Articles Posted in Estate Taxes

Last month the United States tax court issues a decision in a case which caught the eye of many involved in estate planning matters. The main issues in the case, Tanenblatt v. Commission of Internal Revenue, was the value of a deceased individual’s interest in a limited liability company. As most know, estate taxes are based on the value of the total assets owned by an individual at the time of passing. Consequently, determining the exact value of items like a business interest are critical in determining the tax burden. As you might imagine, there is frequently disagreement between surviving family members and the IRS regarding the overall assessments.

LLC Value

The tax court opinion (viewed in full online here) explains how the case involves a family that received a notice of deficiency from the IRS, claiming that an additional $309,000 in federal estate taxes was due. The discord was caused by confusion over the value of the decedent’s interest in a New York LLC (the 37-41 East 18th Street Realty Co.). As the name implies, the LLC’s main asset was a building on 18th Street in New York City. In preparing their tax return, the family essentially determined the value of the building (using an income capitalization approach), added a few smaller assets, applied “net asset value” (discounts for various reasons), multiplied by the individual’s percent interest and determined the value of the share in the LLC — around $1 million.

At the beginning of 2013, a federal compromise was reached which seemed to put to rest the uncertainty surrounding the estate tax. Based on the January law, the federal estate tax excludes property up to $5.25 million this year, with that figure set in the future and pegged for inflation. The top tax rate for assets over that amount is 40%, representing a slight increase from the previous level of 35%. In addition, the new law keeps transfers between spouses tax-free and makes “portability” permanent. Portability is the tool that allows one spouse to take advantage of the other spouse’s unused exemption.

Importantly for New York residents, all of those details apply only to the federal estate tax. There are still New York inheritance taxes to consider which take effect at a far lower level–$1 million.

The Future

Estate tax rates at both the federal and state level are set by lawmakers, and there is little that any individual can do on thee law. However, residents can significantly alter their tax burden with smart estate planning–like prioritizing tax free transfers (to a spouse), using protected trusts, and more.

But there is also another aspect to the estate bill that is often overlooked–the appraisal. The tax burden is based on applying a tax rate to the value of an asset. But who decides the value? Actual laws which set the rates cannot account for this detail, and so disputes about appraisals are quite common, often with millions of dollars on the line.

Theoretically, the value of many different assets can be disputed. But in practical terms there are some types of property that are open to far more value uncertainty, often spurring challenge. Perhaps the most obvious example is that of high-end artwork. There may be significant disagreement about how much each piece of art is worth.

One important purpose of estate planning is to ensure that as many assets as possible pass on to friends, families, and charities–instead of Uncle Sam. Using trusts and other legal arrangements to structure an inheritance is a prudent move for all New York families, but particularly those with sizeable assets. Taxes at both the state and federal level can take a significant chunk out of any inheritance. There are many high-profile cases of individual who failed to take advantage of all the planning tools at their disposal, resulting in an inflated tax bill. The estate of actor James Gandolfini’s, settled in New York, is just one recent example of how millions can be lost to taxes.

Illegally Cutting Corners

Unfortunately, some families may be tempted to cut corners and resort to illegal conduct in order to prevent the government from collecting on a large tax bill. The temptation to act in this manner is even higher when prudent estate planning is not conducted at the outset.

Do you have enough money to retire? It is a questions that tens of thousands of New Yorkers ask themselves every day. When talking with attorneys and financial advisers, many factors are weighed to determine whether enough resources are available for one to have the type and length of retirement that they want and need.

One of those factors, as always, is taxes. Retirement income is frequently taxed, with a portion of money going to state and local government. These are not necessarily trivial amounts, as the exact size of the tax burden may affect whether or not the nest egg is large enough to cash in one’s chips and begin the next phase of life.

Federal taxes will obviously be the same everywhere, but the rules about retirement taxes vary considerably from state to state. When making long-term plans regarding finances, it is critical to understand how state tax rules will affect your retirement

Death and taxes; the two constants in life. There has been significant discussion in the past few years over the one tax that is itself most closely tied to death: the estate tax. At the federal level, the President and Congress have debated the exact rate of the the tax and at one point it should kick in.

But once those details are set, it is still not entirely easy to determine what one’s total estate tax bill is. That is because most individuals have assets whose value is hard to gauge. It would be straightforward if all of one’s wealth was in a bank account with a set balance or stocks with a clear value.

That’s not how it works in the real world, however. Instead, many have assets that must be “valued” before added to a tax bill. Who does the valuing and what decisions they reach may ultimately have significant effects on how much of an estate goes to Uncle Sam. As you might imagine there is frequently considerable disagreement regarding this matters.

Our government is based on federalism, which is why we have different laws in individual states as well as federal laws. This allows for legal “experimentation,” with representatives in each state free to make different rules in many areas, from taxation and healthcare to marriage and even crimes.

One complexity in living in such a system exists when laws conflict and individuals do not necessarily live in one state or another. Sometimes the conflict is easy to resolve. For example, if one state allows you to drive while talking on the phone and another does not, then citizens are forced to abide by the law of the state they are in at any given moment.

But sometimes it is not that easy. There is often much complexity when it comes to different estate planning and tax rules.

Yesterday was a blockbuster moment for those who believe in equal marriage rights for all couples, as well as all those who follow important developments at the U.S. Supreme Court. That is because he Court issued two opinions that will surely be included in some Constitutional Law textbooks in the years to come.

Perhaps most importantly, the Court ruled in the case of Windsor v. U.S. that a portion of the federal law known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. In so doing, the Court’s decision will have immediate impact on the rights and long-term planning of all married same sex couples in New York–as well as the other eleven states that allow such unions.

The Ruling

Earlier this week we touched on the fact that estate tax issues need to be on all New Yorkers’ radar, because the state tax kicks in at a far lower level than the federal tax. The federal rate was seemingly fixed as part of the compromise legislation that averted the “fiscal cliff” earlier this year. While any law can be changed, the passage of this legislation was assumed by most to signal some level of finality on the matter. Debate had raged for months (even years) about the exemption level and rate. The uncertainty was a challenge for estate planners, because it is more difficult to craft complex protection plans when the tax rules are a moving target

In that vein, regardless of one’s own opinion of the estate tax, passage of the compromise bill was a welcome relief–offering stability. But that stability may be short lived, as proposals about changing the federal estate tax have are already making their way back into national political discussions.

Here We Go Again

Much discussion at the end of last year dealt with the estate tax. As federal officials groped for a compromise to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff,” details about the federal estate tax were one part of the negotiations. Democrats wanted it returned to levels during the Clinton Administration while Republicans wanted it eliminated altogether.

Just before the deadline, a law was passed which apparently settled some of the matters of contention. In so doing, it seemed to finally provide some permanence to the federal estate tax. The tax rate now tops off at 40% (a jump from the previous 35%) and begins on parts of the estate over $5.25 million. The exemption level is pegged to inflation, and so it will rise slightly each year.

With news of this new estate tax compromise (and its relatively high exemption level), many have pointed out that the federal tax is now only a concern to a small slice of the population. After all, the majority of residents will not die with assets over $5.25 million, and so estate planning to avoid that federal tax is unwarranted.

Contact Information