“The ‘politics’ of the estate tax have been unstable for a long time. That certainly is the case now.  Regardless of whether the estate tax is repealed next year, it might well return by reason of a sunset provision or a change in control of the White House and Congress.  Unless a client is certain to die while the estate tax is not effective and no alternate tax system, such as a capital gains tax at death, is in place, it seems extremely important for clients to continue to plan to protect their wealth.  While avoiding tax often is a significant motivator for planning, several other goals, including asset protection and income tax reduction, will continue to be important to achieve.  This all suggests that implementing estate planning which has acceptable tax risk and cost is appropriate.  Perhaps, such planning should be viewed as a type of wealth preservation insurance.”  

 

Since the election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States, many planners and their clients have been wringing their hands on what type of planning they should undertake in light of proposals by both the Republican party that controls both the House and the Senate and by the President Elect to repeal “death taxes.”  In their commentary, Marty Shenkman and Jonathan Blattmachr explain why year end and future planning should proceed as it normally would. They point out that, regardless of tax changes made next year, efficient planning now likely will reap significant rewards over time for clients.

Jonathan Blattmachr is director of estate planning for Peak Trust Company (formerly Alaska Trust Company), a director at Pioneer Wealth Partners LLC, a boutique wealth management firm, and co-developer with Michael L. Graham, Esq., of Dallas, Texas of Wealth Transfer Planning, a software system for lawyers, published by Interactive Legal LLC (www.interactivelegal.com).

Martin Shenkman, CPA, MBA, PFS, AEP, JD, is an attorney in private practice in Fort Lee, New Jersey and New York City who concentrates on estate and closely held business planning, tax planning, and estate administration. He is the author of 42 books and over 1,000 articles and has won many professional awards. His firm's website is www.shenkmanlaw.com where he posts a regular blog and where you can subscribe to his free quarterly newsletter Practical Planner.

Now, here is Marty and Jonathan’s commentary:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Despite the fact that both the Republican party that controls both houses of the Congress and Donald J. Trump, a Republican, who soon will become the President of the United States, have called for a repeal of “death taxes,” individuals should not curb their estate planning.  In fact, if anything, planning, including year-end planning, should continue with, perhaps, a renewed vigor as long as the planning does not involve an unwarranted risk of gift taxes being imposed, and the costs of implementing plans are reasonable relative to the values involved and benefits anticipated.

There are several strategies that may be undertaken with acceptable tax risk and at moderate cost.  Carefully and timely implemented, these actions not only may provide a huge buffer against various possible future taxes (gift, estate, GST, or capital gains on death) but can achieve other and, perhaps, even more important estate planning goals from possibly savings income taxes, protecting wealth from creditor claims, divorce and the risks of incapacity, and reducing the cost of administering transmitted property.

FACTS:

Republicans now hold 52 seats in the Senate and a significant majority of the seats in the House of Representatives.  This past summer, the Republicans issued its Blueprint for tax changes See: https://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-Tax-PolicyPaper.pdf.

 

Under it, repeal of both estate and generation-skipping transfer (GST) taxes are mentioned (but not the gift tax) for repeal.  President-elect Trump's proposal to repeal the "death taxes" pretty clearly is a reference to the estate tax and, perhaps, was intended as a shorthand reference to all transfer taxes. 

 

With a majority in the House, the Republican can easily push through tax changes, including estate tax repeal.  But the rules are different in the Senate.  There, a bill can be filibustered, which means the measure will not pass unless 60 Senators vote to end the filibuster and have a vote taken. All measures in the Senate are subject to being filibustered other than a budget reconciliation act.

 

A similar situation occurred in 2001 when the Republicans held a slim majority in the Senate with Republican President George W. Bush was in the White House.  President Bush wanted tax changes including a repeal of the estate and gift taxes.  Estate tax repeal became part of the budget reconciliation act passed that year and was enacted into law because the Democrats could not filibuster it.

 

However, there is another important provision that governs procedure in the Senate: the Byrd Rule.  Under it, any Senator can object to any measure, even in a budget reconciliation bill, that would increase expenditures or decrease revenues.  If the objection is made, it essentially causes the increase in expenditures or tax reduction to sunset in ten years and the law as it existed before the budget reconciliation act was enacted goes back into effect.  It takes 60 Senate votes to block the objection and prevent the sunset.  The objection was made in 2001 and the 2001 tax act was, accordingly, subject to sunset.

 

But there was one more important aspect of the 2001 tax provisions: the repeal of the estate tax was not immediate.  The repeal was phased in and was not to become complete until 2010.  However, immediately thereafter, all of the 2001 tax changes would sunset including the estate tax repeal.

 

President Obama and the head Republicans made a deal, keeping in place many of the income tax changes (such as taxing dividends as long-term capital gain) and adopting $5 million (indexed for inflation) estate, gift and GST exemptions and essentially a flat 40% tax bracket for each wealth transfer tax system.  And estates of decedents who died in 2010 were given a choice: keep the estate in the estate tax system (which might not result in any or much estate tax on account of the $5 million exemption or the use of the marital deduction) and have the basis of the assets in the estate “stepped up” under Section 1014 (other than for the right to income in respect of a decedent described in Section 691) or stay out of the estate tax system but have the basis of the assets “carried over” to the estate and inheritors.

 

It is obviously not possible to forecast exactly what the Congress and President Trump will do next year from infrastructure spending to tax changes.  But we can be assured there will be tax changes proposed and likely adopted in 2017. These may include a reduction or elimination of the estate tax, plus many income tax changes including a lowering of income tax for higher income taxpayers, except in a few cases (such as taxing so-called “carried interests” as ordinary income rather than as long-term capital gain).  One significant potential change for those earning income in high income tax states, such as California and New York, is the likely elimination of the income tax deduction for state (and local) income taxes.

 

In any case, repeal of the gift tax probably will not occur, according almost all commentators.  And, again, what happened in 2001 may foreshadow that result.  President Bush wanted the gift tax repealed.  But the gift tax acts as a backstop to the income tax.  Without that lifetime transfer tax on gifts, taxpayers can shift income producing assets to other family members without cost, who are in lower income tax brackets and who can recognize the income (such as gain on the sale of the gifted property), pay a lower tax and gift the after tax proceeds back to the original owner.  For that reason, the repeal of the gift tax was taken off the table in 2001.  See discussion in Dept. of Treas., Office of Tax Analysis, David Joulfaian, The Federal Gift Tax: History, Law, and Economics (2007), available at https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/WP-100.pdf.  At least one commentator has suggested that the importance of the gift tax for this purpose has diminished.

 

A key issue for planners and their clients is what planning should be undertaken before the end of this year, and early next year, in light of the political uncertainty of legislative changes. Planning decisions should also factor into the analysis that the Federal Reserve just raised the fed funds raise and has indicated it may increase it three more times next year. As planners are aware, many wealth transfer techniques are quite interest sensitive.

COMMENT:

Because of the significant political uncertainty, many taxpayers and their advisors are adopting a “wait and see” strategy deferring current planning. Many clients have determined to simply not proceed with planning in process, and even more not to undertake new planning.  That, we think, is a mistake.  We believe, as detailed below, that planning should continue for the balance of this year and into next year as long as the risk of significant gift or income tax is tolerable, and the cost of implementation is reasonable relative to the circumstances.  We reach this conclusion based upon any of the following likely results of the possible changes to the transfer tax system.

Estate Tax Is Not Repealed

Although there has been so much talk of repeal, it remains possible that the estate tax will not be repealed.  As pointed out earlier, the estate tax was never really repealed under the George W. Bush regime.   Part of the reason was cost— the focus was on immediate income tax cuts because, unless a person is about to die, he or she probably would rather have income tax reduction now and have death tax repeal implemented later.

In light of the possibility of no repeal, estate planning should, in many cases, continue now.

Estate Tax Is Repealed but Sunsetted

Even if the estate tax is repealed (whether implemented immediately or delayed or phased out), there seems to be a significant chance it will come back on account of the Bryd Rule.  In that case, taxpayers, and their advisors, need to continue to engage in estate planning, unless they are confident the taxpayer will die while the estate tax is not in effect. Again, if the potential costs of planning versus not are weighed, in most circumstances it is difficult to imagine that it would be prudent to cease planning or even defer it. It should be noted that it seems that the estate tax possibly could be retroactively implemented— cf. United States v. Carlton, 512 US 26 (1994).

Estate Tax Is Repealed but Reenacted

If the political history of the United States repeats itself, the Democrats will regain control of the Federal government at some point and the estate tax may be reenacted (whether retroactively in part or not).  That could happen in four years.  And those who have foregone planning in the meantime will have lost opportunities they should have taken.  In fact, many of the proposals made by the Obama administration (e.g., limit on the use of the GST exemption, reduction in the estate tax exemption, increase in wealth transfer tax rates, elimination of valuation discounts) could be enacted as part of the return of the estate tax.  In that case, failure to have planned in the meantime will have been costly.

Estate Tax Is Repealed but Capital Gains Tax at Death Enacted

The President-elect has proposed the elimination of “death taxes” but the enactment of a capital gains tax at death.  That is the Canadian system.  For some, this will be a less expensive system than the estate tax would have been, but for others it will be more costly.  For example, the ultimate winners of the step-up in basis at death are the inheritors of negative basis property with huge debt on the property even if in excess of the net or gross fair market value of the asset.  (A negative basis means that debt against the property exceeds the income tax basis of the property.)

Gain or income is not recognized by the transfer of property at death even if it has a negative basis.  See CCA 200932024 (not precedent) and discussion in Blattmachr, Gans & Jacobson, "Income Tax Effects of Termination of Grantor Trust Status by Reason of the Grantor's Death," 97 Jl of Taxn 149 (Sept. 2002).  Yet upon death, the entire debt is added to basis even if that puts basis above the property’s gross fair market value.  See Section 1014(a) and Reg. 1.742-1 (“The basis of a partnership interest acquired from a decedent is the fair market value of the interest at the date of his death or at the alternate valuation date, increased by his estate's or other successor's share of partnership liabilities, if any, on that date, and reduced to the extent that such value is attributable to items constituting income in respect of a decedent…under section 691.”).

With a capital gains tax at death system, the inheritor of negative basis or highly leveraged assets will face immediate income tax with the debt presumably treated as an amount realized including any negative basis. 

Some will be winners under capital gains tax at death and some will be losers.  It will depend upon tax rates and the structure of the system.  In Canada, for example, a capital gains tax is imposed on a trust every 21 years.

It is, of course, uncertain what assets will be subject to gains tax at death.  It seems certain that merely putting assets into a revocable trust (or similar arrangement) will not avoid the tax.  In Canada, gain is recognized by the transfer of an appreciated asset to a revocable trust.  That seems unlikely in the United States as such trusts are so widely used.   Rather, what seems logical is that any assets that would have been included in the decedent's estate under the US estate tax system will be subject to the tax upon death.  But that indicates that making transfers now that would remove the assets from the owner’s estate might avoid capital gains tax at death. When weighing whether to pursue or defer current planning, consider the possibility of current planning avoiding (or deferring) a future capital gains tax on death.

Estate Tax Is Repealed but Carryover Basis Adopted

Under the Tax Reform Act of 1976, a carryover basis for property received from a decedent was adopted under now repealed Section 1023 and the step-up in basis under Section 1014 eliminated.  That system was itself repealed in the Windfall Profits Tax Act of 1980.  Nonetheless, carryover basis (under now repealed Section 1022) was revived for estates of decedents who died in 2010 and choose not to elect into the estate tax system.  Perhaps, this may portend that the Code might again include a carryover basis system if the estate tax is repealed. If so, it seems that there is no harm in doing planning—property transferred out of the estate would have a carryover basis under Section 1015 and would have a carryover basis if transmitted death.  This seems to be a “no harm no foul” situation if it develops that way but it does mean protection against a later reenactment of estate tax (by sunsetting or otherwise) or capital gains tax at death.

Estate Tax Is Repealed but Step-Up in Basis Continues

Although based upon the history of the US tax system, it seems unlikely that the estate tax would be repealed but step-up in basis under Section 1014 would be retained.  But in politics, nothing is impossible. 

While it might appear that such a possibility might mean that no action should be taken to remove assets from what would be someone’s gross estate, the property can be returned for inclusion with careful planning.

The first way to accomplish the return is where the assets are held in a grantor trust under which pursuant to Section 671 the income, deductions and credits of the trust are attributed to the grantor (or if Section 678 applies to a beneficiary who is not the grantor).  It is the official position of the IRS that such a trust does not exist for income tax purposes meaning the assets could be repurchased from the trust by the grantor without income tax recognition.  See Rev. Rul. 85-13, 1985-1 C.B. 184.

Another option might be for a new trust to be structured (or an old one “decanted”) so a power of control over the beneficial enjoyment of the assets could be given to the grantor which, if given, will cause the property to be included in the grantor’s estate under Section 2038.  If not granted, there would be no inclusion.  See Blattmachr & Rivlin, “Searching for Basis in Estate Planning: Less Tax for Heirs.” 41 Est. Plan. 3 (August 2014).

This suggests that any transfer made in planning be made in trust, probably a grantor trust, but at least structured to give someone (perhaps, someone not acting in a fiduciary capacity) the power to grant a power of control to the grantor.

It also seems that there could be minimal downside, other than transaction costs, even if the “no estate tax/step-up in basis” regime does not occur. As noted above, the client will have still obtained the benefits of shifting assets to protective trusts. But with the flexibility noted above those trusts might provide a tax advantage under a number of possible tax change scenarios.

Weighing the Costs of Planning Versus Not Planning Likely Suggests Planning Continue

For a client who might endeavor to transfer $10 million if he or she knew estate tax might not be repealed, with proper planning perhaps the only material risk is the cost of implementing the planning if repeal does in fact occur. So long as the cost of the planning is reasonable relative to the wealth involved, why should the planning be deferred? Further, if the result of the planning is a shift of wealth into trusts that are protective and beneficial even if repeal occurred, the cost of planning would not have been wasted. See Blattmachr & Blattmachr, “Even Without Estate Tax the Right Answer Is Still the Same, Put It All in Trust,” Estate Planning Newsletter #2489. When weighing the many possible tax law changes and other considerations, how can one quantify the asset protection benefits of implementing transfers to protective trust structures currently versus the potential downside risk of deferring tax because of unknown tax changes? As most practitioners believe the gift tax will remain, there may in fact be no cost savings from deferral, merely a deferral of asset protection benefits. Further, as illustrated above, flexible planning might well provide tax benefits whichever tax system is ultimately enacted.

What Specific Planning Steps Should Be Taken Now and in the Near Future?

The foregoing discussion suggests that when the myriad of possible outcomes, pros and cons are weighted, that in most cases estate planning should continue, albeit with some modifications. There may be significant potential benefits under many different tax regime scenarios, with relatively modest cost and in many cases acceptable downside risk.  But the steps usually should be taken only if the risk of any appreciable gift or income tax is acceptable, and the cost of implementation is not significant relative to the value of the transfers and in light of potential benefits. 

Use Annual Exclusions. Planning steps to pursue should include making gifts under the protection of the annual exclusion under Section 2503(b).  Such gifts, if not to Section 529 education plans, almost certainly should be in trust, and probably grantor trusts.  See Blattmachr & Graham, “Extra Crummey Trustsm: Maybe the Best Annual Exclusion Vehicle Around,” 22 Probate & Property 42 (Jul/Aug 2008). Annual gift exclusions can be used to shift significant wealth for larger families with what most practitioners would view currently as modest risk. See Mikel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-64 (April 6, 2015).

Use Remaining Gift and GST Tax Exemptions.  There seems little harm in clients intelligently using remaining gift and GST tax exemptions of $5 million (adjusted for inflation).  Those assets most likely to increase in value ought to be the most likely property to transfer.  See, generally, Blattmachr & Blattmachr, “Efficient Ways to Use the New Temporary $5 Million Federal Gift and GST Exemptions,” Estate Planning Newsletter #1779.  As that newsletter discusses, using non-reciprocal spousal trusts for a married couple makes great sense as the spouses can enjoy the fruits of the property for life but likely achieve complete estate tax exclusion.  (As indicated above, it may also avoid capital gains tax at death if that arises). The mortality risk of that technique can be quantified with financial forecasts and if warranted buttressed by life insurance. What should not be done, the unintelligent use of exemption, would be to fund dynastic trusts that neither the client nor the client’s partner can access. That type of planning had occurred too often in the rush to plan in the waning days of 2012 when it was perceived that the $5 million exemption would disappear.

Employ GRATs, and SPLATssm  and Split Purchase Trustssm. As is well known, grantor retained annuity trusts described in Reg. 25.2703-3, GRATs are a “heads I win, tails I can’t lose” arrangement, as a general rule, with little if any risk of gift or income tax.  Whatever happens with the transfer tax system it is not clear that the use of short term rolling GRATs will continue as a viable planning mechanism in the future. Therefore, a longer term GRAT, planned considering mortality risk, might be preferable. In light of rising interest rates, locking in the current low hurdle rate may prove a valuable step.

What may be more efficient is a SPLATsm.  Also, rather than a (qualified) personal residence trust described in Reg. 25.2703-5 may be a Split Purchase Trustsm.  These are discussed in detail in Blattmachr, Slade & Zeydel, “Section 2702,” BNA Tax Mgt. Portfolio 836-2d.

These are low tax risk, relatively low cost arrangements that not only may save estate (or capital gains tax at death) but provide other benefits including asset protection for the property involved in the transfers.

Moreover, these strategies (other than a personal residence trust) generally work best when the IRS interest rate used to value interest in them are low.  It seems that rates are rising, suggesting action be taken now.

Installment Sales to Grantor Trust.  Properly implemented, an installment sale to a grantor trust (also called a “note sale”) may be an efficient strategy to implement.  See discussions in Gans & Blattmachr, “Private Annuities and Installment Sales: Trombetta and Section 2036,” 120 Jl of Taxn 225 (May 2014), and in Blattmachr & Zeydel, “GRATs vs. Installment Sales to IDGTs: Which Is the Panacea or are they Both Pandemics?” 41 Annual Heckerling Institute on Estate Planning (2007)

The only tax risk seems one of valuation.  There is one certain way to avoid a valuation issue and that is to sell marketable securities to the trust for their gift tax value determined under Reg. 25.2512-2(b)(1).  These should be the ones anticipated to have the greatest chance of growing in value.  An alternative is to use the equivalent of a defined value formula to determine the amount (or value) sold.  See Wandry v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2012-88, non-acq. in Action on Decision, IRB 2012-46 (Nov. 13, 2012) (defined value formula to determine about of a transfer respected). The IRS has, however, reinvigorated its attack on defined value mechanisms, and seems to have pursued a case that is not merely a Wandry type clause, and which used a reputable appraisal firm. See, True v. Commissioner, Tax Court Docket Nos. 21896-16 and 21897-16 (petitions filed October 11, 2016), discussed in Akers, “IRS Attack on ‘Wandry’ and Price Adjustment Clauses,” Bessemer Trust Advisor (November 2016).  

Probably, a limited transfer to a trust for the family with the balance passing to the grantor’s spouse, charity or an incomplete gift trust is safest of all where value cannot be definitely determined, as such structures are common and essentially never challenged when based upon the amount of estate tax exemption (passing into a so-called “credit shelter trust”). Other practitioners are comfortable using, or prefer, a QTIP or GRAT as the receptacle for excess value. A solid appraisal is a critical factor to use.

As with GRATs, low IRS interest rates are generally favorable when making a note sale.  Now seems an appropriate time to act in light of probable rate increases.

More Adventuresome?  For the more adventuresome, consideration can be given to family split dollar arrangements of the type used in Morrissette v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. No. 11 (2016).  But practitioners and their clients may not need to engage in transactions which have a significant income or gift tax risk or a high cost to implement.  That might suggest to some that life insurance be cancelled or not acquired.  However, funding estate tax with life insurance is not the only reason to acquire or hold onto a policy.  There are asset protection, asset management, and income tax advantages that life insurance may provide compared to any other financial product.  So careful study is need before a policy is dropped or not acquired.  See, generally, Glickman & Blattmachr, “High Returns and Tax-Free Compounding: Keys to Building Wealth,” 43 Est. Plan. 11 (May 2016).

Structure of Donee Trusts in Light of Possible Repeal and Capital Gains on Death

Many of the recipient/donee trusts to be used in the above planning should be structured in a robust and flexible manner to address the uncertainty of future tax legislation. Depending on the size or nature of the transaction, it may be worthwhile to create a new trust or decant an existing trust into a more robust trust to add flexibility that current trusts crafted prior to the prospect of repeal may not reflect. This could include any array of common trust powers, and several less common or new ones. Consider any or all of the following:

·       Grantor trust status.

·       Include a swap power described in Section 675(4)(C) and draft the language in a sufficiently flexible manner to permit reverse swaps. Under current law it can be advantageous for a settlor to swap highly appreciated assets out of a grantor trust prior to death to include those assets in his or her estate for basis step up purposes. Under a capital gains tax on death regime the inverse of swapping highly appreciated assets into a grantor trust prior to death might prove advantageous. This might provide a mechanism to avoid the capital gains that might be incurred if those were retained. This possibility is another factor to weigh in favor of pursuing planning now.

·       A broad class of beneficiaries to provide more flexibility in planning distributions and future income tax planning under whatever changes may be enacted. Also consider whether distributions to charities should be permitted.

·       Situs and governing law in a trust friendly jurisdiction that is likely to more quickly take legislative action in the event of a significant change in federal tax laws.

·       Use GST exempt trusts when feasible.

·       A flexible trust protector provision to facilitate change to address future developments without the need, if possible, of court intervention.

·       Consider granting a person acting in a non-fiduciary capacity the authority to make a loan to the settlor with adequate interest but without regard to adequate security, triggering grantor trust status pursuant to Section 675(2). While this can characterize a trust as a grantor trust it can also be used as a means of providing economic benefit to a settlor if warranted.

·       Consider providing the power to a person to give a Section 2038 power to the grantor to cause estate inclusion, as described above,  some portion or the entirety of the trust assets in the settlor’s estate if that proves desirable under future permutations of the tax law.

·       Consider a hybrid domestic asset protection trust (DAPT) approach. Create the trust in a jurisdiction that permits self-settled trusts and grant someone, again in a non-fiduciary capacity, the power to add descendants of the settlor’s grandparents to the trust as beneficiaries. If the estate tax is repealed, the power can be exercised making the settlor a beneficiary if appropriate.

·       When structuring GRATs consider naming an existing irrevocable trust as the remainder beneficiary so that if the estate tax is repealed the grantor can buy the remainder interest and merger the annuity and remainder interests into fee (complete) ownership can occur.

Conclusion

The “politics” of the estate tax have been unstable for a long time. That certainly is the case now.  Regardless of whether the estate tax is repealed next year, it might well return by reason of a sunset provision or a change in control of the White House and Congress.  Unless a client is certain to die while the estate tax is not effective and no alternate tax system, such as a capital gains tax at death, is in place, it seems extremely important for clients to continue to plan to protect their wealth.  While avoiding tax often is a significant motivator for planning, several other goals, including asset protection and income tax reduction, will continue to be important to achieve.  This all suggests that implementing estate planning which has acceptable tax risk and cost is appropriate.  Perhaps, such planning should be viewed as a type of wealth preservation insurance. 

 

HOPE THIS HELPS YOU HELP OTHERS MAKE A POSITIVE DIFFERENCE!

 

Martin Shenkman

Jonathan Blattmachr

 

LISI Estate Planning Newsletter #2491 (December 19, 2016) at http://www.leimbergservices.com  Copyright 2016 Leimberg Information Services, Inc. (LISI). Reproduction in Any Form or Forwarding to Any Person Prohibited – Without Express Written Permission.

CITES:

Sections 671, 675, 678, 691, 1014, 1015, 1022 (repealed), 1023 (repealed), 2038 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended; Reg. 1.742-1, 25.2512-2(b), 25.2703-3, 25.2703-5; Rev. Rul. 85-13, 1985-1 CB 184; CCA 200932024; United States v. Carlton, 512 US 26 (1994); Mikel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-64 (April 6, 2015); Wandry v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2012-88, non-acq. in Action on Decision, IRB 2012-46 (Nov. 13, 2012); True v. Commissioner, Tax Court Docket Nos. 21896-16 and 21897-16; Windfall Profits Tax Act of 1980; Republican Blueprint; Dept. of Treas., Office of Tax Analysis, David Joulfaian, The Federal Gift Tax: History, Law, and Economics (2007), available at https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/WP-100.pdf; Gans & Blattmachr, “Private Annuities and Installment Sales: Trombetta and Section 2036,” 120 Jl of Taxn 225 (May 2014); Akers, “IRS Attack on ‘Wandry’ and Price Adjustment Clauses,” Bessemer Trust Advisor (November 2016); Glickman & Blattmachr, “High Returns and Tax-Free Compounding: Keys to Building Wealth,” 43 Est. Plan. 11 (May 2016); Gans & Blattmachr, “Private Annuities and Installment Sales: Trombetta and Section 2036,” 120 Jl of Taxn 225 (May 2014); Blattmachr & Zeydel, “GRATs vs. Installment Sales to IDGTs: Which Is the Panacea or are they Both Pandemics?” 41 Annual Heckerling Institute on Estate Planning (2007); Blattmachr, Slade & Zeydel, “Section 2702,”  BNA Tax Mgt. Portfolio 836-2d; Blattmachr & Blattmachr, “Even Without Estate Tax the Right Answer Is Still the Same, Put It All in Trust,” LISI Estate Planning Newsletter #2489 (December 15, 2016); Blattmachr & Blattmachr, “Efficient Ways to Use the New Temporary $5 Million Federal Gift and GST Exemptions,” LISI Estate Planning Newsletter #1779 (February 21, 2011); Blattmachr & Rivlin, “Searching for Basis in Estate Planning: Less Tax for Heirs.” 41 Est. Plan. 3 (August 2014); Blattmachr & Graham, “Extra Crummey Trustsm: Maybe the Best Annual Exclusion Vehicle Around,” 22 Probate & Property 42 (Jul/Aug 2008); Blattmachr, Gans & Jacobson, "Income Tax Effects of Termination of Grantor Trust Status by Reason of the Grantor's Death," 97 Jl of Taxn 149 (Sept. 2002).