Significant recent developments in estate planning.

• Author: Sawyers, Roby B.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

* Congress has not passed a permanent repeal of the estate tax; taxpayers still face the possibility of a one-year repeal in 2010.

* Numerous rulings and cases focused on FLPs, valuation issues, trust administrative expenses, QTIP elections, disclaimers and other issues.

* The IRS released a revised Schedule K-1 for estates and trusts for 2005 returns.

**********

This article examines recent developments in estate and gift tax planning and compliance. It highlights legislative developments, recent cases and rulings and administrative and procedural changes.

This article examines recent developments in estate and gift tax planning and compliance. It highlights legislative developments over the last year, and examines recent cases and rulings. It also discusses the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) changes taking place in 2006, and annual inflation adjustments affecting the estate and gift tax.

Legislative Developments

While the House voted for full repeal of the estate tax in April 2005, the Senate continues to lack the needed votes. On June 8, 2006, it failed to overcome a procedural hurdle that would have allowed a vote on permanent repeal. The most likely outcome will probably be a compromise that preserves the estate tax, but with a substantially higher exclusion amount. HR 5638, approved by the House in late June 2006, would increase the estate tax exemption amount to $5 million per person ($10 million for couples) effective Jan. 1, 2010, and would index these amounts for inflation. Estates under $25 million would be taxed at the capital gain rate, with larger estates paying tax at twice that rate. However, at press time, it is uncertain whether Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) can come up with the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster. Consequently, estate planners and taxpayers remain in limbo and face the possibility of a one-year estate tax repeal in 2010.

Significant Cases and Rulings

Although numerous rulings and cases were decided in the last year, this article focuses on those dealing with family limited partnerships (FLPs) and a variety of valuation issues, including discounts, the tax on built--in gains (BIGs), lottery winnings, fractional interests in real estate and buy-sell agreements. It also discusses cases and rulings on administrative expense deductibility, the qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) election, disclaimers, spousal election rights, charitable remainder trusts (CRTs) and income in respect of a decedent (IRD).

FLPs

The IRS has successfully argued for including assets transferred to FLPs in a transferor's gross estate under Sec. 2036(a)(1). Successful cases invariably involved transferors (usually terminally ill or in poor health) who transferred almost all of their assets to a FLP, but still enjoyed the transferred property by continuing to receive its income, receiving disproportionate distributions or interest-free loans to meet living expenses, or using the property rent-free.

Abraham: During 2005, various appeals courts agreed with the IRS. For example, in Abraham, (1) the First Circuit sided with the Service in a case involving an incapacitated woman who transferred assets to a FLP, but had an implicit arrangement with her children that entitled her to "any and all funds generated from the partnerships for her support." The Supreme Court declined to review this case on June 5, 2006. Its decision is not surprising, given that there is no split in the circuits on how to apply Sec. 2036(a)(1) to partnerships.

Strangi: The Fifth Circuit's much-awaited ruling in Strangi (2) was handed down in August 2005. In noting that (1) numerous FLP distributions were used to pay personal expenses; (2) asset transfers consisted of 98% of the transferor's wealth and left him without any meaningful liquid assets; and (3) the transferor continued to live in the residence transferred to the FLP until death without paying rent, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court's decision to apply Sec. 2036(a)(1).

Much to the disappointment of practitioners, it did not rule on the Tax Court's conclusion that Sec. 2036(a)(2) also applied, because the decedent's position on the corporate general partner's board of directors was a prohibited power to designate the property's beneficiaries. That finding was extremely controversial, as it is well-settled law that powers exercisable only in a fiduciary capacity do not typically cause estate-tax inclusion. The fallout from Strangi caused by the Fifth Circuit's refusal to rule on the Sec. 2036(a)(2) issue may not be as extensive as many estate planners fear, because the case's unique facts allowed the Tax Court to diverge from Byrum. (3) In noting the extensive amount of disproportionate distributions actually made, the Tax Court stated that following Byrum in Strangi "ignore(s) factual realities" as the "facts of this case belie the existence of any genuine fiduciary impediments to decedent's rights."

Schutt: Bolstered by its many successes, the IRS has attempted to expand the application of Sec. 2036(a) to instances in which there is no objective evidence of the retention of a valuable economic benefit. For example, in Schutt, (4) the Tax Court held that the value of stock transferred by the decedent to two Delaware business trusts was not includible in his estate under Sec. 2036 or 2038, because the transfers were bona-fide sales for full and adequate consideration. According to the court, the trusts were formed primarily for nontax reasons (although tax reasons, including discounts, were also considered), the decedent retained sufficient assets outside of the trusts to maintain his lifestyle, other family members contributed their own funds for their interests, funds were not commingled and proportionate interests were received in exchange for the transfer.

Keller: The fact that the Sec. 2036(a) inquiry is largely a factual one for objective evidence of the retention of prohibited rights was reemphasized in Keller. (5) A Texas district court declined the...