Tag Archive for: Christian Kelso

What is a Revocable Trust?

Revocable trusts have long been a mainstay of American estate planning. A trust is relationship between three parties: (i) the settlor who creates and funds the trust, (ii) the trustee who manages the assets held in trust, and (iii) the beneficiary who enjoys the assets. Each of these parties can be a single person or a group of people. Similarly, one individual can hold more than one of these titles at the same time, but a single person cannot hold all titles at once. 

What is a Trust?

Clients often ask what the difference is between a trust and a Will. The simple answer is, because a trust is a relationship, it is an intangible thing. It can neither be touched nor measured in objective, real-world units. In contrast, a Will is a document. It is a physical thing that can be felt, carried, and (usually) torn up. While most trusts are described and governed by a physical thing—a document we call a trust instrument—the trust itself remains abstract. Note that most trust instruments can create an unlimited number of separate trusts.

Trusts can be categorized in variety of ways. Here are just a handful of ways that trusts can be classified:

  • Revocable or irrevocable;
  • Grantor or non-grantor (also called a “true” trust);
  • Simple or complex;
  • Express or implied;
  • Self-settled or third party-settled; and
  • Testamentary or inter vivos (established during the grantor’s lifetime).

Revocable Trusts

Revocable trusts are self-settled, revocable, grantor trusts that are express and established during the settlor’s lifetime. (Note that grantor trusts can be neither simple nor complex.) This means they are easier to change than irrevocable trusts. They are taxed to the settlor directly, and they are governed by a written trust instrument that is drafted to be effective during the settlor’s life.

Characteristics

Nearly all revocable trusts have a few standard characteristics. Typically, the settlors will also be a trust’s primary beneficiaries. As such, they typically have expansive rights to demand distributions of trust assets, hire and fire trustees, amend and restate the trust instrument, etc. Revocable trust settlors also typically serve as trustees of their trust. Sometimes, they take on this role exclusively, and other times, they bring additional parties to serve as co-trustees. Finally, when the settlors of a revocable trust die, the trust assets are generally distributed to their descendants or other remainder beneficiaries they might select. In this regard, a revocable trust instrument will be very similar to a Will, and the settlors can choose whether the remaining property will be distributed to the remainder beneficiaries outright or in trust.

Uses

Revocable trusts may be deployed for several reasons, but the most common uses are:

  • Assisting elderly clients with asset management;
  • Holding out-of-state property;
  • Probate avoidance;
  • Assets management;
  • Contest avoidance; and
  • Privacy.

While revocable trusts have a number of very important uses, some misinformation exists regarding what can and cannot be achieved with a revocable trust. For example, a revocable trust cannot be used for creditor protection in Texas. Additionally, a revocable trust will not offer any tax savings over other estate planning tools.

Funding

A trust is only effective over property which has been transferred to it. Thus, to make assets subject to the terms of a trust, the settlor must take the affirmative steps to transfer those assets to the trust. For example, financial accounts must be “replated” to reflect trust ownership. Similarly, interests in closely-held businesses are typically transferred using assignments of interest, and real property is transferred by deed. Settlors often fail to transfer all their assets to their trusts during life. Because of this, “pourover Wills” are often prepared in conjunction with a revocable trust instrument. A pourover Will is a Will, just like any other, except that it distributes estate property to a revocable trust rather than to the heirs directly. As such, a pourover Will pours assets over from the settlor’s estate to the trust. From there, the assets are distributed to the ultimate beneficiaries. 

Conclusion

Revocable trusts are a fantastic tool for achieving many goals. They solve an array of real-world problems and make life better for many people. But they can also be overwhelming. To avoid confusion, prospective settlors should seek out quality assistance from competent advisors.


Christian Kelso | Farrow-Gillespie & Heath LLP | Dallas, TX
Christian Kelso

Christian S. Kelso, Esq. is a partner at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter LLP.  He draws on both personal and professional experience when counseling clients on issues related to estate planning, wealth preservation and transfer, probate, tax, and transactional corporate law. He earned a J.D. and LL.M. in taxation from SMU Dedman School of Law.

The Secure Act | Retirement | Estate Plan

The SECURE Act: Will it Affect Your Retirement Plan?

 A Late 2019 tax change will have a major impact on retirement planning!

The Secure Act | Retirement | Estate Plan

On December 20, 2019, President Trump signed the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019, better known as the “SECURE Act.” Although it passed the House in July, the SECURE Act only recently passed through the Senate on December 19, as part of an end-of-year appropriations act. The SECURE Act implements quite a few technical changes which will affect retirement planning in general.  However, some of the most significant changes will have a direct and very substantial impact on estate planning.

In previous years, a plan participant (i.e. the individual who initially established and funded the IRA) could pass unused IRA assets to a so-called “stretch-IRA” for the benefit of a designated beneficiary (i.e. a person inheriting IRA funds on the participant’s death). The purpose of a stretch IRA was to extend the tax-deferral of the IRA. This would allow the minimum required distributions to be stretched out over many years, thereby increasing the overall tax benefit of the account. Often, participants would establish stretch-IRAs for their young grandchildren, hoping that the minimum required distributions would be based on each grandchild’s age. This would allow more assets to retain tax-deferred status longer and thereby decrease the overall tax burden.  For large IRAs, this decreased tax burden could be very significant.

The SECURE Act rescinds major tax benefits that had been available before 2020. Under the new rules, IRA assets inherited by a designated beneficiary must be distributed within 10 years of the participant’s death. A few exceptions to this rule apply, including surviving spouses, minor children (but not grandchildren), and disabled beneficiaries. The new 10-year distributions rule will apply in most other circumstances. 

Obviously, the loss of the stretch-IRA is important for tax planning purposes, but its significance goes even deeper. For example, when planning for a stretch-IRA, a participant is likely to have established one or more trusts in his or her estate plan. This type of planning would be particularly important where minors (like grandchildren) were expected to be the designated beneficiaries of the IRA.  Often, these trusts directed that no distributions were to be made from the trusts except for the required minimum distributions which would have been required under then-applicable law.  The expectation was that the IRA would be depleted incrementally over years. This would give the beneficiary limited access to the IRA assets with marginal tax impact triggered by each distribution.  Under the new law, however, the (only) required distribution comes at the end of the 10-year period.  Not only does this prevent the beneficiary from enjoying the extended use of the IRA assets, but the lump-sum distribution can have a seriously detrimental tax impact on the beneficiary.

Estate planning around retirement assets has always been complicated. The SECURE Act compounds this complexity. For clients whose planning was carefully tailored to the old regime, significant changes may be needed to avoid a major tax trap.

If you’d like to discuss how your estate plan might be impacted by the SECURE Act, please contact our office to set up a consultation.


Christian Kelso | Farrow-Gillespie & Heath LLP | Dallas, TX

Christian S. Kelso, Esq. is a partner at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter LLP.  He draws on both personal and professional experience when counseling clients on issues related to estate planning, wealth preservation and transfer, probate, tax, and transactional corporate law. He earned a J.D. and LL.M. in taxation from SMU Dedman School of Law.

Trust Accountings and the Duty to Inform in Texas

Spoiled Trust Fund Kids

Trustees have a duty to share trust information with beneficiaries. The nature and extent of the duty to inform is not well defined in the Texas Trust Code, however, and there is little case law on point. There is slightly more guidance with regard to the duty to account, which is a subpart of the duty to inform, although many questions remain and can pose significant problems for trustees.

When considering a trustee’s fiduciary duty, most practitioners turn to the Texas Trust Code first. However, the thoughtful practitioner will notice that the common law duty to inform predates the Trust Code and is broader than the statutory duty to account. Also, the Trust Code directs trustees to “perform all of the duties imposed on [them] by the common law,” so an examination that is limited to the Trust Code may be incomplete.

A broad array of people are generally entitled to trust information and may include “a trustee, beneficiary, or any other person having an interest in or a claim against the trust or any person who is affected by the administration of the trust.”

Trust beneficiaries need information to protect their interests. For a beneficiary to hold a trustee accountable, the beneficiary must know of the trust’s existence, the beneficiary’s interest in the trust, the trust property, and how that property is being managed. Trustees have a duty to provide this information to beneficiaries. This duty to inform is independent of the trustee’s duty of care. Although a trustee holds legal title to trust property, that property is held for the benefit of the beneficiary. Similarly, the books and records of the trust belong to the trust estate. As such, it stands to reason that the beneficiaries should have access to them as well. 

On the other hand, settlors may not want their children to know about assets in their trusts for fear that they might become “trust fund babies,” and information sharing may be a security concern in the modern world. Formal accountings, in particular, are burdensome on both trustees and trust assets. A typical accounting takes many hours to prepare. A trustee may be able to do much of the initial work to prepare the accounting, but significant time spent by attorneys, accountants, and other professionals will likely also be required, and the related fees will usually be borne by the trust.

Additionally, the duties to inform and account cannot be waived in a trust instrument. If this were possible, no trustee would serve unless such a waiver were present. However, the duties may be limited in Texas to so-called “first-tier beneficiaries” who are generally entitled to distributions, either presently under the trust’s terms, or hypothetically, if the trust were to terminate. By restricting the non-waivable provisions to first-tier beneficiaries, settlors can minimize frivolous pestering by contingent remainder beneficiaries.

Even where beneficiaries are entitled to information, caution is advised to those seeking it. If a trust is revocable by, or grants a power of appointment to, someone who might be perturbed by such request, the requesting party might find herself written out of the trust! 

The common law duty to inform and the statutory duty to account are complicated elements of Texas law. Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter, LLP has helped many beneficiaries gain the information they need about their trusts. We have also advised many trustees through the accounting process. If you are in either position, we would be glad to talk with you about your rights or responsibilities and the potential risks you face.


Christian Kelso | Farrow-Gillespie & Heath LLP | Dallas, TX

Christian S. Kelso, Esq. is a partner at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter LLP.  He draws on both personal and professional experience when counseling clients on issues related to estate planning, wealth preservation and transfer, probate, tax, and transactional corporate law. He earned a J.D. and LL.M. in taxation from SMU Dedman School of Law.

The IRS’s Trust Fund Recovery Penalty: A Perilous Trap for the Unwary

Under the Internal Revenue Code (the “IRC”), employers must withhold certain taxes from employee pay. These monies are referred to as “trust fund taxes” because they are held in trust on behalf of the government, and employers must turn these withheld amounts over to the government on a regular basis.

For various reasons, employers sometimes fail to remit these trust fund taxes to the government when they are supposed to. For example, struggling businesses facing challenging financial decisions as to which creditors will be paid to keep the business afloat, may fail to pay withheld taxes and instead “borrow” from the government to pay other creditors first. This may be a perilous path not only for the employer but also for individuals within the organization who have decision-making authority. While other creditors may have to rely on veil-piercing concepts to collect the company’s liability from anyone other than the company, the federal government does not.

To allow the IRS to collect, Congress authorized § 6672 of the IRC which allows IRS to collect directly from the personal assets of certain control individuals. As was stated in Wright v. United States, “[t]he statute is harsh, but the danger against which it is directed—that of failing to pay over money withheld from employees until it is too late, because the company has gone broke—is an acute one against which, perhaps, only harsh remedies are availing.” 809 F.2d 425, 428 (7th Cir. 1987).

In a nutshell, § 6672 provides that any person required to collect, account for, and pay any tax imposed under the IRC who willfully fails to do is liable for a penalty equal to the total amount of the unpaid tax. Thus, liability under § 6672 attaches if an individual both (i) qualifies as a “responsible person”; and (ii) “willfully” fails to pay over the amount due.

Section 6672 has been interpreted by the courts quite broadly to encourage individuals to stay abreast of their companies’ withholding and employment taxes. As such, the penalty has ensnared many an unsuspecting charitable board member, officer, bookkeeper, accountant, investor, or other person associated with a taxpaying organization. Thus, it is important for anyone in such a position to bear in mind that their title carries significant risk. Even where such a person is completely non-complicit in the discouraged activity, they may still bear the burden of mounting a legal defense against IRS claims.

It is also important to understand that each such responsible person is liable for 100% of the trust fund recovery penalty. Perhaps the only significant limitation on the IRS’s latitude is that, while it may assess any and all responsible persons until the amount due has been paid, it can collect the tax due only once. Also, IRS claims preempt state law, rendering for example, creditor protections for homestead real property inapplicable.

While the government bears the burden of proving that the taxpayer is a responsible person, taxpayers bear the burden of proving a failure was not willful. Willfulness has been defined as the “voluntary, conscious, and intentional decision to prefer other creditors over the United States.” Ruscitto v. United States, 629 Fed. Appx. 429, 430 (3d Cir. 2015).

Illustration by legal assistant Charles Jackson

The willfulness requirement is satisfied when the responsible person makes the deliberate choice to pay the withheld taxes to other creditors, instead of paying the government. Where the responsible person does not segregate the trust fund taxes but uses them to cover operating expenses (such as employees’ wages and claims of other creditors), each payment may be a voluntary, conscious, and intentional decision to prefer other creditors over the government. This requirement is satisfied with something as simple as making payroll. Thus, in most business scenarios, negating willfulness can present a significant challenge.  Importantly, § 6672 is a civil, and not a criminal, statute. Its criminal analogue, § 7202, requires the additional concept of “known legal duty” to comply with due process of law requirements under the Constitution. However, no such requirement is associated with § 6672, so it is much easier for the government to meet its burden of proof.

To sum up, it is absolutely critical for all control persons within any taxpaying organization (including nonprofits and government entities, which are nonetheless subject to withholding requirements and employment taxes) make themselves aware of applicable deadlines and other procedural requirements. Failure to do so can result in life-altering penalties being assessed against personal assets including homesteads and other property which is generally considered exempt from creditor claims. Could you write a personal check for 100% of your organization’s employment taxes?

If you have questions regarding the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty or are facing other IRS issues, please reach out to FGHW for a consultation.


Christian Kelso | Farrow-Gillespie & Heath LLP | Dallas, TX

Christian S. Kelso, Esq. is a partner at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter LLP.  He draws on both personal and professional experience when counseling clients on issues related to estate planning, wealth preservation and transfer, probate, tax, and transactional corporate law. He earned a J.D. and LL.M. in taxation from SMU Dedman School of Law.

Bethany Kelso | Preston Kelso | Christian Kelso

Upjohn Clause: A Trap for the Unwary Trustee

Bethany Kelso | Preston Kelso | Christian Kelso

Featured image: Bethany and Preston Kelso. Photo used with subjects’ permission.

Many trust instruments prohibit trustees from relieving themselves of a legal duty under applicable law. Such language, which is sometimes referred to as an “Upjohn” clause after the case of Upjohn v. U.S. (30 A.F.T.R. 2d. 72-5918 (W.D. Mich 1972)), is most often, intended to prohibit a trustee from using trust assets to pay for anything which he or she is obligated to provide to his or her child as a matter of law and regardless of the trust.

Section 151.001 of the Texas Family Code imposes a legal obligation on parents to support their minor children. This includes the duty to provide a child with clothing, food, shelter, education, and medical and dental care.

The prohibitive language of an Upjohn clause typically comes into play in one of two scenarios: Either a grandparent has established a trust for the benefit of a minor grandchild and named the intervening child as trustee, or a spouse has established a trust for the benefit of a minor child and named the other spouse as trustee.  In either case, the trustee is the parent of the beneficiary and owes the beneficiary a legal duty of support because the beneficiary is a minor. Although there are other circumstances where an Upjohn clause might apply (for example in the context of a marriage or guardianship), corporate and unrelated trustees generally do not need to concern themselves with this particular legal landmine.

The legal obligations prohibition is primarily meant to prevent inclusion of the entire trust corpus in a trustee’s estate under Treas. Reg. § 20.2041-1(c)(1), which treats the power to relieve a support obligation as a general power of appointment. Importantly, the trustee does not have to actually discharge an obligation. The mere power to do so is enough to cause inclusion. This is why some affirmative mechanism is needed to deny the trustee such power in the first place.

Legal support prohibitions are often contained in the boilerplate of a trust instrument which individual trustees are unlikely to bother reading and less likely to understand. Litigators who specialize in trust administration issues know to look for these clauses and point out violations. If a trustee makes even a small distribution in violation of an Upjohn clause, he or she has violated his or her fiduciary duty and may be subject to severe reprimand. This underscores the point that trustees, and in particular individual trustees, should maintain a close relationship with their attorneys and other professional advisors.

Although the distributions prohibited by an Upjohn clause are narrow in scope, there is very little legal precedent for determining exactly what is prohibited and what is not, so the best course of action is to proceed conservatively and with an abundance of caution.

In the absence of legal precedent to the contrary, more conservative guidelines are advisable. Thus, where an Upjohn clause applies, the following expenditures are best avoided:

  • Rent or any similar payments
  • Home improvements or decor
  • Homeowners or renters’ insurance
  • Basic utilities for the home
  • Property taxes
  • Clothing
  • Health insurance
  • Non-elective healthcare
  • General dentistry
  • Dentures
  • Optometry
  • Prescription glasses
  • Food

On the other hand, there are a number of expenses which do not fall within support obligation, so trust assets may be properly expendable on the following:

  • Cell phones
  • Pets
  • TV, cable, or satellite service
  • Internet service
  • Personal accessories
  • Automobiles
  • Auto insurance
  • Private school education
  • Extracurricular activities
  • Trips and vacations
  • Elective health care
  • Orthodontics

If you would like to discuss the particular language in your trust instrument, or the circumstances in which it operates, please contact one of our trust attorneys for guidance.


Christian Kelso | Farrow-Gillespie & Heath LLP | Dallas, TX

Christian S. Kelso, Esq. is a partner at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter LLP. He draws on both personal and professional experience when counseling clients on issues related to estate planning, wealth preservation and transfer, probate, tax, and transactional corporate law. He earned a J.D. and LL.M. in taxation from SMU Dedman School of Law.

Luxury Property | Yacht | SPE | Special Purpose Entities

Luxury Property Special Purpose Entities

Portions of this article were originally printed in Dallas Bar Association Headnotes, December 2017.

Luxury Property | Yacht | SPE | Special Purpose Entities

When it comes to luxury property, such as beach houses, lake houses, ski condos, hunting leases, aircraft, watercraft, limousines, and the like, two rules almost always apply: First, they are expensive to own and operate. Second, they tend to sit dormant much of the time. In order to spread out costs, decrease waste, and mitigate damage, it often makes sense for multiple owners to combine resources and share ownership of this type of property.

Whether friends or family, parties wishing to maximize these advantages often hold the property in special purpose entities or “SPE”. But ownership of luxury property involves legal and practical problems that differ from those of the standard, for-profit world. The tips below will help practitioners recognize and address the problems.

Entity Choice

LLCs are generally the entity of choice for luxury property SPEs in Texas. General partnerships lack appropriate liability protection, while limited partnerships are more expensive and complicated.  Although double taxation may not be an issue, corporations nonetheless raise tax concerns, such as increased potential for violating the nonrecognition provisions of IRC §351. Also, LLCs provide a level of privacy which can be valuable.

Usage Rules

Parties to a luxury property SPE must determine how, when, and by whom the property can be used. Options include reservation systems, drawing lots, or simply a first come, first served rule.  Similarly, guests, family members, pets, and smoking should be addressed. Parties should also expressly permit or forbid outside rental of the property.

Contributions

Rules for sharing costs and expenses are also very important. Who will determine what expenses are proper? How and when will contributions be required? Should costs be shared pro rata, per capita, or otherwise? Many usage charges are difficult to track, which leads to infighting.  Requiring users to pay for fuel may be appropriate, but allocating a hangar fee may not. Also, budgeting for expenses well in advance and providing limitations on increases can provide comfort.

Penalties are another important concern. Unlike for-profit entities, luxury property SPEs require regular cash contributions for upkeep, taxes, and other expenses, so mechanisms are required to hold owners to their obligations. Thus, interest charges, as well as forfeiture of usage, voting rights, or even the ownership interest itself may be appropriate.

Contributions must be carefully defined. If Uncle Bob takes his favorite recliner to the ski condo for a few years, is it contributed or can he take it back? Answers to such questions will depend on the circumstances and may change over time.

Management

Especially where many owners are involved, appointing and empowering capable managers is important. Expecting family factions to agree on a cable package for the old family homestead is unrealistic.

Managers’ powers should provide flexibility because they may need to make quick decisions. A company agreement can provide broad direction and allow managers to set specific policies and procedures internally, allowing for simpler, quicker amendments.

Ownership and Voting

Permissible owners of luxury property SPEs should be well defined. Transfers within this class should be easily made, while transfers outside the class should be difficult, but not impossible. Similarly, assignees’ rights should be clearly defined, particularly in the context of unintended transfers. For example, should assignees hold usage rights? Also, it may be helpful to limit ownership by disallowing fractionization of interests. For example, transferees receiving less than a whole unit might can be made assignees until the entire unit is held by one person.

Voting rights present other problems. Small luxury property SPEs will likely function better with a per capita voting whereas larger ones work best where votes are cast pro rata. Also, the threshold for supermajority voting should typically be lower with a luxury property SPE than with a for-profit enterprise because the entity represents a liability to its owners and they should have a more available exit strategy.

To summarize, many of the above considerations either play out differently or simply do not apply in the context of for-profit companies. Further guidance can be found in the rules applicable to social clubs and fraternal organizations. Unlike those organizations, however, additional flexibility is required with a luxury property SPE. If the parties are willing to exercise good planning, show a little patience, and adapt their systems, they will reap great benefits.


Christian Kelso | Farrow-Gillespie & Heath LLP | Dallas, TX

Christian S. Kelso, Esq. is a partner at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter LLP.  He draws on both personal and professional experience when counseling clients on issues related to estate planning, wealth preservation and transfer, probate, tax, and transactional corporate law. He earned a J.D. and LL.M. in taxation from SMU Dedman School of Law.

Estate Planning | Farrow-Gillespie & Heath | Dallas, TX

Capacity to Sign

Estate Planning | Farrow-Gillespie & Heath | Dallas, TXDifferent legal actions require different levels of mental capacity to be valid. For example, the level of mental capacity required to sign a will, referred to as “testamentary capacity,” is lower than the level of capacity required to sign a contract, called “contractual capacity.” The various standards are discussed below.

Capacity to Sign a Will – Testamentary Capacity

To have testamentary capacity, the will signer must satisfy five requirements. First, the signer must understand the business in which they are engaged.  Second, the signer must understand the effects of making a will. Third, the signer must understand the general nature and extent of their own property. Fourth, the signer must know to whom their property should pass or is likely to pass. And fifth, the signer must be able to collect all of this information in their mind at once and understand the how it all connects. They also must not suffer from an “insane delusion” that affects the will, nor be under undue influence from an outside party.

A person signing a will may do so during a lucid interval (sometimes also known as a “moment of clarity”), which is a time of mental capacity that is both preceded and followed by periods of mental incapacity. As long as the signing occurs during this lucid interval, the person has capacity to execute the document at issue.

Testamentary capacity must be proven only if the will is challenged by someone during the probate process. The party seeking to uphold the will (the will proponent) is the party who must prove that the testator did, in fact, have capacity at the time of the will signing. To guard against claims to the contrary, the estate planning attorney should be certain that the testator has capacity at signing, and should not allow someone with questionable capacity to execute a will.

Capacity for Other Legal Arrangements

In contrast to testamentary capacity, the standard for legally signing other documents is generally higher.

Contractual Capacity

Contractual capacity is the mental capacity required to validly execute a contract. Contractual capacity requires that the contracting person appreciates the effects of the act of signing the contract, and understands the nature and consequences of signing the contract as well as the business that they are conducting.

Power of Attorney

Although not entirely clear under Texas law, proper execution of a power of attorney probably requires contractual capacity. The reason is that the POA is valid during the signer’s lifetime and can have a profound effect on business and financial transactions.

Donative Capacity

Donative capacity, or the capacity to make a gift, is an elusive concept in Texas, but other states require something that appears to be higher than contractual capacity. Common requirements are that the donor of the gift must understand the nature and purpose of the gift, the kind and amount of property given, who is a reasonable recipient of the gift, and the effect the gift will have on the donor. Some states go so far as to require that the donor understand that the gift is irrevocable and that it will reduce the donor’s own assets.

Health Care Decisions

The capacity required to make health care decisions is more than mere mental capacity. Patients must give “informed consent” to all health care procedures, which requires that the patient be competent and that the consent be given voluntarily. The consent is informed when the health care provider gives the patient the information the patient needs to make the right choice.

The Effect of a Lack of Capacity

If a person does not meet the requisite mental capacity requirements when he or she enters into a legal arrangement, the arrangement and its supporting documents are generally void and unenforceable. Third parties can challenge these documents if they believed the person lacked capacity when the documents were signed. For a will, that means bringing a contest during the probate process.

Read More:
  • Michael H. Wald, The Ethics of Capacity, 77 Tex. B.J. 975 (2014).
  • Rudersdorf v. Bowers, 112 SW2d 784, 789 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston, 1938).
  • Tieken v. Midwestern State Univ., 912 SW2d 878, 882 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth, 1995).

Catherine Parsley was an intern at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter, LLP in 2017. Catherine served as a judicial extern for Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht, of the Supreme Court of Texas.  She holds a B.S. in communications studies, cum laude, from the University of Texas at Austin.


Christian Kelso | Farrow-Gillespie & Heath LLP | Dallas, TX

Christian S. Kelso, Esq. is a partner at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter LLP. He draws on both personal and professional experience when counseling clients on issues related to estate planning, wealth preservation and transfer, probate, tax, and transactional corporate law. He earned a J.D. and LL.M. in taxation from SMU Dedman School of Law.

Christian Kelso | Estate Planning | 663(b) distributions

It’s Time to Make Your 663(b) Trust and Estate Distributions!

Trusts and estates often pay more tax than individuals in like circumstances.  This is not because they are taxed at higher rates, but rather because the same rates applicable to individuals are “compressed,” meaning that each marginal rate increase happens at a lower level of income than it does for individuals.  For example, the highest rate of income tax for both trusts and individuals for 2016 was 39.6%, but whereas this rate only applies to income over $415,050 for single individual filers, for trusts and estates, this rate applies to all income over $12,400.  Other tax burdens, such as the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax (a/k/a the “Obamacare Tax”) and higher rates of capital gains tax follow suit along similar lines.  Obviously, these add up to a significant potential tax burden.

Fortunately, there is a way to mitigate this tax burden.  Trusts and estates may take a deduction for “distributable net income,” which is generally the amount of income that is distributed from the trust to a beneficiary.  When this happens, the income is effectively shifted from the trust to the beneficiary, who simply adds it to their personal return and pays at whatever rate is applicable to them (including the distributed trust income, of course).

Since large amounts of unnecessary tax can be avoided by shifting income to beneficiaries in this manner, it is common practice for trustees to make distributions for this purpose, assuming, of course, that such distributions are permissible and proper under the terms of the trust.  But there is a problem:  How does the trustee know how much income to distribute from a given trust before the close of a given tax year?  Unfortunately, it is impossible, to know exactly how much income a trust has until after the tax year has closed, at which point, it’s too late to distribute all the income.

Enter IRC §663(b).  Under this special provision, a trust or estate may elect to treat any distribution made within the first 65 days of a given tax year as having been made on December 31 of the previous year.  In other words, the trustee gets 65 days after the actual close of the year to calculate how much income should have been distributed and then actually make that distribution.  The trustee then makes an election on the trust or estate’s income tax return (Form 1041) and voila, the problem is solved!

Although §663(b) distributions may provide a significant benefit, the can also represent a significant danger to trustees.  On the one hand, any distribution from a trust should only be made if and to the extent it is proper under the terms of the trust.  Even if such a distribution is permissible, it may not be in the best interests of a given beneficiary, as taxes are only one of many considerations.  On the other hand, a §663(b) distributions can save a significant amount of tax, so failing to make such a distribution, if permitted, could subject a trustee to liability for waste.

Making the right decision requires careful analysis.  The fiduciary attorneys at Farrow-Gillespie & Heath, LLP are well-versed with the applicable law and have the practical experience to understand the nuanced process that is involved with make the right decision.  If we can help you with this, please don’t hesitate to call.

The trust and estate planning attorneys at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter LLP, located in downtown Dallas, serve all of your trust and estate planning needs, including:

  • Estate planning for small estates
  • Estate planning for large, taxable estates
  • Trust review and modification
  • Trust and estate administration
  • Trust litigation
  • Will contests
  • Probate
  • Heirship proceedings
  • Guardianships

Family Governance Arrangements: Putting the SUCCESS into Succession Planning

It is a little known fact among us mere mortals, but the über-rich have a trick for both keeping the peace in their families and preserving their vast fortunes. They engage in something called family governance planning. Most of us are unfamiliar with this concept although those working in family law like for example Goodman Ray Solicitors should understand what this means, however it’s not difficult to grasp on a fundamental level. Put simply, family governance has two parts: First, it involves identifying and agreeing on specific goals which a family can actively pursue. Second, it involves establishing rules by which those goals will be pursued and what each family member will contribute in the furtherance of that pursuit. In other words, family governance charts a course for the family unit and provides clarity and transparency among and between the individual family members so that they can function more cohesively as a group.

I. The Problem. Most families fail to conduct any family governance planning whatsoever. In fact, most families do exactly the opposite. Rather than discussing openly the nature and extent of their bounties, most family heads in America will actively hide details about their wealth from their children and other family members. And their loved ones often pay for it in the form of costly legal disputes, intra-familial discord and lasting, emotionally-charged feuds.

Why do we do this? Well, there are two major obstacles, one or both of which may impact a given situation. First, discussing wealth is taboo. We all know that it is distasteful to discuss wealth publically, but the problem is that too many of us take the rule too far. Discussing wealth in a private setting with close family is not taboo. Second, discussing wealth is hard. If one is to have a proper discussion about their wealth with family, they need to arrange a meeting, collect all sorts of information and come up with an agenda. One also needs to know what to say, what questions to ask and how to listen to other family member’s input. All of this is labor-intensive and emotionally charged. Fortunately, however, there is quite a bit of help available, from books for those who want to educate themselves to professionals available to provide direct guidance.

Family governance seeks to minimize negativity by addressing some or all of the following:

  1. Expectations regarding wealth;
  2. Caring for elderly family members;
  3. Employment within the family business;
  4. Investment and management of family assets;
  5. Procedures for resolving grievances;
  6. Spousal issues;
  7. Enfranchisement and training of younger generations; and
  8. Charitable giving.

Different families will apply family governance strategies to varying degrees depending on a number of factors, such as size of the family, relative ages of the family members, assets held by the family, status of existing family relationships and quite a few more. Thus, every structure is necessarily bespoke and it is usually quite helpful to have a professional guide who can provide guidance, technical clarity and an unbiased third-party perspective.

II. The Tools. There are many forms that family governance can take. At the highest levels, comprehensive family governance planning may include some or all of the following:

  1. Regular family assemblies;
  2. Family mission statement;
  3. Family constitution;
  4. Formalized narrative of family history and traditions;
  5. Family counsel tasked with dispute resolution;
  6. Various committees (i.e. Investment, Education, Administrative, Charitable, etc…); and
  7. Trustees.

Typically, larger, wealthier families will employ more of these components while families of more modest means will employ less. At a minimum, however, regular (usually annual) family assemblies are necessary to identify the extent to which various components are needed and flesh them out. These assemblies (which in certain circumstances can even be deductible for income tax purposes) often take the form of a family vacation or reunion where participants are encouraged to both work and play.

III. The Program. A typical family assembly agenda might look like this:

A. Set the tone and talk family history. A family assembly will usually begin with an initial session to set the tone for the assembly, as well as the goals and ground rules. Steps should be taken to avoid disillusionment by family members because participation by all relevant players is crucial. Therefore, the patriarch or other organizer should avoid talking down to the other family members and focus instead on listening to the others’ thoughts and opinions. That said, it should be clear from the start that the purpose of a family assembly is not to voice grievances, assign blame or point fingers. Rather the focus should be on moving forward towards a common goal. At the end of the day (or weekend or week), the primary goal should be for everyone in the family to be “on the same page” about family business, relationships and expectations.

After setting the initial tone and ground rules, the family may benefit from some exercise designed to promote what the military calls “unit cohesion.” That is, a discussion designed to get the family pumped up about its own history and traditions. Discussions of family heritage, retelling of family lore and recognition of individual accomplishments (i.e. since the last family assembly), may help motivate the family to proceed with the work ahead. The family should also acknowledge the extent to which it was able to meet its goals as set out in the previous family assembly.

B. Review mission statement. At this point, the family mission statement should be restated and evaluated. Note that this is done before the new goals are set out because the adoption of new goals will be guided by the family mission statement. That is, goals that do not fit within the mission statement probably should not be adopted.

Often times, this discussion is best had over dinner with a little (but not too much) drink. It also provides an opportune time to incorporate and educate spouses. Remember, the directive to have fun at a family assembly is just as important as the conduct of business.

C. Get to business. The next step is to report on the status of family affairs and set expectations. This will often be the point at which the patriarch does the most talking. He or she should describe with appropriate specificity the outlay of the family’s assets and liabilities. An accurate description of his or her estate plan is also germane to this part of the meeting and should be made in front of all relevant family members with complete transparency. The implications, tax and otherwise, of any estate planning techniques should also be explained to each expectant beneficiary so that they can have clear expectations of what is to come and avoid being blind-sided by confusing legal jargon and unintended consequences when the time finally comes.

When discussing his estate plan, a patriarch should make sure to declare his intentions regarding how beneficiaries are to enjoy their inheritance and put them on notice of any restrictions on the use of property. Clarity with regard to the enjoyment of property held in trust can go a long way to reduce friction between beneficiaries and trustees. Thus, the patriarch should state whether he or she intends for future generations to enjoy the estate assets liberally, as a nest egg, or only as a safety cushion. Some mention should also be made regarding the ability of spouses to benefit from the estate. Finally, there will almost always be tax-based restrictions placed on assets held in trust. These along with any others (for example promoting certain behaviors) should be made clear.

Of course, end-of-life planning is ancillary to any discussion of estate planning, and depending on how things play out, may be just as important, if not more so. Modern medicine makes it increasingly likely that each of us will need extensive care, often for a number of years before we die. Not only is this care labor-intensive, it is incredibly expensive and emotionally draining on family. By setting out a plan before incapacity, we can greatly reduce these burdens on our loved ones. To this end, we might want to discuss i) the nature and extent of the care we might need, ii) the expected costs and how they will be covered, as well as iii) how specific family members might participate in assisting with such care and the extent, if any, to which they should be compensated for their efforts. Remember that caring for a loved one can be a full-time job in and of itself. Also, caregivers who are able to maintain regular employment may have to reduce their hours, pass up promotions and otherwise sacrifice in ways that are financially burdensome, so compensation will often be appropriate.

The estate and end-of life planning portion of a family assembly may be the most difficult for the patriarch. As mentioned above, discussing wealth remains extremely taboo in our society and nobody wants to think about a slow decline towards the inevitable. However, in controlled circumstances, these discussions can literally save future generations from ruin, so it may be helpful to view openness as a lesser evil. One way to mitigate apprehension in this regard is to set clear expectations for family members’ keeping the discussion confidential. Also, clear policies for when and how such information may be brought up with younger family members will likewise provide comfort. In any event, a balance must be drawn between the need to promote family unity and the desire to avoid embarrassment (or worse) if details are made public.

D. Setting goals for moving forward. Once family members have been apprised of the family’s overall status, they can go about setting goals for the future. This may be a tricky part of the program, because family members may not understand what options are available as family goals or the extent to which their eventual achievement might be realistic. But this part can also be the most fun because it affords the individual family members the opportunity to think creatively and plan with hope in their hearts about the future. The nature and extent of the particular goals will vary widely from family to family. Within a family, the goals will likely change over time as well. To the extent there is a large family business, a stronger focus on business objectives will be needed. These might include some discussion of:

  1. Goals relating to growth;
  2. Acquisition or divestiture of assets;
  3. Development of new products or services;
  4. Employee matters (including hiring family members, spouses or others); and
  5. Tax matters.

Other families, however, might focus more attention on personal goals such as:

  1. Family members’ education (i.e. high school, college and/or professional degrees);
  2. Identifying charitable beneficiaries to support;
  3. Family members’ personal goals (i.e. weight loss, writing a book or promotion at work); and
  4. Setting standards for the care of elderly or disabled family members.

Setting goals necessarily requires the family to assess its own definition of success. Some measures of success can be objective. For example, determining an amount the family intends to give to charity may be straightforward. On the other hand, success may also manifest itself more as a path than a destination. That is, the continuance educational goals developing new familial relationships (i.e. through marriage or the birth of children) are more subjective.

E. The plan of attack. Once the goals have been laid out, the family can map out a path to success. Typically, they will do this by first brainstorming ideas for achieving their goals and then by developing (and memorializing) clear steps each will agree to take in furtherance of each goal.

There are a few keys, however, to doing this effectively. First, larger tasks must be broken down into progressively smaller ones until they become realistically achievable for the individuals responsible for their completion. Thus, the creative gives way to the practical. Also, it is important that all family members are encouraged to avoid creating work for others. Some families have rules effectively stating that the person who mentions some new task should be in charge of seeing to it that the task, if adopted, is completed.

Second, it is very important to avoid disenfranchising any family member. The input of all family members, once they meet certain general criteria, should be valued. Thus, the tasks assigned to younger family members will be very different than those assigned to older family members, but they should not be described in terms that portray relatively less value. For example, a family may choose to enfranchise children at age 16. At that age, however, the child’s primary focus should be finishing high school with the best possible grades and beginning the next phase of life (be that military service, technical school, college or something else). While young family members may work at the family business in the summer, they will not be responsible for the successful deployment of the new marketing push for the coming fall. Similarly, adult family members with diminished capacity or those who simply are not interested in participating in the family business should be provided with some opportunity to contribute, no matter how trivial that contributions might seem. This is because the very essence of family is promoted by each individual’s opportunity to contribute and their ability to “own” some task.

Third, it is absolutely critical that deadlines be placed on each step of the plan. Like it or not, it is a reality of human nature that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. A family will have done itself no good if it fails to implement the plan, however masterful it may have seemed when laid out. By providing deadlines, individual family members can be motivated to take the necessary steps towards realizing the family’s stated goals. Of course, the deadlines (like the individual steps themselves) must be realistic. This may take several attempts to get right—that is, several years’ worth of family assemblies—so families should not allow themselves to be put off by this. Rather they should adjust their expectations accordingly. And to the extent possible, individual family members should avoid criticism of others who missed their deadlines. Giving a family member less responsibility for the coming year because failed to meet deadlines in the past is criticism enough for most.

F. Review and revise documents. After setting out the path towards achieving its goals, the family may wish to revisit operational documents and procedures and amend or adjust as needed. Are the nepotism rules for the family business sill relevant and just? Does the constitution adequately address methods for resolving conflict? Does the policy for loaning money to family members need adjustment? Likewise, appointments to the family council and any committees should be made at this time. Note that this may not be something that all family members at the assembly participate in. Depending on the particular family’s circumstances, this may be the exclusive purview of the family council.

G. Here’s to us! The final agenda item for most family assemblies is to recognize a job well done by all. It can be hard work to map out the family’s year, so thanks and congratulations all round are in order, particularly if and to the extent that the family has been able to conduct its business peacefully and on schedule.

IV. Tailoring the Plan. Obviously, not every family will follow the exact plan laid out above, but it is illustrative as to how family governance can be implemented. Some families may wish to adopt a paired down version of this plan while others may wish to add to it. For example, workshops can be added to help keep up to date with market trends or other matters relevant to the family business, as well as legal, tax, financial, insurance and other matters.

Regardless of how the family governance is implemented, it is very important that the family continues to meet periodically. Most families will choose to meet annually, but bi-annual or quarterly meetings are also standard. Less frequent meetings, however, may not provide the necessary continuity or guidance. Indeed, a lot can happen in a year!

To the extent that family assemblies are deductible, they can also provide a patriarch with an excellent avenue for shifting wealth. In other words, a family assembly is not much different than a corporate retreat, so they provide an opportunity to give family members something nice (a trip) without any estate or gift tax consequence.

Also, the importance of seeking professional assistance cannot be overstated. A third-party facilitator provides numerous benefits. First, they can make arrangements for the family assemblies by coordinating with family members, booking hotel rooms, securing meeting spaces, preparing agendas and much more. Next, facilitators provide unbiased perspective to aid in the decision-making process. To this end, they can provide guidance with developing family goals, as well as breaking tasks down into achievable parts. Similarly, they can help keep the family on track. Family assemblies can easily devolve into chaos without someone who is willing and able to provide the requisite guidance. Furthermore, a facilitator can assume the role of the “bad guy” and help avoid negativity between family members. Finally, a professional facilitator may have the experience and specialized knowledge to provide clarity and answer questions regarding legal and other matters. Not only will this help promote realistic expectations, but it will also provide the patriarch an opportunity to communicate his or her thoughts and feelings without being the one who is actually talking. In other words, it affords the opportunity to talk without the appearance of talking down.

V. Pairing Down. Successful families of means use family governance to achieve their goals and preserve wealth. This can be a very involved (and therefore expensive) prospect. Fortunately, however, the same principles developed by and for the very rich can also be adapted for families of more modest means. By seeking the guidance of a professional to help develop a family governance plan and facilitating family assemblies, the family can compound the benefit derived.

VI. Fact-based example. While the benefits of goal-setting in the family business context may be easier to grasp, an example will illustrate how family governance can provide great benefits in other areas as well:

Assume Family consists of Dr. Patriarch (a successful physician), Mrs. Matriarch (a homemaker), Junior (an MBA working for a large corporation), Daughter (an art history major working as a docent at a local museum) and Baby (a high-school senior trying to decide on the right college). Assume that Family has a net worth of $7mm. At their annual family assembly in the Texas Hill Country, Junior expresses a desire to strike out on his own doing the same thing he has been doing at his large company. Similarly, Daughter expresses her desire to write a book about art collections of Upper Bavarian monasteries in the mid-1290’s. Baby, on the other hand is debating whether or not to attend an expensive private school or a state school. Finally, Mrs. Matriarch has joined the board of prestigious local charity that raises money for medical research.

At their assembly, the family might determine it will lend Junior the funds he needs to start his business and the specific terms on which that loan will be made (and repaid). The family might also determine to purchase equity in the new company.

Additionally, the family may agree to support Daughter by encouraging her to meet set deadlines for certain portions of her book. In this manner, they can increase Daughter’s motivation to accomplish her goals. She is less likely let herself down if doing so would also mean letting her loved ones down. Finally, the family might agree to hold their next family assembly in the Bavarian Alps, as it would be relevant to Daughter’s work.

Next, since all the family members are together, they will all be able to provide guidance to Baby with regard to his college decision. Also, the financial impact of his final decision will be out in the open for everyone to see. If Baby decides to attend the expensive, private college, it may be appropriate for him to enter into a loan agreement with Patriarch to cover the additional tuition, particularly if the other two children attended significantly less expensive schools.

Regarding charitable activities, the family can determine an appropriate amount that it will give away in the coming year. They might further agree that Mrs. Matriarch’s charity will be the charitable recipient and that they will purchase a table at the charity’s annual gala large enough for all the family members (along with a spouse or date)

VII. Conclusion. Family governance provides clarity of purpose, guidance for achieving specified goals and unity among family members. At the end of the day, this translates into increased family happiness. Of course, both time and money must be invested, but the rewards will generally exceed the costs by a wide margin. After all, what price can a family put on its own happiness?

Christian S. Kelso, Esq. is a partner at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter LLP.  He draws on both personal and professional experience when counseling clients on issues related to estate planning, wealth preservation and transfer, probate, tax, and transactional corporate law. He earned a J.D. and LL.M. in taxation from SMU Dedman School of Law.

Read about author Christian S. Kelso

Estate Planning | Farrow-Gillespie & Heath LLP | Dallas, TX

Do I Need a Will?

One of the most common misunderstandings about estate planning is the belief that it is only for the wealthy. Anyone who owns property of any kind has an estate. Basic estate planning is an important component of an organized and responsible life, whether or not your estate is large enough to be subject to federal estate taxes. If you own any property, or have minor children, you should have a Will. Estate planning includes more than just a Will, however. It includes planning for potential disability during your lifetime, designating trusted individuals as medical and/or financial agents with power of attorney, designating a guardian to take care of your minor children in the event both you and your spouse die or become incapacitated, and other critical decisions. For those reasons, we include an entire package of the basic estate planning documents with your Last Will and Testament.

See list of basic estate planning documents.

Many people (as much as half of the population) will experience a period of either physical or mental disability before their death. Lack of planning can make caring for a disabled individual expensive and inconvenient for the caregiver. Good planning preserves a person’s dignity, as well as his or her assets, which can be used for the person’s care and can be preserved to the full extent possible for the next generation. Your loved ones will be grateful to you for having your affairs in order.