[ad_1]
In a 50-minute presentation based mostly on his 100-plus web page define, Steve R. Akers from Bessemer Belief touched on a myriad of post-death administration challenges. His define included sections on communication points, administrative delays and entry to funds for beneficiaries to maintain their existence within the speedy aftermath of a dying. His supplies additionally touched on fights over tangible private property and conflicts that may come up when estates and trusts are disproportionately divided. Different subjects coated included proposed laws on foundation consistency (which nonetheless aren’t remaining), alternate valuation date elections, deductibility of post-death curiosity bills beneath Inside Income Code Part 2053, certified terminable curiosity property (QTIP) elections and portability concerns, funding pecuniary bequests per Income Process 64-19, valuation points, planning alternatives for surviving spouses after QTIP trusts are funded and private legal responsibility for property taxes.
The Inside Income Service issued non permanent and proposed regs on foundation consistency and reporting necessities in March 2016. Akers famous that the proposed regs state that the ultimate asset valuation for property tax functions units the preliminary foundation however identified that routine post-death foundation changes should still apply. For property topic to non-recourse debt, the premise is gross worth of the asset although the web worth is on the property tax return could also be lowered by the quantity of the debt. The laws additionally distinguish between the premise consistency necessities and the premise reporting necessities. In his define, Akers identifies a number of property and courses of property that, whereas not topic to the premise consistency requirement, are nonetheless topic to the premise reporting necessities and should subsequently be recognized and reported on IRS Type 8971 and the requisite Schedule A for every of the beneficiaries entitled to the property or the category of property. Akers additionally famous that if after-discovered or omitted property isn’t reported on a supplemental property tax return previous to the tip of the statute of limitations for the evaluation of property tax, the premise of such property, together with money, shall be set at zero.
On alternate valuation for property tax functions, Akers famous that election of alternate valuation can solely be used if it would cut back the worth of the whole gross property and cut back the quantity of the federal property and generation-skipping switch tax due due to the dying. He additionally famous that if alternate valuation is chosen, property which can be bought or distributed inside six months of dying shall be valued as of the date of the sale or distribution.
The define and the presentation included a prolonged dialogue of the proposed laws about administrative expense deductions beneath IRC Part 2053. Amongst different issues, Akers named 4 common subjects associated to deductions for claims and administrative bills beneath Part 2053. These subjects are: (1) making use of current worth ideas, (2) deductibility of curiosity, (3) deductibility of quantity paid beneath a private assure, and (4) curing technical issues of references in present laws to a “certified appraisal” for valuing claims by as a substitute describing necessities for a “written appraisal doc.” Akers additionally famous the 11 elements listed within the proposed regs which will assist a discovering of deductibility for curiosity owed on mortgage obligations incurred by the property to pay property taxes. Akers additionally cited a number of instances that deal with the property tax deductibility of post-death curiosity.
On elections for QTIP trusts, Akers famous that, amongst different issues, components QTIP elections are permissible, and property which can be topic to QTIP elections may be distributed to separate QTIP trusts.
Akers closed out his presentation with a dialogue of non-public legal responsibility for property taxes. He cited the executor’s obligation to pay the property tax and potential for private legal responsibility for the executor if the property tax isn’t paid. He additionally famous that sure recipients of non-probate property may be held personally liable if the property tax relevant to the property they obtain isn’t paid. The define included an outline of transferee legal responsibility and a dialogue of the Paulson case, which he indicated was the primary case to use private legal responsibility to trustees who’re appointed after a dying or belief beneficiaries who obtain distributions after a dying. The appellate court docket within the Paulson discovered that trustees and belief beneficiaries may be personally accountable for property taxes. Nonetheless, the non-public legal responsibility of successor trustees is capped at “the worth of the property on the time that they obtained or had it as trustees,” and the non-public legal responsibility of belief beneficiaries “can not exceed the worth of the property property on the time of decedent’s dying, or the worth of that property on the time they obtained it.” U.S. v. Paulson, 131 AFTR 2nd 2023-1743 (ninth Cir. Might 17, 2023), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Oct. 23, 2023) (No. 23-436).
[ad_2]
