2023 年底，美國國稅局首席法律顧問辦公室發布了一份備忘錄（CCA 202352018），其中得出的結論是，修改不可撤銷的授予人信託以納入退稅條款構成受益人的應稅贈與。這顯示美國國稅局看待某些信託行為的方式發生了變化。儘管有些人稱該備忘錄為「不可撤銷信託轉移的死亡」或「美國國稅局幾十年來最重要的釋放」，但該備忘錄的真正影響（以及美國國稅局的立場轉變）尚未確定。
CCA 202352018 解決了當不可撤銷的授予人信託之受託人在受益人同意的情況下修改信託以添加退稅條款時，受益人的贈與稅後果問題，該條款為受託人提供酌情權，向授予人償還歸屬於該信託的所得稅。CCA的結論是，此類修改確實構成受益人的應稅贈與。
CCA中所涉及的信託是為授予人的子女和後代的利益而設立的不可撤銷信託。受託人與設保人沒有關聯或隸屬關係，受託人有絕對酌情權進行分配。雖然 CCA沒有提及信託授予人信託的具體權力，但它確實規定授予人是被視為所有者。最初的信託工具並未授權授予人償還因納入信託收入而繳納的所得稅。受託人請求修改信託條款，以包括償還授予人所得稅的酌處權，所有受益人都同意了。
確定的是，因為修改的緣故，設保人有權獲得酌情分配並有效地獲得信託財產的實益權益。基於此立場，增加受益權構成從信託受益人向授予人的轉移。
CCA反映了IRS立場的轉變。在 2016 年發布的 PLR 201647001 中，美國國稅局表示，增加酌情報銷權的信託修改「本質上是行政性的，不會導致信託實益權益的變化」。2023 CCA明確指出，PLR 201647001 中的結論「不再反映本辦公室的立場」。
CCA並未明確解決IRS立場逆轉對信託轉移的影響。傾轉—將資產從舊信託轉移到條款更新的新信託的過程—可能會產生與信託修改相同的最終結果。由於傾轉可能會產生與修改相同的最終結果，因此可以得出這樣的結論：美國國稅局可以透過傾轉與現在看待信託修改相同的方式來看待信託條款的變化，這並非沒有道理。
雖然CCA的結論是，設保人報銷是放棄受益人在信託中的部分權益，但它並沒有提出報銷條款可能對受益人有利的想法。設保人繳納所得稅的稅率很可能低於信託非設保人信託所應繳納的所得稅。由於 2024 年的稅率為 35%，僅為 11,150 美元，因此補償可能會為受益人提供收入或本金，否則這些受益人將向 IRS 支付信託的稅務義務。此外，如果設保人關閉設保人信託身份，受益人的利益將比增加償付權承擔更大的負擔，無論是透過信託修改、轉移或其他方式。
美國國稅局認定，根據備忘錄中概述的事實和情況，信託受益人已做出應稅贈與。然而，美國國稅局迴避瞭如何對此類禮物進行估價的討論，似乎是在押注這個問題，稱“禮物應根據為贈與稅目的評估財產權益的一般規則進行估價”。美國國稅局也沒有討論法定報銷權的存在對是否贈送應稅禮物的影響。康乃狄克州、佛羅裡達州、科羅拉多州、德拉瓦州、新罕布夏州和紐約州都頒布了立法，明確授權償還授予人從信託中繳納的稅款。
美國國稅局此前已通過收入裁決解決了退稅條款。 2004-64 號稅務裁決認為，根據授予人繳納所得稅的強制或酌情報銷權進行的報銷不構成信託受益人的贈與。 CCA 202352018 區分了原始信託協議中存在報銷條款與修改行動中添加報銷條款的情況。將CCA視為像IRS律師在特定訴訟中的摘要一樣發揮作用是有幫助的。放棄先前裁決信中所採取立場的CCA的發布只會撤銷該裁決信指定收件人的裁決。值得注意的是，CCA不能撤銷或推翻收入裁決，納稅人和 IRS 都不能依賴它作為權威。
CCA 還指出，「如果修改是根據州法律規定的，該法律賦予受益人通知權和反對修改的權利，而受益人未能行使反對權，則結果將是相同的。」不反對就等於同意的觀念可能會產生 CCA 沒有解決的問題後果。若受益人反對且受託人仍予以報銷，是否構成應稅贈與？受益人是否應該默認反對所有擬議的修改？受託人是否有義務修改信託以服務受益人的受益利益？這些問題的答案可能會使受託人與受益人的關係變得緊張，並可能導致遺囑認證法庭的聽證會堵塞，而這些聽證會只不過是一種形式，作為避免應稅贈與策略的一部分。在解決 CCA 中提出的問題時，美國國稅局提出的問題多於它回答的問題。
根據CCA 202352018，在起草過程中應考慮信託的報銷條款。如果設保人想要解決報銷問題的條款，包含相關語言的理想時間是在信託執行之前。 CCA 202352018 標誌著美國國稅局（IRS）在信託修改方面立場轉變的開始，國稅局 （IRS）可能會繼續發布有關其新方法的更多指南（有些具有約束力，有些則不具有約束力）。一如既往，關注國稅局未來的規則和法規是製定、起草和執行遺產計劃的重要組成部分。
The Most Significant IRS Release In Decades. Is It The Death Of Irrevocable Trust Decantings?
Towards the end of 2023, the Office of Chief Counsel at the IRS issued a memorandum — CCA 202352018 — in which it concluded that modifying an irrevocable grantor trust to include a tax reimbursement clause constitutes a taxable gift by the beneficiaries. This revealed a change in the way the IRS views certain trust actions. While some have called the memorandum the "death of irrevocable trust decantings," or "the most significant IRS release in decades," the true impact of the memorandum (and the IRS's position reversal) has yet to be determined.
CCA 202352018 addresses the issue of gift tax consequences for beneficiaries when the trustee of an irrevocable grantor trust modifies the trust, with beneficiary consent, to add a tax reimbursement clause that provides the trustee the discretionary power to reimburse the grantor for income tax attributable to the trust. The CCA concludes that such modification does constitute a taxable gift by the beneficiaries.
The trust at issue in the CCA is an irrevocable trust for the benefit of the grantor's children and descendants. The trustee is not related or subordinate to the grantor, and the trustee has absolute discretion to make distributions. While the CCA does not mention the specific power making the trusts grantor trusts, it does state that the grantor is the deemed owner. The original trust instrument did not provide authority to reimburse the grantor for income tax attributable to inclusion of the trust's income. The trustee petitioned to modify the terms of the trust to include a discretionary power to reimburse the grantor for income tax, and all beneficiaries consented.
The CCA determined that as a result of the modification, the grantor becomes entitled to discretionary distributions and effectively acquires a beneficial interest in the trust property. Based on this position, the addition of a beneficial interest constitutes a transfer from the trust beneficiaries to the grantor.
The CCA reflects a reversal in position for the IRS. In PLR 201647001, which was released in 2016, the IRS stated that a trust modification to add a discretionary reimbursement power "is administrative in nature and does not result in a change of beneficial interests in the trust." The 2023 CCA explicitly states that the conclusions in PLR 201647001 "no longer reflect the position of this office."
The CCA does not explicitly address the impact of the IRS's reversal in position on trust decanting. Decanting — the process of transferring assets from an old trust into a new one with updated terms — can have the same end result of trust modification. Because decanting can have the same end results of a modification, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the IRS could view changes in trust provisions through decanting the same way it now views trust modifications.
While the CCA concludes that a grantor reimbursement is a relinquishment of a portion of the beneficiaries' interest in a trust, it does not broach the idea that a reimbursement provision may be beneficial to the beneficiaries. A grantor may very well be paying income tax at a lower rate than the trust would be subject to if it were not a grantor trust. With a 35% tax rate kicking in at just $11,150 for 2024, the reimbursement could potentially provide for income or principal to be available to the beneficiaries that would otherwise be going to the IRS to satisfy the trust's tax liability. Additionally, if the grantor turns off grantor trust status, the beneficiaries' interests are considerably more burdened than the addition of reimbursement powers, whether through trust modification, decanting, or otherwise.
The IRS determined that under the facts and circumstances outlined in the memorandum, the trust beneficiaries have made a taxable gift. However, the IRS skirted discussion of how to value such a gift, seemingly punting on the issue by stating "the gift should be valued in accordance with the general rule for valuing interests in property for gift tax purposes." The IRS also did not address the impact the existence of a statutory reimbursement power would have on whether a taxable gift has been made. Connecticut, Florida, Colorado, Delaware, New Hampshire, and New York have all enacted legislation expressly authorizing reimbursement of taxes paid by the grantor from the trust.
The IRS has previously addressed tax reimbursement clauses via Revenue Ruling. Revenue Ruling 2004-64 held that a reimbursement pursuant to a mandatory or discretionary right to reimbursement for the grantor's payment of the income tax would not constitute a gift by the trust beneficiaries. CCA 202352018 distinguished the existence of a reimbursement provision in the original trust agreement versus the addition of a reimbursement provision in a modification action. It is helpful to view a CCA as functioning like an IRS attorney's brief in specified litigation. The issuance of a CCA that abandons a position taken in an earlier letter ruling only revokes the ruling for the specified recipient of that letter ruling. It is important to note that a CCA cannot revoke or overturn a Revenue Ruling, and neither taxpayers nor the IRS may rely on it as authority.
The CCA also states that "the result would be the same if the modification was pursuant to a state statute that provides beneficiaries with a right to notice and a right to object to the modification and a beneficiary fails to exercise their right to object." The notion that a failure to object equates to consent could have problematic consequences that the CCA did not address. Has a taxable gift been made if a beneficiary objects and the trustee reimburses anyway? Should beneficiaries have a default position of objecting to all proposed modifications? Does a trustee owe beneficiaries a duty to modify a trust in order to serve their beneficial interests? The answers to these questions could strain trustee-beneficiary relationships and could clog probate court dockets with hearings that equate to nothing more than a formality as part of a strategy to avoid a taxable gift. In addressing the issue presented in the CCA, the IRS created more questions than it answered.
In light of CCA 202352018, consideration should be given to reimbursement clauses in trusts during the drafting process. If a grantor would like provisions addressing reimbursement, the ideal time to include relevant language is prior to the execution of the trust. CCA 202352018 marks the beginning of the IRS's change in position regarding trust modifications, and the IRS will likely continue to release additional guidance — some binding and some not — about its new approach. As always, keeping an eye on the IRS's future rules and regulations is a vital part of developing, drafting, and executing estate plans.
Originally published by Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Authors:
Geoffrey D. Wills、Jessica O. Domingo.
Source:
mondaq