Posts Tagged ‘profit’

« Older Entries

Please write a check to the IRS for $3,167,000

Sunday, April 5th, 2009

Through the years, our office has listened to an endless stream of taxpayers complain about the income tax.

But if you ever want to see anger, frustration and bitterness, meet with the beneficiaries (usually the kids) of an estate when they are told to write a seven- or eight-figure check to the IRS — for estate taxes.

Taxes that could have been avoided with proper planning.

Tragic!

A recent post-death estate planning consultation got us thinking about what you are now reading. Yes, the estate tax was exactly $3,167,000 after Mom died; Dad had died six years earlier. The really sad part of this story is that Dad’s and Mom’s entire estate tax liability could have been legally avoided with a rather simple estate plan.

Mom and Dad were survived by three kids and eight grandchildren. The business that Dad started back in the mid-50s was worth $4.5 million and owned 100 percent by Mom when she died.

According to Dad’s estate tax return, the business, which he left to Mom, was worth $2.9 million when he died. No estate tax (because of the marital deduction) was paid when Dad died.

Dad and Mom had a typical estate plan: a will and a trust. The trust created two trusts: one trust to take advantage of passing $1 million tax-free (the amount that was tax-free when Dad died) and a second trust to capture the marital deduction.

The tax-free amount is $2 million in 2006, rising to $3.5 million in 2009 and back to $1 million in 2011.

There is no estate tax if you die in 2010. I’m betting Congress will change these amounts before 2010 (or sooner).

The real answer (to why many people procrastinate and don’t complete a comprehensive estate plan during their life) is the deceased person whose estate caused the tax did not have to personally write that big check to the IRS.

Whenever we are about to plan an estate, we estimate the amount of estate tax that ultimately will be due.

Then we ask the client to write a check to the IRS for that amount. The client always gets the point. Then, we plan the estate so the client’s wealth goes to their family, instead of the IRS.

The plan must be a lifetime plan, that implements the proper strategies, as necessary, during your life. A plan contained in the typical will and trust-like Mom’s and Dad’s above-only enriches the IRS.

The person (your executor) who must write the check to pay your estate tax is helpless when it comes to minimizing or eliminating the estate tax. Only you, while you are alive, can eliminate the estate tax… by creating the proper comprehensive estate plan.

Here are the three things you can do to drive the estate-tax devil away:

(1) Learn all you can (this column is a good start);

(2) No matter what your age, put a complete estate plan into place now (then monitor it every two to four years);

(3) Only work with experienced professionals who can show you how to pass all your wealth — intact —to your family (if you are not sure, get a second opinion).

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Estate Tax, Family Tax Issues, General Tax Strategies | No Comments »

Don’t go overboard with one kind of tax strategy

Saturday, April 4th, 2009

Professionally, my second love is writing this column. My first love is consulting with the people who read it.

Every family I work with is different. So are their businesses, their situations, their problems. In spite of these differences, I’m rarely surprised by anything totally new. But one reader sent me something I had never seen before.

Here’s the story.

After about an hour on the phone discussing an estate plan, son Sam calling at the request of dad Joe agreed to send me some typical information: tax returns, financial statements and a copy of the existing plan. About one week later, a heavy box arrived with a five-inch stack of documents. About four inches worth were nine separate family limited partnerships. They were the same except each partnership owned a different asset: the family business, a residence, investments, etc.

As I thumbed through the papers, I couldn’t help thinking about the drunk who was told, “A shot of whiskey each day is good for you.” The guy who did Joe’s estate plan was clearly drunk on partnerships.

One thing should be made clear: I am an enthusiastic cheerleader for the use of limited partnerships in estate planning. Use ‘em all the time. But this overkill of a single strategy just didn’t do the best possible job.

Using the computations of the adviser, the IRS would get more than $2 million in estate taxes. Another $1.1 million of IRS enrichment was likely because of a gross misuse of the partnership strategy.

What does a family limited partnership accomplish? It allows you as a general partner to totally control the use of any asset transferred to the partnership yet reduce the value of the assets transferred. For example, $1 million of assets transferred to a partnership are usually worth only about $650,000 for tax purposes. That $350,000 discount in a 55 percentestate-tax bracket would reduce your estate-tax burden by $192,500. Not bad!

A familylimited partnership is also a great asset-protection strategy. Creditors can’t get at the assets in the partnership. Neither can divorcing spouses of your kids, who are usually the limited partners.

Used properly, a partnership is almost a perfect tax tool. In general, don’t use them to own the stock of your family business. Nor should one be used for non-income-producing personal assets, like a home or car. It’s a valuable strategy for almost every other asset you might own: publicly traded stocks and bonds, real estate, you name it.

Without covering every detail, we terminated the partnerships that held the family business and two family homes. The business elected S corporation status and was transferred to an intentionally defective trust, and the residences were transferred to qualified personal residence trusts. Those are similar concepts that allow you to heavily discount the value of the assets transferred to them.

We used the liquid assets in two other partnerships to pay the premiums on second-to-die life insurance on Joe and his wife, which was owned by an irrevocable life insurance trust that we created. That trust removes life insurance from the taxable estate of the husband and wife.

When all the smoke clears, Joe and his four children, including Sam, will be enriched $4 million to $7 million more than the original overkill plan, depending on how long Joe and his wife live.

One warning: This is an example of overindulgence in one tax strategy. Although the above descriptions cover the main points of how Joe’s problems were solved., this is not a do-it-yourself kit. There are a number of traps and exceptions. Only proceed with the help of an expert.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in General Tax Strategies, General Tax Talk, Uncategorized | No Comments »

How to invest your accumulated cash profits

Friday, April 3rd, 2009

Business owners have many legitimate complaints these days: taxes, regulations, competition (from home and abroad), can’t find good people.

The list goes on and on. Always has, always will.

Yet the pride of the American capitalistic system is the successful family business. These entrepreneurs have found their way through, around or over the seemingly endless obstacles to become a “successful business owner.”

An SBO for short.

For the purposes of this article, SBOs have excess funds to invest (other than back into the operation of their business that produced the funds in the first place). Typically these excess funds are in one (or more) of three places: (1) still in the business, (2) in their (or spouse’s) name or (3) in a qualified plan (profit-sharing, 401(k), IRA or similar plan).

Over the years, the quote that follows has been nicknamed the SBO’s lament:

“I know how to make money in my business, but when it comes to making money with my investment money, either I don’t have time to watch it, don’t know how to watch it or rely on my investment advisor. When the market is up, my advisors do fine, when it’s down they do lousy.”

For the past couple of years, the lament usually ends with, “Now the market is lousy (or down, or uncertain, or similar words). What should I do?”

Now, regular readers of this column know that I am a tax planner prone to finding legal ways to avoid all types of taxes — particularly estate taxes. To do this requires, among other things, getting my client’s personal balance sheet.

Here’s what I can tell you that the balance sheets reveal about the investments of SBOs (and also other estate planning clients). Their success (or failure) in the stock market and a myriad of other investments, in general, mirrors the Dow Jones: happy on the way up and painful on the way down.

Usually, real estate investments are a winner.

Now what about that excess cash? Terrible results. Almost always the investments are conservative: divided between (1) CDs and money market funds, (2) municipal bonds and (3) a “zillion” variety of annuities. After taxes and inflation, your net earnings on (1) investments are typically less than 3 percent, sometimes even negative. Those income tax free bonds, (2), not only have a low rate of return, but fall in value when interest rates rise. Annuities, (3), could fill a large book to describe all the varieties and, most of all, the complaints from clients.

Never has a client told me that he/she is happy with the results of an annuity. (Sure would like to hear from a reader who has personally had a positive experience with any annuity.)

As you can imagine, almost every estate planning consultation with an SBO — and other clients — requires serious consideration concerning the client’s investments: safety, risk, tax consequences, rate of return and other factors. We discuss alternate investments, considering, among other things: profitability, risk and how taxed.

Currently, the most popular alternative investment is senior settlements (SS), also called Life Settlements. The following quote from The Wall Street Journal and USA Today (and other sources) tells you why SS are becoming such a popular investment.

“Life Settlements (have become a) trillion dollar industry, dominated by institutional investors including Berkshire Hathaway (billionaire Warren Buffet’s company), AIG and CNA. Their pursuit of this market is related to the degree of safety, high yields in excess of 15 percent per year and the fact that a Life Settlement is not affected by market forces.

“Life settlements are a very good option for the investor who has as his or her investment philosophy a desire for a secure, safe and ‘no risk’ investment. It is for your ‘nest egg’ money. It is not considered a security by SEC. Therefore it is not normally provided as an investment option by stock brokers.”

Of course, your question is: “Can a little guy (as opposed to an institutional investor) invest in SS?

Yes, it’s all made possible by a small, publicly traded (on the NASDAQ) company. Its average rate of return an SS investments has been 16.28 percent per year on average during the company’s 14-year operating history.

If you want to make a killing on your investments, SS are not for you. But if a 16 percent-plus rate of return, with no market risk is of interest to you (or your IRA, 401(k) or other qualified plan) fax me (847-674-5299) your name, address, phone numbers (business/home/cell) and estimated amount to invest ($50,000 minimum, for accredited investors).

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Estate Tax, General Tax Strategies, Investment Strategies, Uncategorized | No Comments »

A smart way to transfer your business

Friday, April 3rd, 2009

This article is about an old IRS letter ruling that is one of my favorites. It might be labeled “The lazy man’s way to plan your business transfer.“

The ruling shows you how to take advantage of some favorable tax law while avoiding pitfalls. Good stuff!

Well, there is one slight problem to using the technique: You must drop dead before your family can enjoy the benefits of Letter Ruling 9116031.

But wait, hold the phone. The ruling has one redeeming quality. Really!

First, the facts: Joe, his wife, Mary, and their children owned all the stock in a family business. Joe died in 1990 and Mary inherited all of his stock.

(Note: Mary’s tax basis — for computing capital gains — is the fair market value (FMV) of the stock on the day Joe died. For example, if the FMV was $1 million and she sold it for $1 million, there would be no capital gains tax.)

The fact that Joe’s tax basis, while he was alive, was $25,000, is immaterial. Mary immediately sold all of her stock back to the corporation.

Here’s the general rule: When you or any member of your family sells stock back to your corporation (called a redemption), the redemption is usually taxed as a dividend — a tax disaster.

But there is a special tax-saving exception for a family member who has owned the stock for 10 years or more: If he/she divests all interest in the company (including any position as an officer or director), the redemption is treated as a sale (gets favorable capital gains treatment, instead of being a dividend).

Since Mary sold all (stock she owned before Joe died and stock she inherited from him) of her interest in the corporation, the purchase by the corporation of her shares was considered a bona fide sale (redemption) and not a dividend — a big tax victory.

When all the smoke cleared, not only had Mary escaped a big dividend income tax bill, but she had succeeded in effectively transferring the business to her children. How? Since the kids now owned all the remaining issued and outstanding stock, they owned 100 percent of the business.

To sum up: Mary walked off with a near-tax-free capital gain, (the price paid to Mary for the stock was a bit more than the exact FMV of the stock inherited from Joe) while the kids walked off with the business.

A fantastic tax result.

Stop and think about your own business succession plan for a moment. Isn’t that the result you want — a fantastic tax-free (for income, gift and estate taxes) result? Yes, you can get that tax-free result every time.

More often than not, succession plans are implemented during life, which means there is a second issue (the first issue is tax-free): control.

The typical business owner wants control of his business for as long as he lives. So, when you sit down with your professional advisors, make sure you accomplish a perfect solution to the two key issues: (1) a tax-free transfer and (2) keeping control for as long as you live.

If any other result is offered (no matter how good or smart it sounds), get a second opinion.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Corporate Tax, Estate Tax, Tax Strategies | No Comments »

Sick of paying tax? Call a tax doctor for a second opinion

Friday, April 3rd, 2009

Often, I feel like an old-fashioned country doctor makin’ house calls. But there is a difference: my patients are sick of paying taxes.

Recently, I visited a successful family business in North Carolina, owned by a semi-retired 64-year-old named Joe and run by his son, Sam, a 36-year-old.

Joe called me. He wanted a second tax opinion for a business transfer plan and an estate plan put in place by Sam (with the advice of his professional advisors, the “best” estate planning team in the county) almost two years ago.

Wow, this patient was really sick (running a high tax fever, bleeding lots of tax dollars).

This is the story of the symptoms, the diagnosis and the “magic tax potions” that cured the patient.

First, the facts:

Joe owns 98 percent of two corporations: a profitable S corporation (Success Co.), which operates a string of stores, and a C corporation (a tax-paying corporation, called R/E Co.), which owns real estate leased to Success Co.

The real estate has an income tax basis of $1 million, but a current fair market value of about $6 million. Sam owns the remaining two percent of the stock of both corporations. Each of the corporations is the owner and beneficiary of a separate $1 million insurance policy on Joe’s life.

Four more little details:

• Joe’s second wife, Mary, is 45 years old and they have a premarital agreement that gives Mary the income from one-half of the value of Joe’s assets at his death for as long as Mary lives. But get this: none of the stock of Success Co. can be used to provide Mary her income.

• An artificially low price in a buy/sell agreement would force Joe’s estate to sell his stock in Success Co. back to Success Co. and the same for R/E Co. (Result: Sam would then own 100 percent of both corporations.)

• Joe has two other grown children who are not in the business.

• Joe is not insurable.

The diagnosis:

• The $1 million in life insurance payable to R/E Co. would kick up an unnecessary alternative minimum tax.

• The full $2 million of insurance would be included in Joe’s estate because he controls both corporations, but the $2 million (less the alternative minimum tax of about $150,000) would belong to the corporations, not Joe’s estate.

• There are not enough liquid assets to satisfy the obligation to Mary. Worse yet, if the obligation to Mary is met, there would be zero dollars (outside of the corporations) to pay an estimated $3.5 million estate tax liability. Simply put, the estate would be broke.

Our objectives to cure Joe’s tax illness are clear:

• Reduce the value of Joe’s estate.

• Get cash to fund the obligation to Mary.

• Pay the estate tax.

Here are the five major tax medicines I recommended to cure Joe’s business transfer and estate plan:

• Merge R/E Co. into Success Co. This maneuver is tax-free. R/E Co. is worth about $6 million as a real estate investment company but, as part of the operating company, its value is reduced by at least $2 million for estate tax purposes. Estate tax saving — over $1 million.

• Transfer the nonvoting stock (created after the merger) to a grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT), which reduces the value of Success Co. by about 40 percent for estate tax purposes. This maneuver saves about $.5 million in estate taxes.

• Joe takes the $2 million in insurance policies out of the corporations and gives it to his children. Result: The value of Joe’s estate drops about $2 million and will save another $1 million plus in estate tax.

• Change Joe’s will to put the entire estate tax obligation on the children. The $2 million in income tax-free/estate tax-free insurance proceeds will handle the entire estate tax load when Joe dies.

• Make sure Joe’s will qualifies for the 100 percent marital deduction for Mary’s one-half share, thus deferring any estate tax on this portion of Joe’s estate until Mary dies. Yes, there are other details and nuances in the plan, including gifts to Joe’s children, but these five tax medicines cured the patient.

What’s the lesson to be learned from this true-life Joe/Sam/Mary story? Always, yes always, get a second opinion after your estate plan is done, preferably before any documents are signed.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in General Tax Strategies, General Tax Talk, Uncategorized | No Comments »

« Older Entries

Estate Tax Blog

by Irv Blackman

First and foremost, Irv Blackman is both a CPA and a lawyer. Irv is a tax guy. Stay tuned to the site by signing up for the RSS feed.