Articles Posted in Estate Planning

With the recent launch of the President’s health insurance marketplaces across the country, the Affordable Care Act has taken on a much more tangible character. Over 36 states are participating in the federally run internet exchange, while New York is one of a dozen of states running separate markets with its own operating system. The New York exchange is known as the “New York State of Health.” In just a few months, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will come into full effect. While parts of the law are already in place, 2014 will bring in a whole new set of changes, including dozens of tax provisions that can be difficult to understand.

With this in mind it is important to understand if and how the Affordable Care Act may affect your estate planning. Some of the provisions may have a relatively uncomplicated impact on your future. For example, nonmedical withdraws from health savings accounts will be taxed at 20%. Additionally, using pre-tax flexible spending accounts on nonprescription medications will be prohibited.

Other parts of the ACA’s provisions, though, are exceedingly complex. Careful planning and advice will be necessary to ensure that you can reduce your overall tax liability. One of the largest effects to your estate comes from the investment income surtax of 3.8%, which applies to the lesser of the investment income or the amount that income exceeds over the threshold. The threshold is $200,000 of Adjusted Gross Income (“AGI”) for unmarried filers or heads of household, $250,000 AGI for married filing joint, $125,000 AGI for married filing separate filers, and $12,000 AGI for trusts and estates. Further, there is an additional Medicare Earnings Tax on earnings above $200,000 for unmarried filers, $250,000 for married filing joint, and $125,000 for married filing separate filers. There is little that people can do to avoid these taxes, which will go up .9% from the existing rate to 2.35%. That is, except if you decide to earn less money!

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court’s Decision in Windsor v. U.S. allowed same-sex couples to receive the same federal benefits as other married couples. This has had enormous implications for estate planning for same-sex couples, as was previously covered generally here, and more specifically here for retirement issues, and here for recent IRS guidance. However, there are still many challenges and uncertainties facing same-sex couples since the ruling.

One area providing significant confusion is how divorce will affect same-sex couples. Although same-sex marriage is available in 13 states and the District of Columbia, couples that establish residences outside of those states may not be able to obtain a divorce. In states like Virginia that do not recognize same-sex marriage, gay couples cannot get a divorce (In essence, because the state does not recognize the that the couple’s marriage ever happened, it has no power to grant them a divorce). Moreover, if the couple does not have a legal residence in a state that does allow for same-sex divorce, they may not be able to obtain a divorce there either.

Even if the couple can obtain a same-sex divorce in their state, courts are often unsure how to handle a same-sex divorce. Take the case of Margaret Weing, a New York rabbi who got divorced earlier this year. Although she had only been married to her partner since 2008, she had lived with her partner in a registered domestic partnership since 1996. Weing and her partner had raised children together, merged their finances, and made each other beneficiaries of each other’s pensions and life insurance policies. They had also made each other executors and health insurance proxies, and had given each other power of attorney. Yet, when the New York court heard their case, the court would only divide assets accumulated starting from when the couple married in 2008.

You have probably heard the term “Executor.” Under New York law, this is the name given to the person (or trust company or bank) that is named in a Will and instructed to carry out the decedent’s wishes as outlined in a Will. Executors are entitled to a fee for their work, and it is usually paid out of the estate itself.

While friends and family members are often named as executors, the required duties can be complex. They include collecting assets and paying debts, expenses, and taxes. The process usually takes months (if not longer) and involves tricky procedural chores. Making mistakes can result in significant personal liability to the Executor, and so it is important that no party is surprised by their duties or uncomfortable with the work.

Make a Careful Choice

What happens if someone who intentionally causes a death is due to inherit from the person who died? Is the wrongdoer still able to profit from his or her actions?

In general, the answer would be negative. New York passed a statute known as the “Son of Sam” Law which essentially prevents a criminal from profiting from their crimes. This state law overlaps with a long-ago established common law principle known as the “slayer rule” which more directly affects inheritance issues, preventing someone convicted of causing a death to then profit by inheriting from the deceased person.

These rules are not new. But sometimes unique cases pop up which are hard to fit perfectly into the older rules, usually sparking legal challenges.

News this week is dominated by one topic: the federal government shutdown. Like most others, you may be wondering how (or if) the developments out of D.C. will affect you.

The Background

The shutdown itself is caused by Congress’s failure to pass an appropriations bill allowing for the spending of money to fund day-to-day government operations. More specifically, Republicans in the House of Representatives are refusing to pass a bill that includes funding for the Affordable Care Act. Usually disagreements about these issues are handled separately from daily government funding, but the House GOP has combined the issues and refused to budge, leading to the shutdown.

It is a cliche to assert that the world of estate planning is ever-changing. Of course, laws are frequently altered by policymakers which affect the best practices for passing on an inheritance and saving on taxes. For example, just this year Congress agreed on new federal estate tax rates, which may influence how some decide to use wills and trusts to best plan for the future.

But it is not only legal changes that impact these issues–technological and cultural changes can uproot estate planning details as well. On the cultural side, consider the changing gender roles. Only a century ago, in many families it was expected that the oldest male would inherit almost the entire estate, with daughter and younger sons receiving only a minimal inheritance. While similar arrangements can be made today, the practice is incredibly uncommon. Cultural changes since then altered how these distributions are normally made.

Technology Changes Estate Planning

The New York estate feud that dominated headlines for months may finally be nearing an end. Mysterious New York heiress Huguette Clark died in 2011 at the ripe old age of 104. For several decades before her death, Clark lived inside a hospital room–even though she was healthy enough to live elsewhere. Her several mansions remained empty for years. In fact, a documentary film based on Clark’s life and death is currently in creation–several books have already been published.

Because of her unique lifestyle and secretive existence, many were intensely interested in her estate plan–curious as to how her $300 million fortune would be passed on. So began a complex back-and-forth between dozens of different parties who apparently had a stake in the estate–including Clark’s doctor, lawyer, nurse, the hospital where she stayed, her distant relative, named charities, and more.

Clark’s estate planning was relatively bare considering the size of the assets. Essentially two wills were produced. The two wills were both created in 2005. The terms of those two wills could not be more different. The first will gave most of her assets to her distant relatives. The second will cut the family out entirely and instead sprinkled money to her doctor, nurse, lawyer, accountant, and arts-related charities.

Earlier this year we shared information about a $40 million New York inheritance that was destined to go entirely to the government. 97-year old former NY developer Roman Blum died in January, leaving behind the multi-million dollar estate. Yet, it seems that Blum conducted no estate planning–no trust was created and no will was found. Not only that, but it was unclear if he had any living relatives. As a result, per intestacy rules in the state, the assets would eventually “escheat” to the government. This represented the largest unclaimed estate in New York history.

The case is often pointed to as a vivid reminder of the need to lay out your inheritance wishes ahead of time or risk losing control of the decision entirely.

Will is Found?

One common misconception regarding estate planning is that simply getting wishes down on paper automatically means that those wishes will be carried out. Some New Yorkers, for example, may be under the too-optimistic assumption that drafting a quick will designating inheritances is enough to ensure that assets will go where intended.

It may be that simple in theory, but the reality is far murkier.

That is because challenges to wills and trusts are incredibly common. Disputes frequently result in compromises that are far different than what was originally intended. That is sometimes true even in cases where extensive planning was done ahead of time.

Many New Yorkers know that, as part of the federal tax package compromise that was passed on January 1st of this year, the capital gains tax rate was increased. Last year the top rate was 15% but that is now up to 20%. In addition, some individuals will also face a 3.8% investment surcharge tacked on top.

Prudent estate planning always takes tax considerations into account, and transferring assets which have accumulated in value is one of the most important (but trickiest) aspects of the process. As such, it is prudent to closely consider ways to legally save on taxes, particularly considering the new rates.

Forbes on Capital Gains

Contact Information