Death Care Law Blog : Kansas Death Care and Preneed Lawyer & Attorney : Stalter Legal Services Law Firm : Funeral Law, Elder Law : Kansas City

Many preneed trusts either experienced significant capital losses last year or are sitting on assets that have unrealized losses. For those trusts that have taken a Section 685 election, these losses may be carried into future years as a capital loss carryover. While everyone would prefer to avoid realizing those losses, that loss can be used to offset future trust income. With the proper individual contract accounting, the loss could be extended for a longer period than the aggregate reporting followed by many trustees. For an explanation of Section 685 and the differences between aggregate reporting and composite reporting see our August 9, 2008 post titled “The Section 685 QFT amendment: Supporting Soldiers’ Survivors”.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As new allegations surface about the Merrill Lynch broker associated with the IFDA master trust, some may appropriately ask why a preneed trust would ever invest in an insurance product. There was a time when the twain shall never meet. That all changed in January 1988, and specifically when the IRS and Treasury decided to apply Rev. Rul. 87-127 retroactively to states ‘that should have known’ the funeral home/grantor method of income reporting was inappropriate.

Prior to the ruling, preneed trustees were taking different approaches to reporting the income earned by the trust. With regard to states such as California and Illinois, the trust was required to accrue income and the Service believed trusts from those states lacked authority for electing the grantor method with the preneed seller as grantor.

Consequently, the Service leveled the boom by serving notice that the ruling would be applied retroactively in certain states. This posed a genuine problem for existing trusts because most lacked the requisite consumer information to report income in compliance with the ruling. Thus started a mad scramble to find an alternative to income reporting, and thus began the exodus to insurance.

Today, preneed trustees can avoid the burden of Rev. Rul. 87-127 by electing taxation pursuant to IRC Section 685. While a few legitimate reasons for preneed trusts to hold an insurance product remain, the insurance transaction merits close scrutiny, particularly when a conversion of existing assets to insurance is involved (NPS and its Missouri trusts).

The preneed trustee should ask certain fundamental questions of those who seek to have the trust invest in insurance:

· How will this product be taxed upon maturity?
· Does this product provide the requisite liquidity to fund cancellations?
· Is a commission paid, and to whom?
· How strong is the policy’s issuer?
 

To the extent a life insurance policy is utilized, the decision invariably becomes an irrevocable election. The policy’s cash value generally precludes getting back out.

Generally, annuities provide a more flexible alternative to life insurance, but pitfalls still exist. In recent years, funeral directors have received solicitations to have their preneed trusts invest in a group, variable annuity product. Trustees still need to ask these fundamental questions, particularly when an investment broker is advising the funeral director.

With regard to the taxation of the insurance product, few seem to realize that the trust is dependent upon Rev. Rul. 87-127 for the desired tax consequence.

For those interested in the history of Rev. Rul. 87-127, and its alternative reporting method (Section 685), Professor Joel Newman provided a fair and accurate account in 80 Tax Notes 711.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In reporting on Forethought’s cut in growth payments last month, the Funeral Service Insider made a curious statement about the taxability. Referencing one of Forethought’s products, the article stated that a funeral home would have received the product’s growth tax free, and now would have to recognize the bonus as income. The article suggests that Forethought’s executive replied by advising that the taxability of the bonus would depend how the funeral home handles it.

Excuse me, but how are insurance proceeds or bonuses not taxable to the funeral home?

If a preneed insurance carrier is suggesting that policy proceeds are not taxable to the funeral home that accepts policy proceeds as consideration for performing a preneed contract, how does that company explain the transfer-for-value rule?
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

If the President signs the Hubbard Act (H.R. 6580), the qualified funeral trust will have the capability to fund all of an individual’s final expenses. When enacted, Section 685 imposed a $7,000 cap on the preneed trusts that could elect special tax treatment. While the limitation increased annually, the cap was too low to permit funding of funeral and cemetery contracts. The cap also precluded cash advance related expenses from being included in many preneed contracts. The Hubbard Act may open the door to allow the Qualified Funeral Trust to become more of a final expense trust. 

The Hubbard Act would amend Section 685 for the 2009 tax year. We will need to wait for IRS guidance regarding any retroactive application of the amendment. However, the Hubbard Act would not impact the requirement that the trust must make a payout within 60 days of the beneficiary’s death.

It is interesting to note from the Congressional record that most trustees probably prepare the 1041 QFT without individual sub accounting. With regard to the Hubbard Act, the Congressional Budget Office reports that the Joint Committee on Taxation (the JCT) estimates the elimination of the QFT limitation will increase tax revenues $6 million over the next 9 years. This estimate is based on the assumption that trusts will produce more income that will be taxed at the higher rates. 

A 1041 QFT will be taxed at the lowest rate (15%) until its income exceeds $2,150. The next tax rate (25%) applies until the trust income exceeds $5,000. Assume the QFT maximum for 2008 ($9,000), and the trust has to have a return of nearly 24% before the second lowest tax rate is reached. If one were to assume the 1041 QFT has a trust of $25,000, the trust has to have a return of 8.6% (net of trustee fees).   Obviously, the JCT are looking at numbers that indicate that trustees are preparing the QFT without individual sub accounting. OUCH!

Assume a $3,000,000 preneed trust with 500 preneed contracts earns net income of 5%, or $150,000. With individual sub accounting, that trust’s 1041 QFT should have an approximate tax liability of $22,500. Without individual sub accounting, that same 1041 QFT will have an approximate tax liability of $51,543.50.   Even with the elimination of the Section 685 cap, the tax liability of the QFT with individual sub accounting will likely be taxed at 15%.   The difference equates to nearly 1% of the trust, or a good argument for better individual sub accounting.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)

Everyone complains about continuing education, but occasionally the concept is reinforced when a timely program provides needed insight. Such should be the case when the Missouri Funeral Directors and Embalmers Association sponsors a class on the tax consequences of servicing an NPS contract. 

Funeral directors need to understand that they do not necessarily incur a tax loss when they honor an NPS that pays less than their at-need prices. Incurring an IRS audit by improperly reporting NPS revenues would be salt to those wounds.

The MFDEA convention starts June 1^st, with a slate of classes scheduled for Monday, June 2^nd.   Continuing education is not required for Missouri licensees, but it should be. Regardless, NPS providers from Missouri have ample reason to consider attending the convention. Hearing the Missouri Attorney General’s Office address the NPS situation may be worth the price of admission.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One of the many issues facing regulators in the Clayton Smart debacle was the surrender of thousands of Forethought life insurance policies by a Forest Hill preneed trustee. New light will probably be shed on this issue with revelations that Robert Nelms and Clayton Smart may each have been using the same financial management company: Security Financial Management Company. One needs to consider whether an investment advisor looked at the insurance being held by the preneed trust and boasted ‘we can do better’.

Preneed funeral contracts are generally funded by either insurance or trusts.  Each has its advantages and disadvantages.  However, the respective advantages are generally lost when the preneed trust holds insurance products as investments.  (I will exclude cemetery preneed trusts from this discussion because cemetery merchandise is often delivered prior to the purchaser's death, thus making life insurance impractical.)

 Insurance gets the nod as the preferable funding vehicle for portability, tax consequence (to the purchaser) and consumer savings (if you're under the age of 60-something and in relatively good health).  Trust funding gets the nod for universal availability, long-term performance (if the trust has sufficient assets to permit diversified investments) and refund rights (okay, okay, put the state law variations aside for a minute).  However, each type of funding has its unique 'costs', and combining them may cost the funeral home and consumer in the long run. 

Trustees were first induced to accept insurance products in the late 1980s when annuities were purchased for trusts that could not comply with the retroactive application of Revenue Ruling 87-127.   Many of these trusts lacked the information required to report income to the purchasers.  As a grantor trust, preneed trusts could hold an annuity and have the contract's increase be deferred for tax purposes until the contract's maturity.    

Once the camel's nose was in the tent, insurance companies began to market life insurance and annuities to death care companies as solutions to lagging trust performance.  Corporate trustees often consign smaller preneed trusts to fixed income investments in a conservative approach to avoid market fluctuations. In this era of relatively low interest rates, insurance products can offer a better return than conservative bonds and government securities. And, there is the temptation of a commission on the conversion of the trust's assets to insurance. 

However, insurance products represent problems to the corporate trustee.  As demonstrated by Clayton Smart's short-sighted actions, cashing in life insurance before the purchaser's death will have a significant adverse impact on the trust's value.  Cash surrender values on 70-something year old insureds are typically low.   And if the trustee does hold the policy to maturity, how are the insurance proceeds to be taxed?  Annuities simply defer the income aspect of the contract until maturity.  Life insurance proceeds are not taxable to an individual beneficiary, but are those proceeds taxable to the trust?   More than likely, the answer is yes.  The proceeds must generally flow through the trust, thus adding time and cost to the administration. 

Funeral directors need to consider that rolling a preneed trust into insurance is probably a one-way transaction. Once it has been done, it will be a matter of a few years before an investment advisor recommends that its time to cash those policies in. Two wrongs do not make a right.   In many states, it would be difficult to justify a rollover in the first place.  Funeral directors will only compound any error made if they change their minds and cash the policies in. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Whether it is because of state law restrictions or preneed purchaser demographics, death care trusts have unique requirements when it comes to investments.  Consequently, it is fairly common for a death care trust to utilize an investment advisor who has experienced with the industry.  However, the deductibility of the fees paid to outside advisors by death care trustees will now be more closely scrutinized in light of a January 16th decision handed down by the US Supreme Court in the case titled Knight vs. Commissioner.   

The conflict over the deductibility of investment advisor fees developed within the context of estate planning trusts, and has been brewing since 1993 when the Sixth Circuit rejected the IRS' position in O’Neill vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 994 F.2d 302.  In subsequent cases in other circuits, the IRS prevailed in its application of IRC Section 67(a) and the 2% floor.    Like side catch in a commercial fishery net, death care trusts are being pulled into a controversy based on estate planning facts. 

The impact of this issue on some death care trusts is felt not so much by the 2% floor, but by a collateral issue: the alternative minimum tax.  For maintenance trust returns, the characterization sought by the IRS renders the advisory fees fully taxable. And, the arguments forwarded by the IRS in its briefs to the Supreme Court and the lower courts suggest that the Service may look at other types of services outsourced by the fiduciary.   

The Supreme Court left the door cracked for the full deductiblity of fees paid to trust service providers, but the death care companies will have to work with their fiduciaries to justify the deduction of such fees.  To defend the deduction, the parties have to start with their trust instrument and administration documents to define the services and justify their need.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The National Funeral Directors Association has taken the lead in getting legislation introduced to eliminate the dollar cap imposed on qualified funeral trusts.  While I hope the NFDA succeeds, it won't be without a fight from the IRS. 

As the death care industry inches towards the non-guaranteed preneed transaction, the IRS will express its concerns over abusive trusts.  While funeral directors ponder whether consumers will embrace a preneed transaction that does not provide price guarantees, the IRS will question whether the transaction will be abused as a tax shelter. 

The Section 685 needs to be increased substantially, but I anticipate the Service will pull no punches while fighting the NFDA's efforts.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks