3 ms·

> And if you pay the lawyers a little more, they can probably even figure out how to avoid paying capital gains on the distributed assets if they are below $10

> And if you pay the lawyers a little more, they can probably even figure out how to avoid paying capital gains on the distributed assets if they are below $10 million. Capital gains costs bases are currently "stepped up" during the estate transfer. No need to pay anything to lawyers. If your estate is below $10.5M (or thereabouts, I forget what the exact number is since it's now inflation adjusted), you won't be liable for any of that capital gains, nor will you owe any estate tax since you're within the exemption.

nkurz 9y ago
Yes, but I think the trickiness is combining this with the combination of revocable and irrevocable trusts that "protects" the assets from Medicare. Although it's possible that in the case I'm aware of, it's NY state and city rules that required the additional layers. My main point is that the current system is designed so that it can be gamed by those with the money to pay the lawyers, and the lawyers have enough influence to keep the system broken such that they continue to benefit. Despite this, do read "House of God" --- it's a terrifying and eye-opening book!
- hkmurakami 9y ago
  Ah I see. There are a variety of irrevocable trusts that move assets to a separate legal identity from the original owner of the assets (ex: charitable grantor trusts that are used by the Waltons often). This would reduce the size of the estate for both estate tax and medicare purposes. In the past, transferring assets to such a trust entailed gift tax, but since the estate tax and lifetime gift tax exemption are now bundled together, you can basically "use" the estate tax exemption to fund this irrevocable trust "for free". As a result your personal assets plummet, you name your heirt the beneficiaries of the irrevocable trust, and you (the parent) can take advantage of medicare fully as you describe. The drawback to this strategy is that you do lose real flexibility in controlling your assets. Also, the legality of this widespread practice is definitely in a gray zone and carries future legal risk. Transferring a significant portion of one's assets to such a complex instrument is definitely not advised.

nkurz 9y ago

Yes, but I think the trickiness is combining this with the combination of revocable and irrevocable trusts that "protects" the assets from Medicare. Although it's possible that in the case I'm aware of, it's NY state and city rules that required the additional layers. My main point is that the current system is designed so that it can be gamed by those with the money to pay the lawyers, and the lawyers have enough influence to keep the system broken such that they continue to benefit. Despite this, do read "House of God" --- it's a terrifying and eye-opening book!

hkmurakami 9y ago
Ah I see. There are a variety of irrevocable trusts that move assets to a separate legal identity from the original owner of the assets (ex: charitable grantor trusts that are used by the Waltons often). This would reduce the size of the estate for both estate tax and medicare purposes. In the past, transferring assets to such a trust entailed gift tax, but since the estate tax and lifetime gift tax exemption are now bundled together, you can basically "use" the estate tax exemption to fund this irrevocable trust "for free". As a result your personal assets plummet, you name your heirt the beneficiaries of the irrevocable trust, and you (the parent) can take advantage of medicare fully as you describe. The drawback to this strategy is that you do lose real flexibility in controlling your assets. Also, the legality of this widespread practice is definitely in a gray zone and carries future legal risk. Transferring a significant portion of one's assets to such a complex instrument is definitely not advised.