TaxProf Blog

Editor: Paul L. Caron
Pepperdine University School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Sunday, April 29, 2012

WSJ: Tax Court Blesses Tax-Free Technique for Parents to Transfer Family Business, Wealth to Their Children

Tax Court Logo 2Following up on last month's post, Defined Value Clauses and FMV: Wall Street Journal Tax Report, Shielding the Family Business, by Laura Saunders:

Small-business owners often complain of feeling caught in the cross hairs of the tax code. For a change, here's good news.

The Tax Court has just blessed a new technique that owners of closely held businesses—and wealthy families—can use to pass assets to heirs with a minimum of taxes and complications. The ruling in the case, Wandry v. Commissioner, [T.C. Memo. 2012-88 (Mar. 26, 2012)], is stirring up excitement among experts.

David Kautter, a director of American University's Kogod Tax Center, calls the ruling a "landmark decision, because it allows tax-free ownership transfers from one generation to another with certainty and in an orderly manner."

Here is why Wandry matters. Our current system imposes a gift tax of up to 35% when taxpaye\rs give assets away, with exceptions. Individuals now get one $5.12 million lifetime exemption, and they can also give up to $13,000 of assets a year to an unlimited number of recipients. (Next year the lifetime break is scheduled to drop to $1 million and the top rate to rise to 55%.) This means an owner who wants to give a business to children or others, such as employees, can use these exemptions to transfer ownership tax-free. He can even use the $13,000 annual exclusion to transfer value bit by bit.

That is what happened in the Wandry case. Dean and Joanne Wandry, a Colorado couple, each gave units in a family-owned limited-liability company worth $1,099,000 to their heirs in 2004. To avoid paying tax, they specified the gifts should equal the dollar amount of their exemptions -- a key point. (At the time, the lifetime exemption was $1 million and the annual exclusion $11,000.)

The hitch in Wandry and other cases is that the givers have to get a professional appraisal if -- as is common -- the company is hard to value. Often values are lowballed a bit in order to maximize the gift. But the IRS can contest the appraisal after the gift -- and often does. In Wandry, the value rose about 20%.

That brings up an important issue: If values rise after an IRS challenge, must the giver write a big check for tax on the amounts above the exemption? According to the Wandry decision, no. The judge held the couple intended to make a gift equal to their exemptions, so the excess was never actually given by them. No tax was due. ...

The IRS must feel like this decision stacks the deck in taxpayers' favor, because they don't risk writing a check if they lowball the value of a gift.

According to attorney John Porter of Baker Botts in Houston, Wandry is the latest in a line of related cases lost by the IRS. Absent the Wandry decision, often the best outcome is for a family to designate a charity to receive the excess. No tax is due, but the family gives up some control.

The Wandry case is a boon not only for business owners but also wealthy families with "family limited partnerships" or entities holding publicly traded stocks. Even though the stocks' value is easy to determine, submerging them in a nontraded company provides valuable discounts when units are transferred to heirs. ...

[I]t may be important to act soon. The decision is so advantageous for taxpayers that it could inspire a response from Congress or the IRS.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/04/wsj-tax-court-.html

Tax | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef016765e2dd26970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WSJ: Tax Court Blesses Tax-Free Technique for Parents to Transfer Family Business, Wealth to Their Children:

Comments

"[I]t may be important to act soon. The decision is so advantageous for taxpayers that it could inspire a response from Congress or the IRS."

Yes, because God Forbid taxpayers being allowed to keep their own money! Such blasphemy!

Posted by: juvat | Apr 30, 2012 10:58:15 AM

Anyone that owns a business, and employs people should not pay any tax at all.

Certainly the employment of people does more good than the tax money after the latter is filtered through the bureaucracy.

Posted by: DonM | Apr 30, 2012 11:05:57 AM

A great way to avoid a huge tax bill. Now if we can only figure out moral justification to intercept and confiscate a percentage of donative transactions in the first place, I think I'd sleep better at night.

Posted by: Tax Debt Lawyer | Apr 30, 2012 11:22:06 AM

Now if we can only figure out moral justification to intercept and confiscate a percentage of donative transactions in the first place, I think I'd sleep better at night.

Anything, and I mean *anything*, can be morally justified if it is packaged as 'women are the victims and men are the evildoers'.

Slavery, debtor's prison, and elimination of due process are already pervasive in American under this cosmetic veneer.

Confiscation of assets is a minor thing, by comparison.

Posted by: Toads | Apr 30, 2012 6:13:11 PM