Tax Planning Advice: Avoid Inaccurate Formula Clauses—Martin Shenkman

Using inaccurate formula clauses in legal documents can be quite taxing.

More On Tax Planning

from The Advisor's Professional Library
  • Charitable Giving Charitable giving can reduce your clients’ tax liabilities. However, the general and verification rules for the deduction of charitable gifts must be understood in order to take full tax advantage of such gifts.
  • Health Insurance: Health and Medical Savings Accounts A Health Savings Account is a trust created exclusively for the purpose of paying qualified medical expenses of an account beneficiary. Although they are popular, they are not without their pitfalls and the regulations can be complicated. Learn more about how to avoid federal taxation on the accumulation and distributions of HSA.

This is the seventh in a series of 23 tax tips that AdvisorOne will publish on each business day in March as part of our Tax Planning Special Report (see our Special Report calendar for a more complete list of topics to be covered and experts who will deliver their insights).

Today’s tax tip comes from Martin Shenkman of Shenkman Law, with offices in New Jersey and New York. Shenkman is the author of 34 books, hundreds of magazine and journal articles, and received his undergraduate education from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, his MBA from the University of Michigan, and his JD from Fordham University.

The Tip: Use Accurate Formula Clauses in Legal Agreements.

Martin ShenkmanShenkman (left) says it is unfortunately common for tax advisors to use inaccurate tax terms and definitions when creating formula clauses or definitions in a myriad of legal documents. Too often these clauses are also not updated for changes in the tax law, he points out.

For example, providing that a buyout of a business is based on tax book value could result in wide swings in economic effect given the tremendous changes in the maximum amount of equipment that could be deducted in the year of purchase under Code Section 179. Because of broad changes in Section 179 allowances, drastic differences in valuation can result depending on which year the Section 179 allowances were determined.

 

He cites, as an example of an inaccurate formula clause, “One we’re looking at now: an $8 million estate. The will says, ‘the maximum amount that won’t create an estate tax to kids, balance to new spouse.’ What do the kids get?” he asks. The executor, he adds, is the oldest child. Can he elect in 2010 to have the carryover basis rules apply? If they do, “the largest amount that can pass with no tax is unlimited, so the kids get everything and the new wife gets nothing.” Definitely not the benefactor’s intent. And, Shenkman points out, “the legal fees will be significant.”

Other potential problems from tying permanent valuations to changeable regulations can include everything from prenups to shareholder buy-sell agreements that have been tied to estate tax valuations—consider how that played out for 2010, with the sunset clause and the subsequent reinstatement of the estate tax retroactive to Jan. 1.

“While this is not a tax mistake,” Shenkman admits, “ it is a mistake that is taxing.”

See our Tax Planning Special Report calendar for a list of topics covered.

Reprints Discuss this story
This is where the comments go.