Lifetime Giving
|
Copyright 1992, 1998 - Thomas J. Keating, IV, All Rights Reserved
|
Section Three - Personal &
Family Objectives
|
 |
3.1 The Personal Object of Giving.
Gifts should not be made if they are likely to have a negative,
rather than positive, effect upon the recipient, and each donor
must carefully and candidly analyze this question.
Some possible positive effects which gifts may have on the recipients
are (a) teaching them manage capital, (b) allowing them to acquire
additional education or broadening experience, (c) permitting them
to select worthwhile but less than normally remunerative careers,
and (d) alleviating hardships for the recipient or others who are
dependent upon the recipient.
Some possible negative effects might be (a) impairing the
self-sufficiency or self-reliance of the recipient, (b) subsidizing
indolence on the part of the recipient, or (c) allowing the
recipient to indulge in spendthrift, self-indulgent, or other
destructive or non-productive behavior.
3.2 Early Access to Capital.
Two positive but often overlooked features of lifetime giving,
from the viewpoint of the donee, have to do with (a) the time
value of money, and (b) the value of having capital available
at a time in one's life when one has the physical stamina, the
mental agility, the sense of purpose, and the remaining active
life expectancy to make effective use of it.
The former feature is simply a mathematical recognition that if
you have a dollar today it will do you more good than if you do
not have that same dollar until some future date, because of the
investment return which that dollar, and its progeny, will produce
in the interim.
For example, a ten percent average net return on investment,
periodically reinvested, will swell the value of a $600,000 gift
to over $1,500,000 in a period of ten years. The latter feature,
although admittedly a bit more uncertain or imprecise to measure,
is increasingly important now that people are living so much
longer than they used to.
If the parent's death does not occur at age 60 or 70, as used
typically to be the case, but at 80 or 90, as is often true
today, the child receives his inheritance at age 65 instead of at
age 45.
Few people at age 65 would be inclined (or would be successful
even if they were inclined) to start or expand a business, would
be likely to take up a more agreeable employment or place of
residence, or would be able to provide improved educational or
other opportunities for their children.
The pundit glibly says that "timing is everything". Not
strictly true, of course, but the saying does remind us that
timeliness is an ingredient in determining the overall effectiveness
of almost any course of action.
3.3 "Protecting" the Donee. A
concern which affects many prospective donors relates to the
donee's perceived ability (or willingness) to treat the gifted
property as the donor would wish him to, e.g., managing it
cautiously but astutely, spending only the income from it
(if that), and generally emulating the donor's own conservative
financial management practices.
The donor fears that the donee will not adhere to these standards;
and that instead, through immaturity, naivete, inattention, bad
advice, riotous living, or some combination thereof, he will
dissipate the gifted property.
These fears are difficult for an advisor to assuage, in part
because there truly are some significant risks involved. Where
it appears that the risks are higher than normal, the advisor may
want to suggest the use of trusts or other protective mechanisms
to bring the risk down to an acceptable level.
These risks, which are after all largely unquantifiable, should
always be evaluated (a) in light of the known alternative, which
is a death tax burden equal to at least 37% of the amount of
the unmade gift, and (b) in light of the fact that the donee
may also dissipate the property when he inherits it five or
ten or twenty years from now.
Might it not be more prudent to give the donee two separate
bites at the apple - one in the form of substantial present
gifts and the other in the form of a future inheritance?
Arguably at least, the skills gained and lessons learned now
in connection with the gifted property will better enable him
later to care for the inheritance.
3.4 Gifts to the Inexperienced.
If the prospective recipient is young or inexperienced, or if
for other reasons it is inappropriate to make the gift outright
to the recipient, it can be made, in the case of gifts to
minors, to a custodian appointed by the donor under the provisions
of the appropriate Uniform Transfer to Minors Act, or,
alternatively, whatever the recipient's age, to a trust
created by the donor for the benefit of the recipient.
In the latter instance, if the gift is intended to qualify for the
gift tax annual exclusion, special techniques must be employed
to preserve the benefit of that exclusion.
Substantial gifts to one's grandchildren can create serious
problems for their parents; such gifts can reduce parental
authority, can impair the parent's ability to discipline
effectively, and can create an unjustified sense of importance
and entitlement on the part of the youthful donee.
There is no absolute cure for this concern, but there are two
known palliatives. One is to let the child know that future
generosity will be conditioned upon the child's reaction to
present gifts, but this of course works only after the child is
of a certain age.
The other is to use trusts or other devices to delay or control
the donee's access to the gifted property. Common courtesy, and
experience, strongly suggest that gifts not be made to your
grandchildren until after you have had a full and frank discussion
of these issues with their parents.
There is a saying that "Money is the root of all evil".
There is no denying that too much money in too young hands has
the potential to produce tragic results, but there are ways for
the sensible donor to inculcate a sense of responsibility, a
concept of stewardship, and a view of capital as a tool to
achieve long-term beneficial purposes.
Money on its own, without training in the care and use of it,
indeed can blight the life of the recipient; it is important that
the donor assure himself that the recipient is getting the proper
education to go along with the gift.
3.5 The Problem of Family Asymmetry.
Most people have a powerful inclination to treat their children,
and their children's respective descendants, equally when it comes
to lifetime gifts. Not a bad idea, but one which can seriously
impede a gift program if one of the children is childless.
Often, in this situation, the potential donor simply "writes
off" the possibility of gifts to grandchildren rather than
confront this issue. There is no universally good answer to this;
it is a clear case for weighing and balancing the various factors
involved.
One solution which can make good sense in cases where the tax
planning need is acute is for the donor to use up some of his
or her exclusion to make additional gifts to the childless child.
Where the family asymmetry is not so great (e.g., all the
children have children but some have more than others) the favorite
solution seems to be to give the maximum annual exclusion amount
to the smallest branch of the family and an equal amount to
all of the other branches, which has the effect of reducing the
"per capita" amount passing to the larger families.
Not an optimum tax planning result but one with which most
clients seem to have the greatest degree of comfort.
|
Next Page
Table of Contents
Law Offices of Thomas J. Keating IV
Centreville, Maryland, USA
|
About the Site |
Home Truths |
Bibliography
Food for Thought |
Random Thoughts |
Front Page
Copyright © 1998-2002, Thomas J. Keating IV
Web site by BIS.
|