross income constituting extraordinary dividends or taxable stock dividends which the fiduciary, acting in good faith, does not pay or credit to any beneficiary by reason of his determination that such dividends are allocable to corpus under the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law.

I see the words “shall be excluded.”

I see the extraordinary dividends and taxable stock dividends from Section 643(b). And there is new wording about gains from the sale or exchange of capital assets. Is it possible …?

I also see the words “Distributable net income” at the top.

Let’s go back to our definitions of trust income.

Section 643(a) addresses distributable net income. Think of DNI as Mint Chocolate Chip.

Section 643(b) addresses taxable income. Think of TI as Cookies and Cream.

Mint Chocolate Chip is not Cookies and Cream.

Maybe capital gains are excludable from DNI. Maybe they are not. Either way, that conundrum has nothing to do with capital gains being excludable from taxable income.

The IRS is quite aware of the game being played.

Here is AM 2023-006:

 

One is dancing on the slippery beveled edge of a possible tax shelter.

Just leave these trusts alone. If I could make income nontaxable by running it through a string-a-bunch-of-words-together trust, I would have done so years ago. I might have even retired by now.

A Charitable Deduction To An Estate

 

I had a difficult conversation with a client recently over an issue I had not seen in a while.

It involves an estate. The same issue would exist with a trust, as estates and trusts are (for the most part) taxed the same way.

Let’s set it up.

Someone passed away, hence the estate.

The estate is being probated, meaning that at least some of its assets and liabilities are under court review before payment or distribution. The estate has income while this process is going on and so files its own income tax return.

Many times, accountants will refer to this tax return as the “estate” return, but it should not be confused with the following, also called the “estate” return:

What is the difference?

Form 706 is the tax – sometimes called the death tax – on net assets when someone passes away. It is hard to trigger the death tax, as the Code presently allows a $13.6 million lifetime exclusion for combined estate and gift taxes (and twice that if one is married). Let’s be honest: $13.6 million excludes almost all of us.

Form 1041 is the income tax for the estate. Dying does not save one from income taxes.

Let’s talk about the client.

Dr W passed away unexpectedly. At death he had bank and brokerage accounts, a residence, retirement accounts, collectibles, and a farm. The estate is being probated in two states, as there is real estate in the second state. The probate has been unnecessarily troublesome. Dr W recorded a holographic will, and one of the states will not accept it.

COMMENT: Not all estate assets go through probate, by the way. Assets passing under will must be probated, but many assets do not pass under will.

What is an example of an asset that can pass outside of a will?

An IRA or 401(k).

That is the point of naming a beneficiary to your IRA or 401(k). If something happens to you, the IRA transfers automatically to the beneficiary under contract law. It does not need the permission of a probate judge.

Back to Dr W.

Our accountant prepared the Form 1041, I saw interest, dividends, capitals gains, farm income and … a whopping charitable donation.

What did the estate give away?

Books. Tons of books. I am seeing titles like these:

·       Techniques of Chinese Lacquer

·       Vergoldete Bronzen I & II

·       Pendules et Bronzes d’Ameublement

Some of these books are expensive. The donation wiped out whatever income the estate had for the year.

If the donation was deductible.

Look at the following:

§ 642 Special rules for credits and deductions.

      (c)  Deduction for amounts paid or permanently set aside for a charitable purpose.

(1)  General rule.

In the case of an estate or trust ( other than a trust meeting the specifications of subpart B), there shall be allowed as a deduction in computing its taxable income (in lieu of the deduction allowed by section 170(a) , relating to deduction for charitable, etc., contributions and gifts) any amount of the gross income, without limitation, which pursuant to the terms of the governing instrument is, during the taxable year, paid for a purpose specified in section 170(c) (determined without regard to section 170(c)(2)(A) ). If a charitable contribution is paid after the close of such taxable year and on or before the last day of the year following the close of such taxable year, then the trustee or administrator may elect to treat such contribution as paid during such taxable year. The election shall be made at such time and in such manner as the Secretary prescribes by regulations.

This not one of the well-known Code sections.

It lays out three requirements for an estate or trust to get a charitable deduction:

• Must be paid out of gross income.
• Must be paid pursuant to the terms of the governing instrument.
• Must be paid for a purpose described in IRC Sec. 170(c) without regard to Section 170(c)(2)(A). 

Let’s work backwards.

The “170(c) without …” verbiage opens up donations to foreign charities.

In general, contributions must be paid to domestic charities to be income-tax deductible. There are workarounds, of course, but that discussion is for another day. This restriction does not apply to estates, meaning they can contribute directly to foreign charities without a workaround.

This issue does not apply to Dr W.

Next, the instrument governing the estate must permit payments to charity. Without this permission, there is no income tax deduction.

I am looking at the holographic will, and there is something in there about charities. Close enough, methinks.

Finally, the donation must be from gross income. This term is usually interpreted as meaning gross taxable income, meaning sources such as municipal interest or qualified small business stock would create an issue.

The gross income test has two parts:

(1)  The donation cannot exceed the estate’s cumulative (and previously undistributed) taxable income over its existence.

(2)  The donation involves an asset acquired by that accumulated taxable income. A cash donation easily meets the test (if it does not exceed accumulated taxable income). An in-kind distribution will also qualify if the asset was acquired with cash that itself would have qualified.

The second part of that test concerns me.

Dr W gave away a ton of books.

The books were transferred to the estate as part of its initial funding. The term for these assets is “corpus,” and corpus is not gross income. Mind you, you probably could trace the books back to the doctor’s gross income, but that is not the test here.

I am not seeing a charitable deduction.

“I would not have done this had I known,” said the frustrated client.

I know.

We have talked about a repetitive issue with taxes: you do not know what you do not know.

How should this have been done?

Distribute the books to the beneficiary and let him make the donation personally. Those rules about gross income and whatnot have no equivalent when discussing donations by individuals.

What if the beneficiary does not itemize?

Understood, but you have lost nothing. The estate was not getting a deduction anyway.