Foresight -- Devoted to Estate and Tax Planning
Vol. 5, No. 1 - April, 1999
© 1999 De Maio & De Maio

IN THIS ISSUE:

Feature Article:

Recent Developments:

Feature Article

The Qualified State Tuition Program:
A New Way to Save for College

By Andrew J. De Maio, Esq.

If you're looking to put money away for a child's or grandchild's education, you face a bewildering array of options. Education IRAs, HOPE scholarships, lifetime learning credits, custodial accounts, education trusts, and even Roth IRAs are all choices to consider. This article focuses on one of the newest, hottest options for college wealth-building: the Qualified State Tuition Program (QSTP). Congress gave these plans new life by enacting section 529 of the tax code in 1996 and by revising it in the 1997 tax law.

Most of the states now have section 529 plans, and new plans are constantly being offered. With increasing energy, the states are competing against each other for your education dollar.

Tuition payment programs come in two varieties. The older version permits you to purchase tuition credits at a public college or university. In effect, you pay for college in advance, at a discount. Your investment is guaranteed to cover the tuition for a specified number of semesters.

The new breed of college savings plan, created by the 1996 law, is more like an IRA account than a prepaid tuition credit. You make a contribution to an account in the name of a designated beneficiary (your child or grandchild, for instance). Those funds are invested along with the contributions of others and your share of the earnings is credited to your account. When the beneficiary reaches college age, you withdraw the funds and use them for educational expenses at any accredited school, whether public or private, in-state or out-of-state. Special tax breaks, explained below, apply to the account.


How it works - An example

Harry contributes $5,000 to establish an account in a state tuition program for his granddaughter, Sally. The money is invested by the investment advisor selected by the program. Harry is not permitted to direct the investments.

When Sally reaches college age, Harry can withdraw the funds and use them for Sally's qualified educational expenses. Eligible expenses include tuition, fees, books, supplies, and equipment required for enrollment or attendance, and room and board if the beneficiary is enrolled at least half-time in a recognized degree program. Harry can take the money out and not use it for Sally's education, but if he does he's subject to a penalty of 10% of the earnings on the account. The 10% penalty doesn't apply if the funds are withdrawn due to Sally's death or disability, or on account of a scholarship she receives.

What if Sally doesn't go to college? Harry can change the beneficiary on the account to a member of Sally's family, as defined in the tax law. That includes Sally's spouse, child or stepchild, brother or sister, niece, nephew, uncle or aunt. However, a cousin does not qualify as a family member under the federal guidelines.

How much can Harry contribute to the account? Federal law requires each State to prohibit contributions "in excess of those necessary to provide for the qualified higher education expenses of the beneficiary." Most state plans set a limit of about $100,000.


Tax Benefits

Income tax

Earnings on a state tuition plan account are income tax deferred. They are subject to federal income tax when they are withdrawn from the plan. Meanwhile, the funds compound unencumbered by taxes, similar to an IRA. When funds are withdrawn from the plan to pay educational expenses, they are taxed to the beneficiary of the plan, not to the parent or grandparent who contributed the funds. The beneficiary is likely to be in a lower tax bracket than the donor. Distributions are taxed under the rules that apply to annuities. Thus, a ratable portion of each withdrawal is treated as taxable earnings.

The state income tax treatment varies. Most states offer residents tax breaks for investments in their plan. In most, the income is tax-free, not just deferred. Some go further and permit a deduction for contributions.


Gift tax

A gift to a QSTP account is eligible for the $10,000 per year annual gift tax exclusion. Normally, gifts to trusts don't qualify for that benefit unless the beneficiary has the current right to withdraw the funds.

Moreover, the law permits a donor to use annual exclusions for up to four future years. A gift in excess of $10,000 in any one year is treated as if made ratably over the 5-year period beginning with the year of the gift. Thus a donor can put away up to $50,000 for each beneficiary in a single year without having to file a gift tax return or use up any of the lifetime estate and gift tax exemption (currently $650,000).


Estate tax

The law specifically excludes from the donor's taxable estate any assets that have been contributed to a QSTP account. This is a striking departure from the rules that normally apply. A contributor to a plan account has the power (by changing beneficiaries) to designate who will benefit from the funds, and has the right to take the funds back (less a penalty). Under the ordinary rules, those rights would cause the account to be taxed in the donor's estate. But in 1997 Congress specifically protected QSTP accounts from estate taxation. These rules are likely to be of particular interest to grandparents seeking estate tax reduction. The QSTP's combination of tax-free gift, retained control and estate tax exclusion is not available with any other type of gift.

Two more rules are worth mentioning. The account is partly subject to estate tax if the donor who has made a larger-than-$10,000 contribution dies within the 5-year stretchout period referred to above. Also, if the beneficiary dies while the account is open, the balance is included in the beneficiary's estate.


Choosing a State

Participation in many plans, including New Jersey's, is limited to residents of the state. Some plans, however, permit and even encourage the participation of outsiders. Below, we compare the features of the New Jersey plan with some other plans that accept contributions from nonresidents.


New Jersey

The New Jersey Better Educational Savings Trust (NJBEST) is administered by the New Jersey Higher Education Assistance Authority. An account can be opened with an initial contribution of $25. Thereafter, contributions of $300 per year are required until the account value reaches $1,200.

The investments are managed by the Department of Treasury, Division of Investment. At least 60% of the funds are invested in fixed-income securities; the rest may be invested in common stocks. This rather conservative philosophy is likely to disappoint those saving for young beneficiaries, who would invest more aggressively on their own. The Authority charges an annual investment management fee of 1% of plan assets, plus a $15 annual maintenance fee per account.

NJBEST offers some special perks to New Jersey residents. Earnings on accounts are tax-free for state income tax purposes if the funds are used for qualified education expenses. If the beneficiary enrolls at an in-state public or private school as a freshman and has participated in the plan for at least four years, the State adds $500 to the account in the form of a scholarship. Finally, the law provides that the first $25,000 saved in NJBEST for a beneficiary will not be a factor in determining the beneficiary's eligibility for State-funded, need-based financial aid.


New York

New York has chosen pension fund manager TIAA-CREF to direct the investments in the New York State College Choice Tuition Savings Program. The Program is open to both residents and nonresidents.

There is no application fee, and an account can be opened with an initial $250 contribution or by arranging regular electronic fund transfers of $25.

The investment mix is adjusted periodically for the age of the beneficiary. Under TIAA's 1999 guidelines, for example, investments for a newborn beneficiary will be divided between a growth fund (55%) and a bond fund (45%). At the other end of the spectrum, the most conservative allocation, for beneficiaries born prior to 1984, puts 10% in the growth fund, 40% in the bond fund, and 50% in a money market fund. TIAA charges an annual investment management fee of .65% of plan assets.

In one of the more generous state tax breaks, New York allows an income tax deduction of up to $5,000 per person ($10,000 per married couple) for contributions to the plan. This makes the plan attractive to New Jersey residents who commute to New York. Qualified withdrawals are free of New York income tax. However, nonqualified withdrawals are taxable in full, whether or not a deduction is taken for the initial contribution.

A College Choice account is not counted as an asset in administering New York State-administered aid programs.


New Hampshire

The New Hampshire Unique College Investing Plan is administered by Fidelity Investments. This program requires an initial investment of $1,000 or automatic payments of $50 per month.

The Unique plan offers one of the widest ranges of investment options. Like the New York plan, the investment mix is tailored to the beneficiary's age. For the youngest beneficiaries, 88% is allocated to equity investments and 12% to bonds. At college age, 20% in invested in stocks and 40% each to bonds and short-term income investments. Fidelity charges .3% of asset value per year, in addition to expenses of the underlying Fidelity mutual funds. In addition, there is an annual $30 maintenance fee per account which is waived if you sign up for automatic deposit or if $25,000 or more is invested in the plan for the same beneficiary.

Qualified withdrawals are also exempt from the New Hampshire interest and dividends tax. (At this writing, a proposal to implement an income tax in New Hampshire is under consideration.)


Iowa

The College Savings Iowa program permits participation by outsiders and uses Vanguard Life Strategy Portfolios to tailor investments to the age of the beneficiary. However, Iowa imposes two restrictions that limit the usefulness of the plan. First, each donor is limited to a maximum contribution of $2,000 per year per child. Second, a penalty-free change of beneficiary is permitted only if the original beneficiary has not been admitted to an eligible school.


Disadvantages and Risks

Investment performance

Since plan participants are not permitted to direct investments, you are stuck with whatever manager and strategy the plan chooses. Many plans, like NJBEST, invest very conservatively and do not take into account the age of the beneficiary. By choosing one of these plans you may reduce volatility, but miss out on the long-term returns available in the equity markets.


Possible Effect on Financial Aid

It is unclear how the existence of a QSTP account will affect the beneficiary's prospects for financial aid. Some plans specifically prevent consideration of the account in administering State-sponsored aid. But the formulas used in most private and federal aid programs require a family contribution of 5.7% of the parents assets and 35% of the student's funds. Will a QSTP account be considered as an asset of the parent or of the student? What about an account that is set up by a third party such as a grandparent? A December, 1998 Money magazine article (see link below) suggests that a QSTP account may even be treated as a scholarship, reducing financial aid dollar-for-dollar.

It seems unlikely that a QSTP account will be treated as an asset of the designated beneficiary. Why? Remember that only the account owner (the donor) can make a withdrawal from the account. The beneficiary has no assurance that the funds will ever be used for his or her benefit. If the donor sees fit, he can let the beneficiary's college years go by without ever tapping the account. Or the owner can transfer the account to the benefit of another family member. If the owner is willing to pay tax on the earnings and incur a penalty, he can even take the funds back. Unlike a custodial account or an account the child's name, the student has no enforceable rights whatsoever over a QSTP account. It would be unfair to consider the account to be an asset of the beneficiary.

For similar reasons, an account created by a grandparent or other donor should not be considered an asset of the parent for financial aid purposes. The parents of the beneficiary have no control over such an account, and no assurance that the funds will be used for the child's expenses.


Inflexibility

The IRS's proposed regulations governing QSTPs prohibit the transfer of an account from one state's plan to another's. Thus, if you choose an out-of-state plan and later your home state offers a more attractive deal, you cannot make the transfer without incurring a penalty.

At IRS hearings on the proposed regulations, some witnesses suggested that transfers between plans should be permitted. That may require action by Congress, however. The law provides for a tax-free rollover only to the credit of a different designated beneficiary. A family with more than one child will find it possible to accomplish such a transfer indirectly. Suppose a parent who has set up an account for his older child rolls the account over to one in the new state for the benefit of the younger child. That is a permissible, tax-free rollover. Later, if desired, the older child can be made the beneficiary of the new account. Beware, however, of restrictions that some plans impose on the duration of the account. New York, for example, requires that an account be open for at least 36 months before funds can be withdrawn without penalty.


State Income Tax

If you invest in another state's plan, you need to pay careful attention to the income tax consequences in your home state. While most states exempt earnings on their own plans from tax, they may not grant the same courtesy to investors in out-of-state plans.


Final Thoughts

The QSTP is still in its formative stage. It is likely that the list of states offering plans will grow, and existing plans will be improved as a result of competition among the states.

At the same time, Congress is considering some proposals to change the rules. One bill would make the earnings federally tax-free, not just tax-deferred. Another would permit private schools to maintain these plans. Currently only a state or a public agency may do so.

The qualified state tuition plan is an attractive option in college planning. The combination of tax benefits and retained control make these plans worthy of consideration by anyone with a future collegian in the family.


Updates:

May 31, 1999

Governor Whitman has signed into law P.L 1999, c. 116 (A-2367), which expands the New Jersey income tax exclusion for earnings on QSTP accounts. Previously, the earnings on the NJ BEST plan were excluded from income when earned and also excluded from the beneficiary's income when distributed for qualified educational expenses. Under the new law, the same treatment applies to QSTPs of other states, and to education IRAs.

May 27, 1999

The proposed Affordable Education Act of 1999, as approved by the Senate Finance Committee on May 19 will, if enacted, make several changes in the operation of QSTPs:
    1. Permit plans to be sponsored by private educational institutions, not just state governments;
    2. Eliminate, rather than just defer, income tax on qualifying distributions for education expenses;
    3. Permit a rollover of funds to an account in a different plan for the same beneficiary;
    4. Add first cousins to the list of family members to whom accounts can be transferred without penalty.

A description of the legislation can be found at the Senate Finance Committee's Web site.

October 21, 2000

An article in the October 30, 2000 issue of Forbes magazine compares college savings plans. College Savings 101 - Forbes, October 30, 2000. By Janet Novack.


Further reading

New Jersey Better Educational Savings Trust - http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/osa/njbestg.htm

New York's College Savings Program - http://www.nysaves.org/

New Hampshire Unique Plan - http://personal341.fidelity.com:80/planning/college/content/unique.html.tvsr

College Savings Iowa Plan - http://www.treasurer.state.ia.us/saving/college_saving1.htm

College Savings Plans Network (includes links to individual State plan Web sites) - http://www.collegesavings.org/

FinAid Prepaid Tuition Plan page - http://www.finaid.org/otheraid/prepaid.phtml

"Pay Today for College Tomorrow", Smart Money article by Bill Bischoff http://www.smartmoney.com/ac/collegeplanning/investing/index.cfm?story=paytoday

"New College Savings Plans" - Money Magazine, December, 1998 - http://cgi.pathfinder.com/money/archive/article/1,1511,8507,00.html

IRS Notice 97-60 (Questions and Answers about QSTPs)- http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/hot/not97-606.html

Higher Education Affordability and Availability Act, HR 464 - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.r.464:

H.R. 58 (To exclude QSTP distributions from gross income) - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.r.58:

H.R. 588 (To permit private educational institutions to maintain qualified tuition programs) - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.r.588:



RECENT DEVELOPMENTS


Change of Insurance and Pension Beneficiary Requires Written Document
Czoch v. Freeman, Superior Court of N.J., Appellate Division, January 5, 1999.

Josephine Czoch's will left her estate equally among her four children: Anthony, John, Norman and Joan. However, at the time of her death most of Josephine's assets had been transferred to the ownership of Joan and Joan's daughter Joanne. In addition, Joan was named as beneficiary of Josephine's life insurance and pension benefits. John was named as contingent beneficiary of the pension and life insurance.

Josephine's three sons asserted that the assets that had been transferred to Joan's name should be returned to the estate for distribution to all four children. They cited strong evidence that Josephine considered those funds to be her own, even though titled in Joan's name. For example, when Josephine wanted to make a loan to one of the sons, she agreed to the loan and directed him to Joan to get the money. They also recalled several occasions on which Josephine had referred to money held by Joan as "my money."

Joan and Joanne claimed that Josephine's transfers of assets to them were gifts.

The trial judge found insufficient evidence that Josephine made gifts to Joan and Joanne. A completed gift requires 1) intent; 2) delivery; and 3) relinquishment of control. There was no clear and convincing proof that Josephine intended to make outright gifts. Josephine's exercise of authority over the funds was inconsistent with an unconditional gift. The trial judge ordered Joan and Joanne to pay to the estate $161,000, including the proceeds of life insurance and pension benefits payable by reason of Josephine's death.

The Appellate Division agreed with the ruling on the gift issue. However, the appeals court held that the pension and insurance proceeds did not have to be turned over to the estate. Joan was named as primary beneficiary of those benefits in forms filed with the insurance company and with the pension administrator. That could be changed only by a written document signed by Josephine. Josephine had not signed such a document, and there was no persuasive evidence of her intent regarding these benefits. Thus, Joan was entitled to retain those funds.



Court Construes Ambiguous "and/or" Language in Will

In re Estate of Massey, Chancery Division, Monmouth County, Oct. 13, 1998

Betty Massey signed a will that left one-third of her estate "to my niece, Diane Carly Hall and/or my Grandniece, Carly Hall." Both Diane and Carly survived Betty. The court was called upon to decide how this portion of the estate should be distributed. One possible interpretation was that Diane should receive the entire bequest if she survived, and that Carly should share in the estate only if her mother were no longer living. This type of bequest is often accomplished by using the word "or" between the two names. The conjunctive "and", on the other hand, is usually used to provide for a sharing of a gift.

The use of the phrase "and/or" left open the question whether the bequest should be shared or should be distributed entirely to Diane. Nevertheless, based on testimony of the drafter of the will, it appeared that Betty's intention was that Diane and Carly share the bequest equally. The Court ordered such a division.

Comment: The judge was critical of the attorney (not named in the decision) who drafted the will. According to the opinion, the use of ambiguous language such as "and/or" in this context amounted to "inarticulate, if not illiterate, drafting."



IRS Ruling Approves Split-purchase QPRT

PLR 9841017

In a typical split-purchase (also known as a joint purchase), parents and their children together buy a home. The parents have the right to use the home for life; then it passes to the children. The parties share the cost of purchasing the residence. Actuarial tables permit calculation of the values of the respective interests. For example, the right of parents age 70 and 68 to live in a $300,000 home for their joint lives is about 60% of the purchase price, or $180,000. The children pay the balance of the home's cost. Because the parents' rights end on their demise, the home is not included in their estates for estate tax purposes.

In PLR 9841017, the IRS approved the use of a Qualified Personal Residence Trust (QPRT) to accomplish a split-purchase. A QPRT is designed to satisfy detailed requirements imposed in IRS regulations under tax legislation enacted in 1990. It is usually used to make a gift of the home to children. The use of this type of trust in connection with a joint purchase is a recent twist.

The IRS declined, however, to rule on the the all-important question of whether the home was subject to estate tax in the parents' estates under Internal Revenue Code section 2036. Under court rulings recently issued by the Third Circuit and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals, the home will not be subject to inclusion in the parents estates. However, the U.S. Tax Court has taken a different view, and IRS has not conceded the issue.

Comment: The ruling notes that the cash contributions of each of the parties came from "independent funds." If the funds used by the children to purchase their interests come indirectly from the parents (through gifts, for example), the IRS will likely challenge the intended tax results.

In the August 1997 issue of Foresight, we examined a related planning technique, the Personal Residence Life Estate Trust, which involves the sale of a remainder interest in a personal residence.


Web Sites Evaluate N. J. Nursing Homes
http://www.state.nj.us/health/ltc/hcfa/
http://www.medicare.gov/nursing/home.asp

Choosing a nursing home for a loved one has never been an easy task. Two government Web sites offer useful information to New Jersey residents engaged in that process.

On February 5, 1999, the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services released its New Jersey Performance Report for Nursing Homes. This report assigns a score to each nursing home based on an evaluation of the home's compliance with specific federal quality standards in the areas of nursing care, resident rights, food services, environment and administration. According to the Department, nursing homes with two consecutive deficiency-free surveys in the 44 evaluated areas receive the top score of 88 points, while homes which failed to meet those standards receive lower scores.

The Department of Health and Senior Services also makes available a Nursing Home Inspection Report, which summarizes enforcement action taken against any of the State's 355 nursing homes. Only violations that result in the imposition of a penalty are listed. The Web site lists the date and the type of each offense, and includes a link to the penalty letter describing the specific conditions that led to the sanction.

A helpful publication entitled Selecting a Long-term Care Setting: A Guide for New Jersey Consumers is also available at the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services site.

The Web site of the federal Health Care Financing Administration permits access to its database of information on every Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing home in the country. You can search for New Jersey nursing homes by name or by geographic area. The database lists any deficiencies found in the most recent inspection of the home, along with a rating of the seriousness of the problems found.

Development Easement Triggers Recapture Tax
Estate of James C. Gibbs Sr. v. United States, Third Circuit Court of Appeals (December 1, 1998)

Normally, real estate is valued for estate tax purposes at its fair market value. Internal Revenue Code section 2032A creates an exception in the case of farmland. If the heirs of the estate agree to continue using the property for farming, the land is valued at its value as farmland, which is usually lower. If the heirs stop farming the property or dispose of any interest in the property within ten years, however, a recapture estate tax is payable.

James C. Gibbs, Sr. owned and operated a dairy farm. The market value of the farm was $988,000 at the time of Gibbs' death in 1984. Its value as farmland, however, was only $350,000. James C. Gibbs, Jr., the sole heir of the estate, agreed to the ten-year restrictions under section 2032A. This produced estate tax savings of $218,328. Gibbs, Jr. continued to operate the farm.

On December 21, 1993, more than 9 years after the date of his father's death, Gibbs, Jr. sold the farm's development rights to the State of New Jersey under a farmland preservation program. He received payment of over $1.4 million and in return granted the State a perpetual restriction prohibiting development of the property for nonagricultural purposes.

On learning of the sale, the IRS notified the estate that the sale of development rights was a disposition of an interest in the property triggering the section 2032A recapture tax. The estate disagreed. It argued that a development easement under New Jersey law is considered an "equitable servitude" and not a true easement. Therefore, Gibbs had not disposed of an ownership interest in the property.

The District Court agreed with the estate. However, on appeal the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. It held that whether the conveyance to the State was called an easement, a servitude, or a restrictive covenant was irrelevant. What mattered was that Gibbs had conveyed valuable, permanent rights under state law. That amounted to a conveyance of an "interest" in the property, triggering the recapture tax.


FORESIGHT is a publication of De Maio & De Maio, Attorneys at Law. It is not intended as and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The information contained in this publication should not be acted upon without first obtaining the advice of a professional advisor.

De Maio & De Maio is a law firm located in central New Jersey.  We provide legal services in the areas of estate planning and administration, tax planning, business formation and transfer, trust administration, and related fields.

TO SUBSCRIBE:

Visit our subscription page on the World Wide Web.

Foresight is available on the WORLD WIDE WEB: http://www.demaio.com/

COPYRIGHT 1999 De Maio & De Maio. Permission is granted to reproduce and redistribute this newsletter for noncommercial purposes PROVIDED that 1) the entire newsletter, including this copyright notice, is reproduced without alteration, and 2) no fee or other charge is imposed.

Questions? Comments? Feedback? Contact us.

De Maio & De Maio
154 Main Street
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
(732) 566-3131

De Maio & De Maio Home Page