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

The Mississippi Secretary of State seems to be taking a very proactive approach to the regulation of preneed and perpetual care funds. Over the course of the last few years, the Regulation and Enforcement Division of the Secretary of State’s office has averaged an enforcement proceeding per month. We were curious what type of enforcement proceedings they were pursuing, and picked one at random. The luck of draw involved a situation where the Mississippi regulators alleged the preneed seller’s preneed contract form did not adequately disclose to the consumer the tax consequences of their preneed trust. While the preneed contract form stated that income taxes may be withheld by the trust, the seller’s trustee reported the income to the contract purchaser. This did not set well with the Mississippi regulators, particularly when the consumer had no right to cancel the contract and receive a refund of the trust income.

The Mississippi regulators are not alone in their perception of the inequities of this situation. Nebraska preneed regulators are also questioning why income should ever be reported to consumers when they may never receive it. The answer is that the Internal Revenue Service forced this issue with Rev. Rul. 87-127, with the goal of requiring a single method of income reporting for preneed trusts.

The Service struggled with the situation that troubles the Mississippi and Nebraska regulators: how can the purchaser be the grantor if he/she is never entitled to a refund of the income (or even trust deposits) upon the contract’s cancellation. But, as between the consumer and the funeral home, the funeral home’s right to the trust corpus is dependent upon performance of the contract. While the consumer may never receive a refund, he/she can choose a different funeral home to service the contract. The value of that service satisfies the grantor rules of the tax code, and supports the IRS’ conclusions in the Ruling.

The inequity of the situation may have led to the passage of IRC Section 685. Given an alternative is available to the seller, the Mississippi regulators sought to force the seller to either change its contract or require the trustee to change its income reporting. But in doing so, the Mississippi regulators misstate IRC Section 685. Irrevocability is not a key characteristic of an IRC Section 685 qualified funeral trust. While the Section 685 election is viewed as irrevocable, the irrevocability of the preneed contract has no impact on Section 685. The Mississippi regulators also fail to acknowledge that Section 685 is the trustee’s election to make, not the funeral home’s. While the two need to work in concert, it is the trustee that has ultimate control over the trust’s income reporting.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The 2010 calendar year proved a welcomed change for many trust funded preneed programs. The 2008 collapse of the home mortgage market triggered a melt down of bonds that lingered well into 2009. The press provided extensive coverage of how the situation impacted our 401k accounts. Stories about value declines of 25% to 33% were fairly common. But, most preneed trusts suffered a similar experience. Preneed fiduciaries were forced to examine fixed income portfolios for impaired assets, and some mortgage backed securities (long the staple of preneed trusts and endowed care trusts) had to be sold off.

In 2008 and 2009, many preneed trusts experienced capital losses that exceeded realized income. For the preneed trust reporting pursuant to a Federal Form 1041QFT, this black cloud had a silver lining: capital losses could be carried over to future years. With trusts seeing 2010 returns in the high single digits (and some double digit returns), the capital loss carry over provides fiduciaries an opportunity to reduce (or eliminate) the trust’s tax liability in 2010.

The manner in which a fiduciary applies the capital loss carry over (or CLCO) depends on how the 1041QFT was prepared in prior tax years. The QFT return contemplates individual trust accounts with a composite return, but IRS commentary suggests that a significant portion of QFT returns is prepared as a single, unified trust (see our August 9, 2008 post titled “The Section 685 QFT amendment: Supporting Soldiers’ Survivors”). With a composite return, the tax rate rarely exceeds 15%. With the unified trust, the tax rate will generally be 35% (when the trust income as a whole exceeds $11,200).

With the composite return, the CLCO is allocated among the individual accounts, and may be carried over in multiple years. With unified trust, the CLCO will be applied to the entire trust. In either case, the tax savings could be substantial.

Getting the 2010 return right may be more important than ever. As we will report in an upcoming post, the NPS collapse (and perhaps the IFDA/Merrill Lynch debacle) has caught the IRS’ attention. After twenty years of slumber, our tax regulator has reason to take a closer at how preneed is taxed.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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)