Court OKs Crummy Crummey Powers

More On Tax Planning

from The Advisor's Professional Library
  • IRAs: Eligibility The eligibility rules for contributing to traditional and Roth IRAs are complicated. Learn how to effectively use them in retirement plans.
  • ETF Taxation The use of ETFs may be attractive to certain investors. The tax advantages may make them even more attractive.

You give your clients clear instructions about handling their life insurance trusts, but what happens when they disregard your instructions and get themselves into an intractable tax mess by personally paying premiums directly to the carrier? Direct payment of premiums on a policy in an ILIT can net your clients a big gift tax bill. Is there anything you can do to soften the blow and get them back on track?

The Tax Court recently considered a case, Estate of Turner v. Commissioner, where an insured did just that—paying some premiums directly to the carrier against orders—and correctly gifting some premiums to the trust. Turner’s estate believed that the premium payments made directly to the carrier were present interest gifts qualifying for the $10,000 annual gift tax exclusion ($13,000 in 2011). The IRS disagreed, claiming that the direct payments were gifts of future interest that were subject to the gift tax and ineligible for exclusion.

Present Interest Gifts

A donor can make $13,000 in gifts (2011) to a person each year without gift tax exposure. The catch is that this annual exclusion can’t be used to exclude gifts of future interests from gift tax; a gift must be of a present interest to be excludable. As a result, no gift of a future interest can be excluded from gift taxation using the annual exclusion.

A present interest is “an unrestricted right to the immediate use, possession, or enjoyment of property or the income from property (such as a life estate or term certain).” A gift is not a present interest gift if it is subject to a third party’s discretion. Thus, if a gift is made in trust and use of the gift by the recipient is solely in the discretion of a trustee, the gift will not qualify for the annual exclusion.

The job of ensuring present interest treatment of premium payment gifts to life insurance trusts has typically fallen on the Crummey letter. The landmark Crummey decision spawned Crummey planning, under which most life insurance trust beneficiaries are aware they have a time-limited right to demand withdrawal of the trust additions. Because beneficiaries have a right to demand withdrawals, their interest in gifts to the trust can be classified as a present interest that is eligible for the annual exclusion. 

The Court’s Analysis

In Turner, The IRS and the estate agreed that Turner made indirect gifts to the beneficiaries of the trust when he made direct payment of the life insurance premiums on the policy owned by the trust. Where they disagreed is on whether the gifts were of a present or future interest.

The estate claimed that the gifts were present interest gifts because the beneficiaries had an “absolute right and power to demand withdrawals of amounts transferred to [the trust].” The IRS disagreed, claiming that the beneficiaries had only a future interest in the gifts. In their view, because Turner did not make deposits into the trust, paying the premiums directly to the carrier, the beneficiaries had no way to access the gifts. As a result, they had no meaningful withdrawal right.

The court agreed with the estate, holding that, because the beneficiaries had an absolute right to demand withdrawals after each

premium payment, the gift was a present interest gift that was eligible for the annual exclusion. The fact that Turner made only indirect transfers to the trust by paying policy premiums was irrelevant to the question of whether the gift was of a present interest.

And it didn’t matter to the court that some of the trust’s beneficiaries might not have understood that they had a right to make withdrawals from the trust following each new gift. According to the court, their absolute right to demand the withdrawals was sufficient for the gift to be classified a present interest gift.

Conclusion

The moral of Turner is not that we can dispose of Crummey letters or that our clients can avoid the inconvenience of making gifts to their ILIT by directly paying life insurance premiums; the IRS has not yet acquiesced to the Turner decision.

So, despite the positive result for the taxpayer in the case, proper Crummey gifting is still an essential aspect of life insurance trust administration. Unless insureds are prepared for the expense of litigation, premiums should still be paid through the ILIT and Crummey letters should still be sent to beneficiaries.

The good news from Turner is that if your clients have been disregarding your instructions and have been paying life insurance premiums directly to the carrier, or if Crummey letters have not been issued diligently, they may be getting a kind of second chance.

For additional coverage of this issue and similar ones, we invite you to sign up with AdvisorOne’sSummit Business Media partner, AdvisorFX, for a free trial.

You may also be interested in signing up for a free trial with another Summit Business Media partner, Tax Facts Online.

See also The Law Professor's blog at AdvisorFYI.

Page 2 of 2
About the Author
William H. Byrnes, Esq.

William H. Byrnes, Esq.

Prof. William H. Byrnes, Esq., LL.M., CWM, Fellow

Prof. William H. Byrnes, Esq., LL.M., CWM, Fellow, is the leader of Summit Business Media's Financial Advisory Publications, having been appointed July 1, 2010. He has been an author and editor of 10 books and treatises and 17 chapters for Lexis-Nexis, Wolters Kluwer, Thomson-Reuters, Oxford University Press, Edward Elgar, and Wilmington, as well as numerous commissioned, peer-reviewed, and law review articles. He was a Senior Manager, then Associate Director of international tax for Coopers and Lybrand, which subsequently amalgamated into PricewaterhouseCoopers, practicing in Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Caribbean.

He has been commissioned and consulted by a number of governments on their tax and fiscal policy from policy formation to regime impact. He has served as an operational board member for companies in several industries including fashion, durable medical equipment, office furniture, and technology. Since 1994, he has been a professional trainer for professional association conferences, government workshops, and financial service institutions in-house meetings.

Before Associate Dean Byrnes joined the administration of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, he was a tenured law faculty member at St. Thomas School of Law. He serves on the Academic Committee of the American Academy of Financial Management. He created the first online graduate program offered to wealth managers and life insurance producers without any legal background—see http://llmprogram.tjsl.edu (Graduate Program of International Tax and Financial Services, Thomas Jefferson School of Law).

Email: wbyrnes@nationalunderwriteradvancedmarkets.com

About the Author
Robert Bloink, Esq., LL.M.

Robert Bloink, Esq., LL.M.

Robert Bloink is a professor of tax for the Graduate Program of International Tax and Financial Services, Thomas Jefferson School of Law.

Previously, he served as Senior Attorney in the IRS Office of Chief Counsel, Large and Mid-Sized Business Division, where he litigated many cases in the U.S. Tax Court, served as Liaison Counsel for the Offshore Compliance Technical Assistance Program, coordinated examination programs audit teams on the development of issues for large corporate taxpayers, and taught continuing education seminars to Senior Revenue Agents involved in Large Case Exams. In his governmental capacity, Mr. Bloink became recognized as an expert in the taxation of financial structured products and was responsible for the IRS’ first FSA addressing variable forward contracts. Mr. Bloink’s core competencies led to his involvement in prosecuting some of the biggest corporate tax shelters in the history or our country.

 

Mr. Bloink's insurance practice incorporates sophisticated wealth transfer techniques, as well as counseling institutions in the context of their insurance portfolios and other mortality based exposures. 

Comments

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.