King & Wood, P.A.

How Do Qualified Charitable Distributions Work?

“For taxpayers who stress over annual Required Minimum Distributions and are also inclined to charitable giving, Qualified Charitable Distributions or QCDs have been a useful tool to accommodate both relief over federal income tax angst and the desire to donate.”

Qualified Charitable Distributions use the federal tax code to benefit older taxpayers and must take Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs). Recent changes in federal law under the SECURE Act 2.0 present even more opportunities to use QCDs, according to a recent article, “Planning Ahead: Expanding on year-end tax strategies for Qualified Charitable Distributions,” from The Mercury. How does it work?

Required Minimum Distributions for seniors can become a problem since taxpayers above a given age must withdraw specific amounts based on their age from traditional retirement accounts and pay taxes on the withdrawals, regardless of whether they need the money. The reason is obvious: if people weren’t required to take funds out of their accounts, the government would never have the opportunity to generate tax revenue. The QCD lessens the blow of the additional year-end taxes by providing some relief through donations to qualified charities.

Used correctly, the QCD serves two purposes: saving on taxes and benefiting a favorite charity. Charities include any 501(c)(3) entities under the federal tax code. Before using a QCD, ensure the charity you choose is a qualified 501(c)(3). Otherwise, you’ll lose any tax benefits.

Your estate planning attorney can help you understand the process of making a QCD. You’ll need to coordinate with the custodian of the IRA. While some may provide step-by-step information, others require you to coordinate with your estate planning attorney and financial advisor. A reminder—the point of the QCD is that the distribution does not appear in your adjusted gross income and goes directly to the charity.

Usually, taking RMDs adds funds to your taxable income, which can, unfortunately, push you into a higher income tax bracket. It could also limit or eliminate some tax deductions, such as personal exemptions and itemized deductions. There may be increases in taxes on Social Security benefits as well. Whether you want or need to take the RMD, you must take it and include it as taxable income.

A QCD allows individuals required to take RMDs to donate up to $100,000 to one or more qualified charities directly from a taxable IRA without the funds being counted as income.

The RMD age has increased to 73, but the $100,000 will be indexed for inflation. Under SECURE Act 2.0, individuals will be allowed to make a one-time election of up to $50,000 inflation-indexed for QCDs to certain entities, including Charitable Remainder Annuity Trusts, Charitable Remainder Unitrusts and Charitable Gift Annuities.

QCDs cannot be made to donor-advised funds, private foundations and supporting organizations, even though these are often categorized as charities.

It must be noted that the rules concerning QCD are detailed and strict—you’ll want the help of an experienced estate planning attorney.

The QCD must be made by December 31 of the tax year in question.

Reference: The Mercury (Nov. 22, 2023) “Planning Ahead: Expanding on year-end tax strategies for Qualified Charitable Distributions”

Is Extending Required Minimum Distributions a Good Thing?

“The first SECURE Act extended the beginning date for taking required minimum distributions from the year after the account owner reaches age 70½ until they reach age 72. Just three years later, ‘SECURE Act 2.0’ has extended this age to 73, and offers a further provision for extending it again, to age 75, beginning in 2033.”

The question is, are these extensions a good thing, or a trap for people who aren’t up on the latest rules? A key concept is the difference in how couples and singles are taxed. The income level at which singles reach tax bracket thresholds is half that of married people filing jointly, explains a recent article titled “Are Extended RMDs A Gold Mine Or Tax Trap?” from Financial Advisor.

For example, a retired couple reaches 70½ this year. They’ll have an RMD of $89,450 from their combined $2 million plus in IRAs. They also receive $27,700 in interest and dividend income during the year—exactly equal to the standard deduction for a married couple filing jointly. The federal income tax liability would be $10,294 (not including taxes on Social Security benefits).

Let’s say they opt not to withdraw the $89,450 during 2023. Instead, they wait and one of the spouses dies. The surviving spouse then withdraws $89,450 as a widow. The survivor’s federal income tax liability on the same amount becomes $18,192, or almost 77% higher than if both spouses were still living. The “single filer” penalty is an issue.

What’s more, the children of our example are likely to face a higher income tax rate on what’s left in their parents’ IRA when both pass away. They are likely to be in their peak earnings years at that point and have only ten years at most to take the entire payout after their parents die.

Finally, if the married couple takes IRA withdrawals earlier rather than later, they’ll see a step-up in basis for all the after-tax funds they’ve allowed to appreciate for the rest of their lives. This eliminates all income tax on the appreciation. This is an important income tax benefit you don’t get from IRA receipts after the death of the account owner. Perhaps this is what Congress had in mind when it extended the starting date for RMDs not once, but three times.

It could be argued that singles, including surviving spouses, will see IRAs grow more if they put off distribution even longer. However, eventually bigger amounts may push individuals or families into a higher income tax bracket later on, and the undistributed IRA would not get a step-up in income tax basis on the death of the original owners. The undistributed IRA amount also can’t be rolled into a Roth IRA.

Tax brackets strategies can be improved if the couple takes withdrawals before they turn 70 ½, as long as they are retired and not in a high-income tax bracket. By taking increasing RMDs later in life, it’s possible to increase the federal income tax bracket, and risk triggering the single-filer penalty on the widowed spouse.

Estate planning for the SECURE Act means if you haven’t had your estate plan reviewed in the last two or three years, it’s time to make an appointment with an estate planning attorney. These changes in the law may create new opportunities, or your existing estate plan may not be properly structured to address the changes brought about by Congress.

Reference: Financial Advisor (March 1, 2023) “Are Extended RMDs A Gold Mine Or Tax Trap?”

RMD Formula Changes for First Time in 20 Years

“The IRS has good news for retirees: you can now keep more money in your tax-deferred retirement accounts thanks to lower required minimum distributions (RMDs).”

For the first time in two decades, the IRS has updated actuarial tables used to determine Required Minimum Distributions, the amount taxpayers are required from their retirement accounts starting at age 72, reports Yahoo! Money in the article “Good News for Retirees: RMD Formula Changes for First Time in Decades.”

The new tables rely on longer lifespans to calculate RMDs from tax deferred accounts, including traditional IRAs, 401(k)s and other similar retirement accounts every year.

One of the key benefits of retirement accounts are the tax advantages they offer. Traditional IRAs and 401(k)s allow savers to defer taxes until funds are withdrawn, letting their investments grow over an extended period of time. However, as with all good things, there are limits. To encourage people to take funds from the accounts (which generate tax revenues), the IRS requires a certain amount of money be taken out after a certain age.

The age requirements have changed over the years. Before the SECURE Act of 2019, withdrawals were required starting at age 70.5. After the SECURE Act, if you reached age 70.5 in 2019, the prior rules applied, and you had to take the first RMD by April 1, 2020. However, if you reached 70.5 in 2020 or later, the first RMD needs to be taken by April 1 in the year after you reach age 72.

Here are the accounts subject to RMDs:

• Traditional IRAs
• SEP IRAs
• SIMPLE IRAs
• 401(k), retirement plan from private sector employers
• 403(b), retirement plan for public employees and nonprofits
• 457(b), retirement plan for some state and local government employees

Profit sharing plans and other defined contribution plans are also included in this category. Roth IRAs are not subject to RMDs.

With the IRS raising the average life expectancy from 82.4 to 84.6, retirees will also need to make their retirement savings account last longer. Therefore, the RMDs starting in 2022 will be less than those from the prior calculation, which has been the same since 2002. Smaller RMDs will also lower tax liabilities and might even put some people into a lower tax bracket.

You can still withdraw as much as you like from an IRA or the accounts listed above. However, be mindful of the resulting tax bill.

Reference: Yahoo! Money (June 15, 2022) “Good News for Retirees: RMD Formula Changes for First Time in Decades”

Mega-IRAs Could Be a Source for New Public Policies

“Congressional Democrats are weighing a new type of required distribution from individual retirement accounts, based on the account value instead of age, according to a discussion list of policy ideas obtained by CNBC.”

There are few specifics but owners of “mega” IRA accounts worth more than $5 million might be presented with new withdrawal requirements, if legislation for a new national safety net becomes law. For a very small slice of the American population, IRAs have become million and even billion dollar tax deferred accounts, according to a recent article from CNBC titled “Democrats may change the rules for ‘mega’ IRAs over $5 million."

There are roughly two dozen tax categories being considered by Congress to help raise money for the expansion of the nation’s safety net, which for now is anticipated to have a $3.5 trillion price tag.

The policy concept was spotted on a draft of ideas lawmakers assemble before formally pitching the ideas before their colleagues. Floating game-changing ideas to gauge response is part of today’s legislative process.

The list didn’t include a specific amount but suggests a limit of $5 million. It also included information regarding the number of mega IRA accounts. Apparently, the number of IRA accounts worth more than $5 million has tripled in the past ten years.

In contrast, the average American’s IRA is valued around $39,000.

The idea is part of a broader theme of raising revenue from the wealthy to pay for social needs, like education, address climate change, assist working families with paid leave, childcare and other basic human needs.

It may have been sparked by a recent report that one of the founders of PayPal owns a Roth IRA valued at $5 billion. IRAs were created as a means of encouraging working Americans to save for retirement. However, they have become huge tax shelters for the wealthy.

More than 28,600 taxpayers owned IRAs worth more than $5 million in 2019, but they account for less than a tenth of 1% of the 70 million Americans who have a traditional or Roth IRA. The mega accounts add up to $280 billion, or about 3% of the total $8.6 trillion owed in IRAs.

Limiting the size of tax-deferred retirement accounts isn’t new. Several attempts have been made to cap the amount in IRAs or change distribution rules.

The final legislation may not be known for some time, but one response to this proposal would be to convert traditional IRAs to a Roth. Paying taxes at the time of the conversion, even if done over time, could be useful to eliminate having to pay taxes on the funds, if withdrawal rules change. In addition, there are no Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) on Roth IRAs, so funds can grow tax free for the life of the owner.

Reference: CNBC (Sep. 8, 2021) “Democrats may change the rules for ‘mega’ IRAs over $5 million”

Why Is It Important to have a Will?

“Less than half of Americans have a will. Here's why it's critical to be among those who have taken the time to draft this important document.”

A Gallup poll released in June showed that slightly less than half of all Americans have a will to tell loved ones what they want to happen with their estate after they die. What’s surprising is that the results of this survey have been almost the same since 1990, explains the article “6 Reasons You Need to Make a Will Now” from Real Simple. The survey also showed that upper-income Americans are more likely than lower-income Americans to have a will, and the younger people are, the less likely they are to have a will.

One of the lessons from the pandemic, is how fragile our lives are. It’s never too early to start planning and properly document your wishes. If you need more reasons to begin estate planning, here are six:

No will often leads to unwanted consequences. A major misconception is the idea that you don’t need a will because everything you own will go to your family. Not necessarily. Each state has its own laws about what happens if you have no will, and those laws are usually based on bloodlines or kinship. Most states leave two-thirds of your assets to your children and one-third to your spouse. Will your spouse be able to maintain the same standard of living, or even remain in the family home if this is how assets are distributed? A no-will situation is a no-win situation and can fracture even the best families.

Wills are used to name guardians for minor children. No parent, especially young parents, thinks that anything will happen to them, or even more unlikely, to both parents. However, it does. Creating a will offers the opportunity to name guardians to care for your children after death. If you don’t designate a guardian, a judge will. The judge will have never met your children, nor understand your family’s dynamics, and might even determine that the children should be raised by strangers.

Wills and pet trusts can protect pets after your demise. If you have beloved animal companions, it’s important to understand what can happen to them after you die. The law considers pets to be property, so you can’t leave money to your pet. However, you can create a pet trust and name a person to be the caregiver for your pet, if it survives you. The trust is enforceable, and the pet’s care can be detailed. Otherwise, there is no guarantee your pet will avoid being euthanized.

Taxes are part of death. Creating an estate plan with an experienced estate planning attorney who is knowledgeable about estate taxes, could save your heirs from losing a significant part of their inheritance. There are many tools and strategies to minimize taxes, including making charitable gifts. Plans for large estates can be structured in a way to avoid as much as 40% of tax exposure. It’s even more important to protect a smaller estate from being lost to taxes.

Peace of mind. Remember, wills and estate plans are not just for the benefit of the person who creates them. They are for the family, the surviving spouse, children, and grandchildren. If you did not take the time and make the effort to create an estate plan, they are the ones who will live with the consequences. In many cases, it could change their lives—and not for the better.

Putting it off never ends well. When you’re young and healthy, it seems like nothing can ever go wrong. However, live long enough, and you learn life has ups and downs and unexpected events—like death and serious illness—happen to everyone. Creating an estate plan won’t make you die sooner but having one can provide you and your loved ones with security, so you can focus on living.

Reference: Real Simple (June 25, 2021) “6 Reasons You Need to Make a Will Now”

Michael Jackson Estate’s Big Win against IRS in Tax Court

“A ruling that Michael Jackson’s image and likeness at the time of his death were worth about $157 million less than the IRS estimated warns the agency not to look too far down the road, when assessing the value of a celebrity’s estate.”

Estate planning lawyers agree: the recent victory of Michael Jackson’s estate in U.S. Tax Court is a clear signal that the IRS should be more cautious when assessing the value of an estate’s assets. In the article from Bloomberg Tax, “Michael Jackson Estate’s Tax Win a Warning to Aggressive IRS,” one attorney says it is reasonable to think that the court reacted negatively to the IRS’ being overly aggressive.

It’s also possible that the IRS’ memory of the pop star’s pre-death fame was based on Jackson’s post-death popularity.

The dispute, which began in 2013, attracted wide attention and exposed a big disparity in how the IRS and the Jackson estate valued the pop star’s image and likeness, which was only one part of his estate. While the estate looked at current income and revenue, the IRS took a far more opportunistic approach, eyeing the income from future shows and merchandise.

The $157 million difference came down to the IRS’s inclusion of revenue streams that the Tax Court concluded were not foreseeable at the time of the entertainer’s death. Revenues from the Cirque du Soleil show, a movie and branded merchandise were created only after Michael Jackson died.

When Jackson died in 2009, there had been severe damage to his image, including allegations of sexual abuse of children and eccentric behavior. He was cleared of charges, but the damage to his image took a toll on his popularity. His notoriety undercut the value of his name and likeness while he was alive.

The sole expert witness offered by the IRS was problematic as well. He was found to have lied multiple times and refused to answer questions directly through his testimony, which the Tax Court did not like.

The case may increase interest in changing estate tax laws, given the difficulty of valuing speculative assets based on what was reasonably foreseeable at the time of a person’s death. It may be better to take a “wait and see” approach, rather than guessing at what the person might be worth in the near and distant future.

That approach might put some estates in limbo for years, forcing executors to retain assets during that time. When beneficiaries want to receive their inheritance immediately, this could present problems for executors.

One advisor says that a rational approach would be for estates to exclude likenesses or the ability to exploit a name and image, and then have distributed assets taxed after death at ordinary income rates.

For celebrities and those with a high value estate, expect more scrutiny from the IRS. The IRS is looking for revenue, and any high-profile assets will attract attention.

Non-celebrities should take heed as well. The IRS is looking for revenue, and an estate plan with strong tax planning will protect families from onerous federal and state estate taxes.

Reference: Bloomberg Tax (May 5, 2021) “Michael Jackson Estate’s Tax Win a Warning to Aggressive IRS”

How Do I File Taxes on a CARES 401(k) Withdrawal?

“Penalties were waived on 401(k) and IRA withdrawals for coronavirus costs, but you still owe the taxes.”

Several bills were passed by Congress to ease financial challenges for Americans during the pandemic. One of the provisions of the CARES Act was to allow workers to withdraw up to $100,000 from their company sponsored 401(k) plan or IRA account in 2020. This is a big departure from the usual rules, says an article from U.S. News & World Report titled “How to Avoid Taxes on Your CARES Act Retirement Withdrawal.”

Normally, a withdrawal from either of these accounts would incur a 10% early withdrawal penalty, but the CARES Act waives the penalty for 2020. However, income tax still needs to be paid on the withdrawal. There are a few options for delaying or minimizing the resulting tax bill.

Here are three key rules you need to know:

• The penalties on early withdrawals were waived, but not the taxes.
• The taxes may be paid out over a period of three years.
• If the taxes are paid and then the taxpayer is able to put the funds back into the account, they can file an amended tax return.

It’s wise to take advantage of that three-year repayment window. If you can put the money back within that three-year time period, you might be able to avoid paying taxes on it altogether. If you are in a cash crunch, you can take the full amount of time and repay the money next year, or the year after.

For instance, if you took out $30,000, you could repay $10,000 a year for 2020, 2021, and 2022. You could also repay all $30,000 by year three. Any repayment schedule can be used, as long as all of the taxes have been paid or all of the money is returned to your retirement account by the end of the third year period.

If you pay taxes on the withdrawal and return the money to your account later, there is also the option to file an amended tax return, as long as you put the money back into the same account by 2022. The best option, if you can manage it, is to put the money back into your retirement account as soon as possible, so your retirement savings has more time to grow. Eliminating the tax bill and re-building retirement savings is the best of all possible options, if your situation permits it.

If you lost your job or had a steep income reduction, it may be best to take the tax hit in the year that your income tax levels are lower. Let’s say your annual salary is $60,000, but you were furloughed in March and didn’t receive any salary for the rest of the year. It’s likely that you are in a lower income tax bracket. If you took $15,000 from your 401(k), you might need to pay a 12% tax rate, instead of the 22% you might owe in a higher income year.

Reference: U.S. News & World Report (April 23, 2021) “How to Avoid Taxes on Your CARES Act Retirement Withdrawal”

What Could Proposed Estate Tax Bill Mean to You?

“The For the 99.5% Act reduces the estate tax exemption to $3.5 million per individual and $7 million per couple. The bill adds higher tax brackets for larger estates.”

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders has released proposed legislation named “For the 99.5%” Act. If passed in its present form, the legislation would bring estate tax exemptions back to the 2009 thresholds of $3.5 million per individual and $7 million per married couple. Exemptions are currently $11.7 million and $23.4 million, as reported by Think Advisor in a recent article “Sen. Bernie Sanders Introduces Estate Tax Bill.”

Larger estates would also be subject to higher tax rates. The current 40% tax rate would be raised to 45% and taxable estates larger than $10 million would be taxed at 50%, amounts greater than $50 million at 55% and any estates valued at greater than $1 billion would be taxed at 65%.

The same rates would apply for all gift taxes, for which the threshold would be lowered to $1 million.

Sanders spoke at a Senate Budget Hearing committee, stating that his bill was designed to have the families of the “millionaire class not only not get a tax break but start paying their fair share of taxes.”

Another bill introduced by Sanders would prevent corporations from shifting profits offshore to avoid paying U.S. taxes and restoring the top corporate rate to 35%, where it has been since 2016.

In contrast, Senators John Thune, South Dakota (R) and John Kennedy, Louisiana (R), introduced legislation in early March to repeal the estate tax entirely.

Frank Clemente, executive director for Americans for Tax Fairness, said the tax plan released by President Biden during his campaign also tracked the 2009 estate tax levels that are the basis of Sanders’ bill, but because of the higher tax brackets for larger estates, his group believes the Sanders bill would raise about twice as much revenue as the Biden plan.

History teaches us that there is a long distance between the time that a bill is introduced, and many changes are made as proposed legislation makes its way through the law-making process. In this case, it can be safely said that there will be changes to the tax and estate laws, and that may be the only sure thing.

Now is a good time to review your estate plan, if these federal estate changes will have an impact on your family’s wealth. Familiarity with your current estate plan and staying in touch with your estate planning attorney, who will also be watching what Congress does in the coming months, will allow you to be prepared for changes to the tax planning aspect of your estate plan in the near or distant future.

Reference: Think Advisor (March 25, 2021) “Sen. Bernie Sanders Introduces Estate Tax Bill”

Estate Planning Meets Tax Planning

“By being very selective about who receives which type of money—whether Traditional or Roth IRAs, after-tax brokerage accounts, life insurance, etc.—you can dramatically cut the share that goes to the IRS and increase the amount going to your family.”

Not keeping a close eye on tax implications, often costs families tens of thousands of dollars or more, according to a recent article from Forbes, “Who Gets What—A Guide To Tax-Savvy Charitable Bequests.” The smartest solution for donations or inheritances is to consider your wishes, then use a laser-focus on the tax implications to each future recipient.

After the SECURE Act destroyed the stretch IRA strategy, heirs now have to pay income taxes on the IRA they receive within ten years of your passing. An inherited Roth IRA has an advantage in that it can continue to grow for ten more years after your death, and then be withdrawn tax free. After-tax dollars and life insurance proceeds are generally not subject to income taxes. However, all of these different inheritances will have tax consequences for your beneficiary.

What if your beneficiary is a tax-exempt charity?

Charities recognized by the IRS as being tax exempt don’t care what form your donation takes. They don’t have to pay taxes on any donations. Bequests of traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs, after-tax dollars, or life insurance are all equally welcome.

However, your heirs will face different tax implications, depending upon the type of assets they receive.

Let’s say you want to leave $100,000 to charity after you and your spouse die. You both have traditional IRAs and some after-tax dollars. For this example, let’s say your child is in the 24% tax bracket. Most estate plans instruct charitable bequests be made from after-tax funds, which are usually in the will or given through a revocable trust. Remember, your will cannot control the disposition of the IRAs or retirement plans, unless it is the designated beneficiary.

By naming a charity as a beneficiary in a will or trust, the money will be after-tax. The charity gets $100,000.

If you leave $100,000 to the charity through a traditional IRA and/or your retirement plan beneficiary designation, the charity still gets $100,000.

If your heirs received that amount, they’d have to pay taxes on it—in this example, $24,000. If they live in a state that taxes inherited IRAs or if they are in a higher tax bracket, their share of the $100,000 is even less. However, you have options.

Here’s one way to accomplish this. Let’s say you leave $100,000 to charity through your IRA beneficiary designations and $100,000 to your heirs through a will or revocable trust. The charity receives $100,000 and pays no tax. Your heirs also receive $100,000 and pay no federal tax.

A simple switch of who gets what saves your heirs $24,000 in taxes. That’s a welcome savings for your heirs, while the charity receives the same amount you wanted.

When considering who gets what in your estate plan, consider how the bequests are being given and what the tax implications will be. Talk with your estate planning attorney about structuring your estate plan with an eye to tax planning.

Reference: Forbes (Jan. 26, 2021) “Who Gets What—A Guide To Tax-Savvy Charitable Bequests”

Wealthy Women Face Challenges in Estate and Tax Planning

“Given the expectation the Biden administration will roll back some of Trump’s favorable policies of the past four years, tax consultants and accountants are already hard at work. But for HNW women, dealing with election fallout is minor, compared to the bigger fish they have been frying in the tax pan for decades.”

Election cycles often mean changes to estate and tax planning strategies around estate planning, charitable donations and capital gains, but that’s not the only challenge facing wealthy women now, says a recent article “For Wealthy Women, Tax and Estate Planning is Weak Link” from Think Advisor. Preparing for big changes, from presidential elections to death or divorce, is all too often a surprise, even for accomplished and financially successful women.

Statistically, women do outlive men, so there needs to be a plan for the unexpected. As attitudes shift and more women build their own wealth, they are less likely to stay in unsatisfying marriages. Although the overall rate of divorce in America is declining, the number of “gray” divorces is increasing.

One essential step in planning for high net worth women is to consider what assets they will need to continue their current lifestyles, and what assets would be at risk, in case of death or divorce.

Some assets are not available to singles, like the Spousal Lifetime Access Trust, an irrevocable trust available to couples but not to singles. For those considering divorce who have a SLAT agreement, speak with your estate planning attorney, as the SLAT may include a provision that terminates spousal trust rights upon divorce. Women should not assume that these or other assets will be available to them in case of a divorce.

There are also future costs associated with losing a spouse. If women do not have long-term care insurance, it should be purchased, if she still qualifies. These policies become more expensive as time goes by, so the 40s and 50s are the ideal time to invest in them.

Timing and tax policy changes from a new administration make this a good time to begin planning for any changes that may come in the next year. Women with substantial net worth should be making plans for gifting and trusts now. The gift tax lifetime exemption remains at $11.7 million, but even if there is no legislative action, on January 1, 2026, this will return to $5 million.

Dramatic changes in asset valuation resulting from the pandemic may make this a good time to transfer shares to children and grandchildren, including real estate holdings and closely held family businesses.

The effects of COVID-19 have provided a global lesson in preparing for the unexpected. Among many other issues has been a huge backlog in most surrogate courts. Even families who had an estate plan in place, found their estate planning hampered by waiting for courts to appoint executors.

In many cases, surviving spouses (mostly women) found themselves unable to move an estate plan forward, gain access to assets, even to pay household bills. Families who have been lucky enough to escape the impact of COVID-19 so far, should take the opportunity to plan for the unexpected, including the creation of a revocable trust, so the trustee can swiftly access assets and start managing right away, rather than waiting for courts to clear.

Reference: Think Advisor (Jan. 6, 2021) “For Wealthy Women, Tax and Estate Planning is Weak Link”