Life and Death Planning for Retirement Benefits

332

Life and Death Planning for Retirement Benefits

B. Conduit distributions must begin at participant’s death. Suppose a trust provides income to the participant’s spouse for life, with remainder passing to the participant’s issue, but with each issue’s share to be held in trust until the beneficiary reaches age 30. To make the trust “pass” the trust rules, can the trust become a conduit trust for the issue on the surviving spouse’s death? No. See ¶ 6.3.05 (A). Reminder: If the spouse predeceases the participant she does not “count” as a beneficiary, and terms that would have applied had she survived are irrelevant. If the spouse predeceases, you test the trust by looking ONLY at the terms that apply to the children’s interests, so having a conduit trust for the children on the participant’s death if the spouse does not survive him could be appropriate. C. “Switch” trusts. Under a “switch” or “toggle” trust, the trust is set up as a conduit trust for one beneficiary, but a “trust protector” is given the power to convert the trust, by amendment, to an accumulation trust. The amendment power may require the trustee to also change the remainder beneficiaries of the trust, if some of the remainder beneficiaries under the conduit trust would not be suitable under an accumulation trust. The benefit gained by this elaboration is the flexibility to cut down on the beneficiary’s access to the retirement plan. This flexibility would be desirable if the beneficiary is in financial trouble. But by definition this approach is helpful in this way only if the beneficiary gets into trouble during a very narrow window of time—either just before the participant’s death (too late for the participant to amend his estate plan) or just after it (before the Beneficiary Finalization Date, which is the deadline by which the trust protector must exercise the amendment power). The approach is based on PLR 2005-37044, which involved a trust under which a trust protector had and exercised such an amendment power. Following court proceedings to reform the trust to the IRS’s liking, the IRS ruled that the exercise of the amendment power did not cause the trust to lose its see-through status, because the trust protector’s actions: carried out specific provisions adopted by the participant ( i.e., the trust protector did not simply substitute some provisions of its own devising); were effective retroactively to the date of death and so could “be treated as a part of” the original trust instrument; and were “treated as a disclaimer under the laws of” the applicable state. The finding that state law treated this trust amendment as a “disclaimer” is mysterious because the trust protector’s action was not a disclaimer and was nothing like a disclaimer. Some advisors advocate the “switch” trust as a planning technique, seemingly regarding this single rather messy PLR as if it established an IRS-approved prototype trust. Yet the IRS’s subsequent turn against post-death trust modifications (see ¶ 4.5.06 ) makes it unclear whether this PLR could be duplicated today. An alternative view is that the “toggle” approach involves substantial complications, relying on a shaky “precedent,” to obtain a modest benefit. 6.4 Estate Planning with the RMD Trust Rules

Now that we understand the minimum distribution trust rules (see ¶ 6.2 – ¶ 6.3 ), the next step is to see how these the rules affect estate planning choices.

Boilerplate provisions for trusts named as beneficiary