Skip to main content

Common Estate Planning Mistakes

The most common way to transfer assets to your heirs is also the messiest: to have a will that is so out of date that it doesn’t relate to your property or estate, to have your records scattered all over the place, to have social media, banking and email accounts whose passwords only you can find—and basically to leave a big mess for others to clean up.
 
Is there a better way?
 
Recently, a group of estate planning experts were asked for their advice on a better process to handle the transfer of assets at your death, and to articulate common mistakes.  The list of mistakes included the following:
 
Not regularly reviewing documents.  What might have been a solid plan 15 or 20 years ago may not relate to your estate today.  The experts recommended a full review every three to five years, to ensure that trustees, executors, guardians, beneficiaries and healthcare agents are all up-to-date.  You might also consider creating a master document which lists all your social media and online accounts and passwords, so that your heirs can access them and close them down.
 
Using a will instead of a revocable trust.  This relates mostly to people who want to protect their privacy.  When assets pass to heirs via a will, the transfer creates a record that anybody can access and read.  A revocable trust can be titled in your name, and you can control the assets as you would with outright ownership, but the assets simply pass to your designated successor upon death.
 
Failing to fund the revocable trust.  You’ve set up the trust, but now you and your team of professionals have to transfer title to your properties out of your name and into the trust, with you as the trustee.  If you forget to do this, then the entire purpose of the trust is wasted.
 
Having assets titled in a way that conflicts with the will or trust.  You should always pay close attention to the beneficiary designations, because they—not your will—determine who will receive your IRA assets.  Meanwhile, assets (like a home) owned in joint tenancy with rights of survivorship will pass directly to the surviving joint tenant, no matter what the will or trust happens to say.
 
Not using the annual gift exemption.  People can gift $14,000 a year tax-free to heirs without affecting the value of their $5.49 million lifetime gift exemption.  That means a husband and wife with four children could theoretically gift the kids $112,000 a year tax-free.  That can reduce the size of a large estate potentially below the gift exemption threshold, and in states where there is an estate tax, it can help there as well.
 
Not taking action because of the possibility of estate tax repeal.  Yes, the Republican leadership in Congress includes, on its wish list, the total repeal of those estate taxes.  But what if there’s no action, or a compromise scuttles the estate tax provisions at the last minute?  Federal wealth transfer taxes have been enacted and repealed three times in U.S. history, so there’s no reason to imagine that even if there is a repeal, the repeal will last forever.  Meanwhile, dynastic trusts and other estate planning tactics provide tangible benefits even without the tax savings, including protecting assets from lawsuits and claims.
 
Leaving too much, too soon, to younger heirs.  Nothing can harm emerging adult values quite like realizing, as they start their productive careers, that they actually never need to work a day in their lives.  The alternative?  Create a trust controlled by a trusted family member or a corporate trust company until the beneficiaries reach a more mature stage of their lives, perhaps 30-35 years old. Also, some prefer to keep the assets in trust forever for asset protection purposes and the beneficiary becoming trustee and beneficiary of the trust at a mature age.
 
To Your Prosperity,
 
Kevin Kroskey, CFP®, MBA

Adapted with permission from BobVeres.com

Popular posts from this blog

Diversification: Disciplinarian of Disciplinarians

Disciplined diversification works when you do and even when you don't want it to. Diversification in effect forces you to sell the thing that has been doing so well in your portfolio and to buy the thing that hasn't. While this makes rational sense, it is emotionally difficult to execute. Think back to the tail end of 2008--were you selling bonds and cash to buy stocks? Most likely you weren't unless your advisor or some sort of automatic trigger did it for you. Carl Richards of www.behaviorgap.com provided a good reminder of how diversification works in a recent NY Times blog post. The diversification he discusses here is more so related to equity asset-class diversification but also touches on the three basic building blocks--equities, bonds, and cash. He doesn't discuss alternative asset classes -- an asset class that doesn't fit neatly into the three basic categories -- being used to further diversification, but that's a detailed topic for another day.

The Value of Double-Checking & Monitoring Your Retirement Strategy

Motivational speaker Denis Waitley once remarked, “You must stick to your conviction, but be ready to abandon your assumptions.” That statement certainly applies to retirement planning. Your effort must not waver, yet you must also examine it from time to time. 1       Perhaps you may realize that you under-estimated your health insurance costs and will need more retirement income than previously assumed. Or perhaps, with today's low interest rates you are not getting the level of investment returns you counted on. With those factors and others in mind, here are some signs that you may need to double-check your retirement strategy.     Your portfolio lacks significant diversification. Many baby boomers are approaching retirement with portfolios heavily weighted in U.S. equities. As many of them will have long retirements and a sustained need for growth investing, you could argue that this is entirely appropriate. Yet, U.S. equities by some measures may be over-valued by

65-80 Year Olds … A New and Exciting Demography

Should today’s 70-year-old American be considered “old?” How do you define that term these days? Statistically, your average 70-year-old has just a 2% chance of dying within a year. The estimated upper limits of average life expectancy is now 97, and a rapidly growing number of 70-year-olds will live past age 100. Perhaps more importantly, today’s 70-year-olds are in much better shape than their grandparents were at the same age. In most developed countries, healthy life expectancy from age 50 is growing faster than life expectancy itself, suggesting that the period of diminished vigor and ill health towards the end of life is being compressed. A recent series of articles in the Economist magazine suggest that we need a new term for people age 65 to 80, who are generally healthy and hearty, capable of knowledge-based work on an equal footing with 25-year-olds, and who are increasingly being shunted out of the workforce as if they were invalids or, well, “old.” Indeed, the a