by Ted Batson Jr. and Greg Baker
Many clients feel a great sense of satisfaction upon the creation of
a charitable remainder trust (CRT). After the newness wears off, however,
some CRT income and remainder beneficiaries wish to terminate their trusts.
Perhaps the CRT's value has dropped to the point that the continued payment
of income distributions to the income beneficiary is in danger of exhausting
the CRT so that the charitable organization will receive nothing (e.g.,
from a charitable remainder annuity trust).
The organization may have initiated a new program that the income beneficiary
would like to fund now rather than after his or her death. Or, the income
beneficiary may be experiencing an unexpected cash flow crunch and need
access to his or her portion of the CRT's value.
When is it generally advisable to keep the CRT intact and when might
termination be an option? What will the Internal Revenue Service's perspective
be if an early termination occurs? Should professional advisors counsel
donors and the charitable organization they have a relationship with to
stay the course?
In every case, it is important to consider the as-yet unsettled nature
of the law regarding early terminations and weigh the advantages and costs
of requesting a private letter ruling specific to a client's facts and
circumstances.
Administration of a CRT is often more art than science. At any moment
in time there may be unresolved issues with the investment portfolio,
distributions to the income beneficiaries may be in arrears or beneficiaries
may have been overpaid, or tax filings may not be current. Before entering
into a termination transaction, the administration of the CRT should be
cleaned up and any unresolved issues resolved.
Where an actuarial split is contemplated, the divisibility of the underlying
trust assets must be considered. Where the trust holds unmarketable assets
that are not easily divisible, the result of the termination may place
the income and remainder beneficiaries in a worse position.
CRT terminations generally take one of two forms: (1) the assignment
of the income interest to the charitable remainder beneficiaries (an "assignment
termination"); or (2) division of the trust assets between the income
and remainder beneficiaries based upon the actuarial present value of
their respective interests (an "actuarial split").
Not every CRT is a candidate for an early termination. The trust's governing
instrument must be examined to verify that the income beneficiary is not
expressly prohibited from assigning his or her income interest and that
the settlor did not expressly prohibit an early termination.
What is the effect of an early termination on the
CRT's qualified status under IRC §664?
Over the years, the IRS has issued more than 15 private letter rulings
related to CRT terminations. In one of the earliest rulings regarding
an assignment termination (PLR 7949035), the Service concluded (without
analysis) that the assignment of the entire income interest to the remainder
beneficiary and subsequent termination of the trust would not cause the
trust to retroactively fail to qualify as a CRT within the meaning of
IRC §664. The determining factor was that the assignment of the income
interest was permitted under state law.
In later rulings regarding actuarial splits, the Service continued to
rely on a finding that the contemplated termination was a valid transaction
under state law (see PLRs 200208039, 200304025 and 200324035).
Necessity of a Court Proceeding. In all states, a court of competent
jurisdiction can be called upon to rule on an early termination proceeding.
In some states, however, nonjudicial methods for dealing with trust matters
are available. Where these methods are available, it is often quicker
and more cost-effective to terminate a trust.
Consent of All Beneficiaries. In most states, an essential element
to a state law termination proceeding is the consent of all beneficiaries—regardless
of whether they vested. For example, it may be required that the children
of the donor, who possess a survivorship income interest that is subject
to a testamentary power of revocation held by the donor, consent to
the termination.
If the charitable remainder beneficiaries were irrevocably named in
the governing document, ascertaining those charitable organizations from
which the trustee must obtain consent is relatively straightforward.
If the original charitable remainder beneficiaries were named revocably,
however, questions may arise as to whether any or all of the charitable
organizations were ever revoked and others substituted. Some states require
that a prescribed method be followed when changing trust beneficiaries.
Therefore, the trustee should verify that proper procedures were followed
in the event that a change in charitable remainder beneficiaries was performed.
If the donor is still living, these issues can be easily resolved by
requesting that the donor issue a notice revoking all previously named
charitable organizations and fixing irrevocably those charitable organizations
that are to be parties to the termination proceeding. Otherwise, a careful
review of the trust file must be made to ascertain that the correct charitable
organizations are identified and notified, and their consent obtained.
Role of the State Attorney General. In most states, the Attorney General
serves as the protector for charitable organizations. In this role, the
Attorney General may often be a required party to a transaction involving
the early termination of a charitable trust (for example, if the CRT does
not specify a charitable remainder beneficiary). In other states, the
Attorney General's participation may be optional. In either instance,
the IRS has shown a preference for having the Attorney General as a consenting
signatory to the termination (see PLRs 200127023 and 200208039).
Will the assignment termination result in the charitable organization
possessing current access to the trust principal?
Where an assignment termination in favor of an organization is contemplated,
often a prime motivator is providing the charitable organization with
current access to trust principal. As an irrevocable split-interest trust
with a defined term, however, there is an expectation that the trust will
continue in existence to the end of the trust term.
At least two methods exist to ensure that the charitable organization
will have current access to the trust principal. In PLR 7949035, this
dilemma was resolved by petitioning a local court for a declaratory judgment
terminating the trust and directing that the trust funds be distributed
to the charitable beneficiary.
A second resolution to this dilemma is found in a state trust law concept
known as the doctrine of merger. The doctrine of merger holds that where
a trust beneficiary is the owner of both an income interest and a remainder
interest in a trust, the two interests merge, and the beneficiary has
a present right to the trust principal (see PLRs 8311063, 9550026 and
200140027).
Are income tax and gift tax charitable deductions available following
an assignment termination?
The assignment of an income interest in a CRT is a gift of a capital asset
(see PLR 200127023 and Rev. Rul. 72-243).
A CRT income interest, however, is a partial interest in property. IRC §170(f)(3)(A)
denies a charitable income tax deduction for the contribution of less
than a taxpayer's entire interest in property. The regulations under section
170 further clarify, however, that if the partial interest transferred
is the donor's entire interest in property, and the partial interest was
not created to circumvent the rules of IRC §170(f)(2) and (f)(3)(A),
then an income tax charitable deduction will be allowed.
The Service has consistently concluded that a CRT income interest represents
an income beneficiary's entire interest in the trust property (Rev. Rul.
86-60). With respect to the question of whether the interest was created
to circumvent the partial interest rules, the IRS looks to the facts and
circumstances surrounding each case.
Critical facts include: the years that have passed since the initial
funding of the trust, the attestation by the donor that the motivation
for the creation of the trust was poor investment performance, or the
creation of the trust by a settlor other than the income beneficiary.
The amount of the income tax deduction is computed using the formula
prescribed in the regulations for computing the present value of an income
and remainder interest in a trust. Please note that, if any of the underlying
assets are not cash or marketable securities, a qualified appraisal will
be required [Treas. Reg. 1.170A-13(c)(3)]. Because an income interest
in a CRT is neither cash nor a marketable security, many practitioners
feel the charitable contribution substantiation rules require that the
computation of the present value of the income interest must follow the
qualified appraisal rules.
Of great importance to the donor of an income interest is whether the
contributed interest will also qualify for a gift tax charitable deduction.
This is because a gift that fails to qualify for a gift tax charitable
deduction will result in either the use of the donor's gift tax exclusion
amount or even a gift tax. When asked to examine this question, the IRS
has consistently determined that a gift tax charitable deduction is allowed
in an assignment termination (see Rev. Rul. 86-60 and PLR 7949035).
Is an actuarial split a prohibited act of self-dealing
under IRC §4941?
IRC §4947(a)(2) provides that IRC §4941 (regarding self-dealing)
applies to a CRT. In most instances, the income beneficiary that surrenders
his or her income interest in a CRT in return for a distribution of trust
assets is a disqualified person as defined in IRC §4946.
The transfer of trust assets to a disqualified person is, by definition,
an act of self-dealing. IRC §4947(a)(2)(A), however, provides an
exception for amounts payable to a noncharitable beneficiary under the
terms of the trust.
Two key questions to be answered:
1. Does an actuarial split produce an amount payable to the income beneficiary
under the terms of the trust?
2. How will the amount to be paid to the income beneficiary be determined in
order to ensure that the termination does not result in a disproportionate
allocation of the trust assets to the income beneficiary (i.e., the disqualified
person)?
Does an actuarial split create an immediate taxable event for the income
beneficiary? An income interest in a CRT is a capital asset. The Service
has determined that an income beneficiary's receipt of a lump sum distribution
in exchange for his or her income interest is a sale of that interest
(see PLRs 200127023 and 200314021). As a result, the distribution of trust
assets to the income beneficiary in termination of the CRT is a gain recognition
event to the extent that the distribution received exceeds the income
beneficiary's adjusted basis in the income interest—although not
all practitioners agree with the IRS' conclusion.
In PLR 200152018, the IRS approved the assignment of an income interest
in exchange for a charitable gift annuity issued by the charitable remainder
beneficiary. This transaction preserved an income stream for the income
beneficiary and allowed an additional income and gift tax charitable
deduction. Most importantly, the income beneficiary was permitted to
defer the recognition of the capital gain on the exchange by recognizing
a portion with each annuity payment.
Given the Service's favorable ruling with respect to the exchange of
a CRT income interest for a charitable gift annuity, one must consider
other similar options. For example, could an income interest be used to
fund a new albeit smaller CRT with terms that are different (and presumably
less objectionable) than the original CRT?
The early termination of a CRT is not a transaction to enter into lightly.
With appropriate counsel, attention to detail and a willingness to play
by the rules, however, early terminations can effectively address the
needs of some clients and result in a successful conclusion.
Ted R. Batson Jr., MBA, CPA, is Vice President of Professional Services
for Renaissance Inc., the nation's leading third-party administrator of
charitable gifts. Since his employment in 1993, Batson has developed a
wealth of practical, hands-on experience in dealing with complex issues
related to the creative use of unmarketable and unusual assets to fund
charitable gifts. He routinely consults with the more than 2,000 attorneys,
CPAs and financial service professionals who look to Renaissance for case
assistance.
Batson has spoken to numerous groups regarding charitable planning and
has been published in several professional publications. Batson is a member
of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and
the Indiana CPA Society. He is a graduate of Asbury College (BA in computer
science) and Indiana University (MBA in accounting).
Gregory W. Baker, JD, CPA, has more than 16 years experience in trust,
tax and philanthropic financial planning. As Renaissance's Vice President
of Legal Services, Baker works directly with clients' attorneys, other
advisors and Renaissance staff regarding interpretations of federal and
state laws applicable to charitable accounts; charitable gift, investment,
retirement, estate and tax planning; and the wide array of assets held
by affluent clients.
He has consulted on more than 13,000 charitable remainder trusts, 700
charitable lead trusts and countless private foundations, supporting organizations
and charitable gift annuities.
Baker is a member of the advisory board for the CAP program at the American
College, the Indiana Bar, Indiana State Bar Assoc., National Committee
on Planned Giving, and Society of Financial Service Professionals. He
is a graduate of Wabash College and Indiana University School of Law at
Indianapolis.
The information on this site is not intended as legal, tax or investment
advice. For such advice, please consult an attorney, tax professional
or investment professional.
Copyright © The
Stelter Company,
All Right Reserved.