TaxProf Blog

Editor: Paul L. Caron, Dean
Pepperdine University School of Law

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Romney Benefits From Zeroed-Out CRUT With Mormon Church

Bloomberg:  Romney Avoids Taxes via Loophole Cutting Mormon Donations, by Jesse Drucker:

In 1997, Congress cracked down on a popular tax shelter that allowed rich people to take advantage of the exempt status of charities without actually giving away much money. Individuals who had already set up these vehicles were allowed to keep them. That included Mitt Romney, then the chief executive officer of Bain Capital, who had just established such an arrangement in June 1996.

The charitable remainder unitrust, as it is known, is one of several strategies Romney has adopted over his career to reduce his tax bill. While Romney’s tax avoidance is legal and common among high-net-worth individuals, it has become an issue in the campaign. President Barack Obama attacked him in their second debate for paying “lower tax rates than somebody who makes a lot less.”

In this instance, Romney used the tax-exempt status of a charity -- the Mormon Church, according to a 2007 filing -- to defer taxes for more than 15 years. At the same time he is benefitting, the trust will probably leave the church with less than what current law requires, according to tax returns obtained by Bloomberg this month through a Freedom of Information Act request.


In general, charities don’t owe capital gains taxes when they sell assets for a profit. Trusts like Romney’s permit funders to benefit from that tax-free treatment, said Jonathan Blattmachr, a trusts and estates lawyer who set up hundreds of such vehicles in the 1990s. “The main benefit from a charitable remainder trust is the renting from your favorite charity of its exemption from taxation,” Blattmachr said. Despite the name, giving a gift or getting a charitable deduction “is just a throwaway,” he said. “I used to structure them so the value dedicated to charity was as close to zero as possible without being zero.” ...

Romney’s CRUT, which is only a small part of the $250 million that Romney’s campaign cites as his net worth, has been paying him 8 percent of its assets each year. As the Romneys have received these payments, the money that will potentially be left for charity has declined from at least $750,000 in 2001 to $421,203 at the end of 2011. ...

Romney’s trust was projected to leave to charity an amount with a present value of a little less than 8% of the initial contribution. ... Thus, the specifics of Romney’s trust wouldn’t have passed legal muster if it had been set up 13 months later. ... Because the trust’s investments have been earning a return far below its annual payouts to the Romneys, its principal has dwindled rapidly....

In 2001, five years after it was established, the trust had a value of between $750,000 and $1.25 million. Since then, it has pursued a conservative investment strategy -- regardless of the ups and downs of the stock market -- buying a mix of money- market funds, federally-backed bonds and federal bond funds. Since 2007, it has moved its assets entirely into cash. By 2011, its investments earned a return of $48, down from between $60,001 and $100,000 in 2001. It paid $36,696 to the Romneys in 2011. The current investing strategy favors the Romneys over the charity because they get a guaranteed payout. ... 

If the CRUT maintains the same investing strategy, assets will continue to shrink, said Jerome M. Hesch, a tax and estate planning attorney at the law firm Carlton Fields. The trustee acted prudently in protecting against losses during a stock market decline, he said.Nevertheless, “what’s going to go to charity is probably close to nothing,” Hesch said.

(Hat Tip: Bob Kamman.)

Political News, Tax | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Romney Benefits From Zeroed-Out CRUT With Mormon Church:


He is not avoiding taxes; he is minimizing them. And he is using what Congress permits him to use. What is the big deal? Don't like it? Tell your Congressperson.

Posted by: Cheyanna Jaffke | Oct 30, 2012 2:11:22 PM

What good would it be to tell my congressman since every big money lobby or contributor has bought him.....My question is does it make sense to favor the 1% or give them these "candies"? there are so many and they call welfare people takers when in effect everyone in the US is a taker with their own set of rules and exceptions and exemptions to avoid the definition of income or taxable estate.;.......It will never change...; and you are right it was put in the law to help every Rich person keep his but doesn't make it right or fair.

Posted by: Sid | Oct 31, 2012 4:15:28 PM