{"id":1615,"date":"2020-11-30T04:30:00","date_gmt":"2020-11-30T09:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/actec.matrixdev.net\/?post_type=capital-letter&p=1615"},"modified":"2024-01-07T20:11:59","modified_gmt":"2024-01-08T01:11:59","slug":"2020-2021-treasury-irs-priority-guidance-plan","status":"publish","type":"capital-letter","link":"https:\/\/actec.matrixdev.net\/capital-letter\/2020-2021-treasury-irs-priority-guidance-plan\/","title":{"rendered":"2020-2021 Treasury- IRS Priority Guidance Plan"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
There is not much new, but some significant affirmations of the old, in the compilation of guidance projects the Treasury and the IRS have announced their intention to focus on for the next seven months.<\/strong><\/em> Dear Readers Who Follow Washington Developments:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Treasury Department and the IRS released their Priority Guidance Plan<\/u><\/strong><\/a> for the 12 months from July 2020 through June 2021 on November 17, 2020. As usual, the introduction stated: \u201cThe 2020-2021 Priority Guidance Plan contains guidance projects that will be the focus of efforts during the 12-month period from July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021 (referred to as the plan year).\u201d \u201cFocus\u201d does not necessarily mean finish, of course. Except for the section 7520 actuarial tables discussed in this Capital Letter, we might see no published action by June on any of the items in the Plan. But whatever published guidance we do see by June is likely to come from the lists of projects in the Plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 1 of the Plan, titled \u201cImplementation of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA),\u201d contains 38 items, compared to 51 items in the Updated 2019-2020 Plan, reflecting progress in completing guidance under the 2017 Tax Act. Two items are of particular interest to estate planners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Item 4 of Part 1 is titled \u201cRegulations clarifying the deductibility of certain expenses described in \u00a767(b) and (e) that are incurred by estates and non-grantor trusts. Notice 2018-61 was published on July 30, 2018 and proposed regulations were published on May 11, 2020.\u201d This item first appeared in the 2018-2019 Priority Guidance Plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Notice 2018-61, 2018-31 I.R.B. 278, stated that \u201cthe Treasury Department and the IRS intend to issue regulations clarifying that estates and non-grantor trusts may continue to deduct expenses described in section 67(e)(1)\u201d despite the eight-year \u201csuspension\u201d of section 67(a) in the 2017 Tax Act by new section 67(g). The IRS received comments from the public agreeing with that statement and confirmed it in an amendment to Reg. \u00a71.67-4(a)(1) proposed in REG-113295-18, 85 Fed. Reg. 27693 (May 11, 2020), and finalized by T.D. 9918, 85 Fed. Reg. 66219 (Oct. 19, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Deductibility, however, continues to be limited by the harsh treatment in Reg. \u00a71.67-4(b)(4) and (c)(2) of fees for investment advice, including the portion of a \u201cbundled\u201d fiduciary fee attributable to investment advice (which now will mean total disallowance, not just the application of a 2-percent floor). Reg. \u00a71.67-4(a)(1)(i)(A) & 4(a)(2). Notice 2018-61 had stated flatly that \u201cnothing in section 67(g) impacts the determination of what expenses are described in section 67(e)(1).\u201d In addition, the new regulations do not address the treatment of deductions for purposes of the alternative minimum tax, and the preambles to both the proposed and final regulations state that such treatment \u201cis outside the scope of these [proposed] regulations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Notice 2018-61 also indicated that regulations would address the availability of \u201cexcess deductions\u201d to individual beneficiaries under section 642(h)(2) on termination of a trust or estate, including the treatment of those deductions as miscellaneous itemized deductions (and therefore entirely nondeductible through 2025) as current Reg. \u00a71.642(h)-2 implies, and the Notice asked for comments on those issues. Public comments urged relief on those points, noting, as the preamble to the proposed regulations put it, \u201cthat the regulations under \u00a71.642(h)-2 were written before the concept of miscellaneous itemized deductions was added to the Code and need to be updated.\u201d The regulations affirm the availability to beneficiaries of such excess deductions and affirm, as comments recommended, that \u201ceach deduction comprising the excess deductions under section 642(h)(2) retains, in the hands of the beneficiary, its character (specifically, as allowable in arriving at adjusted gross income, as a non-miscellaneous itemized deduction, or as a miscellaneous itemized deduction) while in the estate or trust.\u201d Reg. \u00a71.642(h)-2(b)(1). The final regulations include helpful clarifications of the allocation of expenses among items of income, including the fiduciary\u2019s discretion to make those allocations, that had been recommended by public comments on the proposed regulations, including ACTEC\u2019s comments<\/strong><\/a> of June 22, 2020. The 2020 \u201cInstructions for Schedule K-1 (Form 1041) for a Beneficiary Filing Form 1040 or 1040-SR\u201d (released Oct. 21, 2020), citing the final regulations, clarify and elaborate previous versions in explanations titled \u201cBox 11, Code A\u2014Excess Deductions on Termination – Section 67(e) Expenses\u201d and \u201cBox 11, Code B\u2014Excess Deductions on Termination – Non-Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is common for an estate or trust to have extra expenses related to its wind-up and final distributions in its final taxable year, as well as the catch-up payments of some expenses that have been deferred, at the same time the income of the estate or trust has declined because of its sales or distributions of income-producing assets. An eight-year suspension of the ability of fiduciaries to pass through those final-year excess deductions would have created pressure to artificially time the payment of expenses, the distribution of assets, and the termination of the trust or estate in ways that could be unfair and frustrating to both fiduciaries and beneficiaries. Thus, these regulations provide very important relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Item 33 of Part 1 is titled \u201cGuidance under \u00a7\u00a71400Z\u20131 and 1400Z\u20132 concerning Opportunity Zones, including census tract changes. Proposed regulations were published on October 29, 2018 and May 1, 2019. Final regulations were issued on January 13, 2020. Notice 2020-39 was published on June 22, 2020.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although not published in the Federal Register until January 2020, a relevant set of regulations regarding Opportunity Zones was originally released in December 2019 and thereby became recognized as development Number Ten in the Top Ten Estate Planning and Estate Tax Developments of 2019, Capital Letter Number 49<\/u><\/strong><\/a>. Among other things, as noted in Capital Letter Number 49, if the regulations are read carefully in context, they provide significant reinforcement for the proposition that the death of the grantor does not by itself cause the recognition of gain with respect to appreciated assets held in a grantor trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In response to Executive Order 13789 of April 21, 2017, which directed the identification of tax regulations issued after 2015 that impose an undue burden on taxpayers, Treasury and the IRS stated in the original 2017-2018 Priority Guidance Plan that \u201cPart 2 [now Part 3] of the plan describes certain projects that we have identified as burden reducing.\u201d Like Part 1, Part 3 of the 2020-2021 Plan contains two items of particular interest to estate planners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Item 14 of Part 3 is titled \u201cFinal regulations under \u00a7\u00a71014(f) and 6035 regarding basis consistency between estate and person acquiring property from decedent. Proposed and temporary regulations were published on March 4, 2016.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n As noted in Capital Letter Number 44<\/u><\/strong><\/a>, the appearance of this subject under the heading of \u201cBurden Reduction\u201d offers hope that the final regulations would relax one or two or all of the following very burdensome requirements of the proposed regulations published in March 2016:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Those and other issues were discussed in ACTEC\u2019s comments<\/a> on the proposed regulations and Lora Davis\u2019s<\/a>, Gregg Simon\u2019s<\/a>, and my<\/a> statements at the public hearing on the proposed regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Item 18 of Part 3 is titled \u201cFinal regulations under \u00a72642(g) describing the circumstances and procedures under which an extension of time will be granted to allocate GST exemption.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Like the basis consistency regulations, as also noted in\u00a0Capital Letter Number 44<\/u><\/strong><\/a>, the continued appearance of this subject under the heading of \u201cBurden Reduction\u201d offers hope that the final regulations would relax, for example, the burdensome requirement of Proposed Reg. \u00a726.2642-7(h)(3)(i)(D) for \u201cdetailed affidavits\u201d from \u201ceach tax professional who advised or was consulted by the transferor or the executor of the transferor\u2019s estate with regard to\u00a0any aspect<\/em>\u00a0of the transfer, the trust, the allocation of GST exemption, and\/or the election under section 2632(b)(3) or (c)(5).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are five items under the heading of \u201cGifts and Estates and Trusts\u201d in Part 6 of the 2020-2021 Plan, titled \u201cGeneral Guidance.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n This project was new in 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Letter Ruling 200434012 (April 23, 2004), involving a sale from one grantor trust to another, the IRS included the caveat (emphasis added) that \u201cwhen either Trust 1 or Trust 2 ceases to be treated as a trust owned by A under \u00a7 671 by reason of A\u2019s death<\/em> or the waiver or release of any power under \u00a7 675, no opinion is expressed or implied<\/em> concerning whether the termination of such grantor trust treatment results in a sale or disposition of any property within the meaning of \u00a7 1001(a), a change in the basis of any property<\/em> under \u00a7 1012 or \u00a7 1014, or any deductible administration expense under \u00a7 2053.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n An installment note received by the grantor from a grantor trust in connection with a sale to a grantor trust receives a new basis \u2013 presumably a stepped-up basis \u2013 under section 1014 when the grantor dies. The note is not an item of income in respect of a dece\u00addent (\u201cIRD\u201d) under section 691, which would be excluded from the operation of section 1014 by section 1014(c), because the fact, amount, and character of IRD are all determined in the same manner as if \u201cthe decedent had lived and received such amount\u201d (section 691(a)(3); cf.<\/em> section 691(a)(1)), and the decedent would not have realized any income in that case, as confirmed by Rev. Rul. 85-13, 1985-1 C.B. 184. See the analysis in Manning & Hesch, \u201cDeferred Payment Sales to Grantor Trusts, GRATs, and Net Gifts: Income and Transfer Tax Elements,\u201d 24 Tax Mgmt. Ests., Gifts & Tr. J. 3 (1999).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Chief Counsel Advice 200923024 (Dec. 31, 2008) opined that \u201cthe Service should not take the position that the mere conversion of a nongrantor trust to a grantor trust [by reason of the replacement of an independent trustee with a related or subordinate party] results in taxable income to the grantor.\u201d After citing and discussing Reg. \u00a71.1001-2(c), Example 5, Madorin v. Commissioner<\/em>, 84 T.C. 667 (1985), and Rev. Rul. 77-402, 1977-2 C.B. 222 (which addressed the reverse conversion to nongrantor trust status), the Chief Counsel\u2019s office noted (emphasis added) that \u201cthe rule set forth in these authorities is narrow, insofar as it only affects inter vivos lapses of grantor trust status, not that caused by the death of the owner which is generally not treated as an income tax event<\/em>.\u201d Because of the interrelationship with certain partnership transactions and section 754 basis elections, however, the Chief Counsel\u2019s office viewed the overall transaction as \u201cabusive\u201d and wanted to explore other ways to challenge it. But it nevertheless believed that \u201casserting that the conversion of a nongrantor trust to a grantor trust results in taxable income to the grantor would have an impact on non-abusive situations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The current guidance project may somehow be related to the analytical gymnastics found in those authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, this proposal may simply be aimed at a clarification of the rules for foreign trusts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rev. Proc. 2015-37, 2015-26 I.R.B. 1196, added \u201cwhether the assets in a grantor trust receive a section 1014 basis adjustment at the death of the deemed owner of the trust for income tax purposes when those assets are not includible in the gross estate of that owner under chapter 11 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code\u201d to the list of \u201careas under study in which rulings or determination letters will not be issued until the Service resolves the issue through publication of a revenue ruling, a revenue procedure, regulations, or otherwise.\u201d That designation was continued in section 5.01(12) of Rev. Proc. 2016-3, 2016-1 I.R.B. 126, section 5.01(10) of Rev. Proc. 2017-3, 2017-1 I.R.B. 130, section 5.01(8) of Rev. Proc. 2018-3, 2018-1 I.R.B. 130, section 5.01(8) of Rev. Proc. 2019-3, 2019-1 I.R.B. 130, and section 5.01(9) of Rev. Proc. 2020-3, 2020-1 I.R.B. 131.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meanwhile, Letter Ruling 201544002 (June 30, 2015), similar to Letter Ruling 201245006 (July 19, 2012), held that assets in a revocable trust created by foreign grantors for their U.S. citizen children would receive a stepped-up basis under section 1014(b)(2) at the grantors\u2019 deaths. The ruling acknowledged the no-rule policy of Rev. Proc. 2015-37, but avoided it on the ground that the ruling request had been submitted before the no-rule policy was announced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is hard to believe that it is a coincidence that Rev. Proc. 2015-37 was published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin on June 29, 2015, the day before<\/em> Letter Ruling 201544002 was issued. If those two contemporaneous events are related, then the no-rule position of Rev. Procs. 2015-37, 2016-3, 2017-3, 2018-3, 2019-3, and 2020-3 might have been aimed only at foreign trusts, and so might this proposal first announced in the 2015-2016 Priority Guidance Plan a month later on July 31, 2015. It is also possible that, even if the project originally had such a narrow focus, it has since been expanded in the Trump Administration. But this item apparently is not mentioned in the Office of Management and Budget\u2019s Spring 2020 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which was released on June 30, 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This project is new in the 2020-2021 Plan, although there was a preview of it in the Office of Management and Budget\u2019s Spring 2020 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which was released on June 30, 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before June 1, 2015, the IRS routinely issued a closing letter (not the same as a formal \u201cclosing agreement\u201d) when the examination of an estate tax return was closed, except returns that were not required for estate tax purposes but were filed solely to elect portability. The \u201cFrequently Asked Questions on Estate Taxes\u201d on the IRS website was updated on June 16, 2015, to state that for such returns filed on or after June 1, 2015, closing letters would be issued only upon request. Notice 2017-12, 2017-5 I.R.B. 742, confirmed that, and also confirmed informal reports that an estate tax account transcript that includes the transaction code \u201c421\u201d and the explanation \u201cClosed examination of tax return\u201d can, as the Notice put it, \u201cserve as the functional equivalent of an estate tax closing letter.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many estate planning professionals have been frustrated with efforts to obtain such transcripts and in any event have not found that a transcript has the same dignity as a closing letter for purposes of documenting the propriety of making distributions, closing accounts, and taking other actions. While it has been suggested that the IRS abandoned automatic closing letters for budgetary reasons, that explanation has been hard to understand, because presumably a closing letter is (or could be) computer-generated from the same computer records that support transcripts, and it requires the same diligence to generate the transaction code \u201c421\u201d anyway. If this user fee project comes to fruition, it might lay to rest whatever real budgetary concerns there might have been.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This project first appeared in the 2007-2008 Plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first set of proposed regulations related to this project, Proposed Reg. \u00a720.2032-1(f) (REG-112196-07), was published on April 25, 2008. The preamble appeared to view these regulations as the resolution of \u201ctwo judicial decisions [that] have interpreted the language of section 2032 and its legislative history differently in determining whether post-death events other than market conditions may be taken into account under the alternate valuation method.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the first of these cases, Flanders v. United States<\/em>, 347 F. Supp. 95 (N.D. Calif. 1972), after a decedent\u2019s death in 1968, but before the alternate valuation date, the trustee of the decedent\u2019s (formerly) revocable trust, which held a one-half interest in a California ranch, entered into a land conservation agreement pursuant to California law. The conservation agreement reduced the value of the ranch by 88 percent. Since that reduced value was the value of the ranch at the alternate valuation date (which until 1971 was one year after death), the executor elected alternate valuation and reported the ranch at that value. Citing the Depression-era legislative history to the effect that alternate valuation was intended to protect decedents\u2019 estates against \u201cmany of the hardships which were experienced after 1929 when market values decreased very materially between the period from the date of death and the date of distribution to the beneficiaries,\u201d the court held that \u201cthe value reducing result of the post mortem act of the surviving trustee\u201d may not be considered in applying alternate valuation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second of these cases was Kohler v. Commissioner<\/em>, T.C. Memo. 2006-152, nonacq.<\/em>, 2008-9 I.R.B. 481, involving the estate of a shareholder of the well-known family-owned plumbing fixture manufacturer. The executor had received stock in a tax-free corporate reorganization that had been under consideration for about two years before the decedent\u2019s death but was not completed until about two months after the decedent\u2019s death. The court rejected the IRS\u2019s attempt to base the estate tax on the value of the stock surrendered<\/em> in the reorganization (which had been subject to fewer restrictions on transferability), on the ground that Reg. \u00a720.2032-1(c)(1) prevents that result by specifically refusing to treat stock surrendered in a tax-free reorganization as \u201cotherwise disposed of\u201d for purposes of section 2032(a)(1). The court also noted that the exchange of stock must have been for equal value or the reorganization would not have been tax-free as the parties had stipulated (although, ironically, the executor\u2019s own appraiser had determined a value of the pre-reorganization shares of $50.115 million and a value of the post-reorganization shares of $47.010 million \u2013 a difference of about 6.2 percent). The court distinguished Flanders<\/em>, where the post-death transaction itself reduced the value by 88 percent. The Tax Court in Kohler<\/em> viewed the 1935 legislative history relied on in Flanders<\/em> as irrelevant, because Reg. \u00a720.2032-1(c)(1) (promulgated in 1958) was clear and unambiguous and because \u201cthe legislative history describes the general purpose of the statute, not the specific meaning of \u2018otherwise disposed of\u2019 in the context of tax-free reorganizations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The 2008 proposed regulations would have made no change to Reg. \u00a720.2032-1(c)(1), on which the Kohler<\/em> court relied. But they invoked \u201cthe general purpose of the statute\u201d that was articulated in 1935, relied on in Flanders<\/em> but bypassed in Kohler<\/em>, to beef up Reg. \u00a720.2032-1(f), to clarify and emphasize, with both text and examples, that the benefits of alternate valuation are limited to changes in value due to \u201cmarket conditions.\u201d The 2008 proposed regulations would specifically add \u201cpost-death events other than market conditions\u201d to changes in value resulting from the \u201cmere lapse of time,\u201d which are ignored in determining the alternate value under section 2032(a)(3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n New proposed regulations (REG-112196-07) were published on November 18, 2011. The preamble stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSome commentators expressed concern that the proposed regulations (73 FR 22300) would create administrative problems because an estate would be required to trace property and to obtain appraisals based on hypothetical property \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMany commentators \u2026 suggested that the IRS and Treasury Department would better serve taxpayers and address any potential abuse [of the section 2032 election] by ensuring that the regulations address the issues described in this preamble rather than finalizing the approach taken in the proposed regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn view of the comments, the Treasury Department and the IRS are withdrawing the proposed regulations (73 FR 22300) by the publication of these proposed regulations in the Federal Register.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, in contrast to the 2008 approach of ignoring certain intervening events \u2013 and thereby potentially valuing assets six months after death on a hypothetical basis \u2013 the new approach is to expand the description of intervening events that are regarding as dispositions, triggering alternate valuation as of that date. The expanded list, in Proposed Reg. \u00a720.2032-1(c)(1)(i), includes distributions, exchanges (whether taxable or not), and contributions to capital or other changes to the capital structure or ownership of an entity, including \u201cthe dilution of the decedent\u2019s ownership interest in the entity due to the issuance of additional ownership interests in the entity.\u201d Proposed Reg. \u00a720.2032-1(c)(1)(i)(I)(1<\/em>). But under Proposed Reg. \u00a720.2032-1(c)(1)(ii), an exchange of interests in a corporation, partnership, or other entity is not counted if the fair market values of the interests before and after the exchange differ by no more than 5 percent (which would still subject a 6.2 percent difference as in Kohler<\/em> to the new rules). If the interest involved is only a fraction of the decedent\u2019s total interest, an aggregation rule in Proposed Reg. \u00a720.2032-1(c)(1)(iv) values such interests at a pro rata share of the decedent\u2019s total interest. The proposed regulations also include special rules for coordinating with annuities and similar payments (\u00a720.2032-1(c)(1)(iii)(B)) and excepting qualified conservation easements (\u00a720.2032-1(c)(4)), and also many more examples (\u00a720.2032-1(c)(5), (e) Example (2)<\/em>, (f)(2)(B) & (f)(3)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the 2008 proposed regulations were referred to as the \u201canti-Kohler<\/em> regulations,\u201d the most significant impact of these proposed regulations may fall on efforts to bootstrap an estate into a valuation discount by distributing or otherwise disposing of a minority or other noncontrolling interest within the six-month period after death (valuing it as a minority interest under section 2032(a)(1)) and leaving another minority or noncontrolling interest to be valued six months after death (also valued as a minority interest under section 2032(a)(2)). Examples 7 and 8 of Proposed Reg. \u00a720.2032-1(c)(5) specifically address the discount-bootstrap technique \u2013 Example 8 in the context of a limited liability company and Example 7 in the context of real estate \u2013 and leave no doubt that changes in value due to \u201cmarket conditions\u201d do not include the valuation discounts that might appear to be created by partial distributions. Example 1 reaches the same result with respect to the post-death formation of a limited partnership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The 2008 proposed regulations were to be effective April 25, 2008, the date the proposed regulations were published. The 2011 proposed regulations, more traditionally, state that they will be effective when published as final regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This project first appeared in the 2008-2009 Plan as an outgrowth of the project that led to the final amendments of the section 2053 regulations in October 2009. The significance of present value concepts is elaborated in this paragraph in the preamble to the 2009 regulations (T.D. 9468, 74 Fed. Reg. 53652 (Oct. 20, 2009)):<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSome commentators suggested that the disparate treatment afforded noncontingent obligations (deduction for present value of obligations) versus contingent obligations (dollar-for-dollar deduction as paid) is inequitable and produces an inconsistent result without meaningful justification. These commentators requested that the final regulations allow an estate to choose between deducting the present value of a noncontingent recurring payment on the estate tax return, or instead deducting the amounts paid in the same manner as provided for a contingent obligation (after filing an appropriate protective claim for refund). The Treasury Department and the IRS find the arguments against the disparate treatment of noncontingent and contingent obligations to be persuasive. The final regulations eliminate the disparate treatment by removing the present value limitation applicable only to noncontingent recurring payments. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the issue of the appropriate use of present value in determining the amount of the deduction allowable under section 2053 merits further consideration. The final regulations reserve \u00a7 20.2053-1(d)(6) to provide future guidance on this issue.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n But it is easy to see how the Treasury Department\u2019s and the IRS\u2019s \u201cfurther consideration\u201d of \u201cthe appropriate use of present value concepts\u201d could turn their focus to the leveraged benefit in general that can be obtained when a claim or expense is paid long after the due date of the estate tax, but the additional estate tax reduction is credited as of, and earns interest from, that due date. Graegin<\/em> loans (see Estate of Graegin v. Commissioner<\/em>, T.C. Memo. 1988-477) could be an obvious target of such consideration. If this project results in a deduction of only the present value of the payment, as of the due date of the tax, and<\/em> the discount rate used in the calculation of the present value is the same as the rate of interest on the tax refund, and<\/em> the interest is not subject to income tax (or the discount rate is also reduced by the income tax rate), then the invocation of \u201cpresent value concepts\u201d might make very little difference on paper. But it might require legislation to accomplish all these things. Moreover, because claims or expenses are rarely paid exactly on the due date of the tax, the precise<\/em> application of such principles might be exceedingly complicated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The current mortality tables, based on 2000 census data, became effective May 1, 2009. Previous mortality tables had taken effect on May 1, 1989, and May 1, 1999. Section 7520(c)(2) mandates revision of the tables at least once every ten years. Thus, this project appears to be that routine revision, to reflect 2010 census data and to be effective as of May 1, 2019. It was not completed by that date, although it reportedly is near completion now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is reasonable to assume that there will be transitional relief for taxpayers who, since May 1, 2019, have relied on the mortality tables that took effect May 1, 2009. Because the mortality tables have not been late before, there is no model for such transitional relief. But even the timely promulgation of the 2009 mortality tables provided what the preamble described as \u201ccertain transitional rules intended to alleviate any adverse consequences resulting from the proposed regulatory change.\u201d T.D. 9448, 74 Fed. Reg. 21438, 21439 (May 7, 2009). The 2009 preamble went on to elaborate:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFor gift tax purposes, if the date of a transfer is on or after May 1, 2009, but before July 1, 2009, the donor may choose to determine the value of the gift (and\/or any applicable charitable deduction) under tables based on either [the 1990 or 2000 census data]. Similarly, for estate tax purposes, if the decedent dies on or after May 1, 2009, but before July 1, 2009, the value of any interest (and\/or any applicable charitable deduction) may be determined in the discretion of the decedent\u2019s executor under tables based on either [the 1990 or 2000 census data]. However, the section 7520 interest rate to be utilized is the appropriate rate for the month in which the valuation date occurs, subject to the \u2026 special rule [in section 7520(a)] for certain charitable transfers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In other words, transitional relief may be provided with respect to the actuarial components of calculations based on mortality (life expectancy) tables, but not with respect to merely financial components such as applicable federal rates and the section 7520 rate, which have been published monthly as usual without interruption. For example, such transitional relief would apply to the calculations since May 1, 2019, of the values of an interest for life, an interest for joint lives, an interest for life or a term whichever is shorter or longer, or a remainder following such an interest. But no transitional relief would be necessary for calculations related, for example, to promissory notes or GRATs that involve only fixed terms without mortality components, which the new mortality tables would not affect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the following items that have previously appeared in Priority Guidance Plans and are now omitted may not be a \u201cfocus\u201d of Treasury and the IRS for the next seven months, it should not be assumed that they are abandoned or forgotten, or that we will not see action on such items sometime in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \u201cclawback\u201d issue was the subject of Capital Letter Number 46<\/u><\/strong><\/a>. The publication of the final \u201canti-clawback\u201d regulations was Number Seven in the Top Ten Estate Planning and Estate Tax Developments of 2019, Capital Letter Number 49<\/u><\/strong><\/a>. That discussion described both the relief from potential \u201cclawback\u201d of large gifts made before 2026 when the doubled basic exclusion amount is currently scheduled to \u201csunset\u201d and the assurances in the final regulations that portability elections made before that sunset will be fully protected after the sunset. The omission of clawback from the 2020-2021 Priority Guidance Plan is consistent with the fact that the anti-clawback guidance was thereby completed in 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But another issue was identified in the preamble to the final regulations, which stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA commenter recommended consideration of an anti-abuse provision to prevent the application of the special rule to transfers made during the increased BEA period that are not true inter vivos transfers, but rather are treated as testamentary transfers for transfer tax purposes. Examples include transfers subject to a retained life estate or other retained powers or interests, and certain transfers within the purview of chapter 14 of subtitle B of the Code. The purpose of the special rule is to ensure that bona fide inter vivos transfers are not subject to inconsistent treatment for estate tax purposes. Arguably, the possibility of inconsistent treatment does not arise with regard to transfers that are treated as part of the gross estate for estate tax purposes, rather than as adjusted taxable gifts. An anti-abuse provision could except from the application of the special rule transfers where value is included in the donor\u2019s gross estate at death. Although the Treasury Department and the IRS agree that such a provision is within the scope of the regulatory authority granted in section 2001(g)(2), such an anti-abuse provision would benefit from prior notice and comment. Accordingly, this issue will be reserved to allow further consideration of this comment.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\nIMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2017 TAX ACT<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Deduction of Estate and Trust Expenses<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Opportunity Zones and Grantor Trusts<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
BURDEN REDUCTIO<\/strong>N<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Basis Consistency<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Relief Regarding GST Exemption Allocations and Elections<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
GENERAL GUIDANCE<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\u201c1. Guidance on basis of grantor trust assets at death under \u00a71014\u201d<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\u201c2. Guidance on user fee for estate tax closing letters under \u00a72001.\u201d<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\u201c3. Regulations under \u00a72032(a) regarding imposition of restrictions on estate assets during the six month alternate valuation period. Proposed regulations were published on November 18, 2011.\u201d<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\u201c4. Regulations under \u00a72053 regarding personal guarantees and the application of present value concepts in determining the deductible amount of expenses and claims against the estate.\u201d<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\u201c5. Regulations under \u00a77520 regarding the use of actuarial tables in valuing annuities, interests for life or terms of years, and remainder or reversionary interests.\u201d<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
OMISSIONS FROM THE PRIORITY GUIDANCE PLAN<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Anti-Clawback Regulations<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n