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

For the past few years, some Kansas cemeteries have been getting nasty grams from their regulator about their care fund trustee’s treatment capital gains taxes. Kansas, like most states, requires a portion of each grave space sale (interment right) to be contributed to a fund or trust for the future care of the cemetery. Kansas law calls that fund a permanent maintenance fund. Missouri law calls it an endowed care trust. In some states it is defined as a perpetual care trust.

Despite what the fund is called, these state laws universally seek to provide the cemetery a source of income to pay for the upkeep of graves (while keeping the contributions in tact). That latter objective, protecting the contributions, brings cemeteries and regulators into conflict when the fund realizes capital gains and losses. The Kansas cemetery regulator has been taking the conflict a step further by interpreting the law to preclude the trustee from paying taxes or fees out of capital gains.

The Kansas regulators (like many of their peers) perceive a ‘looming’ problem with cemeteries: abandonment and the eventual transfer to the municipality or county. Cemeteries are dependent upon the cash flow that comes from space sales (and the accompanying interment fees and marker sales). When a cemetery runs out of spaces, grave maintenance will be completely dependent upon income from the care fund. To minimize the financial burden placed on the county, the Kansas regulator has adopted a very strict interpretation of the law for the purpose of preserving the care fund for the day the cemetery transfers to the government. This interpretation not only precludes the fund from distribution capital gains earnings, but also the trustee’s payment of taxes and fees from the earnings. The regulator reasons that capital gains must be allocated to principal, and the law forbids all distribution of principal.

This puts the cemetery into a bind. The staple of care fund investments, the fixed income security, has been bearing returns of less than 2% for years. When trust expenses are netted from those returns, there is little left to distribute to the cemetery. Necessity has dictated that these funds begin investing in equities. But, the Kansas philosophy would penalize the cemetery. Not only is the cemetery prohibited from using the equity earnings, the cemetery must also pay the taxes incurred on those earnings (reducing what is received from the care fund). The only ‘winner’ is the county. Or is it? If the eventual abandonment takes years, and the cemetery has been deprived income for upkeep and repairs, isn’t the county getting the property in worse shape?
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Families and funeral homes harmed by NPS will hope that company’s owners and officers have to face a judge like the Honorable Richard Rome.

The Hutchinson News reported that District Judge Richard Rome rejected a plea bargain for probation, and sentenced Fairlawn Burial Park’s owner to almost 5 years in prison. A Kansas Secretary of State audit of Fairlawn’s permanent maintenance trust and preneed merchandise trust found several hundreds of thousands of dollars missing. The owner’s attorney suggested the funds were used to keep the cemetery operating.

While prosecutors negotiated a deal to replenish the trusts, the judge disregarded the plea bargain and sentenced Ms. McDonough to prison. The message to operators is that if the cemetery needs funds for operations, don’t borrow them from the trusts.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Within the past few years, state legislatures have significantly expanded the fiduciary duties of banks and trust companies that service death care trusts. Michigan, Indiana and Tennessee responded to cemetery trust frauds (including the Clayton Smart affair). The trend continued in Missouri and Illinois with laws aimed at funeral trusts (in response to NPS and the IFDA master trust). And, Kansas joined the movement with bills that are in response to cemetery trust failures.

At hearing for Kansas HB2712, the Kansas Bankers Association endorsed a provision that would require Kansas cemeteries to use fiduciaries that maintain a physical location within the state. The KBA reasoning is very simple: Kansas jobs. While the Kansas Secretary of State will accept the KBA’s support, the regulator wants the domicile requirement because the local fiduciary will be more responsive to the auditor’s inquiries and demands.

Regulators are not alone in their preference for the local bank. Funeral homes and cemeteries also take comfort in dealing with the bank that also handles their commercial accounts and their loans. Many funeral directors report that consumers also take comfort knowing their preneed funds are being supervised by the same banker who provides them checking services. Even consumer advocates recommend that individuals use the local bank to set up Totten trusts or POD accounts in lieu of preneed contracts.

However, the preneed trust and the cemetery perpetual care trust are not the type of accounts that most banks (or trust companies) handle with sufficient frequency to develop expertise. There is very little in the way of guidance to banks other than a 2000 memorandum issued by the Office of The Comptroller of the Currency to national banks.

Buried in the details of the OCC memo is the devil that trips up many preneed fiduciaries: the bank will be required to administer and invest the trust pursuant to the controlling instrument and applicable law. Applicable law would include the Internal Revenue Code, 12 CFR Part 9 and state death care laws.

The OCC memo warns national banks that:

Many banks serving as trustee in a preneed trust have only limited contact with the purchaser of the funeral contract and provider of the trust funds. The bank’s contact and business relationship is primarily with the funeral company. The consumer’s primary contract is with the funeral company or funeral director. Upon the death of the consumer, the bank remits the proceeds of the trust to the funeral company in accordance with the terms of the trust and contract, not to the individual’s family or heirs as is common in most trust relationships.

What makes this complicated and sensitive is that preneed funeral trusts are usually accounts established by funeral homes on behalf of individuals who are elderly or have limited financial resources. In addition, trustees manage these funds for a particularly sensitive and emotional event. Absent appropriate policies, procedures, controls and monitoring systems, this business line can create increased transaction, compliance and reputation risks.

Poor management of preneed funeral trusts, including weak internal controls over account acceptance and disbursements, noncompliance with trust agreements and applicable law, and inadequate due diligence on funeral homes and directors, can negatively affect a bank’s reputation. Banks that align themselves, or are affiliated, with funeral companies that have or subsequently develop reputation problems may themselves be tarnished, even if their internal practices are appropriate.

Preneed funeral trusts require the same level of supervisory oversight and risk management systems as other fiduciary activities in national banks. We expect banks that are active in this line of business to have appropriate strategic plans, policies and procedures, internal controls, MIS, and monitoring systems for this product. The administration of these accounts must comply with 12 CFR 9, Fiduciary Activities of National Banks, particularly the pre-acceptance, post-acceptance and annual review processes. It may be appropriate to have policies and procedures specific to this business line, and, if the business is significant for a bank, a separate administrative and investment review committee should be established.

It is imperative that national banks perform due diligence reviews on a funeral company before they enter a business arrangement with it. Bankers should also perform annual reviews of companies with which a bank has established a business relationship. Bankers should administer the use of third party service providers, such as investment advisors or managers, with appropriate controls and monitoring systems. National banks should also include preneed funeral trusts in internal compliance and audit programs.

While everyone from the consumer to the state death care regulator may take comfort in the local banker, few small institutions will have the revenues sufficient to warrant the costs associated with the compliance procedures recommended by the OCC.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With two of the nation’s top ten college basketball teams, Kansans are exhibiting clear symptoms of March Madness. With Topeka located between Lawrence and Manhattan, bipartisanship may be tested as tensions mount this week with the Big 12 tournament and the NCAA seedings announcement on Sunday. When Kansas legislators resume their meetings the week of March 15th, they may hear from a third constituency that has a different ‘madness’ in mind: the Secretary of State’s cemetery legislation.

When the Secretary of State’s staff began holding hearings last June, HB 2712 and HB 2713 may not have been what they had in mind. With the intent to encourage industry input, the Secretary of State formed a committee of cemetery operators and state representatives that was to meet for an afternoon every two weeks. With an aggressive agenda in hand, the first meeting included a handful of ‘spectators’. After that initial meeting, attendance dropped and fewer cemetery operators participated in the process.

Undaunted, the Secretary of State staff held its meetings over the course of the summer and fall of 2009, and outlined the problems with enforcing Kansas’ cemetery laws: funding for audits, wholesale trusting requirements, ambivalent and uninformed fiduciaries, and underfunded cemetery trusts. At the conclusion of the committee meetings, the Secretary of State requested assistance from Kansas’ cemetery industry. When nothing concrete was offered by the industry, the Secretary of State offered options between a state-mandated trust or revisions to fix the current law. That portion of the cemetery industry that attended the meeting choose a fix of the current law.

Among the changes proposed by the legislation, the following may prove the most controversial to some cemetery operators:

• The filing of monthly reports to the Secretary of State
• A new fee based on the reported transactions
• A switch of preneed merchandise trusting from wholesale costs to 50% of retail
• A new fiduciary definition that will limit the institutions that may serve as trustee
• An expansion of the fiduciary’s duties

While these bills do not reflect what the Kansas Secretary of State had hoped to accomplish when the process began last summer, the legislation reflects the realities of the current environment: growing political pressure to provide consumers greater protections and a fragmented and diverse cemetery industry.   Despite how some operators may respond, the Secretary of State could have gone much further (and may in future years).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks