SPECIAL DEAL ON LONG TERM CARE INSURANCE

Long Term Care Insurance - Peace of Mind and Protection. As we have mentioned in prior newsletters, we estate planners typically recommend Long Term Care ("LTC") insurance for clients who want to protect their assets from the drain of long term care, whether provided in a nursing home or in the patient’s own home. The principle objections or obstacles to the purchase of long term care insurance is: (1) the cost; or,(2) bad health.

We have pointed out in previous newsletters that both cost and health conditions may be mitigated by single premium life insurance policy with an LTC rider. That is, excess liquid funds such as CD’s can be converted into an insurance policy with LTC benefits and a death benefit for family, in the event the LTC benefit is not needed.

Special Incentive. A recent article in the insurance section of the MainStreet.com newsletter of March 3, 2009 has called our attention to a special provision of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 ("PPA") that permits the conversion of existing life insurance policies or annuities to LTC insurance effective January 1, 2010 without income tax penalties.

Built-in Tax Penalties. Many clients have life insurance policies, often paid up, which have a potential income tax cost on the income build up in the policy, in the event the policy is cashed in during lifetime. Similarly, annuities - variable, fixed or combination - often have a built-in tax liability on accumulated income. Being able to acquire LTC insurance with a lump sum premium (the cash value of the life insurance policy or annuity) could be a good alternative for clients with existing contracts who want to protect their estates against the cost of long term care, whether home bound or nursing home.

New Products. MainStreet.com points out that insurers are currently designing policies to meet the demand for the tax free exchanges permitted by PPA. Heretofore, a single premium life insurance with LTC benefit has been a popular option for clients who have liquid assets and are young enough or healthy enough to qualify for a single premium policy.

Keep in touch with your insurance advisor to stay informed of new products which may be offered later this year with LTC benefits that are attractive. These products may mirror some of the special features of existing single pay policies such as return of premium and/or death benefit in addition to LTC coverage. MainStreet.com estimates that new policies will probably provide for single premiums of $50,000-$200,000, depending on the benefits chosen, age, etc.

Why LTC Insurance? Long term care needs are a fact of life for many of us as we live longer. Statistics show that of people reaching the age of 85, 50% will have some form of mental deficiency such as Dementia, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, or related brain dysfunctions. While the term "nursing home" has bad connotations, my personal experiences have been that nursing home care may not only be a necessity but a blessing for both the patient and family members. Care giving chores for dementia patients can become onerous for individual care givers and beyond the abilities of many. Many patients do better in a nursing home with continual company and attention as opposed to many hours of solitude in their own surroundings.

Moreover, we have seen the benefits of long term care insurance in helping patients to remain at home as long as possible by providing a care giver with much-needed assistance.

Many clients recognize the benefits of long term care insurance but are either too old or unhealthy to qualify or, alternatively, state that they cannot afford the premiums. We advise clients to investigate LTC coverage before age 70. The new tax free exchange provisions of PPA may provide just the incentive many people need to acquire LTC coverage on a tax advantaged basis and thereby protect assets from the devastation of nursing home costs, should an extended period of nursing home care be required.

If you have any questions concerning long term care insurance, Medicaid planning or your estate planning, please contact Jim Modrall or any of the attorneys listed below.

Donald A. Brandt, Joseph C. Fisher, Thomas R. Alward, Matthew D. Vermetten, Thomas A. Pezzetti, Jr., Susan Jill Rice, Gary D. Popovits, H. Douglas Shepherd, Laura E. Garneau and David H. Rowe 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.

DIVORCE TRAP

Have You Been Divorced or Do You Have Friends Who Have Been Divorced? Hardly anyone I know could avoid a yes answer to either of these alternative questions. Divorce has become a common part of our daily lives.

The recent decision of the United State Supreme Court involving a divorced decedent and his retirement plan highlights at the highest level a problem that we as trust and estate attorneys see frequently.

The Kennedy Facts. William Kennedy worked for DuPont. He named his wife as beneficiary of his retirement plan, with no contingent beneficiary. William and his wife divorced with a provision in the divorce decree divesting his wife, Liv, of her interest in William’s retirement plan. This is a common provision in divorce decrees and settlement agreements.

You can guess what happened. William did not file a change of beneficiary before he died. DuPont or the plan administrator paid the balance of the retirement funds to Liv. William’s Personal Representative, his daughter, filed suit against DuPont for improper payment of the plan benefit based on several legal arguments. The estate won in the District Court. The Circuit Court reversed, holding that Liv was the beneficiary under the plan and that the plan administrator was therefore bound to pay the benefits to her. Going all the way to the United States Supreme Court, the Circuit Court was affirmed. Payment to Liv, the ex-wife, was proper despite the divorce decree. The Supreme Court did not mention any rights that the estate might have against Liv to recover the funds already paid.

Divorce Settlements Can Be Confusing. As mentioned above, it is a common provision in divorce decrees and property settlements that the respective parties either relinquish any interest as a spouse in the other’s retirement plan, or sometimes when the retirement plan assets are large and disproportionate, the divorce decree and settlement provides for an assignment to the less advantaged spouse of a portion of the other spouse’s retirement plan under what is called a QDRO, a Court Order dividing a qualified retirement plan and permitted by federal law.

In addition to retirement plan benefits, typically divorce decrees and property settlements have specific provisions relating to life insurance policies and the obligation of the spouse/owner to continue a beneficiary designation or permitting a change of beneficiary. Michigan law (and also the laws of other states) provides that a divorce nullifies a spousal beneficiary designation. Problems arise where no action has been taken to formally change the designation of a divorced spouse as primary beneficiary prior to the death of the insured.

The difference between life insurance and retirement plans, however, is that federal law trumps state law where certain qualified retirement plans are concerned, as was stressed by the US Supreme Court in the Kennedy v. DuPont case.

Result for the Decedent’s Estate. Both situations involving retirement plans and life insurance (or annuities, as the case may be), with an intervening divorce, are a ripe area for litigation, and possible loss by the decedent’s estate, children, or subsequent spouse. The situation arises because of the failure of the spouse who is the owner of the retirement plan or insurance policy to carry through with the terms of a divorce and change the beneficiary designation. Whether this is the fault of the individual or the individual’s attorney, can be debated in each case based on facts and circumstances. This lack of attention to housekeeping details can be disastrous and is a common source of litigation. The insurance company or retirement plan administrator does not mind paying out the death benefit, it just does not want to pay out twice.

The moral of the Kennedy case and similar situations is that divorced individuals should pay attention to the details of their property settlements and divorce decrees and make sure that each item requiring attention has been attended to, including deeds, title transfers and beneficiary designations.

Often, unfortunately, after a long, difficult divorce proceeding, the parties are so relieved to have it finished that they neglect the details of implementing the agreement. If you have been divorced, check again to make sure that all of the property divisions agreed to have been accomplished including beneficiary designations. If you have friends who have been divorced, you might remind them of the Kennedy case and suggest that they attend to their own details to make sure that their families are not subjected to the expense and delay of litigation to say nothing of the possible lost resources.

Conclusion. Divorce plays an important role in estate planning and needs to be carefully considered when the estate plan of each spouse is reviewed and updated. If you have a need for a review or update of your estate planning documents, with or without references to a divorce decree, please contact Jim Modrall or any of the attorneys listed below.

Donald A. Brandt, Joseph C. Fisher, Thomas R. Alward, Matthew D. Vermetten, Thomas A. Pezzetti, Jr., Susan Jill Rice, Gary D. Popovits, H. Douglas Shepherd, Laura E. Garneau and David H. Rowe 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.

Anatomical Gifts - Recent Developments

Michigan Expands Laws. Effective May 1, 2008, Michigan adopted the Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Law, which amended, expanded and replaced many of the provisions of the original 1978 statute.

Drivers licenses and the Secretary of State’s Registry have been the primary method for expressing willingness to make an anatomical gift at death. Paramedics and ambulance crews are experienced in reviewing the back of your drivers license to see if there is any indication of a willingness a make an anatomical gift. However, let’s face it, most of us don’t like to think about this subject. I would venture a guess that very few people have made a donor intent known by inscribing the back of their drivers license and, more probably, have not registered with the Secretary of State for electronic recording of a willingness to make an anatomical gift.

Expression By Will. Our Estate Planning Questionnaire contains a space for indicating a desire to make an anatomical gift at death. Frankly, a relatively small percentage of clients make such wishes known in their Will.
　
The new statute broadly defines a document of gift to include donor card or "other record used to make an anatomical gift", which would include a Will.

In the event of an accident, or in the event of many medical interventions, a donor’s Will simply is not available. Its contents may not be known to family and friends, much less hospital and doctors.

How To Address the Problem. The new statute, MCL 333.10112 makes it mandatory for any person rendering medical assistance to make a reasonable search of an individual for indication of donor intent or refusal. This obligation is imposed on medical professionals, hospitals, law enforcement officers, fire fighters, doctors or other emergency rescuers. This new provision does not impose civil or criminal liability so has no practical teeth.

From an estate planning standpoint, however, the important point is make donorative intent, if any, known to medical professionals and the family. Generally, clients who want to make anatomical gifts have strong feelings on the subject. Those intentions may or may not be made known to spouses, children or other friends and relatives.
　
Medical Power of Attorney. It appears, therefore, that clients who have a serious intent for anatomical donations at death should:

1) Make a notation on their drivers license.

2) Register with the Secretary of State.

3) Alternatively, or including any of the above, make a specific provision in his or her Will.

4) Finally, if the only action taken is a provision in a Will or Codicil, we recommend a provision in the Medical Power of Attorney (Patient Advocate Designation) making known that there is an anatomical gift provision in the patient’s Will. Typically, if there is a hospital stay, the Patient Advocate Designation is available and referred to.

Recommendation. Refer to your Medical Power of Attorney, whether the printed form such as Five Wishes or the document drafted by us. If you have a serious intent to make an anatomical gift, in the event of death, make sure your MPOA has a reference to your intention and your Will, if you have made provisions there of your intentions to make an anatomical gift.

Decisions by Relatives. The new Michigan statute has an expanded list of individuals who are authorized to make anatomical gifts at death, provided there is no clear intention that a decedent has refused to make such gifts or has issued instructions barring any anatomical gifts, whether for transplants or research. Similarly, the new law contains provisions for oral instruction, positive or negative, and the revocation of previous instruction.

　
Moreover, the new law contains provisions for reconciling any differences that might occur between the administration of care and potential medical treatments.

Gruesome Subject. We realize that this is not a typical subject for dinner table conversation. However, it is receiving increasing attention as a result of medical advances. If your feelings are strong one way or the other about organ donations, we suggest we make your wishes known in your Will or Codicil and in your Medical Power of Attorney. For many people, this is not a subject of concern and debate. However, if this is a matter of concern to you and you wish to add an anatomical provisions to your Will and/or to your Medical Power of Attorney, we will be happy to assist you and prepare the necessary documentation for nominal fee of $50 for simple provisions.

If you have any other matters of concern concerning your existing estate planning documents, please contact Jim Modrall or any of the attorneys listed below.

Donald A. Brandt, Joseph C. Fisher, Thomas R. Alward, Matthew D. Vermetten, Thomas A. Pezzetti, Jr., Susan Jill Rice, Gary D. Popovits, H. Douglas Shepherd, Laura E. Garneau and David H. Rowe at (231) 941-9660

©BRANDT, FISHER, ALWARD & PEZZETTI, P.C.
*These articles are meant strictly for informational purposes. Nothing contained therein should be construed as legal advice.

All In The Family

Introduction. The purpose of our newsletter is to inform readers of what we think are interesting developments in the estate planning and elder law areas. Occasionally, related income tax developments come to our attention which we think some readers might find interesting.

What is a "Family"? A recent decision of the Tax Court in the Leonard case involves an interesting court decision on what constitutes a family for income tax purposes. We are all aware of the dependency deduction. The dependent deduction shows up boldly on the income tax return. However, there are other income tax issues that are directly affected by the financial arrangements involving a group of individuals, related or not, residing in a common residence.
While this may not affect our readers directly, you may be aware of friends or other members of your family who may have similar circumstances.

Danita Leonard Facts. Danita Leonard was an unmarried individual with full time employment. She provided 80% of the household expenses for her roommate, her roommate’s two grandchildren, and herself.

On her federal income tax return for 2005 she claimed:

1) head of household status;
2) adjusted gross income under $30,000;
3) a dependency deduction for her roommate and her roommate’s grandchildren;
4) child care credit;
5) child tax credit;
6) unearned income credit.

(She also claimed an education credit for college courses she took in connection with her employment, an issue not germane to our discussion here.)

The IRS challenged all of the items for which Danita claimed eligibility. It is of great interest that Danita represented herself all the way to the Tax Court, which ruled that Danita was:

1)entitled to head of household status;
2)entitled to claim a dependency exemption for her roommate;
3)entitled to claim dependency exemptions for the grandchildren of the roommate, because each was qualified as a qualifying relative;
4) not entitled to a child tax credit;
5) not eligible for the earned income credit;
6) eligible the education tax credit.

Comments We credit Attorney Marc Soss, a contributor to our estate planning newsletter from Leimburg Services with bringing this case to our attention. The case was entered under Section 7463(b), which means that it cannot be claimed as a precedent in other cases. However, practitioners in family law and estate planning may well use the principles enunciated in this case in advising people about the income tax benefits of various living and expense sharing arrangements.

Brief Review. To qualify for "Head of Household" treatment, a taxpayer must not be married or a surviving spouse at the close the taxable year. Moreover, the taxpayer has to have a dependent living in the home as the dependent’s "principal place of abode". Without getting into specifics and technicalities, the Tax Court found that one or more of the persons living in Danita Leonard’s house, for which she was providing the principal support, qualified as dependents under IRC Section 152. In fact, the Court determined that Leonard’s roommate and the roommates two minor grandchildren were dependents.

Conclusion. The purpose of highlighting the Leonard decision is to point out that there are many living arrangements involving individuals related or unrelated who care for minor children. While many such living arrangements involve taxpayers at or near the poverty level, often individuals with more substantial incomes provide such support. All "these un-conventional families" need to study the possible tax benefits of "head of household" status.

We would also express respect and admiration for the taxpayer, Danita Leonard, who pursued and argued her own case in front of the Court. For the more specific references for readers, friends or advisors, we refer them to Leonard v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion, 2008-141.

We hope you find this comment of interest and further hope that it may find applicability among the members of your family, friends or acquaintances.

If you have questions concerning estate planning matters, including elder law or medicaid eligibility, please contact Jim Modrall or any of the attorneys listed below.

Donald A. Brandt, Joseph C. Fisher, Thomas R. Alward, Matthew D. Vermetten, Thomas A. Pezzetti, Jr., Susan Jill Rice, Gary D. Popovits, H. Douglas Shepherd, Laura E. Garneau and David H. Rowe 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.

Gifts - To Report Or Not To Report

Introduction. Gifting is a fundamental part of our culture. Gifts to charitable organizations are typically reported on income tax returns where itemized deductions are claimed. Reporting on charitable gifts, especially of property other than cash, is a separate subject not covered by this newsletter.

Other the other hand, gifts for the benefit of family members are part of our culture and a key component of estate planning recommendations.

Quick Review. The annual gift tax exclusion is now $13,000 per year per donee. In other words, a single person can gift $13,000 to each of two children, for a total $26,000 in 2009. If each child is married and the spouse appears on the check, annual exclusion gifts would double to $52,000.

Present Interest. In order to qualify for the annual exclusion, the gift has to be a present interest such as cash or property. Gifts in trust typically do not qualify for the annual exclusion because full enjoyment is delayed by the terms of the trust. An exception to this rule would be trusts for minors under section 2503(c) of the IRC, or gifts under UTMA - the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act. In each of these cases,enjoyment of the property has to be transferred to the donee by age 21. The minor’s social security number is typically used on the account and any taxable income on the principal of the gift has to be reported on the minor’s income tax return.

When Should Annual Exclusion Gifts Be Reported on a Form 709 - Federal Gift Tax Return? If a spouse consents to treat half of the gift as being made by the non-donating spouse, the split gift with the consent of the non-donating spouse has to be reported on a Form 709, even if the gifts are annual exclusion gifts. Often this requirement is ignored because these are tax-free gifts, and the taxpayers expect that there is no penalty for failure to report. Moreover, taxpayers generally do not like to pay for filing tax returns that they consider unnecessary.

Potentially Taxable Estates. Who’s to know whether there will be a federal estate tax at death or at the death of a surviving spouse? The estate tax exemption is $3.5 million per person for 2009. Under current law, the estate tax goes away in 2010 and returns with the vengeance 2011. As we have indicated in other newsletters, our expectation is that exemption will continue at $3.5 million per person after 2009 (or possibly higher) when Congress addresses these tax issues in their overall review of tax legislation that is expected this year under the new administration.

Therefore, we advise higher net worth clients, with total marital assets in excess of $7.0 million, or $3.5 million for single individuals, to conduct their affairs and file information returns with the IRS to avoid future controversies and unnecessary taxes in the future. This especially means filing Form 709 for purposes of making disclosure to the IRS and starting the three year statute of limitations running so that gifting will not be challenged by the IRS many years in the future in connection with estate tax audits.

Lifetime Exemption. The lifetime exemption for tax-free gifts is currently $1.0 million per person (in addition to qualified annual exclusion gifts). Many higher net worth clients are taking advantage of this exemption by making gifts of appreciating property usually in trust. These gifts should always be reported on Form 709, along with proper appraisals if the property is other than cash or listed securities.

Section 529 Plans. Establishing qualified tuition plans (QTP or Section 529 Plans) offers the possibility of pre-funding annual exclusion gifts for five years. Thus, $65,000 can be contributed to a Section 529 Plan for each beneficiary. The contribution is allocated rateably over the five years and should be reported on a Form 709 Gift Tax Return. If a donor dies within the five year period, any unabsorbed portion of the exclusion is brought back to the taxable estate of the donor, if any. Despite this boomerang provision, we recommend pre-funding Section 529 Education Plans for grandchildren or great grandchildren as an essential and valuable part of estate planning techniques.

Crummey Withdrawals. A familiar technique for gifts in trust, especially life insurance trusts, is to give a potential beneficiary a limited right to withdraw a portion of the annual contribution so that such withdrawal amount can be counted against the annual exclusion gift for that donor and donee. Crummey Withdrawal provisions are another important weapon in the estate planner’s arsenal and can accomplish substantial estate tax reductions, assuming that a donor’s net worth puts him, her or them in the position of potential estate tax in the future. As with other types of specially qualified gifts, we recommend that Crummey Gifts be disclosed on Form 709, even though no tax is due, to prevent future attacks by the IRS.

Conclusion. If you have questions concerning gifting as part of tax saving strategies, or strategies for transferring wealth to future generations, please call Jim Modrall or any of the attorneys listed below.

Donald A. Brandt, Joseph C. Fisher, Thomas R. Alward, Matthew D. Vermetten, Thomas A. Pezzetti, Jr., Susan Jill Rice, Gary D. Popovits, H. Douglas Shepherd, Laura E. Garneau and David H. Rowe 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.

King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth Repealed

History Changed. Would you believe that 500 years after the death of Queen Elizabeth Michigan has taken its first steps to eliminate a medieval carryover into our laws of trusts and estates? This old relic is called the Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP).

What is the RAP? The Rule Against Perpetuities - RAP - was established in medieval England to prevent property from being tied up in trusts forever. Since land was the principal form of wealth in medieval days, the ruling monarchs and parliament decided that it was against public policy to prevent alienation of real estate indefinitely. By alienation we mean sale or other transfer of ownership. In other words, there was concern that estates, land primarily, would be held in a trust forever which could be uneconomical or unproductive and thereby contrary to the welfare of society and the country. These medieval rules were carried over into American common and statutory laws. From your history books you might recall that the laws of most states originated with the common law and statutes that existed in England when most of the early settlors came to North America. When the laws regarding property were codified in statute, most states adopted some version of the English RAP. The RAP regulates the length of time that a trust can be in existence. In Michigan, it was generally limited to a maximum of 90 years, or the longest life of a beneficiary living at the time of the Trust, plus 21 years.

Many States Have Repealed RAP For Competitive Reasons. Starting with such states as Alaska, South Dakota and Delaware, states have begun repealing RAP as the rationale for limiting the life of a trust has become less tied to land and more involved with securities and business interests of various types. Moreover, since trusts typically buy and sell property, real estate as well as securities, state legislatures have decided that there is no strong public policy to restrict the period of time, or number of generations, that a trust can be existence.

Some states have inserted a ridiculously long period of time such as 1,000 years. Others have eliminated RAP completely. In Michigan, the legislature in 2008 has split the baby in Public Acts 148 and 149.

Michigan’s Solution. Effective May 28, 2008, the RAP was abolished with respect to personal property held in trust. This would include all financial instruments, corporate shares, bonds, etc. It is now possible in Michigan to have a trust holding personal property exist in perpetuity.

What About Real Estate? For some reason, the legislature did not make a sweeping abolition of RAP. The elimination expressly applies only to personal property. This is a strange distinction in our modern era because real estate can be held by a corporation or an LLC, the shares or membership interests of which are classified as personal property. Therefore, it is easy to hold real estate in perpetuity by transferring title to a separate entity such as a corporation or LLC.

What Difference Does This Make to Most Clients? Some clients, wealthy or not so wealthy, want to establish trusts for future generations which will not be subject to estate or inheritance taxes. These are sometimes called "dynasty" trusts. Generally, these trusts are identified with the super wealthy families such as Ford, Kennedy, Rockefeller, etc.

Now with many states removing the barrier to perpetual trusts, Michigan trustees and residents found themselves at a disadvantage when contrasted with other states where perpetual trusts can be established. Now that disadvantage has disappeared for trusts that were revocable on May 28, 2008, or are created after that date. However, perpetual trusts are a favorite topic of writers in the financial press. Michigan trusts are no longer disadvantaged for those residents who want to explore this option.

We find relatively little interest in perpetual trusts among our clients. This may be because of the typical Midwestern conservative values and the desire not to control family wealth from the grave forever. Conclusion. Whether you have any interest in a dynasty trust or want to explore the possibility, or desire any help with your estate planning needs, please call Jim Modrall or any of the attorneys listed below.

Donald A. Brandt, Joseph C. Fisher, Thomas R. Alward, Matthew D. Vermetten, Thomas A. Pezzetti, Jr., Susan Jill Rice, Gary D. Popovits, H. Douglas Shepherd, Laura E. Garneau and David H. Rowe at (231) 941-9660

Brandt, Fisher, Alward & Pezzetti, P.C.

This newsletter is for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice.

Important Homestead News

Good News From Lansing. These days it is hard to find good news in Lansing or Washington when it comes to taxes. However, in 2008 Public Acts 96 and 198, the Michigan legislature addressed the dilemma of homeowners who have put their houses up for sale and moved out.

Homestead Status. Michigan taxpayers are familiar with a Homestead exemption for their principal residence, which usually is worth a savings of 18 mils on their property tax bills - approximately half of the total potential tax burden for most taxpayers. We deal regularly with questions from clients about Homestead status, who can claim it and how. Most homeowners are familiar with the Homestead Affidavit, filed with the local assessor, to establish the Homestead exemption - sometimes called the Principal Residence Exemption (PRE).

Homestead Rescission. Michigan law requires that a property owner is required to rescind the PRE within 90 days after the property is no longer used as a principal residence, i.e when the owner moves out. Homestead status is determined on a calendar year basis. Normally, the PRE will be in effect for the taxable year in which the property is transferred or is no longer the principal residence. So, if a person moves out and/or rescinds the PRE during 2008, for example, the PRE status is generally maintained for the 2008 tax year. Prior to the 2008 amendments, an owner moving out of a home listed for sale in 2008 would lose the homestead exemption for the tax year 2009. If the owner failed to file the Notice of Rescission, continuing the exemption for 2009, the owner could be liable for penalties. For example, clients moving to a smaller residence or moving out of state in 2008 could be on the hook for a much large tax bill in 2009 and subsequent years until the property sells. (If a person moved out of their home in 2007, the PRE would be lost for 2008.)

Conditional Rescission. The 2008 statutory amendments to MCL 211.7cc.(5) are now permitted to file a Conditional Rescission Notice affirming that PRE property is not occupied, is for sale, is not leased and is not used for a business or commercial purpose. A new Department of Treasury form 4640 has been issued for this purpose. The statute requires it to be filed annually prior to December 31 in order to maintain the PRE for the next tax year. The statutory amendments states that an owner may retain an exemption "for not more than 3 tax years on property previously exempt ...".

While it is not completely clear how the 3 tax years are determined, it would appear that a homeowner moving out in 2008 and filing a conditional rescission prior to December 31, 2008, would be able to keep the PRE in effect for tax years, 2009, 2010 and 2011, if the property is unoccupied, listed for sale, and not leased during that period of time. (Let’s hope that the property owner in question has priced the property at a reasonable enough level to sell within that period of time.) Similarly, an owner who moved out in 2007 can get retroactive relief for 2008 under the new law, but the owner needs to act promptly.

Conclusion. The conditional rescission and continuation of the homestead exemption is a great tax break for the many Michigan residents who have been forced to move as a result of a lay-off or transfer. It also benefits retired property owners who have moved and have their residences listed for sale. It can be especially beneficial if the client has moved within the State of Michigan and can now claim two properties for the PRE, pending the sale of a previous homestead property. The new law has a critical time element for owners seeking relief for 2008. Relief should be sought before the December Board of Review meeting.

If you have questions pertaining to the PRE, estate planning or your property tax classifications or valuations, please call Jim Modrall or any of the attorneys listed below.

Donald A. Brandt, Joseph C. Fisher, Thomas R. Alward, Edgar Roy, III, Matthew D. Vermetten, Thomas A. Pezzetti, Jr., John M. Grogan, Susan Jill Rice, Gary D. Popovits, H. Douglas Shepherd, Laura E. Garneau and David H. Rowe at (231) 941-9660

©BRANDT, FISHER, ALWARD & ROY, P.C.

This newsletter is provided for informational purposes and should not be acted upon without professional
advice.