The loan was on open account, and no interest or due date was provided for. Under applicable state law, collection on the loan was barred by the statute of limitations before Rebecca died. Because the family thought that Mary should recover her funds, the executor of the estate paid her $750,000. Rebecca promised her brother, Michael, a bequest of $400,000 if Michael would move in with her and care for her during an illness (which eventually proved to be terminal). Rebecca never kept her promise; her will was silent on any bequest to Michael. After Rebeccas death, Michael sued the estate and eventually recovered $500,000 for breach of contract. Address each of these transactions and discuss the estate and income tax ramifications. Explain your conclusions, and support with references from the text, the partial list of research aids below, and/or other related tax code, regulations, etc. Remember to review at least two of your classmates responses and provide your feedback. Please review the Discussion Board Participation grading rubric under Course Resources. Partial list of research aids: § 2053. Reg. §§ 20.20534(d)(4) and (7). Estate of Allie W. Pittard, 69 T.C. 391 (1977). Joseph F. Kenefic, 36 TCM 1226, T.C.Memo. 1977310. Hibernia Bank v. U.S., 782 USTC ¶13,261, 42 AFTR 2d 786510, 581 F.2d 741 (CA9, 19 Do the discussion and response each posted down below. Posted 1 Hello Professor and classmates, These scenarios often happen between family members and relative. I am from China and I knew a lot of these story. In China, family members have a lot of these financial obligations and burdens between each other. The first one, Rebecca borrowed the money from her sister which is a loan. Generally, the deceased persons estate is responsible for paying any unpaid debts. The estates finances are handled by the personal representative, executor, or administrator. That person pays any debts from the money in the estate, not from their own money. If the loan passed the time limitation, then the money her sister get from estate will be subject to estate tax. However, the statute of limitation excluded collection on the loan because the interest was not collected and no term for the loan. Mary should receive the money back as a payment of original loan which is not subject to estate tax. The second case, Rebecca promised her brother Michael to give the $40,000 as bequeath which is not a clear agreement or do not have a signed contract. The money could be considered as a salary or home service care payment from her if her sister performed the service. Otherwise, if the executor paid Michael, the money could consider as gift and subject to gift tax. References Court., U. S. T. (n.d.). ESTATE of PITTARD v. COMM: 69 t.c. 391 (1977): Actc3911432. Leagle. https://www.leagle.com/decision/197746069actc3911432. Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). 26 CFR § 20.2053-4 deduction for claims against the estate. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/20.2053-4. Posted 2 Mary is pretty darn lucky in this situation. For § 2053 deduction purposes, the claims of persons related to the decedent are usually highly suspect, particularly where there is no evidence of a loan. However, the familys knowledge and corroboration of the loan was a benefit to Mary to recover her money. But even if the loans existence is recognized, the fact that a repayment can be avoided by invoking the statute of limitations will preclude its deductibility under § 2053. See Reg. §§ 20.20534(d)(4) and (7). Therefore, due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, it cannot be included in the exclusion but is subject to the 40% estate tax. It is most unfortunate when families have legal issues like this. Nevertheless, I do believe it was necessary for this situation. Michael most likely gave up a job and a home to take care of his ill sister with a promise of a lump sum payment for his sacrifice and special care. I would have done the same thing as Michael. Michaels recovery of $500,000 should be deductible as a claim against the estate under § 2053(a)(3). Since Michaelss recovery represents payment for services he rendered to Rebecca, such amount is includible in her gross income under § 61(a)(1). References Service, I. R. (2009, October 20). Guidance Under Section 2053 Regarding Post-Death Events. Retrieved from Federal Register : https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/10/ Posted 3 Hello Everyone, In the first scenario, Rebecca borrowed money from her sister during her life however, there were no specifics on the loan such as an interest rate that would cause an accrual of interest over a certain period to be paid back, nor was there a due date on the repayment of the loan. The applicable state law provided that the statute of limitation had passed for the collection of the loan before Rebecca had even died. Since this was not technically a claim against the estate it does not get recognition as a deduction when computing the taxable estate. Therefore, this money that was given to Mary would be included in the taxable estate of Rebecca and taxed at the 40% estate tax rate (Raabe et al., 2022). Also, because it was passed the statute of limitations, § 20.2053-1 further shows that this would not constitute a deduction. This would not be considered income to Mary and taxed as income because it was previously taxed under the estate. In the second scenario, Rebecca promised her brother Michael that she would bequeath (or gift him) $400,000 if he would move in with her and take care of her during her illness. This money would have been considered as payment for services rendered. Michael sued the estate and won for breach of contract and was awarded $500,000. Regardless of whether this was awarded due to breach of contract it was money that was owed to Michael for services rendered. Therefore, as in Kenefic v. Commissioner, this is considered taxable income for Michael. However, because it was a claim against the estate, it is deductible from the taxable estate and not included in the calculation of estate taxes due.
The post Family Rights and Estate Property appeared first on .
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more