BizLawBuz …. The Power of Know

Revocation and Restoration of Tax-Exempt Status

Nonprofits subject to IRS annual reporting requirements
Until recently, most U.S. nonprofit organizations were not required to file an annual information return with the IRS. Beginning January 2007, all that changed when even the smallest of nonprofits became subject to IRS annual reporting requirements. The only exceptions were state organizations, churches and their affiliated organizations, and certain religious groups. Nearly all others were required to file some version of Form 990, and the failure to do so for three consecutive years would mean automatic loss of the organization’s tax-exempt status.

New nonprofit filing requirements
It has now been three years since the implementation of the new filing requirements, and the IRS estimates that perhaps 20% of all nonprofits may have lost their tax-exempt status on May 17, 2010 (the annual filing deadline for nonprofits with a December 31 fiscal year end), for failure to file an information return for three consecutive years.

When nonprofit tax-exempt status is revoked
Revocation of tax-exempt status is a serious matter for a nonprofit. It means that its income is now subject to tax, and that an income tax return must now be filed. It means that the organization can no longer accept tax-deductible contributions, which could potentially mean a loss of its entire base of support.

IRS list of nonprofits whose tax-exempt status has been revoked mailing
So what does this mean for individual donors and grantmakers? The IRS is apparently waiting until 2011 to send out letters of revocation and to publish a list of nonprofits whose tax-exempt status has been revoked. Until that time, individuals can still deduct charitable contributions and grantmakers can still make qualifying distributions to those charities. Beginning in 2011, however, foundations will need to amend their pre-grant due diligence process to include confirmation that a charity has not lost its tax-exempt status.

Welcome relief for small nonprofits only
In the meantime, a press release issued by the IRS on July 26, 2010 offers welcome relief for small nonprofits only. Small exempt organizations have a one-time opportunity to either (1) file their missing returns by October 15, 2010, or (2) engage in a voluntary compliance program. The first option is for very small organizations that are eligible to file Form 990-N (known as the “e-Postcard”). The second option is for somewhat larger organizations that are eligible to file Form 990-EZ.

Organizations that file Form 990-N can simply go online and complete their filings electronically. Organizations that file Form 990-EZ must both bring their delinquent returns up to date and pay a compliance fee.

Regaining nonprofit tax-exempt status
For charities that receive an IRS revocation letter next year, all is not lost. A nonprofit can regain its tax-exempt status by filing a lengthy application (Form 1023 or Form 1024) with the IRS and paying the applicable user fee. (Unfortunately, this application process applies even to organizations that did not have to apply in order to gain their initial tax-exempt status.) Reinstatement will usually be effective as of the date the application is filed. However, if a nonprofit can demonstrate that it had reasonable cause for failing to file returns for three years, reinstatement will be effective as of the date of revocation.

Donor and Grantmaker Questions
Whether you are a donor with questions about an organization, a grantmaker that needs assistance in revamping its due diligence processes or a charity that fears it may have lost its tax-exempt status, the attorneys at Wright Penning & Beamer stand ready to assist you.

Lee Flaherty

These days it’s hard to listen to the radio, watch television or go on-line without being inundated by ads pitching the latest and greatest do-it-yourself, on-line, estate plan documents: who needs those money grubbing lawyers anyway? One thing all of these pitches have in common is the assurance that the forms are legally valid and binding. Truth be told, “legally valid” is not a tough threshold to meet. If the person signing the Will (or trust, or, you name it) has the requisite mental capacity under the laws of the state where the document is being signed, and the document is signed, witnessed, or notarized in accordance with the laws of the state, it is legally valid. Legal validity, however, is only part of the story. Imagine the shock years down the road when it is discovered that an estate plan put in place by well meaning parents, intending to provide for each other and their children upon their disability and eventual deaths, does nothing of the sort.

I recently had the opportunity to help a young couple with very small children, where one spouse was facing a life threatening illness. They were referred to me to review their revocable living trust. I was under the impression that it had been drafted by another lawyer, and, therefore, my initial review was not clouded or prejudiced in any way. As I went through the document I was appalled at what I perceived to be the utter incompetence of a fellow practitioner, and, quite frankly, dumfounded as to why and how any attorney could pass something like this off on unsuspecting clients. The document was grossly deficient in a number of particulars, and, more importantly, would not have accomplished the desired result of providing for the surviving spouse and children upon the disability or death of one of the parents. It was then that I learned that in their haste to insure that the surviving spouse and children would be provided for, the couple turned not to a lawyer, but to one of the popular on-line sites for their estate planning needs, which included a revocable living trust (for which they paid a fairly sizeable sum I might add).

To enumerate and explain the deficiencies in the document would exceed the space allowed here, so I’ll only touch upon three, specifically:

1. form
2. concept, and
3. substance.

First, from the standpoint of form, although touted by the website to be a Michigan specific document, the terminology used was not consistent with, or reflective of, Michigan law. This past April 1, 2010, the Michigan Trust Code went into effect, changing many aspects of Michigan trust law. Those changes had not found their way into the document.

Second, the document was premised upon property law concepts that are not followed in Michigan. Admittedly, this is where the explanation can get technical and complicated, so I’ll convey only the basics. Insofar as property ownership between a husband and wife is concerned, 40 states follow concepts derived from, and based upon, English common law. There are 10 states, however, that characterize property owned by a husband and wife pursuant to concepts that can be traced to French and Spanish civil law. Those states are said to be “community property” states. And, even within these groupings of common law and community property law jurisdictions, there are many variations. The salient fact remains, however, that property owned by a husband and wife is treated differently in community property and common law jurisdictions. Michigan is not a community property state. Yet, this document, although touted to be a Michigan specific document, employed community property terminology and concepts.

Lastly, there are many reasons why people need estate plans, and trusts in particular, ranging from tax savings to probate avoidance. For people with children, the primary need for a trust is to provide for the children upon the death or incapacity of one or both parents. Without a trust, minor children will receive their inheritance when they turn 18; all of it. Because that is rarely a good idea, trusts are the means of providing a method for holding property and administering it for the benefit of the children according to a detailed plan of distribution determined by the parents, in advance. The trust document I was asked to review contained none of these provisions. Although this couple had a number of children, upon the death of the second spouse to die, the trust assets would simply be held for distribution to each child as he or she turned 18. The document contained no provisions for the administration and distribution of the trust property for the care of the children while they were young.

Was this a legally valid and binding trust? It was. Would this trust have fulfilled the intentions and desires of this young couple and the needs of their family? Not even close. The problem is that they had no way of knowing that. For users of these on-line documents, it will be years or decades before the ultimate beneficiaries will learn just how bad the documents are. Merely filling in the blanks on a form is no substitute for the expertise of an experienced estate planning attorney. There is a reason why we dedicate our working lives and energy doing what we do.

Duane L. Reynolds

Wright Penning & Beamer is pleased to announce that Dan A. Penning has been named a FIVE STAR Wealth Manager by HOUR Detroit magazine in its June, 2010 issue.

As detailed below, more than 11,000 wealth managers practice accounting, business planning, estate planning, financial planning, insurance and investments in the metropolitan Detroit area. Out of the 11,000 wealth managers, only 686 of the top-scoring wealth managers were named a FIVE STAR Wealth Manager for 2010. Out of the 686 wealth managers, only 50 attorneys were included in the list and Penning was named as 1 of the 50 attorneys.

The following is an excerpt from the article accompanying the naming of the FIVE STAR Wealth Managers in HOUR Detroit magazine and reprinted with permission:

” . . . Well over half of the consumer responses in the Detroit area indicated it is difficult to find a wealth manager they trust and rely on. Wealth managers, broadly defined, are those individuals who help you manage your financial world and/or implement aspects of your financial strategies. Common examples of wealth managers are financial advisers, life insurance agents, accountants, tax advisors, attorneys, etc. With more than 11,000 wealth managers in the Detroit area, how do you find someone who listens to you, represents your interests and operates with an emphasis on integrity and service? HOUR Detroit magazine can help. The magazine formed a partnership with Crescendo Business Services to find out which wealth managers scored highest in overall satisfaction.

The Selection Process

Crescendo administered a survey, by mail and phone, to approximately 1 in 5 high-net-worth households within the Detroit area. An additional 4,200 surveys were sent to financial services industry professionals.

On the surveys, recipients were asked to evaluate only wealth managers whom they knew through personal experience, and to evaluate them based upon nine criteria: customer service, integrity, knowledge/ expertise, communication, value for fee charged, meeting of financial objectives, post-sale service, quality of recommendations and overall satisfaction.

Both positive and negative evaluations were included in the scoring. Only wealth managers with five years of experience in the financial services industry were considered. . .

Then, before finalizing the list, wealth managers were reviewed by a blue ribbon panel. The blue ribbon panel was comprised of individuals from within the financial services industry. Although panelist comments were incorporated into the final score, safeguards were built into the review process to reduce the ability of panel members to influence the composition of the final list on the basis of company affiliation.

An Elite Award

The resulting list of 2010 FIVE STAR Wealth Managers is an elite group, representing less than 7 percent of the wealth managers in the Detroit area. Only 686 of the top-scoring wealth managers made this year’s list. . . . ”

Penning offers his experience and expertise in estate, business and cottage law planning to Wright Penning & Beamer’s clients through our offices located in Farmington Hills and in northern Michigan from our office located in the historic “Train Depot” in Suttons Bay, Michigan.

The Michigan General Property Tax Act (the Act) requires real property in Michigan be assessed yearly and taxed at one-half (1/2) of its true cash value (true cash value is the same as market value). However, with the passage of the Headlee Amendment to the Michigan Constitution in 1994, limitations were placed on how much assessments and taxes could go up each year. Since 1994-1995, annual property tax increases have been “capped” at levels specified in the Act and remain capped until a “transfer of ownership” occurs. Once a transfer of ownership occurs, the property is reassessed at one-half (1/2) of the “true cash value” as of that date and the taxes, in most cases, go up substantially. The property tax is capped at the new, higher amount until the next transfer of ownership takes place (Michigan property tax bills show a “Taxable Value” and a “State Equalized Value.” The Taxable Value is the capped value upon which the property tax is assessed. The State Equalized Value approximates one-half (1/2) of the true cash value/market value of the property. Once the property tax is uncapped, the State Equalized Value and the Taxable Value become the same for the year in which the uncapping occurred and the cap goes back into effect at that amount).

The key term in all of this is “transfer of ownership,” which basically means a conveyance of title to, or a present interest in, real property. However, not all conveyances constitute a transfer of ownership. One such exclusion is for a transfer of ownership between two or more persons that creates or terminates a joint tenancy if

1. at least one of the persons was an original owner of the property before the joint tenancy was initially created, and,
2. if the property is held as a joint tenancy at the time of the conveyance, at least one of the persons was a joint tenant when the joint tenancy was initially created and that person has remained a joint tenant since that time.

In 1959, James and Dona Klooster, as husband and wife, acquired title to property in Charlevoix. They held the property as “tenants by the entirety” which is a form of joint ownership in Michigan applicable only to married couples. Dona then conveyed her interest to her husband James, who in turn as sole owner, conveyed the property to himself and his son Nathan as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. James died in January, 2005 which automatically made Nathan the sole owner. On September 10, 2005, Nathan conveyed the property to himself and his brother as joint tenants with rights of survivorship (”joint tenants with rights of survivorship” simply means that upon the death of one of the joint owners, the remaining joint owner(s) are automatically deemed to own the property as a matter of law; there is no new deed or new conveyance).

In 2006, the assessor for the City of Charlevoix determined that the death of James in 2005 constituted a conveyance to Nathan and uncapped the property taxes, resulting in a new taxable value that was almost double the previous taxable value. Nathan appealed the assessor’s determination to the local board of review which upheld the decision of the assessor. Nathan appealed that decision to the Michigan Tax Tribunal which upheld the decision of the board of review. Nathan appealed that decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

In an opinion rendered on December 15, 2009, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Michigan Tax Tribunal, finding that the transfer that occurred as a result of the death of James (making Nathan the sole owner) did not constitute a transfer of ownership under the Act. As a result, the taxes should not have been uncapped. The court came to this conclusion based upon the wording of the Act which requires a “conveyance.” Because the Act does not define “conveyance,” the court, considering both legal and dictionary definitions, determined that a “conveyance” is an instrument in writing affecting title to real property. The court ruled that the death of James, which automatically vested sole ownership in Nathan as the surviving joint tenant, was not a conveyance. The assessor has appealed that decision to the Michigan Supreme Court which, just a few weeks ago, agreed to take the case.

So, why is this case important? Plummeting property values equate to lower property taxes and lower tax revenues. If taxable values can be uncapped, revenues will increase. This case, which focused solely on whether or not the death of a joint owner constitutes a transfer of ownership such as to allow for the uncapping of property taxes, is therefore of substantial importance to property owners and assessors alike. A decision is expected later this year.

Duane L. Reynolds

As you probably have heard, the federal estate tax rules changed radically in 2010 and will change radically again in 2011 unless Congress passes new legislation. This article will discuss what some of the changes can mean for you.

First, a little background:
The 2001 Tax Act. In 2001, Congress passed legislation which significantly increased the federal estate tax exemption and lowered tax rates. Among other things, the 2001 Act provided:

• In 2009, the estate tax exemption increased to $3.5 million per decedent, with a reduced 45% tax rate on any excess assets.
• In 2010, the estate tax is repealed for one year. In addition, the step-up in basis (which gave a “fresh-start” fair market basis for most assets of a decedent) is replaced with a more complex adjusted carry-over basis system.
• In 2011, the estate tax will be reinstated. However, the tax exemption will drop down to $1 million and the tax rate will jump up to 55%. In addition, carry-over basis will disappear and the step-up in basis will once again be the law of the land.

What Happened in 2009? Estate planners universally expected Congress to extend the favorable 2009 estate tax rules through 2010. However, unexpectedly in December, the House failed to enact a one-year extension and instead sent the Senate a bill to make the 2009 rules permanent. Because the Senate was focused on health care and there was broad disagreement in the Senate on what to do with estate taxes, it did nothing. Thus, effective January 1, 2010, there is no federal estate tax and the adjusted carry-over basis rules apply.

Estate Planning Is Now in Chaos. Congress’s failure to act in 2009 and the possibility that it will not act this year make for an unpredictable planning environment in which any number of radically different changes may occur.

Here are some of the possibilities:
Congress may do nothing this year. While you probably will not die in 2010, you still need to consider planning for that possibility because not doing so could be disastrous. For example:

• Trust language that allocates your estate tax exemption to a “family trust” could disinherit or place undesirable restrictions on a surviving spouse or other heirs.
• Conflicts could arise on asset basis issues.
• Passing assets directly to your spouse may result in higher estate taxes after 2010.
• Congress may retroactively adopt legislation to carry the 2009 rules over 2010. If a retroactive law is adopted, it will most likely be challenged as unconstitutional and it could take years for the Supreme Court to rule on the issue. Until such a ruling, uncertainty will prevail. In any event, your estate plan should contemplate your dying both before or after a potential retroactive enactment.

Congress may act to address the tax issues, in which case it may:

• Adopt a permanent estate tax exemption. If so, most commentators anticipate the tax exemption will fall between $2-5 million and tax rates will range from 35% to 45%.
• Adopt a temporary estate tax exemption.

What Should You Do? Uncertainty makes it difficult to plan, but waiting to see what happens next is not a good idea. The earlier you can implement flexible tax and estate planning to respond to these changes the better. Please call us to schedule a time to go over your current estate plan and determine what changes need to be made to minimize taxes and to reduce the possibility of future family conflicts in these chaotic times.

Lee Flaherty

The HAITI Assistance Income Tax Incentive Act has recently been enacted into law to provide tax payers who give to charities providing earthquake relief in Haiti an opportunity to deduct their tax deductible donations on either their 2009 or 2010 tax returns. Only cash contributions are eligible as opposed to contributions of property. Tax payers must itemize deductions on their tax returns in order to benefit from the Act. Qualifying contributions must be made to an organization that is assisting with the relief efforts as approved by the IRS which are listed in IRS Publication 78.

If you have questions, please feel free to contact us.

Dan A. Penning

You will soon be receiving your 2010 Notice of Assessment for your Michigan real property. We pursue tax appeals both at the local Board of Review and before the Michigan Tax Tribunal.

We can help with . . .

* What to do with my assessment notice?
* When can I file an appeal?
* How do I get through the appeal process?

We can help answer these questions and more. Please contact us.

Dan A. Penning

Reminder:

You will soon receive your “2010 Notice of Assessment for Michigan Real Property”

This notice provides valuable information to determine whether a Property Tax Appeal is appropriate.

We can help answer your questions ….

“What do I do with my assessment notice?”

“When can I file an appeal?”

“How do I get through the appeal process?”

We can help answer these questions and more!

Please contact us to assist you in reviewing your Michigan property assessment.

It has long been said that the only things certain in life are death and taxes. While most Americans pay any number of local, state and federal taxes while living, depending upon the extent of one’s property and the estate planning techniques used, additional taxes may be owed at death. According to the IRS website, “The Estate Tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death.” While the federal estate tax, therefore, has an impact on estate planning, the extent of that impact is currently in a state of flux. While death remains a certainty that all will face, the amount of federal estate tax is not.

In 2001, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 (the “2001 Act”) was signed into law, significantly changing key provisions of the Internal Revenue Code dealing with the federal estate tax. Changes included an incremental increase in the estate tax unified credit exclusion from the pre-2001 amount of $650,000.00 per person, to $3.5 million per person in 2009, with no federal estate tax at all in 2010. In addition, the top estate tax rate declined from 55% to 45%. However, the 2001 Act contains a sunset provision and is set to expire on December 31, 2010. At that time the federal estate tax exclusion is scheduled to revert to $1 million per person and the maximum tax rate of 55% will be restored.

At 2009 rates, only inheritances above $3.5 million for an individual and $7 million per married couple were subject to the federal estate tax, at a tax rate of 45%. While it was estimated that only 1% of all inheritances would exceed those thresholds (encompassing an estimated 6,000 estates), Congress expected the federal estate tax to generate upwards of $25 billion in taxes in 2009.

Although there is no federal estate tax in 2010, the 2001 Act replaces the federal estate tax with a 15% capital gains tax on property inherited in 2010. Prior to 2010, beneficiaries of appreciated assets received those assets at their fair market value at the time of the decedent’s death (”stepped-up basis.”) Under stepped-up basis rules, the difference in the value of the asset from the time it was acquired by the decedent (the decedent’s “basis”) and the value of the asset at the time of the decedent’s death (the “gain” or “appreciation”) was not taxed as capital gains to the beneficiaries. This total exclusion no longer applies in 2010. While the capital gains scenario for 2010 is complicated and has its own system of exemptions, experts agree that many who thought that the elimination of the federal estate tax in 2010 would amount to a windfall may be in for a surprise.

The new capital gains treatment in 2010 notwithstanding, it is uniformly acknowledged that Republicans and Democrats alike are not going to accept the total elimination of the federal estate tax in 2010. In fact, on December 3, 2009, the House passed the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers and Small Business Act of 2009, making permanent the $3.5 million per person exclusion, the 45% top tax rate, and stepped-up basis rules. However, the Senate, while focused on healthcare reform in the closing weeks of 2009, did not address the federal estate tax. As a result, the 2001 Act remains controlling — at least for now. Some Democratic Senators have vowed to reconvene early in January in order to pass an act that will be retroactive to January 1. As of this writing, the only thing that is certain is uncertainty.

We at Wright Penning & Beamer will continue to monitor this situation and the impact of future federal legislation on the estate planning needs of our clients. Stay tuned.

Duane L. Reynolds

Important events require careful planning. For example, what happens to your assets, who will care for your children, will your business survive or will your children be able to protect a legacy asset such as a cottage or vacation property in the event of your incapacity or death all involve critical decisions. Planning “in time” does not necessarily mean that the planning is “on time.” Any ambulance driver will tell you that lying on a stretcher on your way to the hospital is not the time to begin working on your estate plan or business succession plan. On a number of occasions, the importance of timely planning has been dramatically presented to me. In each situation, clients with entirely different types of estates and needs had one thing in common, they waited to plan until it was almost too late. Sometimes the risk of delayed planning “on time” becomes “in time”.

Each of these examples involve critical decisions and require careful planning.

One such client was a mother of two minor children, a business owner and estranged from her husband who suffered from a substance abuse problem. In this article, I will give her the assumed name of Sarah. Sarah cared for her children on a full-time basis, was the sole means of financial support and was self-employed in her own business. Tragically, Sarah was diagnosed with cancer two years ago. She was losing a valiant battle with her illness and had been hospitalized on several occasions prior to the day we met at my office. A mutual friend suggested Sarah contact me to develop and establish an estate plan and business succession plan to protect Sarah, her children and to preserve her business that employed several people.

I first met Sarah on a Thursday morning. She came to my office in a wheelchair accompanied by her sister. This same sister was also caring for Sarah and her children during Sarah’s illness.

After listening to Sarah’s explanation of her situation, I recommended to Sarah that she establish an estate plan to protect Sarah’s assets, provide for the appointment of her sister as Sarah’s children’s legal guardian and adopt a succession plan for her business to give a key employee the chance to purchase the business in the event of Sarah’s death. This planning would insure that Sarah’s assets would not be subject to a claim by her estranged, addicted husband, and that the assets be managed and support her children so that their lives, as much as possible in her absence, would remain stable and financially supported into the future. The business succession plan, notably, provided additional proceeds to be paid over time to support Sarah’s children, but also protected the jobs of her employees who relied on Sarah’s business to support their families.

I copied and collected all the information I needed from Sarah to draft her estate and business plan documents. I advised Sarah that although the process of completing these plans typically can take weeks or even months, given her declining health, I would draft her documents right away. I sked if she could return the following day to review and sign her plans. Sarah responded that she might not live to sign the planning documents the next day. Based on my observations of Sarah during the initial part of our meeting, I had no reason to doubt that possibility.

Together with my staff, I proceeded to prepare her estate and business succession plans for her signature that day. We also coordinated with her financial advisor the transfer of assets into a Trust created by Sarah for her children’s benefit. It was quite an emotional day. My staff and I raced against each precious moment that passed to consolidate Sarah’s planning process into one day. Sadly, Sarah died the next day. Fortunately, Sarah’s plan continues to govern and support her children and business as well.

During the span of my career, I’ve drafted estate and business plans solving various issues for clients to avoid significant problems. I have reviewed and obtained signatures in critical care units of hospitals, nursing home rooms and literally, in one case, we obtained a client’s signature on his estate planning documents while walking beside his hospital gurney as he was being wheeled to the operating room for emergency heart surgery. While I have many success stories for people who planned “in time”, there are extraordinary risks involved in not planning “on time”.

Dan A. Penning