2020 Federal Tax and Gift Planning, Part 2
Part 2 addresses additional planning techniques and considerations, such as the selection of assets to gift, the use of a grantor trust and/or self-settled trust, state estate and gift tax law provisions and other potential changes to federal law to be considered by taxpayers in 2020.
October 15, 2020 at 01:46 PM
8 minute read
In Part 1 of this two-part series, we addressed the current federal gift and estate tax law provisions, the risk for legislative change to those provisions and certain planning opportunities that may be significantly less advantageous in 2021 to make gifts using a "dynasty" trust, a "SLAT," or an LLC structure and was published in the previous issue. Part 2 addresses additional planning techniques and considerations, such as the selection of assets to gift, the use of a grantor trust and/or self-settled trust, state estate and gift tax law provisions and other potential changes to federal law to be considered by taxpayers in 2020.
Selection of Appropriate Assets to Gift. In general, donees receive the same basis—known as carry-over basis—in gifted assets as the donor had in them (whether the gift is made in trust or outright). As a result, in the event that the donee then sells the gifted asset, the donee will pay tax on any capital gain in the asset just as the donor would have had to do. Alternatively, assets owned at death receive an adjustment in basis to make it equal to the fair market value of the asset on date of death. This permits the beneficiary of an estate to sell the bequeathed asset without recognition of gain in the value of the asset that occurred prior to the decedent's death. This difference in treatment of an asset's basis requires that basis should be taken into account in selecting which assets to gift—although part of the calculus should be the possibility of future law change (one of many in additional proposed changes—see below) that would apply carry-over basis to inherited assets. To minimize capital gain tax, gifts should be made of high tax basis assets and low basis assets should be retained by the donor so that the appreciation in these assets would under current law escape capital gain taxation following the donor's death. In addition, assets that are likely to appreciate in value are often the best candidates for gifting so that the future value appreciation is not subject to gift or estate tax in the donor's estate.
Use of Grantor Trust. Almost every trust created during the grantor's life for estate planning purposes can be structured as a "grantor trust" for income tax purposes which enhances the gift and estate tax advantages of the trust. A grantor trust treats the grantor as the owner of the assets of the trust for income tax purposes, but not for gift and estate tax purposes. As a result, the grantor is required to personally pay the income tax attributable to trust income—without having to treat such tax payments as additional gifts. Grantor trust status also permits the grantor to buy and sell assets from or to the trust without recognition of capital gain on the transaction. This flexibility can be useful to permit gifts of low basis assets to a grantor trust with the intention that the grantor will be able to reacquire them prior to death so that, under current law, their basis may be stepped up to fair market value at the grantor's death. A caveat, however, is to take into account in the calculus that changes to the grantor trust rules have been proposed that might restrict their advantageous treatment for future income tax years—for example, to restrict or eliminate the long-term ability for the grantor to buy low basis assets gifted to trusts in 2020 without capital gain recognition in a future tax year.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Ex-CFO of San Francisco Law Firms Pleads Guilty to $1.3M Embezzlement Scheme, DOJ Announces
- 2What Does Ohio Supreme Court's Opioid Decision Mean for Public Nuisance Claims?
- 3Bucking Industry Trend, Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Class of Partners in Firm History
- 4US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
- 5‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250