We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (22,062)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (3)
  • Moore on the Market (485)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (827)
  • Wink's Articles (373)
  • Wink's Inside Story (283)
  • Wink's Press Releases (127)
  • Blog Archives

  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • Annuities and Trusts

    November 5, 2017 by John L. Olsen, and Michael E. Kitces

    As a financial asset, an annuity is necessarily part of the overall financial and estate plan of its purchaser.

    However, it is sometimes not well coordinated with the other components. Indeed, the ownership and beneficiary arrangement of an annuity may be inconsistent with — or even in conflict with — the rest of a client’s plan.

    THIS THINKADVISOR STORY IS EXCERPTED FROM:

    Not uncommonly, this results from an advisor’s decision to employ the annuity in connection with a trust without a full understanding of the rules governing both.

    In the following discussion, we will examine some of the problems advisors may encounter when annuities are owned by, or made payable to, a trust, and the rules (i.e., the tax rules and the contractual provisions and administrative policies of annuity issuers) that are not well understood.

    Click HERE to read the original story via ThinkAdvisor.

    For most of the following discussion, we will be concerned only with deferred annuities. Not only are most annuities sold of this type, but the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) provisions that cause most of the difficulties where annuities are owned by or payable to a trust (Section 72(u) and certain paragraphs of Section 72(s)) do not apply to immediate annuities. We will also be concerned only with nonqualified contracts, because of qualified annuities, or annuities used to fund IRAs, cannot be owned by a trust other than the trust for the type of retirement plan being funded.

    Problematic Annuity Structuring with Trusts

    Problems can arise when a deferred annuity is:

    • owned by and payable to a trust;
    • owned by a trust and payable to another party; or
    • owned by another party and payable to a trust.

    When an annuity is owned by a trust, the holder of the annuity is deemed by Section 72(s)(6)(A) to be the primary annuitant. This provision applies to any annuity owned by an entity other than a natural person, including a corporation, partnership, or trust. Primary annuitant is defined by IRC Section 72(s)(6)(B) as “the individual, the events in the life of whom are of primary importance in affecting the timing or amount of the payout under the contract.”

    It is vital that the advisor understand that this provision applies with regard to distributions required to be made from the annuity upon the death of any holder by Section 72(s), if the annuity is to be considered an annuity for income tax purposes. However, what if a particular annuity does not provide for payment upon the primary annuitant’s death when the annuity is owned by a trust? The result could be a conflict — an incongruity, which might pose serious problems as will be discussed later in this chapter. This is unlikely, however, because the language in today’s deferred annuities typically requires payouts in accordance with Section 72. Moreover, most insurers that will issue a deferred annuity owned by a trust or other “non-natural person” require that entity to be the primary beneficiary.

    Also, an annuity owned by a trust (or another nonnatural person) will not be considered an annuity for income tax purposes unless the owning entity is acting as the agent of a natural person. This requirement, too, is a source of potential problems. Although many trusts qualify as such agents, not all do.

     

    When a trust is the beneficiary of an annuity, that annuity is subject to distribution requirements different from those applying when the beneficiary is an individual or a natural person. These requirements apply whether or not the trust is also the holder of the annuity.

    Best Practices When an Annuity Is Being Used in Connection with a Trust

    Many advisors rely upon the marketing materials, home office marketing representatives, or external wholesalers of insurance companies for their understanding of those companies’ insurance products. To be sure, these sources can be very helpful. But they may not be sufficient.

    Sometimes, they are either unclear or just plain wrong.

    Most experienced advisors have at least a few horror stories of home office marketing representatives or wholesalers who made statements about the operation or tax treatment of an insurance product that was totally inaccurate. The authors have more than a few of these stories as well. Those of us who are not licensed attorneys cannot, and should not, practice law. But we can, should, and must exercise due care in our advisory activities. Therefore, with regard to annuities, the authors strongly recommend that advisors consider the following caveats:

    1. Avoid naming a trust as annuity owner unless there is very good reason for doing so and you are sure of all of the results of structuring the contract ownership this way — including when (i.e., due to which deaths) the insurance company will pay a death benefit and under what conditions any death benefit enhancements will be payable.
    2. Avoid naming a trust as beneficiary, for the same reasons, unless there is truly no need or desire to stretch the payments of the annuity after death and a post-death liquidation of the annuity under the five-year rule will not cause a tax hardship.
    3. Avoid naming different individuals as owner and annuitant, for the same reasons (and in the case of a trust, be cautious if the grantor and annuitant are different persons). This is a good rule to observe, whether a trust is involved or not. The potential problems resulting from different individuals named as the annuitant and owner are so common and serious that some insurance companies refuse to issue contracts on this basis.
    4. If the owner and annuitant will be two different individuals, know whether the contract you are considering is annuitant-driven or not.

    The above list is not a complete recitation of things to know and avoid about annuities, but merely the authors’ suggestions of the most vital caveats to consider when annuities and trusts are both involved. A better general caveat might be this:

    BE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND HOW, AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS, THE ANNUITY YOU ARE CONSIDERING WILL DELIVER, OR NOT DELIVER, ALL THE BENEFITS PROVIDED BY THAT ANNUITY.

    Originally Posted at ThinkAdvisor on November 5, 2017 by John L. Olsen, and Michael E. Kitces.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency