Why Retiring Farmers Might Use a Rawhide
Trust
“The estate tax is the government’s way of getting
even for all of your income tax maneuvering”
One of the
problems farmers, ranchers and other family business owners have with the built
up tax liability that exists when owners sell out and retire is how to control
the timing of tax triggers. Why is
that? Many farm business owners look at
their books annually and decide to buy feed, seed, fuel, and fertilizer before
year-end to show little taxable profit. Those years of income deferral come back to
haunt farmers the last year of business with a vengeance
when they close out the business. Since
everything they sell is depreciated or an ordinary income asset, it is a common
trap; there is no offsetting business expense to reduce taxable income, so the
last year is a bonanza for the IRS.
“Rawhide trusts” that make use of livestock, agricultural products, or
farm equipment, may exist not to generate an income tax deduction but to defer
recognition of taxable income, which may be an important part of an exit
strategy for a farm business owner.
Internal Revenue Code §1231 defines “livestock” as
including cattle, hogs, horses, mules, donkeys, sheep, goats, fur-bearing
animals, and other mammals. However,
poultry, chickens, turkeys, pigeons, geese, other birds, fish, frogs, reptiles,
etc. are not included. This distinction
is important because “livestock” held by the taxpayer for draft, breeding,
dairy, or sporting (e.g., racing) purposes may qualify for long-term capital
gain treatment upon sale, exchange, or involuntary conversion. Specifically, livestock will qualify for IRC
§1231 treatment if held:
(i) for 24 months or more from the date of acquisition in the
case of cattle or horses, or
(ii) for
12 months or more from the date of acquisition in the case of such other
livestock.
An outright
contribution of qualified “livestock” to a public charity that puts them to a
related use should qualify for a fair market value deduction. Donors must distinguish between animals
purchased and those raised by the donor; the latter are going to be ordinary
income assets. The term "certain
capital gain property" as used above means any capital asset which if sold
on the date of contribution at its fair market value would have resulted in
long-term capital gain to the donor. While
it is useful to a veterinary school or university animal science program when a
donor contributes livestock or race horses that qualify for a full fair market
deduction, these gifts may not be quite as suitable for transfer to a CRUT
because there is no “related use” for livestock inside a charitable remainder
trust. Although, if the donor
contributes tangible property (livestock, equipment, grain, etc.) as a way to
avoid recognizing an immediate income tax on sale of an asset, even if it
creates a tiny deduction hinged on tax basis and not fair market value, then
CRT planning still may be a useful solution.
(PLR 9413020)
Crops
The
determination of whether crops are tangible personal property or part of real
estate depends on whether the crop has been harvested.
Reg. §1231-1(a) provides that
“unharvested” crops sold with the land on which the corps are located (and
which has been owned by the seller for more than one year) are considered long-term
capital gain property.1 It is
immaterial if the length of time that the crop, as distinguished from the land,
is held for more than a year. Accordingly, for charitable deduction
purposes, a contribution of land containing unharvested crops to a public
charity is based on the fair market value of the land
and crops on the date of contribution and is still subject to the 30% AGI deduction
limitation. The use to which the
charitable organization places the crops sold as a part of the donated land is
immaterial to the donor's deduction because those crops are
not considered tangible personal property. However, this income generated from the sale
of crops could be considered unrelated business income under IRC §512 by the
charitable organization. Because a CRT
currently has severe penalties for unrelated business income, so any land with
unharvested crops may be unsuitable for transfer to a charitable remainder
trust because the production of UBTI causes the trust to lose its tax-exempt
status. If a donor contributes harvested
crops, a tangible personal property item, it is considered
ordinary income property. The deduction
for a contribution of ordinary income property to a public charity is limited
to the lesser of fair market value or cost basis, and is subject to the 50%
deduction limitation even if donated for a related charitable use because
unharvested crops are considered a gift of a futures
contract.
If a farmer harvests or contributes crops, it does not cause realization
of income. However, if a property owner
receives crops as apart of a sharecropping agreement, then it is ordinary
income when received. After being recognized as an ordinary income asset, if the
sharecropper contributes those crops then a charitable contribution deduction
for their fair market value is available.2
[1] the tax treatment
for a sale that results in a net capital loss, is an ordinary loss.
[2] Thompkins v.
© 2002 -- Vaughn W. Henry
Gift and Estate Planning Services
217.529.1958 -- 217.529.1959 fax
VWHenry@aol.com www.gift-estate.com

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.