GettyImages-1073416044

Important Considerations in Creating an Effective and Profitable Client Maintenance Program

GettyImages-1073416044

When it comes to maintenance programs, one size does not fit all. You should tailor your program to the needs of your client base and your firm’s capabilities. Also, as we mentioned last time, you have to limit the scope of your program. It’s supposed to be a source of steady revenue, not a loss leader. Accomplishing this requires offering services in your program that you are already providing free-of-charge, or services whose fees are insignificant. As one attorney with a successful maintenance program put it, “The administrative costs of billing for photocopies exceeds the income generated by it.”

You can also offer different types of maintenance programs. At EPLC, we have our main program, the TLC™ Estate Plan Maintenance & Fee Guarantee Program. We also offer a program for Medicaid clients, which basically provides enrollees with the annual certification they need. It is important to note, however, that our goal is to have clients who need nursing home care keep their TLC Program and add the Medicaid program to it as part of a package. We don’t want clients dropping the TLC Program when, say, one spouse enters a nursing home while the other continues to reside in the couple’s primary residence. Finally, we have a relatively inexpensive Will-based program for clients whose plans do not include trusts.

In our next email, we’ll detail the elements of our TLC™ Estate Plan Maintenance & Fee Guarantee Program.

Bigstock-Black-Bomb-With-A-Burning-Fuse-49289681

Avoiding The Five Major Threats To IRA’s: Part 4

As I have been discussing there are five threats to qualified accounts that most people don’t typically consider when doing estate planning.  The five major threats to qualified plans are unexpected loss to income taxes, excise taxes, long-term care costs (all covered previously), estate taxes (today’s topic) and to beneficiaries and/or their creditors.  As we’ve previously outlined, the threats of incomes taxes and excise taxes can easily be avoided if planned for, and the threat to long-term care costs can be planned for with the least risk by completing an IRA analysis to determine if an IRA should be liquidated or annuitized when the IRA owner becomes subject to long term care costs.  When it comes to protecting qualified accounts from estate tax, it is more challenging. 

Bigstock-Black-Bomb-With-A-Burning-Fuse-49289681If an individual dies with assets greater than $5,340,000.00 their estate is subject to a forty percent estate tax.  When this occurs, the IRA (or other qualified asset) can be subject to more than seventy five percent in total taxes.  How?  Well assuming a $1 million IRA is part of a $7 million estate, the IRA will be subject to estate tax of forty percent ($400,000.00) and upon the liquidation of the IRA by the beneficiaries it could be taxed at a rate of up to thirty nine point six percent (39.6%), which results in an additional $396,000.00 in income tax if the beneficiary is in the highest income tax bracket.  To add insult to injury, there is no deduction on the value of the estate tax return for the income tax due on the IRA.  As if federal taxes were not enough, there can be state income taxes dues when the IRA is liquidated to pay the federal estate tax. It gets even worse if you live in a state that has an estate tax.  A state estate tax is yet one more tax on top of the federal estate and income taxes, and state income taxes. Most states estate taxes are up to an additional sixteen percent.  And so the question becomes, how do you protect qualified accounts from estate tax liabilities?

The answer is you really can’t, without first liquidating the IRA and paying the income tax (other than an annual $100,000.00 gift allowed to charity).  So in order to protect IRA’s from federal and state estate taxes requires the reduction of a client’s non IRA estate during lifetime so the total estate evaluation does not exceed the estate tax limits.  One strategy to do this is annual gifting, which can be effective, but often requires a significant number of beneficiaries to distribute the annual growth on an estate of that size.  For example, if an individual had a $7 million estate and it grew at three percent the individual would have to give away $210,000.00 per year just to keep the estate from growing.  That would require fifteen beneficiaries to distribute $14,000.00 to or eight beneficiaries if the client is married. 

Another strategy to reduce estate taxes is to give away money to charity.  An individual can have the ability to benefit charities and their family by use of various strategies which is outside the scope of this writing.  A third way to reduce estate taxes is by using legal strategies to discount the value of assets by use of various tax planning techniques.  Unfortunately none of these strategies work to reduce an IRA’s value other than outright gifting after withdrawal and the payment of income tax or use of the annual allowance for distributions from qualified account to charity.  In summary, subjecting qualified accounts to estate taxes is a significant burden to the tax payer which only can be minimized by ensuring their non-qualified estate is reduced and moving to a state without income tax can reduce the income tax burden.  Obviously qualified accounts are very appealing as they have tax referral advantages, but one must weigh the long term benefit of the difference with the tax cost upon receipt or death. 

If you want to learn more about what it's like to be a Lawyers With Purpose member, join our 3.5 day Practice With Purpose Program (you can find the agenda here).  We still have a few spots left so grab them now!  It's a jam packed 3.5 days that include all the essentials on Asset Protection, Medicaid & VA for your estate or elder law practice.

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

Bigstock-Solution-563994

Medicaid Planning: The Ins & Outs of MMMNA #5 – Asset Tests

This post continues our Medicaid planning series with a deep dive into MMMNA, or the minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance, which is the minimum income allowance for the community (or well) spouse in a Medicaid claim. We've already covered some of the basics of determining MMMNA for your clients; If you didn't see the previous posts, click on the links to find numbers One, Two, Three and Four.

Bigstock-Solution-563994So, similar to the rules we covered on the individual income allowances, there’s also the asset test. Unlike the income allowances where you’re allowed $60 a month or $80 a month, under the asset test you’re allowed a certain amount of assets. The minimum is $1,500; by federal law they cannot allow you less than $1,500 of assets per month. About 80% of the states go beyond that, allowing $2,000 per month. And in a few states it's even higher. One day New York sent out a notice saying the state was increasing the individual resource allowance to $14,400, which was a windfall for our clients. There are also some states at $5,000 or other amounts, and about a dozen other states are at the $1,500 minimum.

When you see a state that has a $1,500 resource allowance, then you know it's a 239B state. What does that mean? Back in the '70s there was a code section 239B that raised the allowance from $1,500 to $2,000 federally. But some states complained, so under 239B of the statute they allowed the states to opt out of the increase. Remember, federal Medicaid laws allow the states to be less restrictive but not more restrictive. So you would think if a state allows a $1,500 resource allowance when the federal minimum is $2,000, such a state would run afoul of that standard. And you would be correct, unless that state filed an election under section 239B to maintain the $1,500 minimum resource allowance. So if your state’s minimum resource allowance is $1,500, you are a 239B state. It's a term worth knowing because you might hear it at CLEs and events of that nature.

So what about the community spouse? We know the individual can only have $1,500 to $14,400, depending on which state you’re in. The federal government addressed the community spouse question with the 1988 Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act. The MCCA, attempting to avoid impoverishing community spouses, set a new federal minimum amount that a community spouse has to be allowed to keep. And what is that amount? Much like the federal government did with income limits, it set a minimum maximum and a maximum maximum. And for some reason, the minimum changes every July and the maximum changes every January. Last July the minimum was raised to $23,184, so the states cannot allow a community spouse less than that. If you’re in a max state, then your state will now allow the community spouse $115,920.

And again, similar to the income exercise, if the community spouse’s assets are more than the minimum but less than the maximum, then the community spouse resource allowance (CSRA) will be the amount of the community spouse’s assets. So, for example, if I were to say that a husband had $200,000 of assets and a wife had $10,000 of assets, we would first determine who went into the nursing home. If the husband went into the nursing home, the wife only has $10,000, so she would be able to take $13,184 of the husband’s excess assets and then the rest would have to be used toward his cost of care. If the wife went into the nursing home with her $10,000 of assets and the husband had $200,000, the most that the community spouse could have is $115,920, so the difference between the $115,920 and $200,000 would have to go toward the cost of care.

There are exceptions. We can keep some assets by utilizing some special exemptions. But generally speaking, the rule is very simple. The institutionalized spouse is allowed to have $1,500 to $14,400; the community spouse is allowed a minimum of $23,184 or a maximum of $115,920 if you’re in a range state, and if you’re in a max state the allowance is $115,920.

So now that you've seen how to calculate the CSRA, let's try a few examples. If a couple has $130,000 of total countable assets between the husband and wife at the snap shot date, then how much would the CSRA be? The couple lives in Connecticut, which is a range state. In a range state, how much would the community spouse be allowed to keep? Well, we know that half of $130,000 is $65,000. And according to range state rules, if x is greater than the max, then the CSRA equals the max. If x is less than the minimum, then the CSRA equals the minimum or the assets. If x is greater than the minimum but less than the max, then the CSRA equals x. So in this case, that’s what we would have. Connecticut’s a range state. And because $65,000 is below the maximum of $115,920 but above the minimum of $23,000, then the CSRA in Connecticut would be $65,000.

Now try another example: We’re in Florida, which is a max state. So even though half of the countable assets are $65,000, the CSRA cannot be less than $115,920 in a max state, so that is what the CSRA would be in this example.

How about a case in Kansas where one half of the countable assets come to $8,500? If you're asking yourself whether Kansas is a max state or a range state, well, it really doesn’t matter for this example, does it? The CSRA minimum is $23,184, so the CSRA cannot be more than the amount of assets they have. So in Kansas, which is a range state, the whole $17,000 would be exempt, but the additional $6,184 would also be exempt if that client came into additional assets.

And finally, if I’m in Arizona, which is a max state, I can never have more than the $115,920. So if the couple has $250,000, then half of that still exceeds the max. I can never have less than the minimum or greater than the max. If you’re in the middle, you get the range amount, and in this case you can keep $115,920, because there’s a total of $130,000 assets.

Hopefully these examples help you understand how this works. We will wrap up our MMMNA series with a post on snap shot dates, so check back soon.

Bigstock-Solution-563994

Medicaid Planning: The Ins & Outs of MMMNA #4 – Income Cap States

Thanks for coming back for more about MMMNA, or the minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance, which is the minimum income allowance for the community (or well) spouse in a Medicaid claim. We've already covered some of the basics of determining MMMNA for your clients; If you didn't see the previous posts, click on the links to find numbers One, Two and Three.

Bigstock-Solution-563994One question you might have to deal with in MMMNA calculations is the income cap, if you're in a state that has one. Income cap states are a little bit of a different animal, and they raise a question: Does the insurance allowance include the Medigap premium? Yes it does. So Medicaid will allow you to deduct any cost of insurance and Medicare will be a primary insurer, which means they’re going to allow you any insurance costs related to the Medigap because that benefits Medicaid. In other words, Medicare would be the primary payer, and Medicaid would become the secondary.

Another issue along these lines is income limits. The income limit applies to the institutional spouse only in an income cap state.To review, in our previous posts we talked about the MMMNA individual allowance and the personal needs allowance, and we went over the MMMNA for a person who is married. The income cap is a different provision. In income cap states, it doesn’t matter if you’re married or single. It doesn’t matter what your income allowances are. It’s just a simple test: If a Medicaid applicant’s income exceeds $2,130, then the applicant doesn’t qualify for Medicaid. According to income cap states, that person has too much money.

It doesn’t matter how much the spouse’s income is. This is an income limit on the applicant only. So in the case we had before where the husband made $3,000, he would be over the income cap and therefore would not qualify. It might sounds ridiculous and you might feel bad for people who are in an income cap state, but that's the bottom line.

So our usual approach in such states is to do a Miller trust, which is a qualified income trust, or QIT. In a Miller trust, the husband assigns his income to the trust and then the trust pays the cost of care. It’s kind of silly to have to take that step, but those of you who are in income cap states are probably pretty familiar with the Miller trust, so it's not a big issue. If you’re not in an income cap state, you won't have to worry about it.

That's about all we can cover in today's post.  Check back back soon for a discussion on MMMNA asset tests.

To learn more about Medicaid join us at our Practice With Purpose event in June.  You'll experiece 2.5 days of all that you need training about Asset Protection, Medicaid and VA.

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