Home Page link  

Re: Retained life estate

 

Taxes General Forum - Tax professionals meeting place and answers to queries. (Moderated)

 Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Re: Retained life estate Dave W. 04-11-2006
Posted by Dave W. on April 11, 2006, 3:31 am
Please log in for more thread options

>> OK, once again - Page 74 "Living Wills and Trust" Probate
>> and Taxation, Holmes F. Crouch (2005) virtually identical
>> example to the OP situation. The amount included in the
>> estate of the son for the purposes of the estate tax (if the
>> son didn't contribute anything) - $- 0 -, zilch, nada.

> I will go take a look at the book. But for your information
> that book is not a scholarly treatise, it is not a book for
> tax professionals, but a book by an EA for the mass market.
> He has no special training and no inside information. So as
> far as I'm concerned if he did say what you claim, there is
> no reason to believe it is any more correct than the
>
> I've been doing estate planning for more than 25 years and
> have never seen anything authoritative that says what you
> claim. In fact, I've never heard of anyone claiming what
> you are.
> And certainly don't rely on the experience of someone who
> has no experience other than reading books by people with
> few credentials and published for the mass public, that are
> written to tell the reader just what he wants to hear.

There's not much more I can do to for you Stu.
Maybe I could do more research on court cases or go over the
federal tax "tracing rules" but I get the feeling you just
don't believe me!

But it's absolutely true (and it's discussed in other "mass
market" estate books) with the example of a widower who adds
a son to the title on a personal residence and the son dies
first but didn't contribute anything, with the consequence
of the son's federal estate tax valuation being $ - 0-. I
mentioned this once to an estate lawyer and she really did
ask what happens if both die in plane crash! All I can say
let's just agree to disagree --

The best part of this discussions is you can look at mass
market E A estate planning books to correct future clients
with estate planning misconceptions! (Maybe I'm been reading
"Estate Planning for Dummies" !)

<< ======================================================= >>
<< The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only >>
<< and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting >>
<< messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ======================================================= >>

Posted by Stuart A. Bronstein on April 12, 2006, 7:17 am
Please log in for more thread options

> There's not much more I can do to for you Stu.
> Maybe I could do more research on court cases or go over the
> federal tax "tracing rules" but I get the feeling you just
> don't believe me!
>
> But it's absolutely true (and it's discussed in other "mass
> market" estate books) with the example of a widower who adds
> a son to the title on a personal residence and the son dies
> first but didn't contribute anything, with the consequence
> of the son's federal estate tax valuation being $ - 0-.

And that is absolutely correct - as long as the son was
added to the title as a joint tenant. Section 2036
specifically requires that result.

But if the son is added to the title in any other way, that
is not the result.

We were specifically talking about the son being added as a
remainderman after the mother retained a life estate. In
that case, if the son were to die first (which was his
question) his share in the property would be included in his
estate.

In support of my position, Drew cited Treasure Regulation
20-2031-7, which says, among other things,

"the fair market value of annuities, life estates, terms of
years, remainders, and reversionary interests for estates of
decedents is the present value of such interests,... "

If the son were to die first, he'd be the decedent. And his
remainder interest would be included in his estate at the
present value of his interest on the date of his death.

Stu

<< ======================================================= >>
<< The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only >>
<< and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting >>
<< messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ======================================================= >>

Similar ThreadsPosted
Re: Retained life estate April 11, 2006, 3:31 am
Re: Retained life estate. April 12, 2006, 11:09 pm
Re: Retained life estate April 12, 2006, 11:09 pm
Re: Retained life estate April 15, 2006, 2:08 am
Life time education credit on real estate tuition fee September 25, 2007, 11:58 pm
Retained Earnings Distribution ? March 27, 2008, 4:45 pm
S-corp: Retained Earnings vs. Reserve Account January 4, 2007, 8:54 pm
For S Corporation Should You Rename Retained Earnings Account as AAA? January 25, 2008, 9:59 am
tax on life insurance January 3, 2007, 10:49 pm
Life Tenency June 29, 2006, 12:35 am

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
This site is not affiliated with Intuit - makers of Quickbooks and Quicken software
This site is not affiliated with Sage Software - makers of Peachtree accounting software
XML SitemapXML Sitemap