Corporate Distributions Before 2011 Are a Worthwhile Consideration

The maximum 15% income tax rate on qualified dividends now in effect is scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. If Congress does not act, then beginning in 2011 dividends will be taxed at ordinary income rates (ie, at a maximum rate of 39.6%, assuming that rate returns as the top rate). For this reason, clients with available cash in a C corporation should consider corporate distributions to shareholders before year-end to take advantage of the lower income tax rates.

There is of course a possibility that the preferential income tax rate on dividends could be continued. If so, a taxpayer who makes a 2010 corporate distribution could trigger a tax unnecessarily. Some taxpayers may adopt a wait and see approach, at least until shortly before year-end, to reduce this risk. At the present time, Congressional leaders have said they do not expect a tax bill to be introduced or voted on prior to the November elections.

If you have questions about this potential tax saving opportunity, please contact us.
 

A Domicile Story

We read with interest this week the story regarding Derek Jeter listing his New York condo for sale, not because of the startling price ($20 million), but for the potential domicile considerations and where Jeter is considered to be a resident for income tax purposes. We have fielded many inquiries on this topic over the past few years, and thought this story was a good reminder to people that where you are domiciled, or alternatively, where you are considered to be a statutory resident, can have a major financial impact.

Using New York as an example (the same analysis is applicable to other states, including New Jersey), if an individual is domiciled in New York, he or she generally is a New York resident for income tax purposes. Even if not domiciled in New York, an individual may be a statutory New York resident for income tax purposes if the individual (i) maintains a permanent place of abode in New York and (ii) spends in the aggregate more than 183 days of the taxable year in New York.

The determination of whether an individual is domiciled in New York or a resident is important for income tax purposes. While nonresident taxpayers are subject to New York income tax only on New York source income, resident taxpayers are taxed on all income, irrespective of whether the income is generated in New York.

In Jeter’s case, while he owns his apartment, the taxing authorities have two avenues to argue that he is a New York resident – first that he is domiciled in New York, or second that even if he is not domiciled in New York, because he maintains a permanent home in New York and assuming he was in New York for more than 183 days, he is a statutory resident for New York income tax purposes and should be taxed as such.

Now that he is selling his New York apartment, New York may not have the ability to argue that Jeter is a statutory resident since he may no longer be maintaining a permanent home. If New York were to pursue Jeter again (he was previously in a domicile dispute with New York for the 2001-2003 tax years that was settled out of court), they may only have the domicile argument to raise, and not the statutory resident argument.

What does this all mean? On a technical level, if Jeter were to spend more than 183 days in New York after he sells his apartment, it would not automatically classify him as a New York resident since the “183 day test” requires the maintenance of a permanent home. The number of days spent in New York is one of the primary factors when determining domicile so it is still not recommended that he spend more than 183 days in New York. Earlier this summer, the Yankees public address announcer, Bob Sheppard, passed away, and it was widely reported that no Yankee (including Yankee captain Jeter) attended his funeral in New York, which was over All-Star weekend in California. In Jeter’s case, one is left to wonder whether his not attending was simply due to the fact that his attendance would require extra days spent in New York which could get him closer to 183 days spent in New York and thus being classified as a statutory resident.

We have written a guidebook on domicile and how to change your residence from New York or New Jersey to Florida. If you would like a copy, please email Melissa Shuman (Director of Marketing) at MShuman@coleschotz.com.

Second Circuit Finds No Code §2036 Inclusion of Residence in Decedent's Estate

Estate of Stewart is a new Second Circuit opinion addressing the application of Code §2036 to a situation where a decedent transferred a principal residence but continued to live in it.

In Stewart, the decedent owned a Manhattan brownstone. She and her adult son occupied the first two floors and leased the top three floors to a commercial tenant. In late 1999, the decedent was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and saw an estate planning attorney. In May, 2000, she gifted a 49% interest in the Manhattan brownstone to her son. The decedent died in November, 2000, and the estate reported a 51% interest in the brownstone on the 706.

The IRS issued a notice of deficiency, claiming that 100% of the property was includible under Code §2036 because the decedent had continued to use and enjoy the property until her death. Code §2036 causes estate inclusion for any property to the extent of any interest of which the decedent made a transfer but retained for his or her life, the possession or enjoyment of, or the right to the income from, the property.

The Tax Court agreed with the IRS and found that the decedent and her son had an implied agreement as to her continued use and enjoyment of the property, making it 100% includible in her estate. However, the Second Circuit disagreed. As to the residential portion of the property, the Second Circuit held that the decedent did not retain the exclusive use of the residence, nor did she withhold possession from the donee. Therefore, the gift should be respected. As to the commercial portion of the property, the Second Circuit remanded the case for the Tax Court to determine specifically to what extent the decedent retained an interest. Under the facts of the case and the holding of Revenue Ruling 79-109, the Tax Court could find a specific portion of the property (eg, half of the 49% gifted) to be includible.

What are the lessons of this case for estate planners and their clients?

  1. If a donor makes a gift of a residence to children or others but continues to live in the residence, pay all expenses or does not change his or her relationship to the property in any way, the gift almost certainly will not be respected for tax purposes and the full value of the property will be includible in the donor’s estate.
  2. When the donee is a co-tenant with the donor, as was the case in Stewart, the chances are better that the gift will be respected for tax purposes. The legal and financial arrangement between the parties should be fully documented.
  3. It is interesting to note that the parties in this case stipulated to a 42.5% discount for lack of control and lack of marketability.