15 states, such as Delaware, permit the creation of full blown self-settled asset

protection trusts. Besides the 15, at least 10 other states allow some form of an
asset protection trust, including inter vivos QTIP trusts. The proliferation of
domestic asset protection trusts leaves attorneys inquiring about the laws in each
asset protection state and the benefits of creating such a trust in one state versus
another. Questions frequently asked are:
-What is an inter vivos QTIP trust and how can it help my clients?
-Will domestic self-settled asset protection trusts benefit my clients?
-Do the costs of creating a trust in one state for creditor protection or
taxation benefits really outweigh the creation of such a trust in another?
-Is the trust really protected from creditors?
-Can the trust be used to avoid the income tax in the grantor's state of
residence?
-Can a same sex couple benefit from the use of these trusts?
-Is using an offshore trust better?

On Tuesday October 14, 2014, Michael M. Gordon, Cynthia D.M. Brown, J.

Aaron Byrd, Michael J. Stegman and Gray Edmondson will present an
American Bar Association (ABA) eCLE on Domestic Asset Protection Trust
Planning where they will address the domestic asset protection trust laws
applicable to Delaware, Ohio, Mississippi, and North Carolina. This eCLE is being
organized by the Asset Protection Planning Committee of the Non-Tax Estate
Planning Considerations Group within the ABAs Real Property, Trust and
Estate Law Section. While three of the states permit full blown self-settled asset
protection trusts, the other (North Carolina) permits solely inter vivos QTIP trusts.
The presenters will discuss the questions posed, above, and provide attendees with
an overview of how their states statutes can provide techniques that could be
incorporated into a comprehensive estate plan.
These are just some of the questions that will be answered over the course of
five eCLE webinars addressing some of the full blown domestic self-settled
asset protection trust statutes and inter vivos QTIP trust statutes:
Session 1 Delaware, Ohio, Mississippi, North Carolina October 14
Session 2 Florida, Texas, Tennessee December 9

 Session 3 Alaska, South Carolina, Wyoming, Oklahoma February 10

Session 4 Arizona, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire April 14
Session 5 South Dakota, Utah, Kentucky June 9
This program is brought to you by the ABA Section of Real Property, Trust &
Estate Law. Attendees can register for the entire series or individual sessions.
Register now using your ABA ID 01938329. For more information, click this link:
Session 1
If you are an ABA member, join the Section of Real Property, Trust and
Estate Law (RPTE) for only $70 and receive the discounted registration rate
plus all of the other benefits of RPTE membership!
Now Michael M. Gordon and Cynthia D.M. Brown provide LISI members with
commentary on the Delaware Qualified Dispositions in Trust Act.
Michael M. Gordon is a Director at the Wilmington law firm of Gordon,
Fournaris & Mammarella, P.A. His practice focuses on the unique aspects of
Delaware trust law, including directed trusts, dynasty trusts, asset protection trusts
and all aspects of the validity, construction and administration of Delaware trusts.
Michael is the former Chair of the Estates and Trusts Section of the Delaware Bar
Association. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel.
Michael is also a member of the American Bar Association where he serves as CoChair of the Asset Protection Planning Committee of the Section of Real Property,
Trust & Estate Law.
Cynthia D.M. Brown is the President of Commonwealth Trust Company and a
member of its Board of Directors. Prior to joining Commonwealth, Cindy worked
for several large Philadelphia firms in the areas of tax, estate planning, asset
protection planning, probate and trust administration. An active member of the
Delaware State Bar Association Trust Act Committee, Cindy is also a member the
Pennsylvania and New Jersey Bars, Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners
(STEP), the ABA Section of Real Property, Trust and Estate Law and the Asset
Protection Planning Committee, a member of the Board of Directors of the
Delaware Bankers Association, Chairman of the DBAs Trust Committee and a
member of the Board of Directors for Delaware CarePlan, Inc. Cindy has written
and spoken on many topics relating to tax, estate planning, asset protection
planning, probate and trust administration which can be found at this link: Cynthia
Brown

What follows is a summary of the relevant issues to consider when drafting a

Delaware asset protection trust under the Delaware Qualified Dispositions in Trust
Act, 12 Del. C. 3570, et. seq., (the Act). Included are the requirements for
creating a trust (a Delaware asset protection Trust) under the Act, prohibited
powers which the grantor may not retain under the Act, permissible powers which
the grantor may retain under the Act and who may defeat a Delaware asset
protection trust.

COMMENT:
I. Creating a Delaware Asset Protection Trust.
What follows is a summary of the relevant issues to consider when drafting a Delaware asset
protection trust under the Delaware Qualified Dispositions in Trust Act, 12 Del. C. 3570, et.
seq., (the Act). Included are the requirements for creating a trust (a Delaware asset
protection Trust) under the Act, prohibited powers which the grantor may not retain under the
Act, permissible powers which the grantor may retain under the Act and who may defeat a
Delaware asset protection trust.
A. Requirements to Create a Delaware Asset Protection Trust.
There are six requirements to create a Delaware asset protection trust under the Act.
These requirements are as follows:
1. A disposition by a transferor by means of a trust instrument. 12 Del. C. 3570(7).
The term disposition is defined under the Act as a transfer, conveyance or
assignment of property (including a change in the legal ownership of property
occurring upon the substitution of one trustee for the addition of one or more
new trustees), or the exercise of a power so as to cause a transfer of property,
to a trustee or trustees, but shall not include the release or relinquishment of
an interest in property that theretofore was the subject of a qualified
disposition. 12 Del. C. 3570(4).
The Act defines the term transferor as a person who, as the owner of
property, as a holder of a general power of appointment, or as a trustee,
directly or indirectly makes a disposition or causes a disposition to be made.
12 Del. C. 3570(10).
The Act provides that the term person shall have the same meaning
described to it in 1 Del. C. 3302(15), which includes an individual, a
corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint-stock
company. 12 Del. C. 3570(6).
The Act defines the term Qualified disposition as a disposition by or from a
transferor (or multiple transferors in the case of property in which each such
transferor owns an undivided interest) to one or more trustees, at least one of

which is a Qualified trustee, with or without consideration, by means of a trust

instrument. 12 Del. C. 3570(7).
2. The trust instrument must appoint a qualified trustee within the meaning of 12 Del. C.
3570(8). 12 Del. C. 3570(11).
The Act defines the term Qualified trustee as a natural person, who is a
resident of the State of Delaware other than the transferor, or in all other cases
a trustee that is authorized by the laws of the State of Delaware to act as
trustee and whose activities are subject to the supervision by the Delaware
State Bank Commissioner, the Federal Deposit Corporation, the Comptroller
of Currency, or the Office of Thrift Supervision. 12 Del. C. 3570(8)a.
3. The qualified trustee must maintain or arrange for custody in Delaware of at least
some of the trust assets, maintain records for the trust on an exclusive or nonexclusive basis, prepare or arrange for the preparation of fiduciary income tax returns
for the trust or otherwise materially participate in the administration of the trust. 12
Del. C. 3570(8)b.
4. The trust must provide that Delaware law governs the validity, construction and
administration of the trust. 12 Del. C. 3570(11)a.
5. The trust must be irrevocable. 12 Del. C. 3570(11)b.
6. The trust must contain a spend-thrift clause which should make reference to the
Bankruptcy Code. 12 Del. C. 3570(11)c.
B. Prohibited Grantor Powers.
There are several powers that are impermissible for the grantor to retain under the Act.
These powers include:
1. The grantor may not serve as trustee of the trust. 12 Del. C. 3570(8)a. & (8)c.
The grantor may appoint additional co-trustees of the trust that are not
Qualified trustees within the meaning of the Act. 12 Del. C. 3570(8)c.
2. The grantor may not serve in an advisory position (including as a trust protector or
distribution adviser) provided the grantor may serve as investment adviser for the
trust. 12 Del. C. 3570(8)d. & 12 Del. C. 3571.
3. The grantor may not retain the power to direct distributions from the trust. 12 Del. C.
3570(8)d. & 12 Del. C. 3571.
4. The grantor may not demand a return of assets transferred to the trust. 12 Del. C.
3571.
C. Permissible Powers Retained by Grantor.

The Act permits the grantor to retain a variety of powers. These powers include:
1. The grantor may serve as investment adviser for the trust and as such retain the right
to consent to or direct investment decisions. 12 Del. C. 3570(8)d.
It is common practice in Delaware to have the grantor serve as Investment
Adviser of the trust and thereby direct the trustee with respect to the
investment of the trust assets.
2. The grantor may retain the power to veto distributions of income or principal from the
trust. 12 Del. C. 3570(11)b.1.
In the event the grantor intends to structure the transfer into the trust as an
incomplete gift for federal gift tax purposes it is important for the grantor to
retain the veto power permitted by 12 Del. C. 3570(11)b.1.
3. The grantor may appoint advisers who have authority to remove and appoint qualified
trustees or trust advisers, advisers who have authority to direct, consent to or
disapprove distributions from the trust and advisers described in 12 Del. C. 3313.
12 Del. C. 3570(8)c.
It is common practice for trust instruments drafted in accordance with the
provisions of the Act to create the positions of Distribution Adviser to direct
the trustee with respect to the distribution of trust assets to the beneficiaries
and Trust Protector to direct the trustee with respect to certain other decisions.
4. The grantor may retain the power to remove and replace trustees or trust advisers. 12
Del. C. 3570(11)b.7.
5. The grantor may retain a lifetime or testamentary limited power of appointment. 12
Del. C. 3570(11)b.2.
In the event the Grantor intends to structure the transfer into the trust as an
incomplete gift for federal gift tax purposes it is important that the grantor
retain both lifetime and testamentary limited powers of appointment in
accordance with 12 Del. C. 3570(11)b.2.
6. The grantor may retain the ability to receive income or principal pursuant to broad
discretion or a standard as determined by Delaware trustees, non-Delaware trustees
and/or advisers. 12 Del. C. 3570(11)b.6.
7. The grantor may retain the right to receive mandatory income distributions. 12 Del.
C. 3570(11)b.3.
8. The grantor may retain an interest in a CRT or a QPRT. 12 Del. C. 3570(11)b.4.
9. The grantor may receive up to a 5% interest in GRAT, GRUT or total-return uni-trust.
12 Del. C. 3570(11)b.5.

10. The grantor may retain the potential or actual use of real property held under a
qualified personal residence trust or the possession and enjoyment of a qualified
annuity interest within the meaning of Treasury Regulations 25.2702-5(c)(8). 12
Del. C. 3570(11)b.5.
11. The grantor may retain the right to receive income or principal from the trust to pay
income taxes due on the income of the trust provided that the trust instrument
expressly provides for the payment of such taxes and the potential or actual receipt of
income or principal would be at the trustees discretion, or pursuant to a mandatory
direction in the trust instrument, or the discretion of an adviser. 12 Del. C.
3570(11)b.9.
12. The grantor may retain the right to receive income or principal from the trust to pay,
after the death of the grantor, all or any part of the debts of the grantor outstanding at
the time of the grantors death, the expenses of administering the grantors estate, or
any estate or inheritance tax imposed on or with respect to the grantors estate. 12
Del. C. 3570(11)b.10.
D. Who May Defeat an Asset Protection Trust?
There are four categories of creditors who may defeat a Delaware asset protection trust
and as such reach the trust assets to satisfy a judgment. The Act requires that any action
involving a Delaware asset protection trust be brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
12 Del. C. 3572(a). The following four categories of creditors may defeat a Delaware asset
protection trust:
1. A creditor whose claim arose before the creation of the trust provided the claim is
brought within four years after the creation of the trust or, if later, within one year
after the creditor discovered (or should have discovered) the trust and the claim is
proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the creation of the trust was a
fraudulent transfer. 12 Del. C. 3572(b)(1).
2. A creditor whose claim arose after the creation of the trust provided the claim is
brought within four years after the creation of the trust and the creditor proves, by
clear and convincing evidence, that the creation of the trust was a fraudulent transfer.
12 Del. C. 3572(b)(2).
3. A person whose claim results on account of an agreement or court order for the
payment of support or alimony for the grantors spouse, former spouse or children, or
for a division or distribution of property in favor of the grantors spouse or former
spouse. 12 Del. C. 3573(1). Only a spouse who is married to the grantor before the
funding of the trust may avail himself or herself of such right. 12 Del. C. 3570(9).
4. A person who suffers death, personal injury or property damage on or before the date
the trust was created for which the grantor is liable. 12 Del. C. 3573(2).

II. Completed Gift Asset Protection Trusts.

On January 1, 2013, President Obama signed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012
(the 2012 Act). The 2012 Act made permanent the current exemptions for federal estate tax,
gift tax and generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax. The exemptions are indexed for inflation,
which for 2014 means that the exemptions are $5,340,000 per person. The tax rate on estate, gift
and GST transfers above the exemption was increased to forty percent (40%) from the thirty-five
percent (35%) rate in effect in 2012.
As a result of the 2012 Act, clients are presented with an estate planning opportunity to
transfer significant amounts of wealth out of their estate without the imposition of transfer taxes.
However, even the wealthiest clients are often concerned with giving such large amounts of
money away based on the fear that they may need to access the assets in the future.
One option that clients may have is to create a trust in a jurisdiction such as Delaware
which allows for self-settled asset protection trusts. A client can make a transfer to a trust
established in such a jurisdiction, to which the client allocates gift tax exemption, that provides
that the trustee may distribute income and principal from the trust to a class of beneficiaries, that
includes the client, in the sole and absolute discretion of the trustee. The client can also allocate
GST exemption to the trust which would allow the trust to continue in perpetuity if established in
a jurisdiction such as Delaware which has abolished the rule against perpetuities. See 25 Del. C.
503. What follows is a summary of the relevant issues to consider when creating a completed
gift asset protection trust.
A. Grantors Retention of Control.
The first issue to address is whether the transfer of assets to the trust constitutes a
completed gift for federal gift tax purposes.
1. Is the Transfer to the Trust a Completed Gift?
(a) A transfer is incomplete for federal gift tax purposes if the grantor retains
sufficient dominion and control over the property. Treas. Reg. 25.2511-2(b).
(b) If an individual creates a self-settled trust in a jurisdiction where his or her
creditors may attach the assets, the grantor has retained sufficient dominion
and control over the assets because under local law the grantor is able to
relegate his or her creditors to the assets of the trust. See Rev. Rul. 76-103;
Rev. Rul. 77-378; and Paolozzi v. Commissioner, 23, T.C. 102 (1954). As
such, the trust must be established in a jurisdiction that allows for self-settled
asset protection trusts thereby preventing the grantor from being able to
relegate his or her creditors to the assets of the trust.
(c) Revenue Ruling 76-103.

(i) In Revenue Ruling 76-103, the grantor created an irrevocable trust which
provided that during the grantors lifetime the trustee could distribute
income and principal of the trust in its sole and absolute discretion to the
grantor. The trust further provided that upon the death of the grantor, the
remaining principal of the trust was to be distributed to the grantors
issue. The trust was determined to be a discretionary trust under the laws
of the state in which the trust was created and the entire property of the
trust was subject to the claims of the grantors creditors.
(ii) Revenue Ruling 76-103 concluded that as long as the trustee continues to
administer the trust under the laws of the state subjecting the trust assets
to the claims of creditors, the grantor retained dominion and control over
the trust property. As such the grantors transfer of the property to the
trust does not constitute a completed gift for federal gift tax purposes.
(iii)

Revenue Ruling 76-103 also concluded that if the grantor were to

die before the gift becoming complete, the date of death value of the trust
property would be includible in the grantors gross estate for federal
estate tax purposes under Section 2038 because of the grantors retained
power to, in effect, terminate the trust by relegating the grantors
creditors to the entire property of the trust.

(d) Revenue Ruling 77-378.

(i) In Revenue Ruling 77-378, the grantor created an irrevocable trust which
provided that the trustee was empowered to pay to the grantor such
amounts of the trusts income and principal as the trustee determines in its
sole and absolute discretion. Under the applicable state law, the trustees
decision whether to distribute trust assets to the grantor was entirely
voluntary. Furthermore, the grantor was prohibited from requiring that
any of the trust assets be distributed to the grantor nor could the creditors
of the grantor reach any of the trust assets.
(ii) Revenue Ruling 77-378 concluded that the grantor had parted with
dominion and control over the property that the grantor transferred into the
trust. Although the trustee had an unrestricted power to pay trust assets to
the grantor, the grantor could not require that any of the trust assets be
distributed to the grantor nor could the grantor utilize the assets by going
into debt and relegating the grantors creditors to the trust. Revenue
Ruling 77-378 therefore concluded that the grantors transfer to the trust
was a completed gift for federal gift tax purposes.
2. Sections 2036(a)(2) and Section 2038.
Another concern relates to whether the trust assets will be includible in the grantors
estate under Sections 2036(a)(2) and Section 2038 of the IRC because of the grantors retained

power to terminate the trust by relegating the grantors creditors to the entire property of the
trust.
(a) Section 2036(a)(2) of the IRC provides that a decedents gross estate includes
property transferred in trust other than for full and adequate consideration if
the decedent retained the right to designate the persons who shall possess or
enjoy the property or income therefrom. IRC 2036(a)(2).
(b) Section 2038 of the IRC provides that a decedents gross estate includes
property transferred in trust other than for full and adequate consideration if
the decedent retained the right to alter, amend or revoke the trust. IRC
2038.
(c) Both Sections 2038(a) and 2036(a)(2) have been used to cause a self-settled
trust whose assets are subject to the claims of the grantors creditors to be
included in the grantors estate. See Rev. Rul. 76-103; Estate of Paxton, 68
TC 785 (1986).
B. Grantors Retained Beneficial Interest.
Another issue to address is whether the grantors mere retention of a discretionary
beneficial interest in the trust will cause the assets to be included in the grantors gross estate
under Section 2036(a)(1) of the IRC.
1. Section 2036(a)(1).
(a) Section 2036(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that a decedents
gross estate shall include property transferred in trust other than for full and
adequate consideration if the decedent retained the right to income from the
property. IRC 2036(a)(1).
(b) The use, possession, right to income or other enjoyment of the transferred
property is considered as being retained by the decedent to the extent the use,
possession, right to the income, or other enjoyment is to be applied toward the
discharge of a legal obligation of the decedent. Treas. Reg. 20.2036-1(b)(2).
(c) The right to the income need not be express but may be implied. Treas. Reg.
20.2036-1(1)(i).
2. Revenue Ruling 2004-64 (the 2004 Ruling).
(a) The 2004 Ruling held that the grantor of a trust, which is taxed as a grantor
trust for income tax purposes, is not treated as making an additional taxable
gift to the trust by virtue of paying the trusts income tax liability.

(b) The 2004 Ruling also addressed the estate tax consequences if, pursuant to the
governing instrument or applicable local law, the grantor of the trust may or
must be reimbursed by the trust for the income tax.
(c) The 2004 Ruling held that assuming there is no understanding, expressed or
implied, between the grantor and the trustee regarding the trustees exercise of
its discretion to reimburse the grantor for the income tax liability, the trustees
discretion to satisfy such obligation will not alone cause inclusion of the trust
assets in the grantors gross estate for federal estate tax purposes.
(d) However, the 2004 Ruling specifically states that the trustees discretion to
reimburse the grantor for the income tax liability combined with other factors
including, but not limited to: (i) an understanding or preexisting arrangement
between the grantor and the trustee regarding the trustees exercise of its
discretion; (ii) a power retained by the grantor to remove the trustee and name
a successor trustee; or (iii) applicable local law subjecting the trust assets to
the claims of the grantors creditors may cause inclusion of the trust assets in
the grantors gross estate for federal estate tax purposes.
(e) The 2004 Ruling seems to address the concern raised in the completed gift
asset protection trust context regarding whether the grantors mere retention of
a discretionary beneficial interest is sufficient to cause inclusion of the trust
assets in the grantors estate under Section 2036(a)(1) of the IRC. Following
the rationale contained in the 2004 Ruling, the trustees mere ability to
distribute assets to the grantor should not alone cause inclusion of the assets in
the grantors gross estate for federal estate tax purposes.
C. The Private Letter Rulings.
Two Private Letter Rulings have been issued addressing the transfer tax consequences
associated with self-settled asset protection trusts. See PLR 9837007 and PLR 200944002. Both
Private Letter Rulings involved the use of Alaska trusts established by Alaska residents.
1. PLR 9837007 (the 1998 PLR).
(a) In the 1998 PLR the grantor created a trust for the benefit of herself and her
descendants. The trustee could, but was not required to, distribute income
and/or principal from the trust to any of the beneficiaries.
(b) The 1998 PLR concluded that the transfer to the trust would be a completed
gift for federal gift tax purposes because a creditor of the grantor would be
precluded from satisfying claims out of the grantors interest in the trust.
However, it expressly did not rule on whether the assets would be included in
the grantors estate for federal estate tax purposes.
2. PLR 200944002 (the 2009 PLR).

(a) In the 2009 PLR the grantor created a trust for the benefit of himself, his
spouse and descendants. Distributions of income and principal could be made
to the beneficiaries of the trust in the sole and absolute discretion of the
trustee.
(b) The 2009 PLR again concluded that the transfer to the trust was a completed
gift for federal gift tax purposes. However, the 2009 PLR also concluded that
the trustees discretionary authority to distribute income and/or principal to the
grantor does not by itself cause the trust to be includable in the grantors estate
for federal estate tax purposes under Section 2036(a)(1) of the IRC.
(c) The analysis contained in the 2009 PLR is based primarily on the 2004
Ruling. Both the 2004 Ruling and the 2009 PLR conclude that the assets will
not be included in the grantors estate under Section 2036(a)(1) under the
theory that the trustees discretionary authority to distribute assets to the
grantor will not by itself result in estate tax inclusion. However, neither the
2004 Ruling nor the 2009 PLR address whether Sections 2036(a)(2) or 2038
will cause inclusion in the grantors estate under the theory that the grantor
could terminate the trust by relegating the grantors creditors to the entire
property of the trust. For the reasons discussed in Section II Paragraph A of
this outline, Sections 2036(a)(2) and 2038 should not cause the assets to be
included in the grantors estate as long as the trust is created in a jurisdiction
allowing for self-settled asset protection trusts as the grantor will be
prohibited from relegating his or her creditors to the assets of the trust.
D. Creditor Exceptions.
1. All states that have self-settled trust legislation, other than Alaska or Nevada, allow
certain creditors to access the trust. For example, the Delaware Qualified
Dispositions in Trust Act allows for certain family claims, including child support and
alimony, provided that with respect to an alimony claim the spouse must have been
married to the grantor before the trust was created. 12 Del. C. 3573(1) and
3570(9).
2. A question has arisen as to whether the mere fact that a family creditor could reach
the trust assets is enough to cause the transfer to the trust from being an incomplete
gift or otherwise cause the trust assets to be included in the grantors gross estate
under Sections 2036(a)(2) and 2038.
3. The reason for this concern stems from language contained in the 2004 Ruling. The
2004 Ruling expressly states that the trustees discretion to distribute trust assets to a
grantor to satisfy the grantors income tax liability combined with other factors, such
as applicable local law subjecting the trust assets to the claims of the grantors
creditors, may cause inclusion of the trust assets in the grantors estate for federal
estate tax purposes.

4. Proponents of Alaska and Nevada law have argued that the mere existence of the
family claim exception contained in statutes of other jurisdictions, such as Delaware,
would be enough to cause the assets to be includible in the grantors estate under
Sections 2036(a)(2) and 2038 and therefore a grantor should only establish a trust in
Alaska or Nevada if the grantor desires for the trust assets to be excluded from his or
her estate.
5. However, what is overlooked in this argument is the theory of acts of independent
significance, which is discussed in the next section of this outline.
E. Acts of Independent Significance.
1. The theory of acts of independent significance is applied when determining whether
the grantor retained a power which rises to the level of a power which will cause
inclusion in the grantors gross estate under Sections 2036(a)(2) or 2038 of the IRC or
otherwise result in an incomplete gift. If the retained power allows the grantor the
ability to act in such a way so as to affect the beneficial interest of the trust, but the
possibility of such action occurring is so diminimus and speculative, the power will
be found to be an act of independent significance. See Estate of Tully, 528 F.2d 1401
(1976); Ellis v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. 182 (1968), judgment affd, 437 F.2d 442;
Rev. Rul. 80-25; and PLR 9141027.
2. Courts have ruled that the possibility of divorce is an act of independent significance.
See Estate of Tully, 528 F.2d 1401; PLR 9141027.
(a) Estate of Tully.
(i) In the Estate of Tully case the Court addressed whether death benefits
paid directly to the decedents widow by his employer should be
included in the decedents estate under Section 2038.
(ii) The decedent and his business partner entered into an agreement which
provided that upon the decedents death the company would pay the
decedents widow a death benefit equal in amount to twice the annual
salary which the company had paid to the decedent for the year
immediately preceding the date of his death.
(iii)

One of the arguments made by the Internal Revenue Service was

that the decedent retained a Section 2038 power to revoke or terminate
the transfer of the death benefits to his wife by virtue of the possibility
that he could have divorced his wife prior to his death.

(iv)The Court held that the possibility of divorce is so diminimus and so

speculative rather than demonstrative, real, apparent and evident that it
cannot rise to the level of a Section 2038 power.

3. Courts have also determined that acts of independent significance include failure to
support a spouse as well as the ability to have or adopt children. Ellis v.
Commissioner, 51 T.C. 182 (1968), judgment affd, 437 F.2d 442; and Rev. Rul. 80255.
(a) Revenue Ruling 80-255.
(i) In Revenue Ruling 80-255, the decedent created an irrevocable trust
which provided that the income was to be paid in equal shares to the
decedents children and principal was to be distributed twenty-one (21)
years after the creation of the trust in equal shares to the decedents
children, per stirpes. The trust instrument also provided that the
decedents children, born or adopted after the creation of the trust, were
to be additional beneficiaries.
(ii) The issue addressed in Revenue Ruling 80-255 was whether the
decedent retained a power to change the beneficial interest of the trust
for purposes of Sections 2036(a)(2) and 2038 of the IRC because the
trust provided that children born or adopted after the creation of the trust
were to become beneficiaries and the decedent had the ability to bear or
adopt additional children.
(iii)

Revenue Ruling 80-255 determined that the act of bearing or

adopting children is an act of independent significance. Revenue Ruling
80-255 held that although the decedents act of bearing or adopting
children will automatically result in adding the child as a beneficiary to
the trust, such result is merely a collateral consequence of bearing or
adopting children and is not equivalent to the decedents retention of a
power to designate or change beneficial interest within the meaning of
Sections 2036(a)(2) and 2038 of the IRC.

F. Conclusion.
1. Completed gift asset protection trusts present a unique planning opportunity for
clients who want to utilize the increase in gift tax and GST exemption to transfer
assets out of their estate but are concerned with the possibility of needing access to
the funds in the future.
2. It is extremely important that in establishing a completed gift asset protection trust
there is no implied understanding between the grantor and the trustee regarding
distribution from the trust to the grantor.
3. Notwithstanding the fact that all states, other than Alaska and Nevada, allow for
certain creditors to access the trust, the theory of acts of independent significance
should allow a grantor to establish a completed gift asset protection trust in any

jurisdiction allowing for self-settled asset protection trusts and have the assets
excluded from his or her estate.
4. It should also be possible to leverage the gift made to the trust by having the trustee
purchase a life insurance policy on the life of the grantor with the proceeds gifted to
the trust. This will essentially allow the grantor to still benefit from the cash value
contained in the policy (at the discretion of the trustee) and have the death benefit
excluded from the grantors estate upon his or her death.
III. Incomplete Gift Non-Grantor Trusts.
It is possible for a grantor to establish a trust in a jurisdiction that allows for the creation
of self-settled asset protection trusts, retain a beneficial interest in the trust and have the trust
treated as a non-grantor trust for income tax purposes. Typically the grantor will also want the
trust to be an incomplete gift for transfer tax purposes. In Delaware we refer to these trusts as
DING trusts. The acronym stands for Delaware Incomplete Gift Non-Grantor trust.
A. Tax Structure of Trust.
1. Section 677(a)(3) of the IRC provides that the grantor shall be treated as the owner of
a trust for income tax purposes if trust income, without the approval or consent of any
adverse party, may be distributed to the grantor or the grantors spouse. IRC 677(a)
(3). Therefore, in order for the trust to be a non-grantor trust for income tax purposes,
the consent of an adverse party must be obtained prior to distributing assets to the
grantor or the grantors spouse.
2. The trust also must be created in a jurisdiction which allows for self-settled asset
protection trusts because if creditors of the grantor can reach the trust assets the trust
will be a grantor trust. Treas. Reg. 1.677(a)-1(d).
3. The trust is structured as an incomplete gift for federal gift tax purposes through the
grantors retention of a testamentary limited power of appointment over the trust and
through the grantors retention of a veto power whereby a distribution directed by any
one member of the distribution committee (as explained in more detail below) must
be approved by the grantor. Treas. Reg. 25.2511-2(b).
B. The Private Letter Rulings.
1. Several Private Letter Rulings (the PLRs) confirm that under Delaware law a
grantor can create a non-grantor trust, fund the trust with contributions that are not
considered taxable gifts for federal gift tax purposes and still retain the right to
receive discretionary distributions of trust income and principal from the trust. See
PLR 200715005; PLR 200647001; PLR 200637025; PLR 200612002; and PLR
200502014.

2. In the PLRs, the grantor created a discretionary trust for the benefit of the grantor and
others (the permissible beneficiaries). A Delaware corporate trustee is appointed as
sole trustee of the trust.
3. A committee (the Distribution Committee) consisting of two of the permissible
beneficiaries of the trust, has the power, by unanimous consent, to direct the trustee to
distribute trust assets to or among the permissible beneficiaries. In addition, any one
member of the Distribution Committee, with the consent of the grantor, may direct
the trustee to make distributions. If a member of the Distribution Committee resigns
or otherwise ceases to serve, a permissible beneficiary other than the grantor or the
grantors spouse is appointed as a successor Distribution Committee member.
4. The grantor retains a limited testamentary power of appointment over the trust assets
to appoint the remaining trust assets to any person or organization other than the
grantor, the grantors estate, the grantors creditors or the creditors of the grantors
estate.
5. The PLRs conclude that the grantor has not made a completed gift upon
establishment of the trust due to the retention of the grantors limited testamentary
power of appointment over the trust assets. However, the grantor will be treated as
making a taxable gift when a trust distribution is made to someone other than the
grantor.
6. The PLRs also conclude that the Distribution Committee members have a substantial
adverse interest to each other for purposes of Section 2514 of the IRC and therefore
do not possess general powers of appointment over the trust. See IRC 2514(c)(3)
(B).
C. IR-2007-127 (the 2007 Notice).
1. In 2007 the IRS issued a notice calling into question the gift tax consequences to the
members of the Distribution Committee. See IR-2007-127.
2. The 2007 Notice stated that the conclusions reached in the PLRs with respect to the
gift tax consequences of the Distribution Committee members may not be consistent
with Revenue Ruling 76-503 and Revenue Ruling 77-158 (the Revenue Rulings).
See Rev. Rul. 76-503 and Rev. Rul. 77-158.
D. The Revenue Rulings.
1. The Revenue Rulings have facts that are identical. In the Revenue Rulings, three
siblings, A, B and C owning equal one-third interests in their family business
contribute their respect interests in the business to an irrevocable trust for the benefit
of their descendants. The trust permits the trustees to distribute trust property to
whomever they select, including themselves, in such proportions and at such times as
they see fit. Each trustee has the ability to designate one of the trustees relatives to

serve as successor trustee upon the trustees death or resignation. In the event a
trustee fails to designate a successor, the oldest adult living descendant of a deceased
or resigned trustee is to occupy the vacant trustee position.
2. The decedent, D, was selected by A to be one of three original trustees and D served
in that position until Ds death.
3. The Revenue Rulings address whether any of the trust assets are includible in Ds
gross estate under Section 2041 of the IRC under the view that D had a general power
of appointment over the trust assets held jointly with the other two co-trustees. The
Revenue Rulings conclude that one-third (1/3) of the value of the trust as of the date
of Ds death is includible in Ds gross estate under Section 2041 of the IRC as
property subject to a general power of appointment. In reaching the conclusion the
Revenue Rulings focused on the language of Section 2041 of the IRC. Section
2041(b) of the IRC sets forth the definition for a general power of appointment.
Section 2041(b)(1)(C)(ii) of the IRC provides that a power that is not exercisable by
the decedent except in conjunction with a person having a substantial adverse interest
in the property subject to the power is not a general power of appointment. IRC
2041(b)(1)(C)(2).
4. The Revenue Rulings determined that the Section 2041(b)(1)(C)(ii) safe harbor did
not apply to D because the remaining co-trustees did not have a substantial adverse
interest to D. The terms of the trust provide that upon Ds death a successor trustee is
to be appointed in Ds place. The remaining co-trustees do not receive the entire
power of appointment upon Ds death. Instead, the surviving co-trustees must
continue to share the power with Ds replacement. The Revenue Rulings determined
that this does not put the surviving co-trustees in a better economic position after Ds
death and as such their interest is not substantially adverse to D.
5. In reaching this conclusion, the Revenue Rulings also focus on the regulations under
Section 2041 of the IRC. See Treas. Reg. 20.041-3(c)(2) and (3). The Revenue
Rulings state that had the trust been drafted so that upon Ds death the power of
appointment would vest solely in the remaining co-trustees, the co-trustees interests
would be substantially adverse to that of D and D would not have a general power of
appointment resulting in the inclusion of one-third (1/3) of the trust assets in Ds
estate under Section 2041 of the IRC.
E. Comparing the PLRs to the Revenue Rulings.
1. The PLRs are similar to the Revenue Rulings in that upon the resignation of any
Distribution Committee member, a permissible beneficiary is to be appointed as a
successor Distribution Committee member in place of the resigning Distribution
Committee member. Therefore, the distribution power does not vest in the remaining
Distribution Committee members but instead must be shared with a successor
Distribution Committee member. This does not put the remaining Distribution

Committee members in a better economic position after the resignation of a

Distribution Committee member.
2. However, there is an important fact which distinguishes the PLRs from the Revenue
Rulings. The PLRs conclude that the transfer to the trust by the grantor is an
incomplete gift and that a distribution from the trust to any person other than the
grantor would be a completed gift. In the Revenue Rulings, A, B and C irrevocably
transferred their interests in the family business to the trust upon its creation at which
time they made a taxable gift to the trust. Distributions from the trust to the
beneficiaries would not be considered taxable gifts by A, B or C.
3. If the rationale of the Revenue Rulings were applied to the PLRs, distributions from
the trust would constitute completed gifts by the Distribution Committee members.
This would produce unprecedented gift tax results. For instance, a distribution from
the trust to the grantor would constitute a taxable gift to the grantor of property which
the grantor is already treated for federal transfer tax purposes as owning.
Furthermore, a distribution to any other person besides the grantor would constitute a
taxable gift of the same property to the same person at the same time by both the
grantor and the Distribution Committee members.
F. Recent Rulings Affecting Use of DING Trusts
1. CCA 201208026 (the CCA).
(a) In 2012 the IRS issued an opinion relating to the gift tax ramifications
associated with a transfer of property into a trust where the grantor retains a
testamentary limited power of appointment.
(b) In the trust at issue in the CCA, parents transferred property in trust with
Child A as trustee. The trust beneficiaries were Child A, Child B, spouses and
other lineal descendants. The parents reserved a testamentary limited power
of appointment. The trust provided that if the limited power of appointment
was not exercised, the trust would terminate at the death of the survivor of the
parents and the remaining trust assets would be distributed to Child A and
Child B. The trust provided that the trustee had the discretion to distribute
trust assets to the beneficiaries for broad purposes.
(c) The IRS determined that the gift into the trust should be severed into two
components, the term interest and the remainder interest. The IRS further
determined that the term interest was not subject to change by the exercise of
the parents retained testamentary power of appointment and therefore the gift
of the term interest constituted a completed gift.
(d) The IRS did rule that the gift of the remainder interest was an incomplete gift
due to the retention of the testamentary limited power of appointment, but that
the gift was valued at zero (0) under Chapter 14 of the IRC meaning that the

value of the gift was the full fair market value of the property transferred into
the trust.
2. PLR 201310002 (the 2013 PLR).
(a) In the 2013 PLR the grantor created a trust for the benefit of himself and his
issue. During the grantors lifetime, the trustee is required to distribute such
amounts of the net income and principal to the grantor and his issue as
directed by the Distribution Committee and/or the grantor, as follows:
(i) At any time, the trustee, pursuant to a direction of a majority of the
Distribution Committee members, with the written consent of the grantor,
is required to distribute to the beneficiaries such amount of the net
income or principal as directed by the Distribution Committee
(Grantors Consent Power);
(ii) At any time, the trustee, pursuant to the direction of all of the Distribution
Committee members, is required to distribute to the beneficiaries such
amount of the net income or principal of the trust as directed by the
Distribution Committee; and
(iii)

At any time, the grantor, in a non-fiduciary capacity, may, but shall

not be required to, distribute to any one or more of the grantors issue,
such amounts of the principal (including the whole thereof) as the grantor
deems advisable to provide for the health, maintenance, support and
education of the Grantors issue (Grantors Sole Power).

(b) Upon the grantors death, the remaining trust assets are to be distributed to or
for the benefit of any person or persons or entity or entities, other than the
grantors estate, his creditors, or the creditors of his estate, as the grantor may
appoint by his Last Will and Testament. In default of the grantors exercise of
his limited power of appointment (Grantors Testamentary Power), the
balance of the trust will be distributed, per stirpes, to the grantors then living
issue in further trust.
(c) The 2013 PLR concluded as follows:
(i) The grantors retention of the Grantors Consent Power caused the transfer
of property into the trust to be wholly incomplete for federal gift tax
purposes;
(ii) The grantors retention of the Grantors Sole Power also caused the
transfer of the property into the trust to be wholly incomplete for federal
gift tax purposes; and

(iii)

The grantors retention of the Grantors Testamentary Power

caused the transfer of property into the trust to be incomplete with respect
to the remainder interest in the trust for federal gift tax purposes.

3. Analysis.
(a) The CCA called into question whether the mere retention of the testamentary
limited power of appointment by a grantor will be sufficient to cause a transfer
of property into a trust to be incomplete for federal gift tax purposes.
(b) The 2013 PLR offers additional guidance on what is required to cause a
grantors transfer of assets into a trust to be incomplete for federal gift tax
purposes. It seems clear from the 2013 PLR that the retention of a
testamentary limited power of appointment will only cause the transfer of
property into a trust to be incomplete with respect to the remainder interest in
the trust for federal gift tax purposes. As a result, a grantor is required to
retain additional powers over a trust to cause the transfer of property into the
trust to be wholly incomplete for federal gift tax purposes.
(c) The 2013 PLR provides that the retention of the Grantors Consent Power and
the Grantors Sole Power are each sufficient, in and of themselves, to cause
the transfer of property into a trust to be wholly incomplete for federal gift tax
purposes.
(d) Some commentators have suggested that the retention of the Grantors Sole
Power is required in order to cause the transfer of trust property into the trust
to be wholly incomplete for federal gift tax purposes. This would mean that
the DING structure would no longer work in any self-settled asset protection
trust jurisdiction which prohibits a grantor from retaining a lifetime limited
power of appointment. At the time the 2013 PLR was issues Delawares selfsettled asset protection trust statute did not permit a grantor to retain a lifetime
limited power of appointment. However, the statute was modified in February
of 2014 to permit a grantor to retain a lifetime limited power of appointment.
12 Del. C. 3570(11)b.2.
(e) As previously explained, the 2013 PLR clearly states that the grantors
retention of the Grantors Consent Power is sufficient to cause the transfer of
property into a trust to be wholly incomplete for federal gift tax purposes and
as such the DING structure should work in any self-settled asset protection
trust jurisdiction which permits a grantor to retain the right to consent to trust
distributions. Notwithstanding, it is advisable for a client to establish the trust
in a jurisdiction such as Delaware or Nevada, which permit the retention of a
lifetime limited power of appointment, so as to cause the trust to squarely fall
within the structure described in the 2013 PLR.
G. Conclusion.

1. Incomplete gift non-grantor trusts present a unique opportunity for individuals

residing in states such as California, New Jersey, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan
and Missouri to minimize or avoid state income tax.
2. The 2013 PLR further substantiates the use of DING trusts.
3. The 2013 PLR clearly states that the grantors retention of the Grantors Consent
Power causes the transfer of property into the trust to be wholly incomplete for
federal gift tax purposes, meaning a grantor should not be required to retain a lifetime
limited power of appointment in order to cause the transfer of property into the trust
to be wholly incomplete for federal gift tax purposes. However, it is advisable for
clients to establish DING trusts in jurisdictions such as Delaware or Nevada which
allow for the retention of a lifetime limited power of appointment so as to model the
structure contained in the 2013 PLR.

HOPE THIS HELPS YOU HELP OTHERS MAKE A POSITIVE

DIFFERENCE!

Michael M. Gordon
Cynthia D.M. Brown
TECHNICAL EDITOR: DUNCAN OSBORNE

CITE AS:
LISI Asset Protection Planning Newsletter #263, (October 6, 2014)
at http://www.LeimbergServices.com Copyright 2014 Leimberg Information
Services, Inc. (LISI). Reproduction in Any Form or Forwarding to Any Person
Prohibited Without Express Written Permission.