New York Estate Planning Lawyer Blog

It's an estate planning epidemic. So many successful parents we meet have children who are poor or worse at handling money, have not achieved significant success in life where they have garnered enough experience in handling money or they simply refuse to grow up. What's a parent to do?

Enter what has been termed the greatest invention of English common law: the trust. Trusts are legal entities that may hold and use assets for a beneficiary (your son or daughter) but have them managed by a trustee (one of more responsible adults, including a professional trustee).

Let's say your son Richard is the problem child. Your estate plan using a living trust would provide that upon your death or, if you have a spouse, upon the second death, Richard's share would go into the Richard (your last name) Trust with perhaps a family member and your attorney as co-trustees. The Richard Trust would continue for his lifetime, or until a stated age, perhaps sixty of sixty-five, when it would pay out to Richard. In the meantime, the trustees may use the money for Richard's health, education, maintenance and support. The trust can help him start a business or buy a house or, alternatively, purchase a house for him. Alternatively, the trust may go on for his lifetime and then, upon his death, to his children (at a stated age).

The sprinkling trust is often used in this context as well. Let's say Richard has two children and you are very concerned about them as well. You may set up a trust for Richard and his children and direct the trustee to "sprinkle" the income and principal amongst the beneficiaries, in equal or unequal amounts, whenever it is needed or will do the most good. So if one of Richard's children is accepted to Harvard, while the other goes to the local community college, the trust may help both. An added bonus with these trusts is that they keep the assets out of the hands of Richard's spouse who, in some cases, is a large part of the financial problem.

For children in dire financial straits or perhaps headed in that general direction, the effects of a potential bankruptcy on the inheritance and estate administration must be addressed. Noted New York bankruptcy lawyer Jay Fleischman, Esq., (newyorkbankruptcyhelp.com) has written about what happens if your son or daughter files for bankruptcy within six months of the date of your death. According to attorney Fleischman, "under the bankruptcy laws, people who receive the right to an inheritance within 180 days of the date on which they file for bankruptcy risk losing that money or property - even if they do not take actual legal title within that period of time. The right to receive that money or property is considered an asset of the bankruptcy that, depending on applicable bankruptcy exemptions (these vary from state to state), could be seized and distributed to creditors".

Nevertheless, by leaving assets to your son or daughter in a trust, giving the trustee discretion to distribute income and principal as the trustee sees fit, you may protect those assets from being lost in a subsequent bankruptcy proceeding.

There is a lot to talk about in a consultation concerning setting up a trust for an adult child, such as the pros and cons of naming siblings, other relatives, friends and professionals as trustees. Other considerations are how long the trust should go on, what payments the trust should allow or disallow, and who the back-up trustees might be. All your choices have their pluses and minuses which need to be fleshed out so as to provide the plan that best suits your family's needs.

Finally, one of the key features of our Lifetime Estate Planning Process, is the free review we provide every three years. This means that we will continue to monitor the estate plan so that if your son Richard turns things around and no longer needs the trust later on, an event we have experienced many times, the trust may be eliminated by the parent later on, before it is too late to undo it.

With people living much longer than in the past, the frequency of remarriage is increasing, even in later years. This latter phenomenon is raising a host of elder law estate planning issues. On the other hand, we are also seeing with increasing frequency the blended family with "his, hers and theirs" children, creating another set of potential pitfalls.

Most of these estate planning issues can be resolved with thoughtfulness on the part of the clients and the compassionate guidance of their estate planning attorney.

Here are some of the key issues and potential solutions for planning for second marriages.

1. The duration of the second (or third) marriage and also the relative financial positions of the parties. Recently a client came to see us whose husband has early Alzheimer's. His IRA named his children as beneficiaries many years ago. The couple have now been married for thirty-five years and the wife would be left destitute without her husband's IRA. Hopefully, husband has the capacity to understand the situation and make a change. One option: husband may leave his IRA to his wife on the condition that she name his children as the beneficiary on her death.

2. In our experience, a great deal of thought should be given to what the children of the first marriage will receive should their parent be the first of the couple to die. By looking at the matter from the heirs' point of view, we can often provide an outright bequest of a portion of the estate, or name them as beneficiaries on an insurance policy, so that they feel loved and cared for by their parent and not relegated to an inferior position. This is especially important if the parent has married a much younger spouse. Needless to say, this will also greatly affect their future relationship with the surviving step-parent. Thoughtlessness is this area alone has led to a lifetime of hurt and anguish for many a child of a remarried parent. Wills, at the very least, should provide recognition to the children of the prior marriage.

3. The use of living trusts is often an essential tool where the surviving spouse needs the majority of the combined assets to survive on. Here, the issue becomes how to guarantee that the predeceased spouse's children will receive their fair share on the surviving spouse's death. Typically, we set up one trust if the estate is not subject to estate taxes, or two trusts if needed to reduce or eliminate estate taxes, and make both spouses co-trustees of the trusts. The trusts provide for equal distribution among his and her families after the second death. What prevents the surviving spouse from raiding the trust and giving everything to his or her own children? Generally, we recommend a professional co-trustee to serve with the surviving spouse, so as to prevent this occurrence.

4. The estate planner must consider any prenuptial agreement as well as any obligations to children arising out of a divorce decree. These may need to be changed after a number of years to reflect the current situation which may have been greatly altered. For example, after many years one spouse will often wish to provide life rights in the marital home to the other, should he or she be the survivor, something expressly forbidden in the prenuptial agreement drawn up many years earlier.

5. Long-term care obligations have proven to be intimidating to many couples later in life. Even a prenuptial agreement providing that the spouses' assets are separate and that they have no financial obligations to each other is not binding vis-a-vis Medicaid. Medicaid considers the combined assets of the married couple as being available for the care of the ill spouse, regardless of whose name they are in. Hence, the need, amount and availability of long-term care insurance is often a factor to be considered in second marriages. Medicaid planning as well as setting up a Medicaid Asset Protection Trust for one or both spouses must also be considered in this context.

6. For wealthier couples, one spouse may wish to take care of his or her less well off spouse for their lifetime but then have the unused funds revert to their biological family. Here a QTIP (Qualified Terminable Interest in Property) trust may be set up for the surviving spouse, which will (a) provide a lifetime income, (b) delay, reduce or often eliminate estate taxes, and (c) protect the inheritance for the children of the predeceased spouse.

As you can see, with a little thoughtfulness on your part and the help of an experienced elder law estate planning attorney, often gleaned from hundreds of cases, second marriage couples have the ability to "do the right thing" for all concerned and avoid acrimony or even litigation in estate administration and probate.

There have been numerous articles written on the wisdom of converting your IRA, or a portion of it, to a Roth IRA. In 2010, the income limit on converting, previously $100,000 per year, has been eliminated allowing many more taxpayers this option.

Traditional IRA's offer a tax deduction on the contribution but tax the distribution, required to start after age 70 1/2. Roths offer no deduction on contributions but the distributions are tax-free (after a five year holding period). Unlike a traditional IRA, with a Roth there is no mandatory age to take required minimum distributions.

Should you wish to convert, you will have to pay the taxes on the converted amount now. For 2010 conversions only, you may defer the taxes due as follows: 50% in 2011 (payable April 15, 2012, or until October 15, 2012, if on extension) and 50% in 2012 (payable as late as October 15, 2013). Your tax advisor can help you determine whether you should make quarterly estimated tax payments.

Kiplinger's says that "It's worthwhile to make the switch only if you don't have to tap the IRA for cash to pay the taxes." Not everyone agrees, as discussed below. But if you convert and don't have the funds to pay the taxes later, you are allowed to undo the conversion until October 15th of the following year. This is also important if your portfolio has fallen, since you may not want to pay tax on a $100,000 conversion if the value of the IRA has dropped to $75,000.

Many advisors feel that you should Rothify at least some of your IRA in the belief that tax rates today are lower than they will be in the future. Trillion dollar deficits tend to support this thinking.

On the other hand, you might be in a different situation if you are now an income earner and your tax bracket will fall when you retire.

Clients like the Roth for its flexibility. With no required minimum distribution, you do not have to pay taxes on money you may not need, but are required to take with a traditional IRA.

By setting up multiple Roth IRA's, or by converting in a series of steps, say $50,000 now and $50,000 in four months, you will be in a better position to undo some of your conversions should your portfolio fall or you are unable for any reason to pay all of the tax due.

For New Yorkers, if you are moving in the foreseeable future to a state with no income tax, such as Florida, you may want to wait until you move to convert. If you are collecting Social Security you may want to ask your tax advisor whether the conversion will cause more of it to become taxable. Remember, taxes on Social Security, as well as your Medicare premium rates, are calculated on your income. If you are older than 70 1/2, you must take your required minimum distribution before converting, which may also affect your tax bracket.

Whereas Kiplinger's says don't convert if you have to pay the taxes from your IRA, the Wall Street Journal disagrees. They found, after running the numbers, that it may pay to convert even if you have to pay the taxes with money inside the IRA. The reasoning is that even though the Roth will be smaller after the taxes are paid, by not having to take withdrawals, some clients will be able to keep more of their Social Security tax-free. By keeping more of their Social Security, they will have to take less from their Roth, allowing it to grow more. In one example using this strategy, the odds against a couple outliving their savings fell from 50% to 12%.

To get a initial answer on whether converting to a Roth makes sense to you, try Morningstar's or Vanguard's online calculator.

As you can see, converting to a Roth is a mind bending calculation that requires the input of your financial advisor, your accountant and your own wisdom of Solomon.

For more information on Roth conversions and IRA's in general, please see retiresecure.com and irahelp.com.

The political struggle between the two major parties over the Federal estate tax, or "death tax" as its opponents prefer to call it, continued with the expiration of the estate tax on January 1, 2010 for one year. On January 1, 2011, the estate tax is scheduled to reappear but not for estates over 3.5 million at a tax rate of 45%, as in 2009 when the tax expired. Under the Bush era tax cuts, enacted in 2001, the estate tax in 2011 and beyond will be imposed on estates over one million, at a tax rate of 55%. Where do these latter figures come from? Those were the exemptions and tax rates in 2001 when the new law took effect. It was assumed that Congress would pass amending legislation some time over the intervening nine years to correct the problem.

Politics being what it is, the parties could not agree. A proposal to extend the 3.5 million exemption of 2009 for an additional year, giving Congress an additional year to negotiate a new estate tax regime, died in the Senate.

The irony of it all is this. Dick Patten, President of The American Family Business Foundation, a Washington lobbying group campaigning for repeal of the estate tax gleefully reported that "for the first time since 1916, there will be no estate tax." You have to wonder, however, who his constituency really is. If the 2009 rule had been extended for one year, the estate tax would have affected about 6,000 families. But because the repeal of the estate tax brings back the capital gains tax (which the estate tax eliminated on assets passed at death), over 70,000 families will now face new capital gains taxes. According to the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, "a t least 62,500 of these are estates that would not owe any estate tax if the 2009 rules were continued and that thus would be adversely affected by estate repeal. Farms and businesses would constitute a disproportionately large share of the group."

For couples with estates over one million dollars, it is essential that they review their estate plans for unintended consequences should one spouse die in 2010, the year of no estate tax. If there is no tax planning then tax language should be added to avoid the potential 55% Federal estate tax on estates over one million starting in 2011. For couples with tax language in their plans, you must look for disclaimer language (typically used by Ettinger Law Firm since 2006), which allows the surviving spouse to determine the amount, if any, to leave in the deceased spouse's trust on the first death. These plans have the flexibility to "roll with the punches" no matter what Congress ultimately decides.

Couples who have old trust language that has not been updated are most at risk. Typically, these old trusts (and wills) provided that the amount that was exempt from the Federal estate tax remained in the deceased spouse's trust. If a spouse with the old "formula" language dies in 2010, then nothing stays in their trust, since there is no estate tax, and it all comes out to the surviving spouse. Not only may this create a huge tax in the estate of the surviving spouse (potentially $550,000 on the one million that could have been left in the deceased spouse's trust) but you may also lose $99,600 in New York State estate tax savings by not having the choice of leaving the million in that deceased spouse's trust.

Tax professionals, commentators, Congressmen and Senators are all predicting that some sort of settlement will be reached early in 2010 to alleviate these and other problems arising out of the failure to pass amending legislation on time.

We say, don't bet on it.

These are the same professionals who said the problem would be settled long before the December 31, 2009 expiration date. The parties couldn't even agree to a simple extension of the 2009 rule one year, buying time to reach a compromise solution. With the impending retirement of two democratic Senators, and the likely loss of a democratic super majority in the Senate, there is a very real possibility of gridlock resulting in no agreement being reached and the estate tax exemption dropping down to one million at the end of 2010. In other words, the great estate tax chess match may end up in a stalemate.