1041 for estate in litigation

I have a client who is the administrator of an estate that is in litigation between the beneficiaries. The administrator is under a court order to pay only expenses and distribute nothing to the beneficiaries until the matter is resolved. The income to the estate is significant and results in a higher tax rate than the beneficiaries are likely to pay had the income been distributed. I have not encountered this situation before and seeking input from the group on the proper handling of the Form 1041. The IRS Specialty Tax Hotline admitted that this situation was beyond their scope in providing guidance. It seems to me that some of the possiblities are:

1 - Report all the income and expenses and pay the higher rate and somehow file amended returns for the estate fiscal years affected or, when the litigation is settled, file a claim for refund of prior year tax payments. 2 - Report only the portion of income used to pay expenses and the associated expenses, and include an explanatory note along with a copy of the court order. 3 - Report all income and expenses and include an expense for the amounts that would have been distributed but for the court order, and then file amended return or report income when the litigation is resolved.

I would appreciate any suggestions or benefit of any experience others may have had in a similar situation. Thanks.

Gordon Bond

> > > > > > > > >
Reply to
njtaxguy
Loading thread data ...

Would it make sense to set up a separate trust, which gets the income that should be distributed to the beneficiaries and holds it until the court rules on who the benficiaries are? Seth

Reply to
Seth Breidbart

Thanks for your response. As I understand you suggestion - The administrator would establish the trust funded with the undistributed income and wait for the court decision. The 'final' distribution would be from the trust per the court's allocation. Is this correct?

Gordon

Reply to
njtaxguy

Estates and trusts have he same marginal tax brackets. The highest rate, 39.6%, kicks in at $7500. Stu

Reply to
Stuart A. Bronstein

That's what it sounds like to me. But I doubt it will give you any benefit. What might be better would for all the beneficiaries to agree that they will individually recognize the income (the trust can send them 1099's), and that the trust will disburse to them sufficient funds to pay the tax until the case is finally resolved. Stu

Reply to
Stuart A. Bronstein

I agree with Stuart - how does this help?

If possible, find a baseline amount that all parties agree should be distributed, and distribute that to the beneficiaries at their presumably lower rates. Keep the disputed amounts in the estate for final disposition, even though the estate will presumably have a higher tax rate. And, I suppose, get the litigation over with as soon as possible, and within the time period for filing amended tax returns. But that raises another question: If an amended tax return is filed, can the income from a previous tax year be considered to have been distributed in that prior tax year? And, if so, the recipient(s) will have to file amended returns as well, and so will they be penalized for not fully paying their taxes by the due date? If so, the higher tax rate of the estate would seem to be lower than the beneficiaries' tax rates plus penalties and interest.

Reply to
Gil Faver

But until the case is resolved, nobody knows whether party A gets 90% or 10% (or 0%) of the trust/income.

Seth

Reply to
Seth Breidbart

But they all at least claim to be current beneficiaries. So I don't see why they can't agree to share the income pro-rata for tax purposes. The trust would issue 1099s and the trust would disburse enough money to pay for the taxes - likely less than if the trust paid its own taxes. Stu

Reply to
Stuart A. Bronstein

They certainly _can_. But I have no idea why they're fighting; if they hate each other and want the other one(s) to get *nothing* they certainly *won't* agree. Even if they're just greedy, someone might feel that 90% less trust taxes of 35% is better than 50% less his tax rate. Seth

Reply to
Seth Breidbart

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.