Bigstock-Law-Legal-Rights-Judge-Judgeme-95353457

Analyzing the Zahner Holding: Moving Forward Using Short-Term Annuities as Successful Planning Tools

In 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held that three separate Medicaid Compliant Annuities with "short" term repayments were sham transactions for less than fair market value, as the intentions of these annuities were to shield resources from Medicaid eligibility. The claimants appealed the decision. This month, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued their decision regarding the claimants’ appeal. The Third Circuit’s decision sets a precedent is important for Elder Law practitioners, not only in Pennsylvania, but potentially in our field at large.

Bigstock-Law-Legal-Rights-Judge-Judgeme-95353457The Holding

Each case involved Medicaid claimants who purchased annuities after making uncompensated
transfers to qualify for Medicaid benefits. Two of the purchasers were married at the time of purchase and one was not. One case involved an 18-month annuity purchase, while the applicant's life expectancy was 9.5 years. The second appellant purchased a 14-month annuity, with a life expectancy of almost 7 years. The third appellant purchased a 12-month annuity, with a life expectancy of 11.3 years.

The District Court made two holdings in the Zahner case. First, the District Court held that federal law preempted the Pennsylvania rule stating all annuities held by a Medicaid applicant and / or his spouse are not assignable, and thereby countable resources, as the Pennsylvania rule was in direct conflict with federal Medicaid law. The Third Circuit upheld this portion of the District Court decision. Second, the District Court ruled that the purchases of the annuities were sham transactions for less than fair market value. The District Court reasoned that because the annuity terms were not correlated closely enough to the life expectancies of the claimants, they were actuarially unsound. The Third Circuit overturned this portion of the District Court’s decision, opining that an annuity is actuarially sound if its term is less than the annuitant's reasonable life expectancy under the safe harbor provision.

What We Have Learned as Practitioners

By examining in detail the Third Circuit’s Zahner holding, we can get a much better picture of what to look for in annuities moving forward, and how to protect our clients in their purchases of Medicaid Compliant Annuities. It is exciting knowing that short-term annuities are a valid planning tool, in accordance with the Third Circuit’s decision. 

The Safe Harbor Provision

The Safe Harbor Provision, 42 US §1396p(C)(1)(F), (G)(ii), states that certain annuities do not disqualify those otherwise eligible from receiving Medicaid benefits. The federal Medicaid law, through the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), establishes a four-part test for annuities to fall within the Safe Harbor Provision.  An annuity must (1) name the State as remainder beneficiary; (2) be irrevocable and non-assignable; (3) be actuarially sound; and (4) provide for payments in equal amounts, during the term of the annuity with no deferral or balloon payments. The Pennsylvania Department of Human Resources (DHS) attacked the annuities on two separate grounds. The first ground was that the annuities were not irrevocable, and the second ground was that the annuities were not actuarially sound. These are the prongs of the Safe Harbor Provision that we will look to in analyzing the Third Circuit’s decision.

Assignability

Pennsylvania Statute Sec. 441.6(b) states that "any provision in any annuity … owned by an
applicant or recipient of medical assistance … that has the effect of limiting the right of such
owner to … assign the right to receive payments thereunder … is void." Pennsylvania DHS argued that this law caused all annuities purchased by Medicaid applicants in Pennsylvania to fail the safe harbor test. The District Court and the Third Circuit held that this is untrue. The Third Circuit opined that all states that wish to participate in the federal Medicaid program must comply with federal eligibility requirements. The Federal Medicaid Act allows states to establish more liberal requirements than the federal rules when implementing the State Medicaid plans, but they cannot provide more restrictive ones. Therefore, citing the Supremacy Clause, the Third Circuit said that the state rule was pre-empted by the federal law and the state must acknowledge the assignability of an annuity in accordance with the intent of Congress. The Third Circuit went on to further express Congress' intent by stating that in married cases any annuity that was payable to the community spouse would count as an income source to the community spouse and could not be a resource for the institutionalized spouses.

Actuarially Sound

The Pennsylvania DHS made two arguments that the annuities were not actuarially sound. First, they argued that the annuities were trust-like in that they were transfers made to a trustee or trustees with the intention that the annuity be held, managed, or administered by the trustee(s) for the benefit of the grantor or certain designated individuals (beneficiaries). Pennsylvania Transmittal 64. The Third Circuit stated strongly that there is no fiduciary relationship between the insurance company and the annuitant like that of a trustee and a beneficiary, as the insurance company has no duty to invest for the benefit of the annuitant, as long as the payments are made on schedule.

Second, the Pennsylvania DHS argued that the annuities were not actuarially sound because the annuity terms were shorter than a "term of years," and the annuitants lost money in each fact pattern presented to the Court. The Third Circuit held that as long as annuity terms are not longer than the reasonable life expectancy of the individual, the transfer is not being made for less than fair market value and the trust remains actuarially sound. The Third Circuit further interpreted "term of years” to be any reasonable time period, and while minutes or days may be a sham period of time, that was not the case here, as the term of months comported with the annuitants’ life expectancies.

National Impact

As Lawyers with Purpose attorneys desiring to use the best planning tools for our clients moving into the future, this ruling is important in many of its findings. The ruling holds that while the state may allow more liberal interpretations of the federal Medicaid rules, it is against the U.S. Congressional intent and in violation of the Supremacy Clause for the state to be more restrictive on Medicaid eligibility than the federal rules allow. The holding further makes a clear distinction between annuities and trusts on the federal level, stating that there is no fiduciary relationship between the annuitant and the insurance company as the insurance company has no obligation to invest in any way in the best interest of the annuitant. The Third Circuit also offers a more clear definition of what a period of time is for purchases of Medicaid Qualified Annuities, allowing purchases for less than a term of years if the time period of payout is in proportion to the annuitant’s life expectancy.  In conclusion, the Zahner decision provides solid legal precedent for the continued use of short-term annuities in Medicaid planning.

Please join Dave and me in Phoenix as we discuss the potential implications of the ruling on Medicaid Compliant Annuities in our focus session on Wednesday, October 21st at the Tri-Annual Practice Enhancement Retreat.  There are only a few spots left and the doors close TODAY at 5!  

Kimberly Brannon, Legal-Technical and Software Trainer at Lawyers With Purpose

Bigstock-Forms-Concept-with-Word-on-Fol-95979155

Focus on Forms: Third Party VA Forms – the 21-22a and 21-0845

This post is an installment in the Focus on Forms series, which considers and discusses some of the most common forms associated with Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pension claims. The goal of this post – like all those in the Focus on Forms series – is threefold: to define the purpose of the forms; to discuss how they should be completed; and to recommend what to file with these forms. Today’s subject is the forms related to third parties that may be involved in a pension claim, specifically, the 21-22a and the 21-0845.

Bigstock-Forms-Concept-with-Word-on-Fol-95979155Purpose of the 21-22A and the 21-0845

The VA forms 21-22a and 21-0845 are used to establish representation of a claimant by a third party and authorize the release of information to a third party, respectively. The VA does not recognize Powers of Attorney and will only speak or release information to a claimant unless a third party has been recognized by the VA as the claimant's authorized representative or recipient of personal information. The only other person who would be able to communicate or obtain information from the VA regarding a claimant would be the person appointed as fiduciary after an award has been adjudicated and when a claimant has been deemed incompetent. These forms do not have any impact on the processing of the VA claim other than to identify to whom the VA can disclose information. If there is no third party representing the claimant, these forms do not need to be submitted to the VA.

Form 21-22a is entitled, “Appointment of Individual as Claimant’s Representative” and is to be used by accredited attorneys, accredited agents, private individuals, or service organization representatives who want to be recognized in the “preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims for VA benefits for a particular claimant.” It is a two-page form with instructions embedded in the fields. The individual named on this form should be copied on all correspondence issued by the VA regarding the claimant.

Form 21-0845 is the Authorization to Disclose Personal Information to a Third Party and was recently updated by the VA. The current version is dated May 2015 on the lower left corner of the form. The new version is available in the latest release of the Lawyers with Purpose VA software. It consists of a single page with an introductory first page of general information and specific instructions. It is used to identify non-accredited third parties that can be given information about the claim, but it does not imply that these parties in any way “represent” the claimant. For example, a child, home health care company or assisted living facility may be listed as having authority to obtain information.  Note that forms 21-0845 signed by VA beneficiaries who have been deemed incompetent will not be accepted. Therefore, it is best practices to have the claimant sign this form before submitting a claim for benefits, which is a time frame wherein the VA presumes the person is competent.

Completing the 21-22a and the 21-0845

Both of these forms are fairly straightforward. Per the Respondent Burden field in the upper right corner of these files, they should each take no more than 5 minutes to complete. This is an accurate assessment.  What is likely to take more time on the VA form 21-22a is getting all the necessary signatures in the appropriate places. It can be confusing, but the claimant and the representative each sign twice – once on each page. Most of the other fields are self-explanatory. An important feature that may easily be overlooked on the 21-22a is a cleverly hidden field that has no number. It is on the second page in the section called “Conditions of Appointment.” The very fine print here indicates that if the individual named on the form as representative is “an accredited agent or attorney, this authorization includes the following individually named administrative employees of my representative.” In the space that follows, you may list all such non-accredited team members who may need to call the VA regarding the status of a claim.

The 21-0845 has similar fields to those in the 21-22a, with the notable exception that the latest version of the 21-0845 now sports the individual character boxes to aid the VA in computer processing of forms at intake. The 21-0845 also allows you to select a security question and answer that you may need to provide as confirmation that you are the person identified when you telephone the VA.

What to file with the 21-22a and the 21-0845

There is nothing in particular that is required to be filed with either of these two forms. They both should be submitted with an Intent to File a Claim or the Fully Developed Claim. They should also be included with any other correspondence you may need to address to the VA, particularly when the third party is the individual signing the correspondence.

The individual appointed as the claimant’s representative on the form 21-22a will automatically be authorized to receive the information accessible by the form 21-0845. So you may ask, why file the 21-0845 in addition to the 21-22a? Some VA call center agents employ the extra security layer provided by the form 21-0845 and will require the response to the security question before they release any information over the telephone. Furthermore, you cannot have more than one 21-0845 on file with the VA at any one time. By filing one with your client’s claim, you ensure from the outset that your firm is the only third party with access to that claim information. Subsequent 21-0845s that are filed will not replace the active one on file until the claimant has notified the VA that he/she wishes to withdraw it.

As mentioned above, neither of these forms will directly affect the adjudication of a pension claim, but when in place they allow you to manage the claim more effectively. Without the powers these forms bestow, you are dependent on receiving information secondhand and perhaps not in a timely manner, which can in turn lead to unnecessary denials.

If you want to sharpen your VA technical legal saw, we offer a free "VA Tech School" webinar the first Wednesday of every month.  Click here and join us on Wednesday, October 7th at 12 EST.  This month's topic is "Denied Benefits Due to Transfers of Assets: How to Appeal and Win!"  Register today!

By Sabrina A. Scott, Paralegal, The Elder & Disability Law Firm of Victoria L. Collier, PC and Director of VA Services for Lawyers with Purpose. 

Victoria L. Collier, Veteran of the United States Air Force, 1989-1995 and United States Army Reserves, 2001-2004.  Victoria is a Certified Elder Law Attorney through the National Elder Law Foundation; Author of “47 Secret Veterans Benefits for Seniors”; Author of “Paying for Long Term Care: Financial Help for Wartime Veterans: The VA Aid & Attendance Benefit”; Founder of The Elder & Disability Law Firm of Victoria L. Collier, PC; and Co-Founder of Lawyers With Purpose, www.LawyersWithPurpose.com.   

Bigstock-Easy-Way-To-Success-73438723

Is Your Practice … Uhmmmm, Easy?

Many lawyers are frustrated when it comes to operating the "business" of their practice.  Law school taught us how to think critically and help people, but it did not teach us how to run a business.  As a result, much pain and long hours of work and frustration are created.  Balancing the needs of your clients and operating your business is one of the most frustrating elements of running a law practice.  The good news is, fixing it is not hard, it just requires a basic understanding you never got in law school.  Let's begin by identifying whether you have effective employees.  

Bigstock-Easy-Way-To-Success-73438723In coaching hundreds of law firms over the past 15 years, I have a question I ask consistently: "Is it occurring?"  What does that mean?  Essentially, if what you want to be happening is happening, then it's occurring.  If what you want happening is not happening, then it's not occurring. Simple enough?  So let's analyze this in your practice.  If you're frustrated with a certain part of your business, like hiring employees, because it's not being done effectively, then it's not occurring.  If it's not occurring, then the person responsible for doing it does not have the proper skill set.  Unfortunately, in a small practice that's usually you.  So you must find others who know how to do it so you can get the employee hired effectively.  This can be someone in your firm, or you can reach out to others and outsource your need. (LWP has many system services for estate planning attorneys; that’s what distinguishes this organization from most others.) 

The interesting thing is, for those individuals you reach out to for help, it's really easy for them, which amazes most attorneys because we don't get it and it's so frustrating to us. (I personally hate it.)  But for those who have the skill set, it's easy and it occurs!  So as you look around your practice, if there's an area causing you pain, it is a clear message that you lack someone with a natural skill set to perform that task or duty.  If drafting is not happening effectively, then you need to get someone who does it easily.  They're out there and you can't stop until you find someone, because once you do, your life and your practice will change dramatically. 

In building companies over the last 15 years, the level of pain I have endured along the way sometimes was unbearable. But now, as I have reached a point where many of those companies are operating without me, I look back at what the key issues were that I had to overcome.  The answer?  It all came down to skill set and ease!  

What was difficult and frustrating for me was very easy for other people with the right skill set.  To identify what five skill sets you need, your role and what roles you need to fill to support you, join us at our Tri-Annual Retreat in October.  So the stress of running your business can subside and you can focus on what you do best and what is "easy" to you, and leave the other roles to the people who find them "easy" to do.  Doors close October 2nd and we will NOT have any seats remaining, I promise you that!.  It's not hard. Let Lawyers with Purpose show you how. Click here to register now.

David J. Zumpano, Esq, CPA, Co-founder Lawyers With Purpose, Founder and Senior Partner of Estate Planning Law Center

 

Bigstock-Debate--Two-People-Speaking-D-14929292

Annuity or Promissory Note?

I'm intrigued with how many lawyers use Medicaid-qualifying annuities when doing crisis Medicaid planning.  Medicaid-qualifying annuities address a core issue in crisis Medicaid planning for applicants with excess resources. The annuity acts as a “spend down,” which often leads to immediate eligibility for the client.  The promissory note has the exact same impact and use in this fact pattern, but interestingly, it is used less often, even though it’s much easier to achieve eligibility, which will disqualify the individual for benefits for a period of time.  The question becomes which to use and why. 

Bigstock-Debate--Two-People-Speaking-D-14929292The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA) was the first legislation that began to set parameters for annuities to be Medicaid-qualifying.  Essentially, it requires the annuity to be irrevocable, non-assignable, to have no cash value, and to be payable over the life expectancy of the annuitant.  The Medicaid-qualified annuity rules are further enhanced by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), wherein it also required that all annuities must have equal monthly payments with no delay in or balloon payments, and the annuity must name the state as the irrevocable beneficiary after the death of the annuitant.  This significantly reduced the use of Medicaid annuities as a spend-down strategy to only married applicants, but it still allows them to be used in a crisis case to become “otherwise eligible” and use the annuity funds to be used for payment of long-term care costs during any disqualification period created by any uncompensated transfer. 

DRA 05 also provided the first legislative permission for Medicaid-qualified promissory notes.  DRA specifically provides that a loan to a third party by a Medicaid applicant will be deemed as a compensated transfer if it is irrevocable and pays over the life expectancy of the applicant.  Essentially, DRA 05 permitted every individual to create a private annuity.  The one risk, however, is that the statute does not require a promissory note to be non-assignable, so if it is assignable, it will be a countable resource in determining Medicaid eligibility because it is saleable and has a value.  To avoid this, ensure that your promissory note is non-assignable. 

So the question becomes, if you can do your own promissory note, why would you ever use a Medicaid-qualifying annuity? 

The answer comes down to your state's application of the DRA 05 laws regarding promissory notes.  While the federal law is clear that they are permissible, some states still don't permit them and count them as an available resource in determining the eligibility of a Medicaid applicant.  This perplexes me, as federal law is clear, and under federal law, the state law cannot be more restrictive than the federal law.  Most states that have taken a position against promissory notes have seen that position overturned by legal proceedings, whereas many states that do not permit promissory notes have not been effectively challenged. 

Notwithstanding, as estate planners we are not litigators, and we strive to avoid litigation.  So if your state does not permit promissory notes, then the path of least resistance is using Medicaid-qualifying annuities.  When given the choice, a promissory note is easier, it can be done within the confines of your own office and it can be customized to the individual needs of the client, whereas Medicaid-qualifying annuities are typically restricted by the minimum period of time required by the insurance companies (typically a 24-month payout).  To learn how to effectively use a Medicaid annuity versus a promissory note, let LWP show you. 

We still have a few spots left in the room at the Tri-Annual Practice Enhancement Retreat but register now.  Registration closes October 2nd and we WILL reach capacity … (we always sell out)!  If you're an estate or elder law attorney, you don't want to miss this! Click here to register now.

David J. Zumpano, Esq, CPA, Co-founder Lawyers With Purpose, Founder and Senior Partner of Estate Planning Law Center

 

Bigstock-Fountain-Pen-On-Appeal-51919675

Don’t Appeal the VA – Find Another Way!

When a claimant has received an unfavorable decision from the Veterans Administration, the first inclination is to appeal. The appellate process can take years to resolve. Elderly seniors seeking the wartime pension do not usually have years to wait, as death could occur at any time.  When a claimant dies, the claim usually dies too.  Thus, it is critical to speed up the process to get an approval sooner rather than later.

Bigstock-Fountain-Pen-On-Appeal-51919675A preferable alternative to appealing is seeking a Request for Consideration.  This is when a claimant requests that the VA reconsider one of its decisions that has not yet become final.  A decision becomes final one year after it is issued.  Thus, you must file a request for reconsideration within a year of the original decision. There is no specific form to file a request for reconsideration; however, we recommend using VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim.

Common reasons to request a reconsideration of a decision for a pension claim include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Denial of Pension claim for excess income (or only partial approval)
  • Denial of Pension with Aid and Attendance
  • Denial due to excessive net worth
  • Incorrect effective date of the award

Denial of pension claim for excess income (or only partial approval).  To qualify for VA pension, the claimant must meet income limitations.  Often, in order to meet the limitations, the claimant has recurring out-of-pocket medical expenses that can be deducted from the income, which then reduces the income for eligibility purposes. When the claim is denied or approved for less than expected, it is usually because either the claimant does not have enough medical deductions or the VA did not properly deduct permissible medical expenses. For example, the VA is to deduct all medical expenses for both a veteran and the veteran’s spouse; yet, the VA often does not deduct the spouse’s medical expenses. In that case, a request for reconsideration is a useful strategy to submit the expenses (again) and request that the VA recalculate the award.

Denial of pension with aid and attendance. When a claimant needs the assistance of another person to help with at least two activities of daily living (bathing, dressing, transferring, eating, incontinence/toileting), or needs the regular supervision of another due to dementia (memory loss), then the claimant can receive a supplemental monthly income called aid and attendance. But, before aid and attendance can be granted, the claimant must submit VA Form 21-2680, Application for Aid and Attendance, completed by their treating physician, to the VA.  The form must be filled out with very specific language to meet the VA’s standards. When a claim is denied for aid and attendance, it is usually because the claimant either did not submit this form or the physician did not fill it out sufficiently.  Getting a new form filled out properly and submitting it with a request for reconsideration will generally garner an approval by the VA.

Denial due to excessive net worth.  To qualify, the claimant must have limited resources. If the VA denies a claim due to excessive net worth, once the assets are no longer excessive, the claimant may submit verification of the reduced assets and request the claim be adjudicated again. 

Incorrect effective date of award.  When filing for pension benefits, it is important to obtain the earliest effective date possible.  The sooner the date, the more money the claimant receives. Under the fully developed claim process wherein the VA requires that the claimant submit all application forms and supporting documents simultaneously, months can go by while waiting to obtain a divorce decree, death certificate or the physician’s affidavit for aid and attendance. Instead of waiting in vain (without getting benefits), the claimant can file an Intent to File a Claim on VA Form 21-0996 to “lock in” the eligibility date. This form should only be filed when the claimant meets all financial and medical criteria but is waiting on supporting documents. Once the supporting documents are in hand, then, subsequent to filing the notice of intent, the claimant will file the fully developed claim.  There may be months between the two.  Once the VA issues its decision, it may have overlooked the intent to file a claim locking in the effective date and instead award the date from the filing of the fully developed claim. So as not to lose the intervening months, you should file a request for reconsideration with a copy of the intent to file a claim that was previously filed.

Although appeals can take several years to resolve, we are seeing that requests for reconsideration are taking less than six months, often only 30 days, to resolve. This is a much better outcome for the client. 

If you want to learn critical information on building a thriving practice while serving those who serve our country, register for our FREE WEBINAR this Wednesday at 12 EST.

Here's Just Some of What You'll Discover During this Complimentary Event…

  • How and Where to Obtain Quality Clients
  • How to Present the Value Proposition
  • What to Charge for Planning
  • What to Include in Your Engagement Agreement

Victoria L. Collier, Co-Founder, Lawyers with Purpose, LLC, www.LawyersWithPurpose.com; Certified Elder Law Attorney through the National Elder Law Foundation; Fellow of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys; Founder and  Managing  Attorney of The Elder & Disability Law Firm of Victoria L. Collier, PC, www.ElderLawGeorgia.com; Co-Founder of Veterans Advocates Group of America; Entrepreneur; Author; and nationally renowned Presenter. 

Bigstock-Illuminated-light-bulb-in-a-ro-85128830

When to Use the KIT™Trust

Over the years, LWP has become known for its MIT, FIT and KIT trusts for asset protection and long-term care benefits planning, but few understand the KIT and its flexibility.  Let's do a quick review…  

A MIT Trust, or “My Income Trust,” is an income-only irrevocable IPUG asset-protection trust that allows the client to maintain control of assets, benefit from them to the extent they're willing to put them at risk, and modify or change the trust in all regards at any time other than in regards to the protection of which they seek. 

Bigstock-Illuminated-light-bulb-in-a-ro-85128830The FIT Trust, or “Family Irrevocable Trust,” is an irrevocable IPUG asset-protection trust that allows the client to be in control of the assets, manage them and identify who gets distributions from it and when, but the client does not retain any rights to the income or principal.

Finally, the KIT Trust, or “Kids Irrevocable Trust,” is created by the children of the benefit of the MIT or FIT client where assets have already been conveyed to the children prior to being educated as to the benefits that the MIT or FIT could provide for the client's assets.  The typical use of the most difficult form of KIT Trust is when mom and dad transfer the family farm (or other major assets) to avoid losing them to the nursing home.  The KIT Trust is a strategy to protect assets that have already been conveyed to the kids (or others) before the client got to you.   

How do KIT Trusts work? 

A transfer of assets by individuals to their children may protect the assets from their long-term care costs and other risks, but it puts them squarely at risk from the creditors and predators of the children to whom they were transferred.  For example, if one of the children that the farm was transferred to gets divorced, sued or dies, that child's ownership interest is no longer subject to the client’s influence, but rather is subject to the child's estate plan, or worse, lack of an estate plan. 

That's why the KIT Trust is a great tool to use when assets have already been conveyed to the children.  A properly designed KIT Trust will be created by the children as co‑grantors, and it will be an irrevocable IPUG asset protection trust, which allows the children to be a sole trustee or co‑trustee with their parents in the management of assets transferred to the trust. 

Once it is created and the assets are transferred to it (typically the assets the children received from their parents), the assets are protected from the children's creditors and predators.  In fact, as a third-party trust, it is not even countable in mom and dad's Medicaid eligibility calculation if they were named beneficiary of the trust.  The question is how to properly create a KIT irrevocable trust. 

The key point when creating a KIT Trust is understanding that the children become the client in the context of the trust creation.  The KIT Trust is a grantor trust, but to the children. Therefore, all income generated by the trust, regardless of whom it’s distributed to, will be passed to the children who created it, so ensuring a proper investment strategy that works well with the children's tax planning is essential. 

Another key element with a KIT Trust is identifying the beneficiaries.  Can you make mom and dad the income or principal beneficiary of the KIT Trust?  Well, the answer is yes, but it's up to each attorney and their comfort level.  I have successfully named parents beneficiaries of the income and principal of a KIT Trust for years without it becoming an available resource when determining their Medicaid eligibility. 

The key distinction is the fact that it is a “third-party trust,” not a trust created by the parent as Medicaid applicants, but rather, by a third party, their children.  Many raise the issue of it being funded with assets that were the parents', but that is not a fact at issue, as the children are not applying for Medicaid and the assets of the irrevocable trust are not subject to the look-back period related to parent eligibility. 

Again, although it is permissible, some attorneys are not comfortable naming the parents principal beneficiary.  In reality, it may not be necessary to name the parents as principal beneficiary, since it was evident by the giving up of the asset to the kids that they no longer needed to have access to them.  A more conservative approach is to allow them access to income only, but it is in no way reckless to permit access to principal. 

The final question in creating a KIT Trust is what to do when mom and dad die.  Since the trust is created by the children (siblings), there can be an inherent gift upon the funding of the trust if the children transfer the asset from the parents to the KIT Trust, depending on how it’s created.  Presumably, upon mom and dad’s death, the kids get back their share of the remaining assets, but a complete gift will occur during the parent’s lifetime whenever a distribution is made from the trust.  In addition, even if the children receive equal shares upon the death of mom and dad, under tax law it is not presumed that the share they receive was the share they put in. 

So, by creating a KIT Trust, if it is not properly designed, there could be inherent gift tax issues between the children upon the funding of the trust and upon the termination of the lifetime trust after the death of the parent.  One way to alleviate this concern is to set up separate shares and ensure that all distributions to any beneficiary are made equally from each separate share, and at the termination of the lifetime trust, each child gets their separate share balance back.  This should mitigate any risk of gift tax issues and offer the opportunity to convert the KIT Trust to a separate MIT Trust or FIT Trust for each of the children's separate shares upon the death of the parent.  It all requires a clear knowledge of the subject and a software system to keep your practice aware of the key issues.

If you want to learn more about Lawyers With Purpose and in particular would like a free demo of our estate planning drafting software, click here now to schedule a call.  

Our Tri-Annual Practice Enhancement Retreat registration is open.  If you want to experience what it's like to be a Lawyers With Purpose member consider experiencing it first hand by being in the room with us October 21-23 in Phoenix, AZ.  But register soon and save – the price goes up 9/19!  We are half way at capacity and the first few days are completely SOLD OUT!

David J. Zumpano, Esq, CPA, Co-founder Lawyers With Purpose, Founder and Senior Partner of Estate Planning Law Center

Bigstock-Paper-Fortune-Teller-10213730

Good News – Bad News!

PRACTICE WITH PURPOSE IS SOLD OUT! PLEASE READ!

Wow ….

It takes A LOT to shock me, but I’ve just confirmed that the Practice With Purpose portion of our October Retreat has officially SOLD OUT only two weeks into registration.

With that crazy update comes good and bad news.

Bigstock-Paper-Fortune-Teller-10213730Bad news:  I’ve called the hotel today personally. We are in the largest room possible and there is nothing else available at our venue.  We are not allowed to add seats either because of fire laws.  So unfortunately, we have to close registration down for this portion of the program.

If you had your heart set on attending the Practice With Purpose portion of the week and bringing your team, please send me an email to get on a wait list. I will contact you personally if someone is not able to make it and a space opens up.

Now, for the good news.

The remainder of the retreat week is still available and will ROCK!  Just about everyone attending Practice With Purpose has chosen to stay the entire week because our breakout sessions and team programs are just phenomenal this quarter.

We have the largest ballroom on the property for this portion of the program—so as of right now, there is STILL SPACE!  But, I was informed that we are creeping up on capacity limits here as well.  Please don’t wait to reserve your spot!

And, because the full-week registration option is no longer available, we have decided to slash the registration price for the remainder of the retreat.  For a limited time, you can join us at a discounted rate when you attend from Wednesday, October 21- Friday October 23.

Oh, and you can STILL bring three team members, absolutely FREE as our gift to you.  This portion of the program is all about equipping not only the attorney, but the entire staff for success—so take advantage of being able to snag FREE tickets for your team while you can!

To view the class schedules and retreat agenda, simply click here.

If you have questions, please feel free to email me at mhall@lawyerswithpurpose.com.  I’m happy to schedule a call with you to discuss the sessions and/or registration options that are best for your law firm.

Here’s to an AMAZING October Retreat!

Molly

 

Bigstock-Hand-Inserting-Gold-Coin-Into--86529890

Maximizing the Benefits of a Well-Planned IRA Beneficiary Designation

Many attorneys and financial professionals struggle over how to properly designate the beneficiary of an IRA.  While it can be confusing, understanding the core elements of the procedure greatly simplifies the designation process and offers multiple solutions.  The three key elements one must analyze before designating the beneficiary are as follows: first, what is the overall intention of the IRA owner; second, who is the intended beneficiary; and third, what is the proper language to use on the IRA beneficiary designation form.  As we examine and grow to understand these three issues, great practice opportunities will emerge. 

Bigstock-Hand-Inserting-Gold-Coin-Into--86529890The most important element in determining the proper IRA designation is the overall goal of the IRA owner.  If the owner’s goal is simply to transfer the IRA interest to someone else at death, then a simple designation to the individual will suffice.  The challenge comes when we start to identify more advanced goals.  What happens if the IRA owner intends for the beneficiary to receive the IRA protected from the beneficiary’s predators and creditors?  What if the owner wants the beneficiary to receive the IRA over a lifetime rather than all at once?  These are situations in which a mere direct designation to the beneficiary will not accomplish a client’s goal. 

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Clark v. Remeker, ruled that funds held in an inherited IRA do not constitute “retirement funds” and thereby do not derive the same protection benefits as the original IRA.  (573 US, 2014).  The one exception to this ruling occurs if the beneficiary is the surviving spouse and the surviving spouse rolls the decedent’s IRA into his or her own IRA.  However, although the surviving spouse may be permitted to make distributions from the IRA over his or her life expectancy, such withdrawals will not necessarily be protected.  Further, while a surviving spouse can maintain the protection of the original IRA owner, the surviving spouse can lose the IRA proceeds to his or her long-term care costs. 

If the goal of the IRA owner is to preserve the IRA for the benefit of his or her beneficiaries and protect it from said beneficiaries’ creditors and predators, then a direct designation of the beneficiary must not occur.  Currently, the only way to absolutely protect an IRA from the creditors and predators of the beneficiaries is to designate an irrevocable trust as the IRA beneficiary and designate the intended IRA beneficiaries as the beneficiaries of said trust.  This two-step approach assures continued protection of the IRA funds after the death of the original plan holder and for the lifetime of the trust.  The challenge for practitioners now becomes how to effectively name a trust as the IRA beneficiary and how that designation impacts the individuals intended to benefit from the IRA. 

A trust can be a qualified designated beneficiary of an IRA without violating the IRS rules that require a “stretch out” of the payments from the IRA over the lifetime of the beneficiary.  The four criteria to ensure compliance with the “stretch” rule necessitate the trust (1) to be valid under state law, (2) to be irrevocable at the death of the grantor, (3) to have all beneficiaries clearly "identified" within the statutory time period, and (4) a copy of the trust must be provided to the IRA plan administrator.  These conditions can easily be met, but the most common violation is in having a qualified beneficiary that is identifiable. 

An identifiable trust beneficiary must be clearly identified by the terms of the trust prior to September 30 of the year following the IRA owner's death.  While this seems simple, it typically is violated in two fashions.  First, a nonhuman beneficiary is named, creating a situation where there is no measurable life in being (i.e. a charity).  Second, the terms of the trust do not clearly identify a beneficiary that can be named within the statutory time period.  This violation typically occurs when the terms of the trust require some condition precedent to the vesting of the beneficial interest.  While appearing complicated, once a practitioner has an understanding of these two issues, language can easily be inserted into the trust to ensure that those provisions are not violated.  As Lawyers with Purpose members, our client-centered software system has all necessary language to ensure that the provisions are not violated by providing clear and proper warnings when an attorney makes choices that could put the stretch out in danger.  Once the trust beneficiaries are properly identified, a trust can be named as beneficiary to maintain the asset protection for a non-spousal beneficiary (or spousal beneficiary if long-term care costs are an issue).

The final step lies in properly naming the trust as the beneficiary of the IRA.  This requires an attorney to have a clear understanding of the distinction between outside beneficiary designations and inside beneficiary designations.  Outside beneficiary designations reference beneficiary designations made outside of the trust on the beneficiary designation form of the IRA itself.  Typical outside beneficiary designations are the trust, a specific article within the trust, or a particular beneficiary within the trust pursuant to a particular article.  Examples of these outside designations could be as follows: “Pay to the trustee of the ABC trust dated 1/1/2015,” “pay to the trustee of the family trust under Article Four of the ABC trust dated 1/1/2015,” or “pay to the trustees of each separate share trusts under Article Five of the ABC trust dated 1/1/2015.”  These three outside beneficiary designations distinguish which beneficiaries of the trust will receive the IRA. More importantly, these designations will also distinguish the stretch period based on the life expectancy of the oldest beneficiary inside the designated trust (the general trust, the family trust, or the separate share residuary trusts). 

Inside designations refer to the specific beneficiaries named inside the trust document.  When the proper inside designations are made after the correct outside designation, meaningful and comprehensive protection is afforded the client.  Typically, a family trust will name the spouse and children of the client as beneficiaries.  In such a situation, the oldest beneficiary would likely be the surviving spouse and therefore trigger a much shorter stretch-out period.  In addition, a second stretch period at the death of the surviving spouse would be lost because it was not rolled into the surviving spouse’s IRA.  Alternatively, when a residuary trust is named as outside beneficiary, the IRS would then examine all beneficiaries inside the residuary trust and choose the oldest beneficiary for the measuring life of the stretch.  Finally, when the outside beneficiary is designated as separate share trusts, each separate share trust under the particular article would be analyzed to identify the oldest beneficiary therein.  Typically in each separate share trusts there is only one beneficiary, so each beneficiary would use his or her age as the measuring life for stretch calculations. 

Disclaimers are an important tool to consider in conjunction with outside and inside designations in IRA planning.  Disclaimers may be effectively used on both outside and inside beneficiary designations.  The use of disclaimers can create a variety of options to meet the overall goals of the client after death. 

Proper inside and outside beneficiary designations together with the effective use of disclaimers are powerful planning tools.  As an example, let’s analyze a situation in which a client desires to leave his IRA to his spouse of the same age, while still getting the most return on his investment for his wife and children. In this scenario, the client’s outside IRA beneficiary designation form names a family trust as the primary beneficiary and the surviving spouse as the contingent beneficiary of the IRA. 

When the client names the family trust on the outside beneficiary designation form, the trustee of the family trust accepts the IRA designation. The surviving spouse, as sole inside beneficiary of the family trust, may choose not to benefit from the IRA.  In accordance with the terms of the family trust, she can disclaim her interest in the family trust within the trust document.  The IRA must then be paid in accordance with the trust terms to the residuary trust and the oldest of the residuary trust beneficiaries (in this scenario, the client’s oldest child) becomes the measuring life for the stretch. 

Alternatively, as primary outside beneficiary, the trustee could disclaim the trust’s interest in the IRA in accordance with the outside beneficiary designation form before it is ever transferred into the family trust, resulting in the IRA going directly to the contingent outside beneficiary designation, the surviving spouse.  The surviving spouse could then roll the inherited IRA into her own IRA and get all the benefits associated therewith.  As evidenced, this plan permits an examination of the surviving spouse's health and income with regard to long-term care costs at our client’s death.  In doing so, we have given our client and his spouse the greatest opportunity to ensure that the overall protection goals of the IRA owner (client) are met.

By understanding and implementing the three key elements in determining IRA beneficiary designations (the overall intention of the IRA owner; the intended beneficiary; and proper language to use on the IRA beneficiary designation form), we as LWP attorneys are able to provide our clients with the best IRA distribution plan to fit their desires and needs.

For a deeper understanding of Lawyers With Purpose and what we have to offer your estate planning and/or elder law practice, join us in Phoenix, AZ, in October.  If you are even considering coming to this event register today – The first 2.5 days of the program are officially SOLD OUT and the room is at capacity. We still have a few spots left for the BIG Tri-Annual Practice Enhancement Retreat that kicks off Wednesday afternoon.  For registration information contact Amanda Ross at aross@lawyerswithpurpose.com or call 877-299-0326.

David J. Zumpano, Esq, CPA, Co-founder Lawyers With Purpose, Founder and Senior Partner of Estate Planning Law Center

Bigstock-Question-mark-heap-on-table-co-86579810

Why Clients Are So Confused (and Their Lawyers too)

When people come into my workshop, the first thing I ask is, “What do you want to learn?”  The response is almost immediately, “I want to learn how to protect my assets.”  Ninety nine out of 100 lawyers would stop there and say, OK, let me show you the way. But a Lawyers with Purpose attorney knows to ask the next question: “What are you afraid of losing your assets to?” 

Bigstock-Question-mark-heap-on-table-co-86579810That's when the answers start to vary.  Predominantly the No. 1 answer is that people are afraid of “the government.”  Interestingly, they're not really sure what this means, but typically it tends to relate to taxes or probate.  Often, they're not even sure what taxes they're concerned about or the difference between income taxes, estate taxes or gift taxes.  They're just afraid of taxes overall. 

Secondly, they're afraid of losing everything to long-term care costs or Medicaid.  We know Medicaid doesn't take any of their money, but some of it may have to be applied to the cost of care before Medicaid will pay for their long-term care costs. 

The third most common response is family members.  Most people who are concerned about family members have family members they are afraid will challenge their estate or cause havoc for the remaining family members.  We as attorneys know that it's the family members we don't anticipate who cause the greatest damage. Finally, clients want to protect from lawsuits.  They are keenly aware of the possibility of lawsuits and they want to make sure that everything they've worked for is not lost to one.

As we analyze each of these separately, it becomes clear why people are so confused.  They are trying to distinguish between estate planning, tax planning, asset protection planning, Medicaid or benefits planning, and general asset protection strategies.  To keep it simple, at Lawyers with Purpose we teach four layers of planning.

First, estate planning is ensuring that what you have gets to whom you want, when you want, the way you want, without unnecessary cost or delay. 

Second, asset protection planning is ensuring that your assets are protected from predators and creditors.  The key distinction we train our members on is between obtaining asset protection after death, by way of post-death trust planning, and asset protection while alive by way of the IPUG™ protection trust.  These trusts ensure that clients are able to create them, control them, change them, and even benefit from them, without the threat of being lost to predators, creditors, nursing homes, family or any other potential threat. 

The third level of planning is needs-based benefits planning.  This often includes Medicaid benefits, Veteran's benefits, and other needs-based benefits available to pay for a client's care if needed.  Planning for these needs-based benefits is a level above and beyond general asset protection planning, but it is usually distinguishable and identified when using the LWP™ client enrollment system and documentation creation system. 

Finally, there is tax planning.  This only applies to two-tenths of one percent of America, but it's the No. 1 reason why people want to protect their assets.  So, while it is important and necessary to some, the vast majority (99.8 percent) really don't need it.  That's why the Lawyers with Purpose training on its TLC™ estate planning process is essential to ensure clients are properly educated on how to achieve the estate plan most meaningful to them.  

If you want to learn more about Lawyers With Purpose consider being in the room with us and our members and experience it first hand!  We'll be in Phoenix, AZ, October 19th – 23rd!  Click here to review the full agenda.  If you register by August 28th you can still snag a seat at Early Bird pricing!  This is THE estate and elder law event you DO NOT want to miss.

David J. Zumpano, Esq, CPA, Co-founder Lawyers With Purpose, Founder and Senior Partner of Estate Planning Law Center

 

 

 

Bigstock-Concept-for-lateness-81986438

When Is It Too Late to Protect Assets?

Many people are accustomed to the concept of "protecting their assets," but few are clear on the details of how to do it.  The primary concern for clients is the loss of their assets to long-term care costs.  Most people believe they need to wait five years to protect their assets, and once they enter a nursing home, they believe it's too late.  The truth is, it's never too late to protect assets.  As the LWP™ Medicaid Calculation software shows, individuals can qualify immediately for Medicaid, even if they have assets in excess of half a million dollars.  The trick is to know the Medicaid laws and rules and how they apply to each client fact pattern. 

Bigstock-Concept-for-lateness-81986438I'll use Mary as an example.  Mary called my office frantic because her mother was admitted to a hospital, and she was advised that mom would be going to a nursing home.  She immediately contacted her dad's lawyer to see what to do.  Dad's lawyer was swift to give them advice on protecting their assets from the threat of mom's impending long-term care costs.  Mary was thrilled that the lawyer showed them how to protect $175,000 of their $450,000.  Although they were losing $275,000, they were thrilled to protect the balance. 

Mary eventually called me because her sister knew me and insisted she get a second opinion.  When we put Mary's mom's fact pattern through our Medicaid qualification software, we were quickly able to determine that, in fact, Mary's mom qualified for Medicaid immediately and all $450,000 of her assets were safe and protected for dad, who still resided at home.  In fact, I run into dad frequently at breakfast, and six and a half years later, mom is still in the nursing home and he's still at home with 100 percent of his assets protected.  So, the question is not whether it is too late.  The question is, how much can we protect and how soon? 

It’s easy with the LWP Medicaid Calculation software. It shows you how.  If you would like a FREE demo of our Estate Planning Drafting Software click here to schedule a call now!

David J. Zumpano, Esq, CPA, Co-founder Lawyers With Purpose, Founder and Senior Partner of Estate Planning Law Center