But for Rotten Luck Some People Would Have No Luck at All

Malpractice Coverage - X

Don't Leave Home without It

 

(tenth in a series on design and implementation issues)

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

 


Judy Potter (40) played the lottery every week.  For her, it was harmless fun and she enjoyed fantasizing about winning about the “big one”.  Then lightning struck and her numbers were the lucky picks played giving her $15 million dollars in a lump sum.  Like many lottery players, Judy had no professional advisor relationships and she took her brother-in-law’s (an insurance sales representative) ill-conceived advice that if she would just contribute her lottery ticket to a charitable remainder trust, she could avoid taxation on her winnings and receive a tax deduction to boot.

Too bad, it did not work out as he described – there was no deduction and no avoidance of tax.

In fact, by locking her winnings inside an irrevocable trust that could not provide the liquidity to pay taxes on her personal income, she wound up owing more money in taxes than she will receive from her CRT for years. 

 

 

Assignment of income, no tax deduction.

Since her lottery jackpot was untaxed ordinary income, funding her CRT with a winning ticket meant that there was no charitable income tax deduction available.  Given that her federal income tax bill was $5.834 million on the $15 million of winnings, even if there had been a charitable deduction, it would have put only a small dent in her tax bill, and once the cash was locked inside the CRT there was no way to pay the tax liabilities Judy owed.

 

Instead, if she had taken the lump sum settlement, paid the tax, and contributed the remaining $9 million in cash to her CRT, she would have generated an income tax deduction of $1.128 million on a 5% two-life CRUT.  Why so low?  Since she and her 42-year-old husband set up a two-life CRT, the probability that the charity would receive anything soon was remote.  The IRS life expectancy tables used to calculate the present value of her future gift produced a deduction of just 12.5% of the transferred amount.  However, given her adjusted gross income (AGI) for that year, Judy could use the deduction limit of 50% for her cash contribution and help offset some of the prior taxes withheld.  If Judy could have postponed collecting some of her winnings without sacrificing lifestyle, other charitable tools might have been worth using.  For example, a grantor charitable lead annuity trust (CLAT) could have been coordinated with her CRT to set aside money in an account that would pay charities for a few years and then return her money, plus growth, back to Judy after she’d had a little time to get her personal life back on course.  This technique would have generated another income tax deduction and ultimately given her more control over her newfound wealth.  Why give up the flexibility of just keeping the money and enjoying it?  There is no reason Judy could not have done so, except that, statistically, few lottery winners actually enjoy the fruits of their lottery winnings for very long.  Remarkably, it is common for big winners to blow throw their winnings and actually have to declare bankruptcy, some in as few as three to five years.  While the CRT cannot properly be viewed as an asset protection vehicle, it does restrict the availability of the assets and protects them from being squandered unnecessarily.  If a lottery winner has some interest in doing philanthropic works, a CRT might help impose the discipline needed to make it to a point where the winner has a chance to go on and live a life that has not been turned upside down.  After all, Judy had choices.  Her money could be squandered, and that which was left unspent would be available to children, charity, or Congress or she could have decided that cutting the IRS out of her life as much as possible and controlling her wealth made more sense.  Judy is not alone facing these ethical planning dilemmas; some of these strategies might have practical uses for recipients of salary bonuses, large inheritances, litigation awards, and structured settlements.  Anytime people fall into unearned or unanticipated wealth, taking time to get it right makes good sense.

 

Counting on lottery winnings isn't a reliable way to build wealth, however, some people do win and need advice. Seek competent counsel with experienced advisors who can help guide the process to include both values and financial planning solutions.

 

Some charities resist accepting donations from gambling winnings; it’s certainly something to which they’re entitled, but the rationale for taking lottery monies often can be summed up by an old Irish saying, “there is no money so dirty it cannot be washed by the tears of widows and orphans”.

 

© 2002 -- Vaughn W. Henry

Gift and Estate Planning Services

Springfield, IL  62703-5314

217.529.1958 -- 217.529.1959 fax

VWHenry@aol.com     www.gift-estate.com


 



Subscribe to Henry & Associates'
Gift and Estate Planning Discussions

Want to be kept up to date
on CRT planning issues?

  Join our mailing list!
Check our Trust and Planning Archive Hosted by Henry & Associates at Charitable Trust Planning


sectionbreak
logo
VWH www.gift-estate.com

CRT Planning and Books

Vaughn W. Henry
Henry & Associates
Gift and Estate Planning Services
22 Hyde Park Place
Springfield, IL 62703 USA
Phone: (217) 529-1958 Fax: (217)529-1959
Toll-free: (800) 879-2098
E-mail: VWHenry@aol.com

PhilanthroCalc for the Web CONTACT US FOR A FREE PRELIMINARY CASE STUDY FOR YOUR OWN CRT SCENARIO or try your own at Donor Direct. Please note -- there's much more to estate and charitable planning than simply running software calculations, but it does give you a chance to see how the calculations affect some of the design considerations. This is not "do it yourself brain surgery". When is a CRUT superior to a CRAT? Which type of CRT is best used with which assets? Although it may be counter-intuitive, sometimes a lower payout CRUT makes more sense and pays more total income to beneficiaries. Why? When to use a CLUT vs. CLAT and the traps in each lead trust. Which tools work best in which planning scenarios? Check with our office for solutions to this alphabet soup of planned giving tools.