Joint Tenants Are Happy. Property owners are universally unhappy that the taxable value of their property gets "uncapped" at death. In the case of a married couple, the property gets uncapped at the second death, with taxable value rising to fair market value for the year after the second death.
A popular tactic in the circumstances has been for a husband and wife to execute a deed transferring the property to husband, wife and child, as joint tenants with full rights of survivorship. Alternatively, if husband dies first, wife can do the same thing, transferring the property to herself and son, as joint tenants.
The Michigan Department of Treasury has taken the position that in the circumstances described above, the property is uncapped when wife dies (the second death), unless the son was a joint owner in 1994, when the new property tax laws were enacted.
A popular tactic in the circumstances has been for a husband and wife to execute a deed transferring the property to husband, wife and child, as joint tenants with full rights of survivorship. Alternatively, if husband dies first, wife can do the same thing, transferring the property to herself and son, as joint tenants.
The Michigan Department of Treasury has taken the position that in the circumstances described above, the property is uncapped when wife dies (the second death), unless the son was a joint owner in 1994, when the new property tax laws were enacted.
New Case. These were essentially the facts in a recent decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals in Klooster v. City of Charlevoix, decided December 15, 2009.
In Klooster, husband and wife, James and Donna Klooster, owned property as tenants by the entireties. In August, 2004, Donna quit claimed her interest to James. On the same day, James, the sole owner, quit claimed his property to himself and their son, Nathan Klooster, as joint tenants, with rights of survivorship.
James died in January, 2005. Then in September, 2005, Nathan executed a quit claim deed, creating a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship with his brother, Charles Klooster. The City of Charlevoix asserted in 2006 that the property had become uncapped at the death of James in 2005 and that the taxable value was to be uncapped, approximately doubling.
The Michigan Tax Tribunal affirmed the decision by the Assessor and the Board of Review that uncapping had occurred.
The question before the Court of Appeals was whether James' death was a "transfer of ownership", as defined by the Michigan statutes. Unfortunately, the specific sections of the statute are ambiguous.
Many practitioners throughout Michigan have observed this ambiguity and have assisted in the creation of joint tenancies, usually between parents and children, in the hope of avoiding an uncapping when the last parent dies.
Without getting into the technicalities of the Court's analysis of the statutory language, we would note that the analysis by the Court of Appeals will probably be challenged on appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.
In Klooster, husband and wife, James and Donna Klooster, owned property as tenants by the entireties. In August, 2004, Donna quit claimed her interest to James. On the same day, James, the sole owner, quit claimed his property to himself and their son, Nathan Klooster, as joint tenants, with rights of survivorship.
James died in January, 2005. Then in September, 2005, Nathan executed a quit claim deed, creating a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship with his brother, Charles Klooster. The City of Charlevoix asserted in 2006 that the property had become uncapped at the death of James in 2005 and that the taxable value was to be uncapped, approximately doubling.
The Michigan Tax Tribunal affirmed the decision by the Assessor and the Board of Review that uncapping had occurred.
The question before the Court of Appeals was whether James' death was a "transfer of ownership", as defined by the Michigan statutes. Unfortunately, the specific sections of the statute are ambiguous.
Many practitioners throughout Michigan have observed this ambiguity and have assisted in the creation of joint tenancies, usually between parents and children, in the hope of avoiding an uncapping when the last parent dies.
Without getting into the technicalities of the Court's analysis of the statutory language, we would note that the analysis by the Court of Appeals will probably be challenged on appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Trustworthy Decision? At this point, it is too early to say what the Michigan Supreme Court will decide and whether the Michigan legislature will address this potential loophole and clarify the language of the statute.
If the Klooster decision is upheld by the Supreme Court, taxpayers are faced with the further questions whether any legislative fix could be retroactive to joint tenancies created prior to a statutory change.
We have employed this strategy for clients on occasion, with the caveat that the Michigan Department of Treasury has consistently taken the position, in the facts outlined above, that the property gets uncapped at the parent's death.
Should clients rush out and attempt to do the same thing to forestall uncapping? That raises another question, "what is the downside of trying?" Depending on the facts involved, there may not be much downside from clients trying to get in under the wire, where the facts are clear and where the creation of a joint tenancy fits in with the overall estate plan.
If the Klooster decision is upheld by the Supreme Court, taxpayers are faced with the further questions whether any legislative fix could be retroactive to joint tenancies created prior to a statutory change.
We have employed this strategy for clients on occasion, with the caveat that the Michigan Department of Treasury has consistently taken the position, in the facts outlined above, that the property gets uncapped at the parent's death.
Should clients rush out and attempt to do the same thing to forestall uncapping? That raises another question, "what is the downside of trying?" Depending on the facts involved, there may not be much downside from clients trying to get in under the wire, where the facts are clear and where the creation of a joint tenancy fits in with the overall estate plan.
Stay Tuned. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "it ain't over till it's over."
If you have questions concerning uncapping, joint tenancy and integration with your overall estate plan, please call Jim Modrall or Tom Pezzetti or any of the attorneys listed below.
Donald A. Brandt, Joseph C. Fisher, Thomas R. Alward, Matthew D. Vermetten, Susan Jill Rice, Gary D. Popovits, H. Douglas Shepherd, Laura E. Garneau, David H. Rowe and Nicole R. Graf at (231) 941-9660
If you have questions concerning uncapping, joint tenancy and integration with your overall estate plan, please call Jim Modrall or Tom Pezzetti or any of the attorneys listed below.
Donald A. Brandt, Joseph C. Fisher, Thomas R. Alward, Matthew D. Vermetten, Susan Jill Rice, Gary D. Popovits, H. Douglas Shepherd, Laura E. Garneau, David H. Rowe and Nicole R. Graf at (231) 941-9660
©BRANDT, FISHER, ALWARD & PEZZETTI, P.C.
This newsletter is provided for informational purposes and should not be acted upon without professional advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment