IRS Greenlights ILIT Replacement Policies

More On Tax Planning

from The Advisor's Professional Library
  • Long Term Care Insurance: Premiums While premiums for qualified long-term-care insurance may be deductible as medical expenses there are exceptions to this general rule. Learn how to avoid unnecessary tax liabilities.
  • Health Insurance: Health and Medical Savings Accounts A Health Savings Account is a trust created exclusively for the purpose of paying qualified medical expenses of an account beneficiary. Although they are popular, they are not without their pitfalls and the regulations can be complicated. Learn more about how to avoid federal taxation on the accumulation and distributions of HSA.

Flexibility is not a dominant selling point of Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts–or the life insurance policies that inhabit them. ILITs usually serve a single purpose, for instance providing a liquid fund to pay estate taxes, but a little creativity and flexibility can go a long way with clients who are on the fence. A recent IRS ruling (Revenue Ruling 2011-28, 2011-49 IRB 830) provides a path for at least one type of ILIT flexibility.

Substitution Power

There are not a lot of places to work flexibility into the structure of an irrevocable trust; too much flexibility and the value of the trust’s assets will be included in the grantor’s estate. But one area where flexibility can be introduced is in a power of substitution retained by the grantor.

The power of a grantor to substitute trust property for other property of equivalent value is often drafted into a trust for the purpose of conferring grantor trust status on the trust for income tax purposes. Prior IRS guidance established that the substitution power will not result in trust assets being included in the grantor’s estate for estate tax purposes.

Despite that general rule being clear enough, it was still unclear whether substitution power would result in the value of trust assets being included in the grantor’s estate when the trust is an irrevocable trust and the asset is a life insurance policy.

A grantor’s power to substitute in a life insurance trust could be interpreted as giving the grantor an “incident of ownership” in the life insurance policy held by the trust–thus resulting in estate inclusion of the value of the policy. Revenue Ruling 2011-28 provides a definitive answer to that question.

Prior Guidance

Prior to issuance of the ruling and its companion, Revenue Ruling 2008-22, there had been some uncertainty surrounding whether a substitution power would cause the trust’s assets to be included in the grantor’s gross estate under Section 2036 (property transferred by a grantor with a retained life interest) or 2038 (revocable transfers).

In Revenue Ruling 2008-22, the IRS came to the general conclusion that a grantor’s substitution power will not cause trust assets to be included in the grantor’s estate. Ruling 2011-28 extends Ruling 2008-22 to include a substitution power over a life insurance policy held in an irrevocable life insurance trust.

Conditions on Substitution

In both 2011-28 and 2008-22, the noninclusion rule is subject to two conditions:

  1. The trustee must have a fiduciary obligation to determine that the property acquired by the grantor and the substituted property are actually equivalent in value.
  2. The grantor’s “substitution power cannot be exercised in a manner that can shift benefits among the trust beneficiaries.”

In other words, the trust agreement must not allow the trustee to turn a blind eye to a non-equivalent substitution. Without that requirement,
a trust could be drafted letting the grantor strip value out of the trust. By ensuring that the trustee has a “fiduciary obligation” to ensure equivalent value, the beneficiaries can hold the trustee to account if he or she allows the grantor to take action that will prejudice the beneficiaries’ interests in the trust.

The substitution power cannot be “exercised in a manner that can shift benefits among the trust beneficiaries” if either:

  1. The trustee has both the power (under local law or the trust
instrument) to reinvest the trust corpus and a duty of impartiality with respect to the trust beneficiaries, or
  • The nature of the trust's investments or the level of income produced by any or all of the trust's investments does not impact the respective interests of the beneficiaries–for instance, when distributions from the trust are limited to discretionary distributions of principal and income.
  • Conclusion

    Often, grantor status isn’t necessary (or desirable) in a life insurance trust. When the trust is funded with income producing assets that will be used to pay premiums on the policy, it may be appropriate to ensure that the trust is a grantor trust so that the grantor will pay income tax on trust income. Otherwise, the trust may be forced to pay under the trust rate table, which rises to the top 35% level much quicker than the individual rate tables.

    But where there is some possibility that an obligation of the trust will be forgiven, generating cancellation of debt income for the trust, grantor status will be highly undesirable. For instance, if the trustee has the power to borrow from the policy and the policy is allowed to lapse while the loans are outstanding, the grantor will be on the hook for the tax bill.

    Selling Opportunities

    The ruling clears a path for replacing policies in an ILIT without disturbing your client’s estate plan. Outdated, expensive policies no longer have to be an expensive irrevocable mistake. You have an opportunity to put the right policy in place for your client, even where their policy is locked up in an ILIT.

    If your client’s ILIT does not permit substitution of the policy by the grantor, there’s hope. Depending on state law, an irrevocable trust can be amended in a couple of ways.

    First, does the trustee or someone else have the power to amend the trust under the trust agreement? If the trust agreement doesn’t include an amendment provision or the trustee is unwilling to sign off on an amendment, state law may grant amendment power to the grantor. Usually, state law allows a grantor to amend an irrevocable trust with the consent of everyone who has a beneficial interest in the trust.

    For additional coverage of this issue and similar ones, we invite you to sign up with AdvisorOne’s Summit 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.

    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.