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

They say that the devil is in the details, and that is proving true for the Obama definition of the “rich” (those families that earn more than $250,000) and the plan to fix the budget. The IRS provided some detail to the Obama plan last December when it published a proposed regulation that would increase the Medicare tax to 3.8% and impose the tax on the rich through their trusts and estates. The NFDA and ICCFA have been trying to get their respective members’ attention because the proposed regulation specifically includes their business trusts as ‘rich’ that are be subject to the Medicare tax. 

Sometimes it may seem that associations cry wolf to reinforce to the membership the need for the association. But, the proposed IRS regulation is somewhat unique in that it specifically identifies Section 685 qualified funeral trusts and Section 642 endowed care trusts as those which will be subject to the Medicare Tax. As both associations point out in comments submitted to the IRS, the proposal reflects how little the Service understands the purposes of these trusts.

To see each association’s comments click the following hyperlinks:NFDA           ICCFA 

There is a legitimate risk to qualified funeral trusts that do not make individual account allocations for composite filings. We would have thought most fiduciaries prepared QFTs in such a manner, but the Service’s comments from a few years ago suggests otherwise. And, what about those preneed trusts that have not taken the Section 685 election?

Even though the Service’s rationale for application of tax to Section 642 endowed care trusts is tenuous, these trusts lack the individual accounting ‘out’ that can save the QFT.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When news of the indictment of 6 National Prearranged Service officers was reported last November, many newspapers picked up the AP version that included a quote from the Internal Revenue Service criminal investigator. The fact is that the Federal investigation of NPS involves investigators from the IRS, the FBI and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. An FBI press release regarding the NPS indictments includes comments from investigators with the three Federal agencies. To understand how NPS’ actions triggered the jurisdiction of the three agencies, a 2009 FBI press release concerning the indictment of Randall Sutton provides an explanation of the underlying facts.

The main thrust of the IRS investigation will be to determine whether the NPS officers committed income tax evasion with regard to what they individually received, or with regard to what the company received. The investigation will need to determine how the distributions from insurance, and from trusts, should have been reported by NPS. The investigation will also need to examine how NPS’ sister corporation, Lincoln Memorial Life, reported its income. And, the investigation will look at how the preneed trusts controlled by NPS reported their income.

Shortly after the Federal investigation of NPS was initiated, the Springfield Journal-Register reported that a Federal investigation of the Illinois Funeral Directors Association master trust had been initiated. As with NPS, Federal investigators will look closely at whether the reports mailed to funeral homes, and the statements mailed to consumers, were fraudulent, and thereby, violated mail fraud statutes. However, another line of investigation will be whether the master trust violated the Federal tax code.

What does the IRS’ role in these investigations mean to funeral homes and consumers? If these entities failed to accurately report income, the IRS (and state authorities) will view the unreported income as lost revenue to government. Preneed trust income must either be reported to the consumer or taxed by the trust. NPS trusts may have had annual tax liabilities in the tens of millions of dollars. No small potatoes considering the plight state coffers currently face.

Consequently, consumers and funeral homes may see taxing authorities become more aggressive in the enforcement of preneed income reporting requirements. With fewer agents due to budget constraints, the IRS may begin promoting its whistleblower program. If the situation reported this past weekend is an indicator of the future, non-compliant preneed companies may have more to fear from the disgruntled employee than being selected for a random audit by the IRS or state department of revenue.
 

• 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

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

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