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.

Recurring Proposal For Estate Beneficiary’s Basis In An Asset

There is an ongoing proposal in estate taxation to require the use of carryover basis by an inheriting beneficiary.

I am not a fan.

There is no need to go into the grand cosmology of the proposal. My retort is simple: it will fail often enough to be an unviable substitute for the current system.

You might be surprised how difficult it can be sometimes to obtain routine tax reports. I have backed into a social security 1099 more times than I care to count.

And that 1099 is at best a few months old.

Let’s talk stocks.

Question: what should you do if you do not know your basis in a stock?

In the old days – when tax CPAs used to carve numbers into rock with a chisel – the rule of thumb was to use 50% of selling price as cost. There was some elegance to it: you and the IRS shared equally in any gain.

This issue lost much of its steam when Congress required brokers to track stock basis for their customers in 2011. Mutual funds came under the same rule the following year.

There is still some steam, though. One client comes immediately to mind.

How did it happen?

Easy: someone gifted him stock years ago.

So?  Find out when the stock was gifted and do a historical price search.

The family member who gifted the stock is deceased.

So? Does your client remember - approximately - when the gift happened?

When he was a boy.

All right, already. How much difference can it make?

The stock was Apple.

Then you have the following vapid observation:

Someone should have provided him with that information years ago.

The planet is crammed with should haves. Take a number and sit down, pal.

Do you know the default IRS position when you cannot prove your basis in a stock?

The IRS assumes zero basis. Your proceeds are 100% gain.

I can see the IRS position (it is not their responsibility to track your cost or basis), but that number is no better than the 50% many of us learned when we entered the profession.

You have something similar with real estate.

 Let’s look at the Smith case.

Sherman Darrell Smith (Smith) recently went before the Tax Court on a pro se basis.

COMMENT: We have spoken of pro se many times. It is commonly described as going to Tax Court without an attorney, but that is incorrect. It means going to Tax Court represented by someone not recognized to practice before the Tax Court. How does one become recognized? By passing an exam. Why would someone not take the exam? Perhaps Tax Court is but a fragment of their practice and the effort and cost to be expended thereon is inordinate for the benefits to be received. The practitioner can still represent you, but you would nonetheless be considered pro se.

Smith’s brother bought real property in 2002. There appears to have been a mortgage. His brother may or may not have lived there.

Apparently, this family follows an oral history tradition.

In 2011 Smith took over the mortgage.

The brother may or may not have continued to live there.

Several years later Smith’s brother conveyed an ownership interest to Smith.

The brother transferred a tenancy in common.

So?

A tenancy in common is when two or more people own a single property.

Thanks, Mr. Obvious. Again: so?

Ownership does not need to be equal.

Explain, Mr. O.

One cannot assume that the real estate was owned 50:50. It probably was but saying that there was a tenancy in common does not automatically mean the brothers owned the property equally.

Shouldn’t there be something in writing about this?

You now see the problem with an oral history tradition.

Can this get any worse?

Puhleeeze.

The property was first rented in 2017.

COMMENT: I suspect every accountant that has been through at least one tax course has heard the following:

The basis for depreciation when an asset is placed in service (meaning used for business or at least in a for-profit activity) is the lower of the property’s adjusted basis or fair market value at the time of conversion.

One could go on Zillow or similar websites and obtain an estimate of what the property is worth. One would compare that to basis and use the lower number for purposes of depreciation.

Here is the Court:

Petitioner used real estate valuation sources available in 2024 to estimate the rental property’s fair market value at the time of conversion.”

Sounds like the Court did not like Smith researching Zillow in 2024 for a number from 2017. Smith should have done this in 2017.

If only he had used someone who prepares taxes routinely: an accountant, maybe.

Let’s continue:

But even if we were to accept his estimate …, his claim to the deduction would fail because of the lack of proof on the rental property’s basis.”

The tenancy in common kneecapped the basis issue.

Zillow from 2024 kneecapped the fair market value issue.

Here is the Court:

Petitioner has failed to establish that the depreciation deduction here in dispute was calculated by taking into account the lesser of (1) the rental property’s fair market value or (2) his basis in the rental property.”

And …

That being so, he is not entitled to the depreciation deduction shown on his untimely 2018 federal tax return.”

Again, we can agree that zero is inarguably wrong.

But such is tax law.

And yes, the Court mentioned that Smith failed to timely file his 2018 tax return, which is how this mess started.

Here is the Court:

Given the many items agreed to between the parties, we suspect that if the return had been timely filed, then this case would not have materialized.”

Let’s go back to my diatribe.

How many years from purchase to Tax Court?

Fifteen years.

Let’s return to the estate tax proposal.

Allow for:

• Years if not decades
• Deaths of relevant parties
• Failure to create or maintain records, either by the parties in interest or by municipalities tasked with such matters
• Soap opera fact patterns

And there is why I object to cost carryover to a beneficiary.

Because I have to work with this. My classroom days are over.

And because – sooner or later – the IRS will bring this number back to zero. You know they will. It is chiseled in stone.

And that zero is zero improvement over the system we have now.

Our case this time was Smith v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-24.

Shoplifting And Sales Tax

 

I was recently surprised by a question.

It has to do with use tax, and it is not the most riveting issue – even for a tax CPA.

But it did remind me of a recent-enough case from New Jersey involving sales tax.

Sales tax and use tax are flip sides of the same coin. Let’s set up an example.

·      You have a product-intensive business. Maybe you sell vintage collectible baseball and other sports-themed cards.

·      When you buy cards, it is your intention to sell them. That is your business, of course, and those cards are your inventory. You do not pay sales tax when you purchase them, but you would collect and remit sales tax when you finally sell them.  

·      Let’s say that you acquire a particularly appealing card, one that you want for your personal collection. You remove that card from inventory and take it home.

·      If it stops here, the state does not receive any tax on that card. The business did not pay sales tax when it bought the card. It did not resell because you took the card home.

·      To make the system work, you would owe use tax when you take the card. The state gets its money. Granted, there was a change in names: use tax versus sales tax. I suppose you might have to send a personal check for the tax, or perhaps the business could collect and remit on your behalf. Different states, different rules.

There was a New Jersey case to determine whether sales tax should be included in the calculation of “full retail value” when someone shoplifted an Xbox One game console.

Why the nitpicking?

Because New Jersey categorized the crime depending on full retail value. If the value was between $200 and $500, it was a fourth-degree offense. Go over $500, however, and it becomes a third-degree offense.

Kohl’s sold the X Box for $499.99.

Two pennies away.

Yes, the sales tax would take that above $500 and make it third degree.

Which is what the Court decided.

Then – believe it or not – the decision was appealed. The grounds? The full retail value should not include sales tax.

A fourth degree gets someone up to 18 months in prison. A third degree is between 3 and 5 years.

The Appellate Court noted that no New Jersey court had ever looked at this issue.

OK.

The Court reasoned that shoplifting was the purposeful taking of merchandise belonging to a merchant, thereby depriving him/her of the economic benefit from the same. A merchant does not keep the sales tax. Instead, the merchant is an agent, collecting the tax from the customer and remitting it to the state (although there me be a small administrative allowance). Since the merchant would not have kept the sales tax, the Court decided that it should not be considered when calculating full retail value.

The Appellate Court reversed the lower Court’s decision.

Not all states agree with this reasoning. California for example will include sales tax in its full retail value.

Our case this time was State v Burnham, 474 N.J. Super. 226 (App. Div 2022).

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?

Sonny Corleone’s IRA

I remember him as Sonny Corleone in The Godfather. He is James Caan, and he passed away in July 2022.

I am reading a Tax Court case involving his (more correctly: his estate’s) IRA.

There is a hedge fund involved.

For the most part, we are comfortable with “traditional” investments: money markets, CDs, stocks, bonds, mutual funds holding stocks and bonds and the mutual fund’s updated sibling: an ETF holding stocks and bonds.

Well, there are also nontraditional investments: gold, real estate, cryptocurrency, private equity, hedge funds. I get it: one is seeking additional diversification, low correlation to existing investments, enhanced protection against inflation and so forth.

For the most part, I consider nontraditional investments as more appropriate for wealthier individuals. Most people I know have not accumulated sufficient wealth to need nontraditional assets.

There are also tax traps with nontraditional assets in an IRA. We’ve talked before about gold. This time let’s talk about hedge funds.

James Caan had his cousin (Paul Caan) manage two IRAs at Credit Suisse. Paul wanted to take his career in a different direction, and he transferred management of the IRAs to Michael Margiotta. Margiotta left Credit Suisse in 2004, eventually winding up at UBS.

The wealthy are not like us. Caan, for example, utilized Philpott, Bills, Stoll and Meeks (PBSM) as his business manager. PBSM would:

·       Receive all Caan’s mail

·       Pay his bills

·       Send correspondence

·       Prepare his tax returns

·       Act as liaison with his financial advisors, attorneys, and accountants

I wish.

Caan had 2 IRAs at UBS. One was a regular, traditional, Mayberry-style IRA.

The second one owned a hedge fund.

The tax Code requires the IRA trustee or custodian to file reports every year. You probably have seen them: how much you contributed over the last year, or the balance in the IRA at year-end. Innocuous enough, except possibly for that year-end thing. Think nontraditional asset. How do you put a value on it? It depends, I suppose. It is easy enough to look up the price of gold. What if the asset is trickier: undeveloped land outside Huntsville, Alabama – or a hedge fund?

UBS had Caan sign an agreement for the IRA and its hedge fund.

The Client must furnish to the Custodian in writing the fair market value of each Investment annually by the 15th day of each January, valued as of the preceding December 31st, and within twenty days of any other written request from the Custodian, valued as of the date specified in such request. The Client acknowledges, understands and agrees that a statement that the fair market value is undeterminable, or that cost basis should be used is not acceptable and the Client agrees that the fair market value furnished to the Custodian will be obtained from the issuer of the Investment (which includes the general partner or managing member thereof). The Client acknowledges, understands and agrees that if the issuer is unable or unwilling to provide a fair market value, the Client shall obtain the fair market value from an independent, qualified appraiser and the valuation shall be furnished on the letterhead of the person providing the valuation.

Got it. You have to provide a number by January 15 following year-end. If it is a hassle, you have to obtain (and you pay for) an appraisal.

What if you don’t?

The Client acknowledges, understands and agrees that the Custodian shall rely upon the Client’s continuing attention, and timely performance, of this responsibility. The Client acknowledges, understands and agrees that if the Custodian does not receive a fair market value as of the preceding December 31, the Custodian shall distribute the Investment to the Client and issue an IRS Form 1099–R for the last available value of the Investment.

Isn’t that a peach? Hassle UBS and they will distribute the IRA and send you a 1099-R. Unless that IRA is rolled over correctly, that “distribution” is going to cost you “taxes.”

Let’s start the calendar.

March 2015		UBS contacted the hedge fund for a value.
June 2015		Margiotta left UBS for Merrill Lynch.
August 2015		Striking out, UBS contacted PBSM for a value.
October 2015		Hearing nothing, UBS sent PBSM a letter saying UBS was going to resign as IRA custodian in November.
October 2015		Margiotta had Caan sign paperwork to transfer the IRAs from UBS to Merrill Lynch.
		There was a problem: all the assets were transferred except for the hedge fund.
December 2015		UBS sent PBSM a letter saying that it had distributed the hedge fund to Caan.
January 2016		UBS sent a 1099-R.
March 2016		Caan’s accountant at PBSM sent an e-mail to Merrill Lynch asking why the hedge fund still showed UBS as custodian.
December 2016		Margiotta requested the hedge fund liquidate the investment and send the cash to Merrill Lynch.
November 2017		The IRS sent the computer matching letter wanting tax on the IRA distribution. How did the IRS know about it? Because UBS sent that 1099-R.

The IRS wanted taxes of almost $780 grand, with penalties over $155 grand.

That caught everyone’s attention.

July 2018

Caan requested a private letter ruling from the IRS.

Caan wanted mitigation from an IRA rollover that went awry. This would be a moment for PBSM (or Merrill) to throw itself under the bus: taxpayer relied on us as experts to execute the transaction and was materially injured by our error or negligence….

That is not wanted they requested, though. They requested a waiver of the 60-day requirement for rollover of an IRA distribution.

I get it: accept that UBS correctly issued a 1099 for the distribution but argue that fairness required additional time to transfer the money to Merrill Lynch.

There is a gigantic technical issue, though.

Before that, I have a question: where was PBSM during this timeline? Caan was paying them to open and respond to his mail, including hiring and coordinating experts as needed. Somebody did a lousy job.

The Court wondered the same thing.

Both Margiotta and the PBSM accountant argued they never saw the letters from UBS until litigation started. Neither had known about UBS making a distribution.

Here is the Court:

            We do not find that portion of either witness’ testimony credible.

Explain, please.

We find it highly unlikely that PBSM received all mail from UBS— statements, the Form 1099–R, and other correspondence—except for the key letters (which were addressed to PBSM). Additionally, the March 2016 email between Ms. Cohn and Mr. Margiotta suggests that both of them knew of UBS’s representations that it had distributed the P&A Interest. It seems far more likely that there was simply a lack of communication and coordination between the professionals overseeing Mr. Caan’s affairs, especially given the timing of UBS’s letters, Mr. Margiotta’s move from UBS to Merrill Lynch, and the emails between Mr. Margiotta and Ms. Cohn. If all parties believed that UBS was still the P&A Interest’s custodian, why did no one follow up with UBS when it ceased to mail account statements for the IRAs? And why, if everyone was indeed blindsided by the Form 1099–R, did no one promptly follow up with UBS regarding it? (That followup did not occur until after the IRS issued its Form CP2000.) The Estate has offered no satisfactory explanation to fill these holes in its theory.

I agree with the Court.

I think that PBSM and/or Merrill Lynch should have thrown themselves under the bus.

But I would probably still have lost. Why? Look at this word salad:

        408(d) Tax treatment of distributions.

         (3)  Rollover contribution.

An amount is described in this paragraph as a rollover contribution if it meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B).

(A)  In general. Paragraph (1) does not apply to any amount paid or distributed out of an individual retirement account or individual retirement annuity to the individual for whose benefit the account or annuity is maintained if-

(i)  the entire amount received (including money and any other property) is paid into an individual retirement account or individual retirement annuity (other than an endowment contract) for the benefit of such individual not later than the 60th day after the day on which he receives the payment or distribution; or

(ii)  the entire amount received (including money and any other property) is paid into an eligible retirement plan for the benefit of such individual not later than the 60th day after the date on which the payment or distribution is received, except that the maximum amount which may be paid into such plan may not exceed the portion of the amount received which is includible in gross income (determined without regard to this paragraph).

I highlighted the phrase “including money and any other property.” There is a case (Lemishow) that read a “same property” requirement into that phrase.

What does that mean in non-gibberish?

It means that if you took cash and property out of UBS, then the same cash and property must go into Merrill Lynch.

Isn’t that what happened?

No.

What came out of UBS?

Well, one thing was that hedge fund that caused this ruckus. UBS said it distributed the hedge fund to Caan. They even issued him a 1099-R for it.

What went into Merrill Lynch?

Margiotta requested the hedge fund sell the investment and send the cash to Merrill Lynch.

Cash went into Merrill Lynch.

What went out was not the same as what went in.

Caan (his estate, actually) was taxable on the hedge fund coming out of the UBS IRA.

Dumb. Unnecessary. Expensive.

Our case this time was Estate of James E. Caan v Commissioner, 161 T.C. No. 6, filed October 18, 2023.

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.”