TEN THINGS ESTATE PLANNERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT INCOME TAX MATTERS

TEN THINGS ESTATE PLANNERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT INCOME TAX MATTERS BY MICKEY R. DAVIS BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP 711 Louisiana, Suite 2300 Houston, Texas 77002 2770 (713) 221-1154 mickey.davis@bgllp.com THE SAN ANTONIO ESTATE PLANNERS COUNCIL'S DOCKET CALL IN PROBATE COURT San Antonio, Texas February 16, 2007

TEN THINGS ESTATE PLANNERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT INCOME TAX MATTERS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW... 1 A. Overview.... 1 B. Scope.... 1 C. Importance of Subchapter J.... 1 D. Approach of this Outline.... 1 II. OVERVIEW OF TRUST AND ESTATE TAXATION... 1 A. Simple Trusts.... 1 1. Mandatory Income Distributions... 1 2. No Charitable Distributions... 1 3. No Distributions in Excess of Current Income... 2 4. Effect of Simple Trust Treatment... 2 B. Estates and Complex Trusts... 2 1. Treatment as a Complex Trust... 2 2. Impact of Complex Trust Treatment Upon Distributions of Current Income... 2 3. Other Effects of Complex Trust Treatment... 2 a. Income Retained by the Trust... 2 b. Application of the "Tier Rules"... 2 c. Undistributed Net Income, and the Accumulation Distributions and the Throwback Rules... 3 4. Special Distribution Rules... 3 a. Specific Bequests... 3 b. Gain on Distributions... 3 c. DNI Carry-out of In-Kind Distributions... 3 d. The 65 Day Rule... 3 e. Distributions Discharging Obligations... 3 f. Grantor Trust Rules... 3 5. Recent Rules Equating Trusts with Estates... 3 6. Rules Equating Estates with Trusts... 4 a. The 65 Day Rule... 4 b. The Separate Share Rule... 4 c. Extension of the "Related Party" Rules to Estates... 4 7. Repeal of Accumulation Distribution Rules and Section 644... 4 a. Continued Application to Foreign Trusts... 4 b. Pre-March '84 Multiple Trusts... 4 c. Sales within Two Years... 4 Page III. THE TOP TEN THINGS THAT ESTATE PLANNERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT INCOME TAX MATTERS... 4 1. ESTATE DISTRIBUTIONS CARRY OUT DISTRIBUTABLE NET INCOME... 4 a. Specific Sums of Money and Specific Property... 5 i. Requirement of Ascertainability... 5 ii. Formula Bequests... 5 iii. Payments from Current Income... 5 iv. Distributions of Real Estate Where Title has Vested... 5 b. The Separate Share Rule... 6 c. Income From Property Specifically Bequeathed... 6 d. Interest on Pecuniary Bequests... 7 2. AN ESTATE MAY RECOGNIZE GAINS AND LOSSES WHEN IT MAKES DISTRIBUTIONS IN KIND... 7 a. Distributions Satisfying the Estate's Obligations... 7 b. Distributions of Assets to Fund Pecuniary Gifts... 7 c. Pension and IRA Accounts Used to Fund Pecuniary Bequests... 8 i. No Receipt By Estate... 8 ii. No IRD Transfer by Estate... 8 iii. Constructive Receipt Rules... 8 iv. Proper Tax Treatment... 8

d. Section 643(e)(3) Election... 9 3. ESTATE BENEFICIARIES MAY RECOGNIZE GAINS AND LOSSES IF THE ESTATE MAKES UNAUTHORIZED NON PRO RATA DISTRIBUTIONS IN KIND... 9 4. INCOME IN RESPECT OF A DECEDENT IS TAXED TO THE RECIPIENT... 9 a. IRD Defined... 9 b. Recognizing IRD... 9 c. Deductions in Respect of a Decedent... 10 5. IMPACT OF DEATH UPON BASIS... 10 a. General Rule... 10 b. Exceptions... 10 i. No New Basis for IRD... 10 ii. No New Basis for Deathbed Transfers to Decedent... 10 6. THE EXECUTOR CAN ELECT TO DEDUCT MANY EXPENSES FOR EITHER INCOME OR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES (BUT NOT BOTH)... 10 a. Section 642(g) Expenses... 10 b. Method of Election... 11 c. Payments From Income... 11 d. Regulatory Guidance... 11 e. Estate Management Expenses... 11 f. Estate Transmission Expenses... 11 g. Reduction for Unrelated Estate Management Expenses... 12 h. Special Rule for Estate Management Expenses Deducted on Estate Tax Return... 12 i. Effective Date... 12 7. WHEN AN ESTATE OR TRUST ALLOCATES "INCOME," THAT MEANS FIDUCIARY ACCOUNTING INCOME, NOT TAXABLE INCOME... 12 a. Look to the Governing Instrument... 12 b. "Fair and Reasonable" Allocations... 12 c. Specific Trust Code Provisions... 12 i. Terms of the Instrument... 13 ii. Grants of Discretionary Authority... 13 iii. Application of the Act... 13 iv. When in Doubt, It's Principal... 13 v. Fair and Reasonable Allocation... 13 d. Accrued Income... 13 i. General Rule... 13 ii. Trapping Distributions... 13 iii. Post-Death Accruals... 13 e. Receipts from Entities... 13 i. Application to "Entities"... 14 ii. General Rule Distributions are Income... 14 iii. When Distributions are Not Income... 14 iv. Partial Liquidations... 14 v. Information from the Entity... 14 f. Business and Farming Operations... 14 i. Treatment as a Business... 14 ii. Cash Flow vs. Income... 14 iii. Types of Businesses... 14 iv. Comparing Former Law... 14 g. Interest and Rents... 14 h. Deferred Compensation, Annuities, and Similar Payments... 15 i. Prior Law... 15 ii. New Rules... 15 i. Liquidating Assets... 15 i. Prior Law... 15 ii. New Rules... 15 j. Minerals, Water and Other Natural Resources... 15 i. Specific Allocations... 15 ii. "Equitable" Allocations... 15 iii. Compare Prior Law... 15 iv. "Deemed" Equitable Allocations... 15 v. Affect on Depletion Deduction... 15 k. Timber.... 16

i. Prior Law... 16 ii. New Rules... 16 iii. Applying Prior Law... 16 l. Underproductive Property.... 16 i. Prior Law... 16 ii. New Rules... 16 m. Other Sales Proceeds... 16 n. Equitable Adjustments... 16 o. Allocation of Disbursements... 17 i. Allocations to Income.... 17 ii. Administration Expenses... 17 p. Allocations to Principal... 17 i. Trustee and Other Fees... 17 ii. Expenses that Affect Principal... 17 iii. Depreciation... 17 iv. Reserves for Extraordinary Expenses... 17 v. Taxes... 17 vi. Taxes Attributable to Receipts... 17 vii. Taxes from Pass-Through Entities... 17 viii. Equitable Adjustments... 17 q. Unitrusts and the Power to Adjust.... 17 i. Unitrusts... 17 ii. The Power to Adjust... 18 iii. Statement of the Power... 18 iv. Availability of the Power... 18 v. Limitations of the Power... 18 vi. Comments on the Power... 19 8. NON-PRO RATA DIVISIONS OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY... 19 9. DEDUCTION OF INTEREST PAID ON PECUNIARY BEQUESTS... 19 10. UNDERSTANDING THE GRANTOR TRUST RULES... 20 a. Reversions... 20 b. Power to Revoke... 20 c. Retention of Income... 20 d. Retention of Control... 21 e. Certain Administrative Powers... 21 f. Section 678... 21 i. Power to Vest Trust Property in One's Self... 21 ii. Releases of Powers... 22 iii. Renunciations of Powers... 22 g. Gift and Estate Taxation of Grantor Trusts... 22 IV. CONCLUSION... 23

Income Tax Matters 1 TEN THINGS ESTATE PLANNERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT INCOME TAX MATTERS I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW A. Overview. The goal of this outline is to provide some practical guidelines on estate planning and administration from a federal income tax viewpoint. The outline provides a review of general federal income tax rules applicable to estates and trusts. It then focuses on ten income tax issues with which every estate planner should be familiar. B. Scope. This outline provides a brief overview of general fiduciary tax principles, but does not purport to be a detailed analysis of Subchapter J of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code"). For the most part, this outline assumes that the reader has a passing familiarity with important federal income tax issues associated with the administration of trusts and estates. The outline reviews recent changes to the fiduciary income tax arena brought about by Congress and the IRS. In addition, since they now play an increasingly important role in sophisticated estate planning, a brief overview of the grantor trust rules is provided. C. Importance of Subchapter J. Attorneys tend to de-emphasize federal income tax issues in estate planning and administration, since they usually do not do income tax compliance work for estates and trusts. There is a strong and growing belief, however, that income taxation of trusts, estates, grantors and beneficiaries will become increasingly important. The increase in the unified credit, the prevalent use of the unlimited marital deduction, and the generous generation-skipping tax exemption all have resulted in a decline in the number of estates for which transfer taxes are due. Increasing use of bypass, marital deduction, and generation-skipping trusts suggests that more and more wealth, and the income resulting from that wealth, can be expected to be held in trust. In addition, in a setting in which income tax brackets for trusts are highly compressed, the IRS can be expected to focus increased attention to the application of the grantor trust rules which seek to shift the tax liability for trust income away from the trust itself. In short, we can expect the government to devote more of its enforcement resources to the long-neglected area of income taxation of decedents, estates, trusts, and beneficiaries. Careless inattention to the federal income tax principles associated with planning and administration can not only increase overall taxes paid by a family, but can also result in unintended shifts in the beneficial interests of distributees. D. Approach of this Outline. Most estate planners can summarize their understanding about estate and trust income tax issues by citing two rules: (i) an inheritance is income tax free to the recipient; and (ii) assets get a step-up in basis at death. These rules are at best overly simplistic, and at worst, downright misleading. This outline points out a number of income tax notions that every estate planner should know, whether in the process of administering an estate or while designing sophisticated income or wealth shifting techniques. The goal of the outline is not to explain how to undertake these complex estate planning or administration efforts. Rather, it seeks to provide essential background knowledge about income tax issues that are fundamental to the practice of estate planning. II. OVERVIEW OF TRUST AND ESTATE TAXATION A brief review of the fundamental principles of income taxation of trusts and estates serves as a useful background. Trusts fall into one of two categories, simple or complex. In general, estates are taxed as though they were complex trusts. A. Simple Trusts. To qualify as a simple trust, a trust must satisfy three requirements. 1. Mandatory Income Distributions. The first requirement for simple trust treatment is that the trust must, by its terms, require the trustee to distribute all income at least annually. I.R.C. 651(a)(1). "Income" for this purpose means fiduciary accounting income determined under local law -- not taxable income. I.R.C. 643(b). As discussed in detail below, this provision is an area where the application of state law can have a controlling impact upon the income taxation of the entity and its beneficiaries. In Texas, "fiduciary accounting income" is determined under the Texas Trust Code and the relevant provisions of the governing instrument. For periods beginning January 1, 2004, the relevant provisions are those of the new Texas Uniform Principal and Income Act described below. Note that to qualify as a simple trust, the trustee need not distribute all of its taxable or distributable net income. Note also that "income" refers to the amount of income, not the actual physical identification or labeling of the distributed asset on the trustee's books of account. Thus, even if the trustee distributes an asset categorized on the trustee's books as corpus, that distribution will nevertheless be treated as carrying out the trust's income, to the extent that the trust has income as of the last day of its fiscal year. 2. No Charitable Distributions. The second requirement to qualify as a simple trust is that the trust must not provide that any amounts are to be paid,

2 2007 DOCKET CALL IN PROBATE COURT permanently set aside, or used for charitable purposes. I.R.C. 651(a)(2). 3. No Distributions in Excess of Current Income. Finally, to qualify as a simple trust, the trust must make no actual distributions of corpus in the particular tax year in question. I.R.C. 651(a). The precise rule is that simple trust treatment does not apply in any year that the trust distributes amounts in excess of its fiduciary accounting income. Of course, for this purpose, the trustee can distribute any assets, whether they are received with an income label or held as part of corpus, but they will be regarded as income distributions so long as the aggregate value of all distributions for the year do not exceed the amount of fiduciary accounting income for the year. The trust loses simple trust status only if "corpus" is distributed in the sense that the value of all property distributed during the year exceeds the amount of fiduciary accounting income for the year. 4. Effect of Simple Trust Treatment. If the trust meets the three-part test for a simple trust, the trust is generally taxed as a conduit. The trust is allowed a distribution deduction that washes ordinary income of the trust out to the beneficiaries. The amount and character of the income passes through pro rata to the recipients, unless the instrument validly directs a different allocation of various items of income. Conduit taxation, measured by the notation of "Distributable Net Income ("DNI") as defined in Section 643(a) of the Code, is much as though the beneficiaries owned the income-producing property themselves and earned the income directly (except to the extent that fiduciary accounting income differs from distributable net income). Until the recent modification of Treasury Regulation 1.643(a)-3, capital gains were virtually never distributable from the trust, except in its final year. The new Regulation substantially broadens the circumstances under which capital gains may be passed out to the trust's beneficiaries. B. Estates and Complex Trusts. 1. Treatment as a Complex Trust. Any trust that is not a simple trust is complex, and all estates are taxed as though they were complex trusts. Often, a trust is complex merely because its terms do not require the distribution of all income annually. Even nonaccumulation trusts may be complex because they provide for charity, or make distributions in excess of income. An otherwise simple trust which makes excess distributions in some years but not in others (e.g., discretionary distributions of principal, or distributions in the year of termination), can be complex in some years and simple in others. 2. Impact of Complex Trust Treatment Upon Distributions of Current Income. To the extent current income is distributed, it doesn't matter whether the trust is simple or complex. Both trusts get a distribution deduction that washes out the distributable net income. I.R.C. 651(a); 661(a)(1). Beneficiaries include the income on their income tax returns subject to the same timing and characterization rules. If distributions are made to multiple beneficiaries, they generally include that income on their respective income tax returns pro rata in proportion to the total amount that each beneficiary receives. I.R.C. 652(b) and (c); 662(b) and (c). 3. Other Effects of Complex Trust Treatment. The key difference between simple and complex trusts is the treatment of accumulated income, and the treatment of distributions made among mandatory vs. discretionary distributees. a. Income Retained by the Trust. When an estate or complex trust retains taxable income, the entity itself becomes a taxpayer. The trust or estate must pay tax on taxable income in excess of its distribution deduction. This retained net income may thereafter be held as part of the principal under local law, but the governing instrument may provide for different treatment. Distributions that exceed current income are treated as a distribution of corpus, which are tax free to the beneficiary under Code Section 102. b. Application of the "Tier Rules". The so-called "tier rules" are designed to address the problem that arises by the general pro rata carry-out rules for DNI when a trust makes distributions of income to both mandatory and discretionary income beneficiaries. DNI is allocated first to "Tier I distributions," which are either required current distributions of income, or income used for any required distribution. I.R.C. 662(a)(1). Tier II distributions are all other distribution, whether required or discretionary, and whether made from current income, accumulated income, or corpus. I.R.C. 662(a)(2). Example 1: A trust instrument requires the trustee to distribute $50,000 of income to A each year, and permits the trustee to distribute to B as much principal and income as B may require. In a year in which the trust has $60,000 of taxable income, the trustee makes distributions totaling $50,000 to A, and $25,000 to B. If the general pro rata rules were applied to these distributions, A would report $40,000 of taxable income ($60,000 x ($50,000/$75,000)) and B would report $20,000 ($60,000 x ($25,000/$75,000)). In other words, income would be reported in the ratio of the total distributions made to each beneficiary. The tier rules, however, require instead that all DNI be allocated first to A to the extent of the required distribution

Income Tax Matters 3 ($50,000), with only the balance ($10,000) allocated to B a result much more in keeping with the terms of the trust agreement's description of the distributions. Except in the limited circumstances noted in the following paragraph, the balance of the distribution to B ($15,000) is treated as a tax-free distribution of corpus. c. Undistributed Net Income, and the Accumulation Distributions and the Throwback Rules. For years prior to 1998, regardless of whether a trust's retained income was treated as principal or income under the governing instrument, it was required to be tracked by the trustee as "undistributed net income" (UNI) for income tax purposes. I.R.C. 665(a). Distributable net income not distributed to beneficiaries in a given year, net of the amount of the taxes paid by the trust, was known as UNI, available for distribution in future years. The later distribution of this UNI was referred to as an "accumulation distribution." The throwback rules imposed an additional tax upon accumulation distributions that was designed to be a rough approximation of the tax that the ultimate beneficiary would have paid in the year that the income was recognized by the trust, as if there had been no accumulation. This tax was measured by a series of computations which sought to approximate the additional tax that would have paid if an average distribution had been made to the beneficiary in a typical year. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 repealed the accumulation distribution and throwback rules for distributions after 1997, except for distributions from trusts formed before March 1, 1984, and then only for distributions to a beneficiary who is entitled to receive distributions from multiple trusts formed for tax avoidance purposes. I.R.C. 665(c). 4. Special Distribution Rules. The general rules outlined above are subject to a number of exceptions and refinements. For example: a. Specific Bequests. Distributions of specific bequests, devises or legacies do not carry out DNI. I.R.C. 663(a)(1). b. Gain on Distributions. Distributions of property in kind (as opposed to cash) to satisfy an obligation of the entity, including an obligation to make distributions of income to a beneficiary, are effectively treated as a sale or exchange of the distributed property by the trust or estate that may generate gain or loss (and correspondingly adjust basis), and carry out DNI to the extent of the fair market value of the property. Rev. Rul 68-392, 1968-2 CB 284. c. DNI Carry-out of In-Kind Distributions. In-kind distributions that are not themselves gain realization events are governed by Section 643(e). DNI is carried out to the extent of the lesser of basis or fair market value of the asset. However, the executor or trustee may elect to treat the distribution as a realization event, with the corresponding basis adjustment and effect on the DNI carry out. I.R.C. 643(e)(3). d. The 65 Day Rule. If the trustee of a complex trust (or an executor) makes a distribution during the first 65 days of its tax year, it may elect to treat those distributions as having been made on the last day of the prior year. If this election is made, DNI for the prior year will be carried out and reported by the distributees as though they actually received the distribution on the last day of the trust or estate's prior year. I.R.C. 663(b). e. Distributions Discharging Obligations. Theoretically, distributions that discharge a person's legal obligation to the recipient of the distribution will cause the obligated person to be treated as the beneficiary. Treas. Reg. 1.643(c)-1(a). Neither this regulation nor Treasury Regulation Section 1.662(a)-4, which also deals with distributions discharging legal obligations, has been litigated. f. Grantor Trust Rules. If a trust is characterized as a "grantor trust," then the grantor trust rules are given preference over the foregoing rules taxing income to the trust or its beneficiaries. I.R.C. 671. The grantor trust rules are discussed below, beginning at page 20 5. Recent Rules Equating Trusts with Estates. For the most part, estates and trusts are treated the same for income tax purposes after the grantor's death. Historically, there have been several relatively minor differences, though, most of which gave estates a slight edge from an income tax standpoint over post-death revocable trusts used as estate surrogates. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 largely eliminated these differences. Under the new rules, after a grantor's death, the trustee of a revocable trust created by the grantor, and the executor of the grantor's estate (if any), may irrevocably elect to treat a "qualified revocable trust" as part of the grantor's estate for income tax purposes. I.R.C. 645. This election should cure a whole array of potential income tax disparities, including, but not limited to, fiscal year-end selection, holding periods for S stock, waiver of active participation for passive losses, use of the $600 allowance in lieu of personal exemption, income tax deductions for charitable set asides, Section 194 amortization of reforestation expenditures, avoidance of estimated tax payment requirements for two years, etc. The election must be made on the estate's first timely income tax return (including extensions), and applies until "the date which is 6 months after the date of the final determination of the liability for tax imposed by

4 2007 DOCKET CALL IN PROBATE COURT chapter 11," or if no estate tax return is due, two years after the date of death. 6. Rules Equating Estates with Trusts. In those few areas where revocable trusts held the edge over estates, changes were made to bring estates in line with trusts. Thus: a. The 65 Day Rule. The 65-day rule is extended to estates, so that an executor who makes distributions during the first 65 days of an estate's fiscal year can treat them as having been made during the prior year. This rule allows post-year-end planning to minimize DNI left in an estate. I.R.C. 663(b). b. The Separate Share Rule. The "separate share rule" is applied to estates. This rule acts as an exception to the general rule that DNI gets carried out pro rata based upon distributions made in any given year. Instead, by applying the separate share rule, DNI is allocated to estate beneficiaries based upon distributions of their respective "share" of the estate's DNI. I.R.C. 663(c). The IRS has now issued final regulations applying the separate share rules to estates. See T.D. 8849, 2000-2 I.R.B. 245; Treas. Reg. 1.663(c)-4. c. Extension of the "Related Party" Rules to Estates. In one area that estates held an edge, the advantage was taken away to a certain degree. Specifically, the "related party" rules, which prohibit recognition of losses in transactions between related parties, were extended to transactions between an estate and its beneficiaries. They continue to apply to trusts and their beneficiaries. The new rules do not apply, however, to disallow losses if depreciated assets are used to fund pecuniary gifts. I.R.C. 267(b)(13). Qualified revocable trusts can now get this same post-death loss recognition treatment when funding pecuniary gifts by electing to be treated as estates under new Section 645. 7. Repeal of Accumulation Distribution Rules and Section 644. As noted above, the accumulation distribution throwback rules are repealed for most trusts for distributions made in years beginning after August 5, 1997. These rules sought to impose additional income taxes on beneficiaries who received a distribution from a trust that had accumulated income in prior years at marginal rates lower than the beneficiary's. The goal of the tax was to keep trustees from accumulating income in years when the trust's tax brackets were lower than the beneficiary's, and then distributing that accumulated income in later years. The tax computation was complex, and ever since the advent of trust income tax rate compression (which started in 1986), rarely resulted in any additional tax being paid. I.R.C. 665(c). a. Continued Application to Foreign Trusts. The repeal does not apply to foreign trusts, or (except to the extent permitted by regulations) to domestic trusts that were at one time foreign trusts. I.R.C. 665(c)(1). b. Pre-March '84 Multiple Trusts. The repeal also does not apply to trusts created before March 1, 1984 unless it can be established that the "multiple trust" rule described in Section 643(f) does not apply. I.R.C. 665(c)(2). Section 643(f) applies to aggregate multiple trusts if: (i) the trusts have substantially the same grantor and primary beneficiary; and (ii) a principle purpose of the trusts is the avoidance of income tax. Note that the statute seems to require the taxpayer to establish the non-applicability of the multiple trust rule. Therefore, beneficiaries of pre- March 1, 1984 trusts may still be required to undertake this computation if they are beneficiaries of more than one trust created by the same grantor. c. Sales within Two Years. Also repealed is the somewhat related rule taxing trusts that sell property within two years of contribution at the tax rate of the grantor. This change applies to sales or exchanges after the date of enactment. Former I.R.C. 644. III. THE TOP TEN THINGS THAT ESTATE PLANNERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT INCOME TAX MATTERS With apologies to David Letterman, here is my own personal list of the top ten income tax issues that every estate planner should know. I don't pretend to present them in order of importance (or, for that matter, in any particular order). There are certainly other income tax issues that merit consideration. (Send your favorites to me at mdavis@mrd-law.com. I'll try to work them into the next version of this outline.) Mastery of these ten, however, should give you a good background in fundamental income tax issues that arise in the estate planning and administration context. Most estate planners think of an inheritance as being free from income tax. I.R.C. 102(a). Nevertheless, I start my "top ten list" with four important income tax issues that arise when estate assets are distributed. These areas are the carry out of estate income; the recognition of gain by the estate at the time of funding certain gifts; the impact upon beneficiaries of making unauthorized non-pro rata distributions of assets in kind; and the impact of distributing IRD assets. The income tax effect of estate distributions is an important area both in terms of language included in the governing instrument and the steps taken and elections made by the executor in the administration of the estate. 1. ESTATE DISTRIBUTIONS CARRY OUT DISTRIBUTABLE NET INCOME. The general rule is that

Income Tax Matters 5 any distribution from an estate will carry with it a portion of the estate's distributable net income ("DNI"). Estate distributions are generally treated as coming first from the estate's current income, with tax free distributions of "corpus" arising only if distributions exceed DNI. If distributions are made to multiple beneficiaries, DNI is allocated to them pro rata. Example 2: Assume A and B are beneficiaries of an estate worth $1,000,000. During the year, the executor distributes $200,000 to A and $50,000 to B. During the same year, the estate earns income of $100,000. Unless the separate share rule discussed at page 6 below applies, the distributions are treated as coming first from estate income, and are treated as passing to the beneficiaries pro rata. Therefore, A will report income of $80,000 ($100,000 x ($200,000/$250,000)); B will report income of $20,000 ($100,000 x ($50,000/$250,000)). The estate will be entitled to a distribution deduction of $100,000. If the estate had instead distributed only $50,000 to A and $25,000 to B, each would have included the full amount received in income, the estate would have received a $75,000 distribution deduction, and would have reported the remaining $25,000 as income on the estate's income tax return. Section 663 (b) of the Code has permitted complex trusts to treat distributions made during the first 65 days of the trust's tax year as though they were made on the last day of the preceding tax year. This election enables trustees to take a second look at DNI after the trust's books have been closed for the year, to shift income out to beneficiaries. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 extends the application of the 65 day rule to estates for tax years beginning after August 5, 1997. As a result, for example, the executor of an estate can make distributions during the first 65 days of Year 2, and elect to treat them as though they were made on the last day of Year 1. If the executor makes this election, the distributions carry out the estate's Year 1 DNI, and the beneficiaries include the distributions in income as though they were received on the last day of the estate's Year 1 fiscal year. The general rule regarding DNI carry-out is subject to some important exceptions. a. Specific Sums of Money and Specific Property. Section 663(a)(1) of the Code contains a special provision relating to gifts or bequests of "a specific sum of money" or "specific property." If the executor pays these gifts or bequests all at once, or in not more than three installments, the distributions will effectively be treated as coming from the "corpus" of the estate. As a result, the estate will not receive a distribution deduction for these distributions. By the same token, the estate's beneficiaries will not be taxed on the estate's DNI as a result of the distribution. i. Requirement of Ascertainability. In order to qualify as a gift or bequest of "a specific sum of money" under the Treasury Regulations, the amount of the bequest of money or the identity of the specific property must be ascertainable under the terms of the governing instrument as of the date of the decedent's death. In the case of the decedent's estate, the governing instrument is the decedent's Will. ii. Formula Bequests. Under the Treasury Regulations, a marital deduction or credit shelter formula bequest typically does not qualify as a gift of "a specific sum of money." The identity of the property and the exact sum of money specified are both dependent upon the exercise of the executor's discretion. For example, if the executor elects to deduct administration expenses on the estate's income tax return, the amount of the formula marital gift will be higher than if those expenses are deducted on the estate tax return. Since the issues relating to the final computation of the marital deduction or credit shelter bequest cannot be resolved on the date of the decedent's death, the IRS takes the position that the bequest will not be considered "a specific sum of money." Treas. Reg. 1.663(a)-1(b)(1); Rev. Rul. 60-87, 1960-1 C.B. 286. Thus, funding of formula bequests whose amounts cannot be ascertained at the date of death does carry out distributable net income from the estate. iii. Payments from Current Income. In addition, amounts that an executor can pay, under the express terms of the will, only from current or accumulated income of the estate will carry out the estate's distributable net income. Treas. Reg. 1.663(a)- 1(b)(2)(i). iv. Distributions of Real Estate Where Title has Vested. The transfer of real estate does not carry out DNI when conveyed to the devisee thereof if, under local law, title vests immediately in the distributee, even if subject to administration. Treas. Reg. 1.661(a)-2(e); Rev. Rul. 68-49, 1968-1 C.B. 304. Title vests immediately under Section 37 of the Texas Probate Code. See Welder v. Hitchcock, 617 S.W.2d 294, 297 (Tex. Civ. App.--Corpus Christi 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Therefore, a transfer by an executor of real property to the person or entity entitled thereto should not carry with it any of the estate's distributable net income. Presumably, this rule applies both to specific devisees of real estate and to devisees of the residue of the estate. Otherwise, the no-carry-out rule would be subsumed within the more general rule that specific bequests do not carry out DNI. Rev. Rul. 68-49, 1968-1 C.B. 304. Note, however, that the IRS Office of the Chief Counsel recently released an IRS Service

6 2007 DOCKET CALL IN PROBATE COURT Center Advice Memorandum (SCA 1998-012) which purports to limit this rule to specifically devised real estate (not real estate passing as part of the residuary estate) if the executor has substantial power and control over the real property (including a power of sale). b. The Separate Share Rule. Generally, in the context of estate distributions made to multiple beneficiaries, DNI is carried out pro rata among the distributees of the estate. For example, in a year in which the estate has $10,000 of DNI, if the executor distributes $15,000 to A and $5,000 to B, A will include $7,500 of DNI in his income, and B will include $2,500 in his income, since the distributions were made 75% to A and 25% to B. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 has made a substantial modification to the pro rata rule by applying the "separate share rule" to estates. Under this rule, DNI is allocated among estate beneficiaries based upon distributions of their respective "share" of the estate's DNI. I.R.C. 663(c). The Committee Report describing this change provides that there are separate shares of an estate "when the governing instrument of the estate (e.g., the will and applicable local law) creates separate economic interests in one beneficiary or class of beneficiaries such that the economic interests of those beneficiaries (e.g., rights to income or gains from specific items of property) are not affected by economic interests accruing to another separate beneficiary or class of beneficiaries." The IRS has now issued final regulations applying the separate share rules to estates. See T.D. 8849, 2000-2 I.R.B. 245; Treas. Reg. 1.663(c)-4. As a result of this change, the executor will have to determine whether the Will (or the intestate succession law) creates separate economic interests in one beneficiary or class of beneficiaries. Example 3: A Will bequeaths all of the decedent's IBM stock to X and the balance of the estate to Y. During the year, the IBM stock pays $20,000 of dividends. No other income is earned. The executor distributes $20,000 to X and $20,000 to Y. Prior to the adoption of the separate share rule, the total distributions to X and Y would have simply been aggregated and the total DNI of the estate in the year of distribution would have been carried out pro rata. Under the separate share rules, the distribution of $20,000 to X carries out all of the DNI to X. No DNI is carried out to Y. Thus, application of the separate share rule more accurately reflects the economic interests of the beneficiaries resulting from estate distributions. Distributions to beneficiaries who don't have "separate shares" continue to be subject to the former "pro rata" rules. As noted above, application of the separate share rule is mandatory. The executor doesn't elect separate share treatment, nor may it be elected out of. Apparently, application of the separate share rules to estates was simply one of a host of small statutory changes that sought to bring the taxation rules for trusts and estates in line with one another. In practice, however, application of the separate share rules to estates may prove to be very complex. Unlike separate share trusts, which are typically divided on simple fractional lines (e.g., "one-third for each of my children") the "shares" of estates may be hard to identify, let alone account for. Under the final Regulations, a revocable trust that elects to be treated as part of the decedent's estate is a separate share. The residuary estate (and each portion of a residuary estate) is a separate share. A share may be considered as separate even though more than one beneficiary has an interest in it. For example, two beneficiaries may have equal, disproportionate, or indeterminate interests in one share which is economically separate and independent from another share in which one or more beneficiaries have an interest. Moreover, the same person may be a beneficiary of more than one separate share. A bequests of a specific sum of money paid in more than three installments (or otherwise not qualifying as a specific bequest under Section 663(a)(1) of the Code) is a separate share. If the residuary estate is a separate share, than presumably pre-residuary pecuniary bequests (such as marital deduction formula bequests) are also separate shares. For a good discussion of some of the complexities associated with the application of the separate share rules to estates, see Cantrell, Separate Share Regulations Propose Surprising Changes, TRUSTS & ESTATES, March 1999 at 56. c. Income From Property Specifically Bequeathed. The 2003 Texas Legislature enacted two major pieces of legislation that affect the administration of trusts in Texas. These statutes, the Uniform Prudent Investor Act and the Uniform Principal and Income Act (dubbed by the estate planning community as the "UPIA Twins") apply to all trusts existing on or created after January 1, 2004. For existing trusts, the new rules apply to all acts or decisions relating to the trust occurring after December 31, 2003. Section 378B of the Probate Code now provides that income from the assets of a decedent's estate that accrues after the date of death of the testator and before distribution, is to be allocated as provided in the Texas Uniform Principal and Income Act. See also Zahn v. National Bank of Commerce, 328 S.W.2d 783 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas, 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Historically, if the property was distributed by the estate, together with the income to which the devisee was entitled, the distribution of income might or might not have been treated as taxable income by the beneficiary. Until the adoption of the separate share rules, DNI was distributed on a pro rata basis among all beneficiaries receiving distributions. The items of income were not specifically identified

Income Tax Matters 7 and traced. As a result, the beneficiary may well have been taxed not on the income item actually received, but on his or her pro rata share of all income distributed to beneficiaries. However, since the income earned on property specifically bequeathed appears to be a "separate economic interest...", the separate share rules should change this result. This change means that if an estate makes a current distribution of income from specifically bequeathed property to the devisee of the property, the distribution will carry the DNI associated with it out to that beneficiary, regardless of the amount of the estate's other DNI or distributions. If the estate accumulates the income past the end of its fiscal year, the estate itself will pay tax on the income. When the income is ultimately distributed in some later year, the beneficiary will be entitled to only the net (after tax) income under Section 378B of the Texas Probate Code. In addition, the later distribution should not carry out DNI under the separate share rules, since it is not a distribution of current income, and since the accumulation distribution throwback rules (which still apply to certain pre-1985 trusts) do not apply to estates. As this example illustrates, the separate share rules, while complex to administer, have the advantage of making the income tax treatment of estate distributions more closely follow economic reality. d. Interest on Pecuniary Bequests. The Texas Uniform Principal and Income Act requires that a devisee of a pecuniary bequest (that is, a gift of a fixed dollar amount), whether or not in trust, is entitled to interest on the bequest, beginning one year after the date of death. Tex. Prop. Code 116.051(3). The amount of interest that will be paid on pecuniary bequests is the legal rate of interest on open accounts provided for under Section 302.002 of the Texas Finance Code (currently, six percent). The provision for paying interest on pecuniary bequests does not limit itself to payments from estate income. The executor must charge this "interest" expense to income in determining the estate's "net" income to be allocated to other beneficiaries. Tex. Prop. Code 116.051(4). Note that former Section 378B(f), which started the running of interest one year after Letters Testamentary were issued, was repealed by the legislature in favor of the new provisions of the Trust Code. Unfortunately, it was then later re-enacted (apparently unintentionally) in legislation correcting references to the Texas Finance Code. Presumably only the Trust Code provision applies. For a discussion of the income tax issues associated with the deductibility of this interest payment by the estate, see page 19, below 2. AN ESTATE MAY RECOGNIZE GAINS AND LOSSES WHEN IT MAKES DISTRIBUTIONS IN KIND. Unless a specific exception applies, all estate distributions, whether in cash or in kind, carry out the estate's DNI. Generally, the amount of DNI carried out by an in-kind distribution to a beneficiary is the lesser of the adjusted basis of the property prior to distribution, or the fair market value of the property at the time of the distribution. I.R.C. 643(e). The estate does not generally recognize gain or loss as a result of making a distribution to a beneficiary. This general rule is subject to some important exceptions. a. Distributions Satisfying the Estate's Obligations. Distributions which satisfy an obligation of the estate are recognition events for the estate. The fair market value of the property is treated as being received by the estate as a result of the distribution, and the estate will recognize any gain or loss if the estate's basis in the property is different from its fair market value at the time of distribution. Rev. Rul. 74-178, 1974-1 C.B. 196. Thus, for example, if the estate owes a debt of $10,000, and transfers an asset worth $10,000 with a basis of $8,000 in satisfaction of the debt, the estate will recognize a $2,000 gain. b. Distributions of Assets to Fund Pecuniary Gifts. A concept related to the "discharge of obligation" notion is a distribution of assets to fund a bequest of "a specific dollar amount," including a formula pecuniary bequest. Example 4. A formula gift requires an executor to distribute $400,000 worth of property. If the executor funds this bequest with assets worth $400,000 at the time of distribution, but worth only $380,000 at the date of death, the estate will recognize a $20,000 gain. The rules governing this area should not be confused with the "specific sum of money" rules which govern DNI carry outs. Unless the formula language is drawn very narrowly, most formula gifts do not constitute gifts of a "specific sum of money," exempt from DNI carryout, because they usually cannot be fixed exactly at the date of death (for example, most formula marital bequests must await the executor's determination of whether administration expenses will be deducted on the estate tax return or the estate's income tax return before they can be computed). Such gifts are, however, treated as bequests of "a specific dollar amount" for gain recognition purposes, regardless of whether they can be precisely computed at the date of death. As a, result, gains or losses we be recognized by the estate if the formula gift describes a pecuniary amount to be satisfied with date-of-distribution values, as opposed to a fractional share of the residue of the estate. Compare Treas. Reg. 1.663(a)-1(b) (to qualify as bequest of specific sum of money or specific bequest of property, and thereby avoid DNI carry-out, the amount of money or the identity of property must be ascertainable under the will as of the date of death) with Treas. Reg. 1.661(a)-2(f)(1) (no gain or loss recognized unless distribution is in satisfaction of a right to receive a

8 2007 DOCKET CALL IN PROBATE COURT specific dollar amount or specific property other than that distributed). See also Treas. Reg. 1.1014-4(a)(3); Rev. Rul. 60-87, 1960-1 C.B. 286. For fiscal years beginning on or before August 1, 1997, estates could recognize losses in transactions with beneficiaries. Although the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 repealed this rule for most purposes, an estate may still recognize a loss if it distributes an asset that has declined in value in satisfaction of a pecuniary bequest. I.R.C. 267(b)(13). Note, however, that loss recognition is denied to trusts used as estate surrogates as a result of the related party rules of Section 267(b)(6) of the Code, except for qualified revocable trusts electing to be treated as estates under Section 646 of the Code. c. Pension and IRA Accounts Used to Fund Pecuniary Bequests. Several commentators have argued that if a pension asset is used to satisfy a pecuniary legacy, the use of that asset will be treated as a taxable sale or exchange, and this treatment will accelerate the income tax due. This analysis is based upon Treasury Regulation 1.661(a)-2(f)(1), which requires an estate to recognize gain when funding a pecuniary bequest with an asset whose fair market value exceeds its basis, as though the asset is sold for its fair market value at the date of funding. See Rev. Rul. 60-87, 1960-1 C.B. 286. If an estate uses an asset constituting income in respect of a decedent to satisfy a pecuniary bequest, application of this principle would cause the gain to be accelerated. In this author's opinion, however, it can be persuasively argued that this acceleration will not occur if the beneficiary is not the estate, but the trustee named in the participant's Will. Three lines of analysis confirm this result: i. No Receipt By Estate. The recognition rules under Treasury Regulation Section 1.661(a)-2(f)(1) apply only in the context of a distribution by the estate in satisfaction of a right to receive a specific dollar amount. When a "testamentary trustee" is named as the beneficiary of a pension plan or IRA, there is clearly no distribution by the estate, and no acceleration event should occur to the estate. The estate, after all, is subjected to taxation only on income received by the estate during the period of administration or settlement of the estate. I.R.C. 641(a)(3). Pension benefits payable directly to the trustee of the trust established under the Will of the plan participant are never "received by the estate." This fact remains true even if the Will contains instructions directing the testamentary trustee to use these funds in whole or in part to fund a pecuniary bequest. The fact that the executor takes these non-testamentary transfers into account in measuring the amount of other amounts needed to fund the pecuniary bequest should not change this result. Since the non-probate pension assets are not subject to administration, the estate cannot properly be said to be the taxpayer with respect to any transaction involving these benefits. ii. No IRD Transfer by Estate. Separate and apart from the gain recognition rules of Treasury Regulation Section 1.661(a)-2(f)(1) is the IRD recognition rule of Section 691 of the Code. However, the recognition rules of Section 691(a)(2) of the Code, by their terms, apply only if the right to receive income in respect of a decedent is transferred "by the estate of the decedent or a person who receives such right by reason of the death of the decedent..." (emphasis added). If the testamentary trustee is the beneficiary, there is simply no transfer by the estate. Moreover, there is no transfer by any "person" who receives such right by reason of the decedent's death. The Code expressly excludes from the definition of "transfer" requiring IRD acceleration any "transmission at death... to a person pursuant to the right of such person to receive such amount by reason of the death of the decedent...". I.R.C. 691(a)(2) (emphasis added). In that event, the recipient (here, the trust) includes these amounts in gross income not when the right to the payment is received, but only when the payments themselves (i.e., the distributions from the retirement plan) are actually received. I.R.C. 691(a)(1)(B). iii. Constructive Receipt Rules. The general rules which describe the timing of recognition for income attributable to an IRD asset are reinforced by the statutes expressly governing pension distributions. Amounts held in qualified plans and IRA's are taxable to the recipient only when actually distributed. I.R.C. 72, 402(a). The mere fact that benefits under the plan or IRA are made available, or that the participant or beneficiary has access to them, is not determinative, since the constructive receipt rules do not apply to these assets. I.R.C. 402(a)(1), 408. iv. Proper Tax Treatment. Therefore, if the testamentary trustee receives, whether by a spouse's disclaimer or by direct designation by the participant, the right to receive plan distributions, no income tax should be payable until such time as distributions are actually made from the plan or IRA to the trust, even if the assignment of the right to receive plan assets otherwise reduces (or eliminates) the amount that the estate needs to distribute in satisfaction of a pecuniary bequest. Instead, the testamentary trust should be able to defer taxation on pension and IRA proceeds until such time as those accounts are distributed (which may be until they are required to be distributed in accordance with the minimum required distribution rules). See PLR 9630034 (pecuniary disclaimer by spouse of ½ interest in decedent's IRA does not cause recognition to spouse or estate).

Income Tax Matters 9 d. Section 643(e)(3) Election. The executor may elect under Section 643(e)(3) of the Code to recognize gain and loss on the distribution of appreciated and depreciated property. If this election is made, the amount of the distribution for income tax purposes will be the fair market value of the property at the time of the distribution. The Section 643(e) election must be made on an "all or nothing" basis, so that the executor may not select certain assets and elect to recognize gain or loss on only those assets. Of course, if the executor wants to obtain the effect of having selected certain assets, he or she may actually "sell" the selected assets to the beneficiary for the fair market value of those assets, recognizing gain in the estate. The executor can thereafter distribute the sales proceeds received to the beneficiary who purchased the assets. Note that if an executor makes a Section 643(e)(3) election in a year that an IRD asset is distributed by the estate, gain would be accelerated, even if the distribution is otherwise subject to a Section 691(a)(2) exception, since the asset representing the IRD will be treated as having been sold by the estate in that year. For fiscal years beginning after August 1, 1997, the Section 643(e)(3) election (or an actual sale to a beneficiary) can cause the estate to recognize gains, but not losses, since under the principles of Section 267 of the Code, the estate and its beneficiary are now treated as related taxpayers. I.R.C. 267(b)(13). 3. ESTATE BENEFICIARIES MAY RECOGNIZE GAINS AND LOSSES IF THE ESTATE MAKES UNAUTHORIZED NON PRO RATA DISTRIBUTIONS IN KIND. If an estate makes unauthorized non-pro rata distributions of property to its beneficiaries, the IRS has ruled that the distributions are equivalent to a pro rata distribution of undivided interests in the property, followed by an exchange of interests by the beneficiaries. This deemed exchange will presumably be taxable to both beneficiaries to the extent that values differ from basis. Rev. Rul. 69-486, 1969-2 C.B. 159. Example 5: A decedent's estate passes equally to A and B, and contains two assets, stock and a farm. At the date of death, the stock was worth $100,000 and the farm worth $110,000. At the date of distribution, each are worth $120,000. If the executor gives the stock to A and the farm to B and if the will fails to authorize non-pro rata distributions, the IRS takes the view that A and B each received one-half of each asset from the estate. A then "sold" his interest in the farm (with a basis of $55,000) for stock worth $60,000, resulting in a $5,000 gain to A. Likewise, B "sold" his interest in the stock (with a basis of $50,000) for a one-half interest in the farm worth $60,000, resulting in a $10,000 gain to B. To avoid this result, the governing instrument should expressly authorize non-pro rata distributions. See page 19 for a discussion of an analogous issue in the context of non-pro rata divisions of community property between the estate and the surviving spouse. 4. INCOME IN RESPECT OF A DECEDENT IS TAXED TO THE RECIPIENT. A major exception to the rule that an inheritance is income tax free applies to beneficiaries who receive payments that constitute income in respect of a decedent. I.R.C. 691. a. IRD Defined. Income in respect of a decedent ("IRD") is not defined by statute, and the definition in the Treasury Regulations is not particularly helpful. Generally, however, IRD is comprised of items which would have been taxable income to the decedent if he or she had lived, but because of the decedent's death and tax reporting method, is not includable in the decedent's final Form 1040. Examples of IRD include accrued interest; dividends declared but not payable; unrecognized gain on installment obligations; bonuses and other compensation or commissions paid or payable following the decedent's death; and amounts in IRAs and qualified benefit plans upon which the decedent has not been taxed. A helpful test for determining whether an estate must treat an asset as IRD is set forth in Estate of Peterson v. Commissioner, 667 F.2d 675 (8th Cir. 1981). The estate's basis in an IRD asset is equal to its basis in the hands of the decedent. No step-up is provided. I.R.C. 1014(c). b. Recognizing IRD. If the executor distributes an IRD asset in a manner which will cause the estate to recognize gain on the distribution, or if a Section 643(e)(3) election is made and the asset is distributed in the year of the election, the result will be to tax the income inherent in the item to the decedent's estate. Absent one of these recognition events, if the estate of the decedent transmits the right to an IRD asset to another person who would be entitled to report that income when received, the transferee, and not the estate, will recognize the income. Thus, if a right to IRD is transferred by an estate to a specific or residuary legatee, only the legatee must include the amounts in income when received. Treas. Reg. 1.691(a)-4(b)(2). If IRD is to be recognized by the estate, the tax costs may be substantial. In a setting where a substantial IRD asset is distributed from the estate in a manner causing recognition, a material decrease in the amount passing to other heirs might result. Example 6: In 2007, X dies with a $2.5 million estate. The Will makes a formula marital gift of $500,000 to the spouse, leaving the rest of the estate to a bypass trust. If an IRD asset worth $500,000 but with a basis

10 2007 DOCKET CALL IN PROBATE COURT of $0 is used to fund this marital gift, the estate will recognize a $500,000 gain. The spouse will receive the $500,000 worth of property, but the estate will owe income tax of some $173,900, presumably paid from the residue of the estate passing to the bypass trust. Payment of this tax would leave only $1,826,100 to fund the bypass trust. Under these circumstances, the testator may wish to consider making a specific bequest of the IRD asset to insure that the income will be taxed to the ultimate beneficiary as received, and will not be accelerated to the estate. c. Deductions in Respect of a Decedent. A concept analogous to income in respect of a decedent is applied to certain deductible expenses accrued at the date of the decedent's death. Those "deductions in respect of a decedent" ("DRD") are allowable under Code Section 2053(a)(3) for estate tax purposes as claims against the estate, and are also allowed as deductions in respect of a decedent for income tax purposes to the person or entity paying those expenses. I.R.C. 691(b). The general rule disallowing both income and estate tax deductions for administration expenses, discussed below at page 10 does not apply to DRD. The theory behind allowing this "double" deduction is that had the decedent actually paid this accrued expense prior to death, he could have claimed an income tax deduction, and the cash on hand in his estate would be reduced, thereby effecting an estate tax savings as well. Of course, interest, administration expenses, and other items not accrued at the date of the decedent's death are subject to the normal election rules of Section 642(g) of the Code discussed below. 5. IMPACT OF DEATH UPON BASIS. Most practitioners describing the impact of death upon basis use a kind of short-hand by saying that assets get a "step-up" in basis at death. In inflationary times, this oversimplification is often accurate. However, it is important to remember that the basis of an asset may step up or down. For most assets, the original cost basis in the hands of the decedent is simply irrelevant. It is equally important to remember that the basis adjustment rule is subject to some important exceptions. a. General Rule. In general, the estate of a decedent receives a new cost basis in its assets equal to the fair market value of the property at the appropriate valuation date. I.R.C. 1014. In most cases, the basis is the date-of-death value of the property. However, if the alternate valuation date for estate property has been validly elected, that value fixes the cost basis of the estate's assets. I.R.C. 1014(a)(3). The basis adjustment rule also applies to a decedent's assets held by a revocable trust used as an estate surrogate, since they are deemed to pass from the decedent pursuant to Sections 2036 and 2038 of the Code. Although often called a "step up" in basis, various assets may be stepped up or down as of the date of death. The adjustment to the basis of a decedent's assets occurs regardless of whether the estate is large enough to be subject to federal estate tax. Original basis is simply ignored and federal estate tax values are substituted. Note that the new cost basis applies not only to the decedent's separate property but also to both halves of the community property owned by a married decedent. I.R.C. 1014(b)(6). b. Exceptions. There are two important exceptions to the basis adjustment rule. i. No New Basis for IRD. Items which constitute income in respect of a decedent receive a carryover basis. I.R.C. 1014(c). This rule is necessary to prevent recipients of income in respect of a decedent from avoiding federal income tax with respect to items in which the income receivable by a decedent was being measured against his basis in the asset. ii. No New Basis for Deathbed Transfers to Decedent. Section 1014(e) of the Code provides a special exception for appreciated property given to a decedent within one year of death, which passes from the decedent back to the donor as a result of the decedent's death. This rule is presumably designed to prevent avaricious taxpayers from transferring property to dying individuals, only to have the property bequeathed back to them with a new cost basis. 6. THE EXECUTOR CAN ELECT TO DEDUCT MANY EXPENSES FOR EITHER INCOME OR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES (BUT NOT BOTH). An executor is often confronted with a choice of deducting estate administration expenses on the estate tax return, or the estate's income tax return. In most instances, double deductions are disallowed. I.R.C. 642(g). Between 1986 and 1992, the decision about where to deduct an expense was simplified by the fact that the lowest effective federal estate tax bracket (37%) was always higher than the highest marginal income tax bracket applied to estates (typically 31%). If estate tax was due, a greater tax benefit was always obtained by deducting expenses on the estate tax return. Between 1993 and 2003, the analysis was more difficult. Now that the highest income tax bracket for estates is 35%, while the lowest effective estate tax bracket is 45%, the old analysis once again applies. a. Section 642(g) Expenses. The executor must make an election to take administration expenses as a deduction for income tax purposes by virtue of Section 212 of the Code, or to deduct those same expenses as an estate tax deduction under Section 2053 of the Code.

Income Tax Matters 11 No double deduction is permitted. Expenses to which this election applies include executors' fees, attorneys' fees, accountants' fees, appraisal fees, court costs, and other administration expenses, provided that they are ordinary and necessary in collection, preservation, and management of the estate. There is no requirement that the estate be engaged in a trade or business or that the expenses be applicable to the production of income. Treas. Reg. 1.212-1(i). Note, however, that expenses attributable to the production of tax-exempt income are denied as an income-tax deduction to estates, just as they are to individuals, under Section 265(1) of the Code. Interest on estate taxes deferred under Section 6166 of the Code, which now accrues at only 45% of the regular rate for interest on under payments, is no longer allowed as an estate tax or on income tax deduction. I.R.C. 2053(c)(1)(D); 163(k). b. Method of Election. Technically, the Code and Treasury Regulations require the executor to file with the estate's income tax return a statement, in duplicate, to the effect that the items have not been allowed as deductions from the gross estate of the decedent under Section 2053 or 2054 and that all rights to have such items allowed at any time as deductions under Section 2053 or 2054 are waived. Treas. Reg. 1.642(g)-1. Some executors tentatively claim expenses on both returns, filing the income tax return waiver statement only after the estate has received a closing letter and deductions on the estate tax return have proven unnecessary. This approach can be dangerous, however, if deductions are taken on the estate tax return, and the estate receives a closing letter without examination of or adjustment to the return. Under these circumstances, presumably, the income tax waiver statement could not lawfully be filed, since the deductions in question will have been "allowed" as deductions from the gross estate. c. Payments From Income. Increased attention has been focused on the interaction of state law and tax rules in determining whether estate administration expenses are chargeable to principal or income. The importance of this issue is illustrated by Commissioner v. Estate of Hubert, 117 S.Ct. 1124 (1997) where the executor charged administration expense to estate income for both state law and tax law purposes. The IRS held that such an allocation constituted a "material limitation" on the rights to income otherwise afforded recipients of marital and charitable gifts, and denied estate tax deductions for the gifts to which these expenses were allocated. After litigating the issue all the way to the United States Supreme Court, limited guidance was given. The "plurality" opinion held that, under the facts presented, the executor's decision to charge expenses to income did not constitute a "material limitation" on the interest passing to the surviving spouse. In a somewhat more comprehensible concurring opinion written by Justice O'Connor, she noted that the measure of materiality is a matter within the province of the Commissioner to set forth by regulation. Since the regulations that were in force at the date of death did not establish a test for materiality, and since the Tax Court opinion in this case was consistent with current law and regulations, no loss of the marital deduction was appropriate in this particular case. Justice O'Connor specifically noted, however that "[t]here is no reason why this labyrinth should exist, especially when the Commissioner is empowered to promulgate new regulations and make the answer clear. Indeed, nothing prevents the Commissioner from announcing by regulation the very position she advances in this litigation." d. Regulatory Guidance. Not surprisingly, the Treasury Department, responding to Justice O'Connor's invitation, has announced new regulations providing guidance on this issue. Treas. Reg. 20.2013-4(b)(3), 20.2055-3; 20.2056(b)-4(d). Unlike the "material limitation" rules under the prior regulations, the new regulations permit deductions depending upon the nature of the expenses in question. The regulation provides that "estate management expenses" may be deducted as an income tax deduction (but not as an administrative expense for estate tax purposes) without reducing the marital or charitable deduction. Expenses that constitute "estate transmission expenses" will require a dollar for dollar reduction in the amount of marital or charitable deduction. e. Estate Management Expenses. Estate management expenses are "expenses incurred in connection with the investment of the estate assets and their preservation and maintenance during a reasonable period of administration. Examples of these expenses include investment advisory fees, stock brokerage commissions, custodial fees and interest." Treas. Reg. 20.2055-3(b)(1)(i) ; 20.2056(b)-4(d)(1)(i). f. Estate Transmission Expenses. Estate transmission expenses are all estate administration expenses that are not estate management expenses. These expenses reduce the amount of the marital or charitable deduction if they are paid out of assets that would otherwise pass to the surviving spouse or to charity. Estate transmission expenses include expenses incurred as a result of the "consequent necessity of collecting the decedent's assets, paying the decedent's debts and death taxes, and distributing the decedent's property to those who are entitled to receive it." Examples of these expenses could include executor commissions and attorney fees (except to the extent of commissions or fees specifically related to investment, preservation, and maintenance of assets), probate fees, expenses incurred in construction proceedings and defending against Will contests, and appraisal fees.

12 2007 DOCKET CALL IN PROBATE COURT Treas. Reg. 20.2055-3(b)(1)(ii); 20.2056(b)- 4(d)(1)(ii). g. Reduction for Unrelated Estate Management Expenses. In addition to reductions for estate transmission expenses, the final regulations require that the marital deduction be reduced by the amount of any estate management expenses that are "paid from the marital share but attributable to a property interest not included in the marital share." Treas. Reg 20.2056(b)- 4(d)(1)(iii)(4). Similar language is applied to charitable gifts. Treas. Reg. 20.2055-3(b)(4). h. Special Rule for Estate Management Expenses Deducted on Estate Tax Return. If estate management expenses are deducted on the estate tax return, the marital or charitable deduction must be reduced by the amount of any estate management expenses "that are deducted under section 2053 on the decedent's Federal estate tax return." Treas. Reg. 20.2055-3(b)(3); 20.2056(b)-4(d)(3). The justification for this position is the language in Section 2056(b)(9) of the Code, which provides that nothing in section 2056 or any other estate tax provision shall allow the value of any interest in property to be deducted for federal estate tax purposes more than once with respect to the same decedent. Example 7: $150,000 of life insurance proceeds pass to the decedent's child, and the balance of the estate passes to the surviving spouse. The decedent's applicable credit amount had been fully utilized prior to death. If estate management expenses of $150,000 were deducted for estate tax purposes, the marital deduction would have to be reduced by $150,000. Otherwise, the estate "would be taking a deduction for the same $150,000 in property under both sections 2053 and 2056." As a result, the deduction would have the effect of sheltering from estate tax $150,000 of the insurance proceeds passing to the decedent's child. Treas. Reg 20.2056(b)-4(d)(5), Ex.4. i. Effective Date. The new regulation apply to estates of decedents dying on or after December 3, 1999. Treas. Reg. 20.2055-3(b)(7); 20.2056(b)- 4(d)(6). 7. WHEN AN ESTATE OR TRUST ALLOCATES "INCOME," THAT MEANS FIDUCIARY ACCOUNTING INCOME, NOT TAXABLE INCOME. Estate planning attorneys that spend too much of their time studying tax rules sometimes forget that not every situation is governed by the Internal Revenue Code. Nowhere is this failure more prevalent that in the area of allocating and distributing estate and trust "income." In general, when a trust (or the income tax rules applicable to estates and trusts) speaks of "income" without any modifier, it means fiduciary accounting income, and not taxable income. I.R.C. 643(b). In measuring fiduciary accounting income, the governing instrument and local law, not the Internal Revenue Code, control. Therefore, estate planners should have a basic understanding of these state law rules. a. Look to the Governing Instrument. Beginning January 1, 2004, trusts and estates are governed by the new Texas Uniform Principal and Income Act. The new Act provides that allocations between income and principal will be made in accordance with the specific provisions of the governing instrument. Provisions in the a Will or trust agreement should therefore control allocations of income and expense, so long as they are specific enough to show that the testator or grantor chose to define a specific method of apportionment. See Interfirst Bank v. King, 722 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. App. -- Tyler 1986, no writ). In the absence of specific provisions in the instrument, the provisions of the Act control allocations between income and principal. Tex. Prob. Code Ann. 378B(b); Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 116.051. Former Section 113.101(b) of the Texas Trust Code provided that if the governing instrument gave the trustee the discretion to allocate income or expenses, the exercise of that discretion in a manner contrary to the terms of Trust Code was not actionable. Former Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 113.101(b). The discretion was not, however, unlimited. A trustee must not act outside the bounds of reasonable judgment. Thorman v. Carr, 408 S.W.2d 259, 260 (Tex. Civ. App.--San Antonio 1966) aff'd per curium, 412 S.W.2d 45 (Tex. 1967). b. "Fair and Reasonable" Allocations. The Act now requires that the fiduciary must make allocations based upon what is "fair and reasonable" to all beneficiaries, and further provides that (i) a determination in accordance with the Act is presumed to be "fair and reasonable," and (ii) to the extent that the neither the terms of the governing instrument or the Act provide a rule for allocating a receipt or disbursement between principal and income, it is to be allocated to principal. Tex. Prop. Code 116.004. The Texas Bar Commentary for this section states that the new rule provides greater protection for fiduciaries by establishing a certain presumption for "fair and reasonable" allocations. A court may overturn a fiduciary's allocations only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. Tex. Prop. Code. Ann. 116.006. c. Specific Trust Code Provisions. (1) A Not-So-Unified Principal and Income Act. Prior to 2004, principal and income allocations in Texas were based upon a highly customized version of the 1962 Revised Uniform Principal and Income Act. In 2002, a special legislative committee of the Real Estate,

Income Tax Matters 13 Probate, and Trust Law Section of the Texas Bar began studying the 1997 version of the Uniform Principal and Income Act ("UPIA") promulgated by the Uniform Laws Commission. This statute has as its stated purpose to "support the now widespread use of the revocable living trust as a will substitute, to change the rules in those Acts that experience has shown need to be changed, and to establish new rules to cover situations not provided for in the old Acts, including rules that apply to financial instruments invented since 1962." The State Bar committee identified a number of concerns with UPIA, and provided a number of recommended changes to UPIA prior to its adoption by the 2003 Texas Legislature. Because of the extent of the departure from prior law, and the uncertainty that might arise if the Act were effective in the middle of an accounting year, the legislature deferred its effective date until January 1, 2004. (2) Allocations in General. Section 116.004 of the Texas Trust Code provides the outline for income and principal allocations, with detailed guidance on specific forms of property and activities being provided by Sections 116.151 through 116.206. Section 116.004 provides five rules for determining how allocations are to be made: i. Terms of the Instrument. Under the first rule, a fiduciary must administer the trust or estate in accordance with the terms of the trust instrument or Will, even if the statute provides some different provision. ii. Grants of Discretionary Authority. If the trust instrument or Will grants the fiduciary the power to make discretionary allocations, the fiduciary may administer a trust or estate by the exercise of that discretionary power of administration, even if the exercise of the power produces results different from the results required or permitted under the Act. iii. Application of the Act. If the governing instrument does not contain a contrary provision or grant discretion to the fiduciary, the provisions of the Act must be follow. iv. When in Doubt, It's Principal. If no provision of the governing instrument or the Act controls, the receipt or disbursement must be allocated to principal. v. Fair and Reasonable Allocation. Finally, in exercising a "power to adjust" as outlined below, or a discretionary power of administration, whether granted under the governing instrument or the Act, the fiduciary "shall administer a trust or estate impartially, based on what is fair and reasonable to all of the beneficiaries, except to the extent that the terms of the trust or will clearly manifest an intention that the fiduciary shall or may favor one or more of the beneficiaries." As noted above, a determination in accordance with the Act is presumed to be fair and reasonable to all of the beneficiaries. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 116.004. d. Accrued Income. i. General Rule. Items accrued on the day before the date of death, such as rent, interest and annuities, are treated as principal under the Texas Trust Code, even if those items are considered income (presumably, income in respect of a decedent) under the tax law. Tex. Prop. Code 116.102(a). However, if the income is derived from an asset that is specifically bequeathed, the income is distributable to the recipient of that asset. Tex. Prop. Code 116.051(l). ii. Trapping Distributions. A trust which must distribute all of its "income" (i.e., fiduciary accounting income measured under the Texas Trust Code) would be entitled to retain income accrued before the date of death, since these items are principal under local law. Tex. Prop. Code 116.101(b). The effect of retaining such property may be to trap the taxable income attributable to this property within the trust. This trapping of income presents an opportunity to use an otherwise simple trust as a taxpayer in the year it is funded. Naturally, since the trust's tax rates reach 35% at only $10,450.00 in income (for 2007), the tax savings generated by this technique are limited. In 2007, a simple trust with $10,750.00 in income ($300.00 of which would be excluded by the trust's allowance in lieu of personal exemption) would pay a tax of $2,701.00 instead of $3,762.5 if the entire $10,750.00 were taxed to a beneficiary in the 35% bracket a savings of only $1,061.50. iii. Post-Death Accruals. Although income accrued before the date of death is principal, funds received by a trustee from an estate that constitute the estate's income under Section 378B of the Texas Probate Code is treated as trust income under Section 116.152 of the Texas Trust Code. Tex. Prob. Code Ann. 378B(g). Tex. Prop. Code 116.101(b)(2). Accordingly, this post-death income passing from the estate to the trust will not be "trapped." e. Receipts from Entities. Under the former rules, cash dividends from corporations were clearly income, as were distributions of, or rights to subscribe to, securities of corporations other than the distributing corporation. Former Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 113.104. Distributions from other entities, such as partnerships and LLCs, were more problematic. Under the Act, however, all distributions from any "entity" are treated similarly. Tex. Prop. Code 116.151.

14 2007 DOCKET CALL IN PROBATE COURT i. Application to "Entities". For purposes of this provision, an "entity" includes corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, mutual funds, REITs, common trust funds, and any other entity except an estate, a trust, or a proprietorship. ii. General Rule Distributions are Income. In general, distributions of money are allocated to income. iii. When Distributions are Not Income. A distribution is allocated to principal if it is (i) property other than money; (ii) money paid in a single or series of distributions in redemption of the trust's interest in the entity; (iii) money received in a total or partial liquidation of the entity; (iv) or money received from a mutual fund or REIT characterized as a "capital gain dividend" for federal income tax purposes. Tex. Prop. Code 116.151(c). According to the Uniform Act comment, a "capital gain dividend" is the excess of the fund's net long-term capital gain over its net short-term capital loss. As a result, a capital gain dividend does not include any net short-term capital gain, and cash received by a trust because of a net short-term gain is income under the Act. iv. Partial Liquidations. Money is received in partial liquidation if the entity so indicates, or if the total distribution is greater than 20% of the entity's gross assets. Tex. Prop. Code 116.151(d). However, money will not be treated as a partial liquidation (or be taken into account in measuring "20% of the entity's gross assets") to the extent of the trust's income tax on the distributing entity's taxable income. Tex. Prop. Code 116.151(e). v. Information from the Entity. If the distributing entity provides the trustee with a statement at or near the time of the distribution setting forth information about the source or character of a distribution, the trustee is entitled to rely on that statement. Tex. Prop. Code 116.151(f). f. Business and Farming Operations. If a fiduciary operates a business or farming operation owned as a sole proprietorship, he or she may elect, if it is in the best interest of all beneficiaries, to account separately for the business or activity, instead of accounting for it as part of the trust's general assets. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 116.153. ii. Cash Flow vs. Income. If a separate accounting is undertaken, the trustee may determine the extent to which its net cash needs to be retained for working capital, acquisition or replacement of fixed assets, or other reasonably foreseeable needs of the business, and the extent to which the remaining net cash receipts are to be allocated to principal or income. If the assets of the business are sold outside the ordinary course of business (and the sales proceeds are no longer required in the conduct of the business) the proceeds are allocated to principal. Tex. Prop. Code 116.153(b). iii. Types of Businesses. The activities to which this provision apply include retail, manufacturing, service and other traditional businesses; farming; raising and selling livestock; management of rental properties; mineral extraction; timber operations; and derivative operations. iv. Comparing Former Law. Under former law, business and farming operations (presumably including partnerships) were to be accounted for using generally accepted accounting principals ("GAAP"). This requirement gave rise to a host of questions, including how a trustee who couldn't justify the expense of GAAP financial statements was to base allocations, how an interest in a partnership was to be treated, and how a trustee might to compel a partnership to provide GAAP accounting information. g. Interest and Rents. As under prior law, rents are treated as income, including amounts received for cancellation or renewal of a lease. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 116.161. Interest is also income, whether denominated as fixed, variable, or floating. If a fiduciary sells a note or other obligation to pay money more than one year after it is acquired, the sales proceeds must be allocated to principal, even if the obligation was acquired for less than its value at maturity. If the obligation is disposed of within one year after it is acquired, an amount received in excess of its purchase price or value when acquired must be allocated to income. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 116.163. i. Treatment as a Business. Treatment as a business would mean, for example, that a interest earned in a money market account used to hold rents from a shopping center would not necessarily be income, but would be added to other receipts and disbursements of the shopping center business to measure "net" income.

Income Tax Matters 15 h. Deferred Compensation, Annuities, and Similar Payments. i. Prior Law. In 1993, the Texas legislature rewrote Section 113.109 of the Texas Trust Code to deal specifically with "deferred payment rights," including qualified and non-qualified employee benefit plans. Under the statute as rewritten, proceeds received were credited to income up to five percent of the "inventory value" of the right, with the balance constituting principal. In the first year, the "inventory value" was defined to mean the cost of property purchased by a trustee, the market value of the property at the time it became subject to the trust, or, in the case of a testamentary trust, the value used by the trustee as finally determined for estate tax purposes. Once the initial value was assigned, the inventory value was adjusted by the five percent accrual, as though it were a promissory note bearing interest at five percent compounded annually. Unfortunately, this approach ignored changes in the market value of the retirement assets. ii. New Rules. The Act now provides that (i) to the extent that the payer characterizes a payment as interest, a dividend, or equivalent payment, the payment is allocated to income; and (ii) if no part is so designated, and if all or any part of the payment is require to be made, an allocation is made to income to the extent of four percent of the "fair market value of the future payment asset," less the amount allocated to income for a previous payment in the same accounting period. Fair market value is measured on the day the asset first becomes subject to the trust, or after the first year, on the first day of the trust's year. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 116.172. i. Liquidating Assets. i. Prior Law. Under former law, proceeds from depletable property other than minerals (for example, leaseholds, patents, copyrights and nonmineral royalties) acquired by a trust on or after September 1, 1993, constituted income to the extent of five percent of the inventory value, adjusted in the same manner as a promissory note bearing interest at five percent compounded annually. Former Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 113.109. All proceeds from depletable property acquired before September 1, 1993, constituted income unless the trustee had a duty to change the form of the investment. If the trustee was required, either under local law or under the terms of the trust instrument, to alter the form of the investment, up to 5% of the value of the asset disposed of is income, and the balance was allocable to principal. Id. ii. New Rules. For assets acquired on or after January 1, 2004, the trustee is to allocate ten percent of each receipt (not ten percent of the inventory value) to income, and the balance to principal. For assets on hand on January 1, 2004, the trustee may allocate receipts "in the manner provided by this Chapter or in any lawful manner used by the trustee before January 1, 2004 to make the same allocation." Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 116.173. j. Minerals, Water and Other Natural Resources. i. Specific Allocations. The Texas Trust Code provides that nominal delay rentals are income, but production payments are principal except to the extent of any factor for interest provided for in the governing instrument. ii. "Equitable" Allocations. With respect to royalties, shut-in-well payments, take-or-pay payments, bonuses, or delay rentals that are more than nominal, the trustee must allocate receipts "equitably." Receipts from working interest or other amounts not expressly provided for must also be allocated "equitably." Amounts received for water are income if the water is renewable. If the water is not renewable, the proceeds must be allocated "equitably." iii. Compare Prior Law. Under former law, the trustee was required to maintain a reserve for most mineral royalties equal to the lesser of 27.5% of the gross proceeds or 50% of the net proceeds. Former Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 113.107(d). For assets on hand on January 1, 2004, the trustee may allocate receipts "in the manner provided by this Chapter or in any lawful manner used by the trustee before January 1, 2004 to make the same allocation." Tex. Prop. Code Ann 116.174. iv. "Deemed" Equitable Allocations. So how does a fiduciary make sure that an allocation is being made "equitably"? The statute provide no specific guidance expect that an allocation of a receipt is presumed to be equitable if the amount allocated to principal is equal to the amount allowed by the Internal Revenue Code as a deduction for depletion (generally, 15%). Id. v. Affect on Depletion Deduction. Under current tax rules, a depletion deduction is used by the trust or estate to the extent that the entity maintains a reserve, so all of the depletion deduction would be trapped in the trust. If the grantor or testator wants all royalty income to be paid to the income beneficiary, this provision should be altered by the terms of the will or trust. The effect of such an alteration is to cause the tax depletion to follow the trust income. See I.R.C. 611(b)(3); Treas. Reg. 1.611-1(c)(4).

16 2007 DOCKET CALL IN PROBATE COURT k. Timber. i. Prior Law. Former law provided that receipts from the disposition of timber were allocated "in accordance with what is reasonable and equitable to the income and remainder beneficiaries of the trust." No specific guidance was given, and the trustee was left to devise a fair allocation. Former Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 113.108. This provision was presumably designed to deal with the bunching of income that arises when a large stand of timber is cut and sold in a single year after many years of growing time. The flexibility in the Trust Code was presumably designed to allow the trustee the ability to normalize income regardless of the management technique used. In contrast to mineral allocations, which went from specific to "equitable," timber allocations now have specific rules. ii. New Rules. The fiduciary is now required to allocate net receipts: (i) to income to the extent the amount of timber removed does not exceed the rate of growth of timber during the accounting period in which a beneficiary has a mandatory income interest; (ii) to principal to the extent that the amount of timber removed exceeds the rate of growth of timber, or the net receipts are from the sale of standing timber; (iii) to or between income and principal if the net receipts are from the lease of timberland or from a contract to cut timber, applying the rules of (i) and (ii) above; and (iv) to principal to the extent that advance payments, bonuses and other payments are not allocated by the foregoing rules. Tex. Prop. Code 116.175. iii. Applying Prior Law. Again, for timber on hand on January 1, 2004, the trustee may allocate receipts "in the manner provided by this Chapter or in any lawful manner used by the trustee before January 1, 2004 to make the same allocation." Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 116.175(d). l. Underproductive Property. i. Prior Law. Former law provided that property which did not produce an average net income, ignoring depreciation and obsolescence, equal to 1% of its value was considered "underproductive" property. If the trustee was under a duty to change the investment, and was delayed from disposing of the investment for one year after the property became underproductive, and if the property was sold for a profit prior to distribution, the income beneficiary was allocated the lesser of the profit on the sale of the property or the amount of the net sales proceeds sufficient to bring the return on the property up to 4% simple interest during the delay period. Former Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 113.110. deduction was allowed for property passing to a trust, and the property does not provide the spouse with sufficient income (and if the power to adjust discussed below does not cure the problem), the spouse may require the trustee to make the property productive of income, convert the property within a reasonable period of time, or exercise the power to adjust. The trustee can decide which of these steps to take. Tex. Prop. Code Ann 116.176. m. Other Sales Proceeds. Proceeds from the sale of or other disposition of property not classified as underproductive are considered principal, and accordingly, capital gains are allocable as principal to the trust absent provisions of the trust instrument to the contrary. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 116.161. n. Equitable Adjustments. The Act now permits a fiduciary to make adjustments between principal and income to offset the shifting economic interests or tax benefits between income beneficiaries and remainder beneficiaries that arise from (i) elections that the fiduciary makes from time to time regarding tax matters; (ii) an income tax imposed upon the fiduciary or a beneficiary as a result of a distribution; or (iii) the ownership by an estate or trust of an entity whose taxable income, whether or not distributable, is includable in the taxable income of the estate, trust or a beneficiary. Tex. Prop. Code 11.206(a). A mandatory adjustment must be made from income to principal to the extent an election would otherwise decrease an estate tax marital or charitable deduction. Tex. Prop. Code 116.206(b). Prior to the adoption of this section, Texas had no provision for equitable adjustment, although it had been a part of the common law in other jurisdictions for some time. Example 8: Equitable adjustments can be illustrated by Estate of Bixby, 140 Cal. App. 2d 326, 295 P.2d 68 (1956). There, the executor elected under Section 642(g) to take deductions for income tax purposes, which reduced income taxes by $100,000.00, at the cost of $60,000.00 in estate tax savings. Based upon the terms of the Will, the income tax savings inured to the benefit of the income beneficiary, while the loss of estate tax savings came at the expense of the remainder beneficiaries. The court required the benefitted estate to pay $60,000.00 in damages to the remainder beneficiaries as an "equitable adjustment." As a result, the remainder beneficiaries were unharmed, and the income beneficiaries received the net $40,000.00 tax savings. ii. New Rules. The Act eliminates this provision and provides instead only that if an estate tax marital