Estate Tax

Subscribe to Estate Tax

The New Jersey Tax Court recently released its opinion in Estate of Ruth Oberg, NJ Tax Court, Docket No 000240 (October 24, 2017), upholding the Division of Taxation’s assessment of additional New Jersey estate tax.  The case provides some important reminders about doing proper estate planning.

The estate in this case had a date of death value of $3.1 million and an alternate valuation date value of $2.1 million.  The estate claimed the alternate valuation date on its New Jersey estate tax return.  Unfortunately for the estate, however, the return was filed almost four years after the decedent’s death.  The judge agreed with the Division of Taxation that the return was filed too late to be able to claim the alternate valuation date.

The decedent also had made an undocumented loan to her daughter.  The estate claimed that the loan was a self-cancelling installment note (“SCIN”) and therefore was cancelled at death.  The court, emphasizing the difficulties of proving that an undocumented loan was actually a SCIN, found that the decedent had an interest in the loan at her death, and it was includible in her estate.  The court also found that the Division of Taxation was not bound by the IRS closing letter issued in the estate where the federal estate tax return was accepted as filed.

This is a classic “failure to plan” case.  If the decedent had properly documented the loan, and if the estate tax return had been filed on time, the additional estate tax assessed in the case could have been avoided.

The IRS has withdrawn the controversial proposed regulations under Code §2704 that would have significantly affected the use of discounts in US estate planning.

Code §2704 provides that certain “applicable restrictions” on ownership interests in family entities – that is, entities where the transferor and family members control the entity – should be disregarded for valuation purposes.  The proposed regulations created new rules relating to a lapse of a liquidation right.  They also created a class of restrictions known as “Disregarded Restrictions” that included many common types of restrictions in business entities and would be ignored for gift and estate tax valuation purposes.  See our prior blog post on this topic.

The effect of the proposed regulations appeared to be that they would eliminate or greatly restrict minority interest and lack of marketability discounts that are commonly applied in gift and estate tax valuations (resulting in higher valuations).  The regulations were very controversial from the moment they were issued.  Among other things, commentators said the regulations were unclear and unrealistic.

Treasury and the IRS have stated that they now believe that the approach of the proposed regulations to valuation discounts is unworkable.  The IRS issued a notice (Notice 2017-38) that it was reviewing the proposed regulations as unduly complex or overly burdensome, and has now withdrawn the proposed regulations.

Experts have started to calculate the inflation adjustments to key estate and gift exemption amounts for 2018.  Note that these are not the official figures to be released by the IRS, but should be used as a guide.  The IRS will officially release the numbers later this year.

For an estate of any decedent dying during calendar year 2017, the applicable exclusion was increased from $5.45 million to $5.49 million.  This change increased not only the applicable exclusion amount available at death, but also a taxpayer’s lifetime gift applicable exclusion amount and generation skipping transfer exclusion amount.  This means a husband and wife with proper planning could transfer $10.98 million estate, gift and GST tax free to their children and grandchildren in 2017.  The projected 2018 adjustment to the applicable exclusion will increase from $5.49 million to $5.6 million which means that a husband and wife with proper planning could potentially transfer $11.2 million estate, gift and GST tax free to their children and grandchildren in 2018.

For 2017, the estate, gift and GST tax rate remains the same at 40% and the gift tax annual exclusion remains at $14,000.  For gifts made in 2018, the projected gift tax annual exclusion will be adjusted to $15,000 (up from $14,000 for gifts made in 2017).

The New Jersey Estate Tax repeal will be effective as of January 1, 2018.  The current $2 million exemption which increased on January 1, 2017 is set to be eliminated as of January 1, 2018.  Keep in mind that the New Jersey Inheritance Tax is still in effect. This is a tax imposed on transfers to beneficiaries who are not spouses, parents, children or grandchildren (i.e., nieces, nephews, siblings, friends, etc.) New Jersey Inheritance Tax rates start at 11% and go as high as 16%.

The New York exclusion amount was changed as of April 1, 2014.  Beginning April 1, 2014, the exclusion has increased as follows:

•           $2.0625 million for decedents dying between April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015;

•           $3.125 million for decedents dying between April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016;

•           $4.1875 million for decedents dying between April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017;

•           $5.25 million for decedents dying between April 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018.  Beginning in 2019, the exclusion would be indexed for inflation, and equal to the Federal exclusion.

In 2017, the gift tax annual exclusion to a non-citizen spouse was increased from $148,000 to $149,000.  This is projected to increase to $152,000 in 2018.  While gifts between spouses are unlimited if the donee spouse is a United States citizen, there are restrictions when the donee spouse is not a United States citizen.

The US Tax Court recently held that a foreign corporation is not subject to US income tax on the sale of a partnership interest where the partnership conducts a US business.  In so holding, the Tax Court rejected a 26 year old Revenue Ruling (Rev Rul 91-32) that reached the opposite conclusion.  For foreign investors in US businesses (that do not own real estate), this is an important decision.

A foreign investor who owns an interest in a partnership that holds US real estate may be subject to US federal income tax on a sale of that partnership interest under the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (“FIRPTA”).  For real estate, the IRS has indicated that gain derived by a foreign investor from the disposition of an interest in a partnership is subject to US tax only to the extent it is attributable to US real property interests owned by the partnership.  Regs §1.897-7T(a); Notice 88-72.

In Rev Rul 91-32, the IRS set forth its view that taxation on the sale of a partner’s interest in a partnership can go beyond mere real estate investment and apply to a sale of an interest in a partnership if the partnership is engaged in any US trade or business and has effectively connected income (“ECI”).  In this ruling, the IRS applied the “aggregate” theory of partnership taxation to justify looking through the partnership to its underlying assets in determining the source and character of the partner’s gain.

In July, 2017, the Tax Court issued its decision in Grecian Magnesite, Mining, Industrial & Shipping Co, SA v Comm’r, 149 TC 3.  The court declined to follow the IRS’s long standing position under Rev Rul 91-32, and held that a non-US person’s gain from the sale of its interest in a partnership engaged in a US trade or business is generally not subject to US federal income tax.

Grecian Magnesite Mining was a privately owned corporation organized under the laws of Greece that sells magnesia and magnesite to customers around the world.  From 2001 through 2008, it was a member of a US LLC that was engaged in the business of extracting, producing, and distributing magnesite in the US.  In 2008, Grecian Mining’s interest in the LLC was completely redeemed, resulting in treating the transaction as a sale or exchange of the membership interest.

The IRS asserted that the capital gain was properly treated as ECI since Grecian Mining was engaged in a trade or business as a result of its investment in the LLC.  Grecian Mining’s position was that the assets of the LLC do not control the character of the gain from a disposition of an interest in the LLC.  The gain should not have been treated as US-source gain and generally cannot be taxed in the US as ECI under the proposition that foreign-source income cannot be ECI except in limited instances that arise from the presence of US real estate under FIRPTA, which only applied to a small part of their gain.

Foreign investors should carefully review their US tax exposure on a sale of a partnership interest before they simply pay tax on their realized gain.  Grecian Magnesite calls into question the validity of Rev Rul 91-32 (though an appeal or non-acquiescence is possible).  A foreign investor should be able to rely on this case to avoid paying tax.  Moreover, foreign investors that have already paid income tax based upon Rev Rul 91-32 may wish to file a refund claim based on this decision.

Anyone who has seen the current Broadway hit Hamilton knows that we are a nation of immigrants. Moreover, many U.S. persons who moved here from elsewhere have parents back in their home country.

When those “foreign” parents pass away and leave assets to their U.S. children, those assets become subject to the U.S. estate tax system in the children’s estates, where ultimately they can be taxed at a 40 percent federal tax rate (plus state estate taxes) when a child dies.

The adverse tax result that follows from foreign parents leaving their assets outright to U.S. children can be avoided with advance planning. Often, foreign parents can incorporate trust planning into their own estate planning documents. If assets pass to a properly structured trust for the benefit of a child rather than outright to the child, the assets in the trust may not be subject to estate tax in the child’s estate.

New York estate tax practitioners often consult with foreign advisors to effectuate this kind of planning, and it is becoming more important given the amount of immigration and investment in the New York area in recent years.

A parent can incorporate this type of trust planning—often called “dynasty trust” planning—in a Will that is valid in his or her home jurisdiction. The Will would include provisions to create the dynasty trust upon the parent’s death. To accomplish this, the U.S. trusts and estates lawyer can work with foreign counsel to (1) confirm that the “home country” law allows such a structure and (2) provide the dynasty trust language that will reflect the client’s goals and satisfy U.S. tax law requirements. For example, the trust can allow the child to be sole trustee of the trust created for his or her benefit, and permit distributions to the child and his or her descendants subject to ascertainable standards (i.e., health, education, maintenance and support) so that the trust assets are not included in the child’s estate. The trust can include powers of appointment and several other tools that allow for greater flexibility in the trust.

As an alternative to including the dynasty trust plan in a foreign parent’s Will, the parent could establish and fund a trust during lifetime to carry out his or her objectives. The U.S. tax practitioner can assist with the U.S. tax advice relating to such a trust.

If established outside the United States, such a trust usually will be structured to be a “foreign grantor trust.” This is a trust that, under the U.S. grantor trust rules (Internal Revenue Code §§671-679), is not treated as a separate taxpayer from the grantor. The trust is disregarded for U.S. income tax purposes, and the foreign grantor reports all items of income, deduction, gain, loss, credit, etc. on his or her own tax return, if any.

It is often simpler to structure this type of trust as a foreign grantor trust, rather than a foreign non-grantor trust that is treated as a separate taxpayer. A foreign non-grantor trust with U.S. beneficiaries has a number of tax reporting requirements, and also can be subject to punitive income tax rules (known as the throwback rules) when funds are distributed to U.S. beneficiaries. Thus, the parent’s trust is often best structured as a foreign grantor trust while the parent is alive. When the parent dies, the trust becomes a non-grantor trust, and the U.S. children generally will move the trust to the United States at that time (pursuant to a “change of situs” provision in the trust) so that it becomes a domestic, U.S.-situs trust.

In order to qualify as a foreign grantor trust, the trust must be fully revocable by the grantor. Internal Revenue Code §§672(f)(1) and (2). (Note that foreign trusts do not qualify as grantor trusts under the same rules as domestic trusts). This is often a desirable structure for U.S. children and their foreign parents. The foreign parent is committing to a structure that he or she can revoke or change at any time, while the U.S. child has the benefit of the parent’s proactive tax planning.

The foreign trust generally will have a bank or trust company acting as trustee in the jurisdiction of choice (e.g., BVI or Cayman Islands). The trust may have a family member named as a “trust protector” who has the right to remove and replace the trustee and make other changes to the trust. The trust may own the stock of an investment company that holds the assets transferred into this structure, and a family member can act as director of the company to manage the investments.

The substantive provisions of the trust permit distributions to children and grandchildren in the discretion of the trustee (which provides an asset protection benefit to the beneficiaries). The trust can continue in this fashion for many generations, and should not be subject to U.S. estate or generation-skipping tax.

As the parent/grantor of the trust is also included as a trust beneficiary, distributions from the trust can be made to the parent during his or her lifetime. In practice, if the parent wants funds in the trust to be distributed to a child, it is often best for the parent to withdraw funds from the trust and distribute them directly to the child. Among other things, this makes the U.S. tax reporting of the gift on a Form 3520 simpler.

Under certain circumstances, the foreign parent may wish to establish a U.S.-situs grantor trust rather than a foreign trust. This may make sense, for example, if the foreign parent has U.S. assets that will be transferred to the trust.

This article provides just a brief treatment of this issue and of course there are many additional complexities. The trusts and estates practitioner must consider, among other things, (1) whether home country law allows foreign parents to leave assets in this manner, (2) various reporting requirements for foreign trusts with U.S. beneficiaries, (3) trustee selection and fees, (4) numerous drafting issues to build maximum flexibility into long-term trusts, and (5) compliance with U.S. income and estate tax laws. Yet the tax saving opportunity for clients in this situation is substantial, and should be considered by all foreign parents leaving significant assets to U.S. children.

Reprinted with permission from the January 17, 2017 edition of The New York Law Journal© 2017 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.  Further duplication without permission is prohibited. ALMReprints.com – 877-257-3382 – reprints@alm.com