Estate Question

[kaneohe]

Yup, same for gifts to kids as gifts to the trust.
IIRC there is a three year look back on gifts of life insurance policies, whether to another person or to a trust, and the policy will be part of your estate if you die in that three year period.

(see my signature)

Martha.......does the look back period also apply if the kids are given cash and buy new policies (vs. gifting an existing policy?)

 

[kaneohe]

1. The Unified Tax Credit (UTC) amount is currently either 3 or 3.5 million. Your friend should use the full amount of his UTC immediately and give that much to his children. It will put those assets in the hands of his children, reduce his estate keeping those assets from growing inside his estate creating an even bigger "estate" issue for him down the road. He doesn't have to do this all at one time...but this is the way to "give" more than the $13K/person per year.

I thought the limit on "excess" gifts (over the annual 13K/pp was still 1M lifetime?

 

[Martha]

Martha.......does the look back period also apply if the kids are given cash and buy new policies (vs. gifting an existing policy?)

I don't think so but I don't know all the twists and turns.

I thought the limit on "excess" gifts (over the annual 13K/pp was still 1M lifetime?

Yup.

(again, I have to draw attention to my signature)

 

[dgoldenz]

Martha.......does the look back period also apply if the kids are given cash and buy new policies (vs. gifting an existing policy?)

There is no look-back period if the life insurance policy is owned by the ILIT from the time it is issued. If an existing policy is placed in the trust, then the 3-year look back applies.

 

[dgoldenz]

If the kids own the policy on the deceased, why wouldn't it be part of their estate and not the deceased.

Ask the government. The life insurance proceeds are considered part of the estate of the insured unless it is placed in an ILIT. For someone with $10 million in assets, better to spend $5k and have a top estate planning attorney draw up an ILIT and estate plan than to be cheap and screw things up for the kids.

 

[kaneohe]

There is no look-back period if the life insurance policy is owned by the ILIT from the time it is issued. If an existing policy is placed in the trust, then the 3-year look back applies.

and if the policies are owned by the kids (on life of parents) from the time they are issued

 

[dgoldenz]

and if the policies are owned by the kids (on life of parents) from the time they are issued

Then it's considered part of the estate. Think about it this way - when the insured dies, money is being transferred to the children with life insurance proceeds. That money is transferred along with all other provisions of the will/trust/etc. Most people don't worry about it because they will never exceed the threshold for having to pay an estate tax, but if they were to exceed it when the life insurance is included, then it would be taxable.

To clarify some information posted earlier in this thread, life insurance proceeds are always income tax free (when premiums are paid with after-tax money), but are still taxable for estate tax purposes if the value of the estate exceeds the thresholds.

 

[ERD50]

RE - Life Insurance paid for by Annual Gifting to reduce Estate taxes (on average):

Again, it's not an investment. It will not help the insured person in any way, shape, or form. It will only allow that person to share their accumulated wealth with their family, rather than 300 million wonderful Americans. If said person prefers to be generous and share it with all of America, they can simply not buy a policy and let the kids pay the tax out of the inheritance.

I'm presenting you with facts and premiums that are real and tangible. You are giving me back the same old tired line that insurance companies win and people lose. You know of anywhere else you can put in $37k per year at 70 years old and get back $3 million tax free?

You are giving me a specific case, not averages. No question that Life Insurance 'works' in specific cases that you can present, but we generally can't know that going into the 'deal'. We have to assume averages going in.

Let's take it step-by-step. To keep it simple, let's assume the look-back provision doesn't apply to this case (it would be a wash anyway I think):

A) A person with an expected Estate Tax liability gifts $13K per year each to two individuals. One individual uses the $13K to buy a Life Insurance policy on the person doing the gifting. The other invests it in something reasonable for long term growth.

B) For the "no-ins" person, that $13K and future gains are now exempt from all Estate Taxes. Done deal. Future realized gains would be subject to income taxes. He has a pile of money that grows each year.

C) For the "with-ins" person, they give up the $13K to the ins company each year.

So some date in the future the gift-giver dies. It seems pretty simple, either the insurance policy pays out more than the accumulated value of the premiums or it doesn't. Both piles of money escaped the Estate Tax.

If I put my money into an insurance policy with the hopes that the pay off will be greater than if I invested the money on my own, that sure sounds like a "investment decision" to me. What else is it?

And it seems reasonable that the insurance company can't give away more than they take in on average and stay in business. And there is nothing wrong with that, I'm not 'demonizing' insurance companies at all. I have some insurance policies and I expect that on average I will pay more than I receive. But I am willing to pay to mitigate risk in those cases. It's a fair deal, and one I regularly turn own when I feel I can self-insure.


I'm going to repeat the above quote to address it separately:

If said person prefers to be generous and share it with all of America, they can simply not buy a policy and let the kids pay the tax out of the inheritance.

This is where the insurance reps are tricky (recall your "worth their salt" comment). It's not either/or, yet that is how you present it here. It is not "buy the insurance or do nothing, so the insurance is better". To be apples-apples, you have to assume gifting in each case, and then the applicable question becomes "is applying the gifting to insurance better than letting the gifting accumulate in an account?".

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

and if the policies are owned by the kids (on life of parents) from the time they are issued

Then it's considered part of the estate.

I'm assuming (maybe incorrectly) that in the case kaneohe describes, that the 'kids' are the named beneficiaries on the policy and that the 'kids' paid the premiums from day one. As I understand it, the insurance pay out at death of the insured (the gift-giver) would NOT be part of the gift-giver's estate, but part of the kid's estate.

If the gift-giver is the beneficiary, then yes, the pay out would then become part of the gift-givers estate. Defeats the whole intent.

Am I wrong?

-ERD50

 

[youbet]

Then it's considered part of the estate. Think about it this way - when the insured dies, money is being transferred to the children with life insurance proceeds. That money is transferred along with all other provisions of the will/trust/etc. Most people don't worry about it because they will never exceed the threshold for having to pay an estate tax, but if they were to exceed it when the life insurance is included, then it would be taxable.

To clarify some information posted earlier in this thread, life insurance proceeds are always income tax free (when premiums are paid with after-tax money), but are still taxable for estate tax purposes if the value of the estate exceeds the thresholds.

This doesn't pass my common sense test...... But, of course, few tax laws pass my common sense test.

If mom and dad gift cash to a child and the child chooses to buy life insurance policies on mom and dad with that money wouldn't the situation be that gift tax is due on the cash gift but that there would be no estate tax on the proceeds of the LI policies?

Also, isn't it true that LI policies on elderly or terminally ill people cost about as much as the death value of the policy? That is, running out and buying a one million bux LI policy on your cancer ridden, 95 year old parent is possible, but you'll pay about that much to get it?

Thanks.

 

[dgoldenz]

RE - Life Insurance paid for by Annual Gifting to reduce Estate taxes (on average):

You are giving me a specific case, not averages. No question that Life Insurance 'works' in specific cases that you can present, but we generally can't know that going into the 'deal'. We have to assume averages going in.

Let's take it step-by-step. To keep it simple, let's assume the look-back provision doesn't apply to this case (it would be a wash anyway I think):

A) A person with an expected Estate Tax liability gifts $13K per year each to two individuals. One individual uses the $13K to buy a Life Insurance policy on the person doing the gifting. The other invests it in something reasonable for long term growth.

B) For the "no-ins" person, that $13K and future gains are now exempt from all Estate Taxes. Done deal. Future realized gains would be subject to income taxes. He has a pile of money that grows each year.

C) For the "with-ins" person, they give up the $13K to the ins company each year.

So some date in the future the gift-giver dies. It seems pretty simple, either the insurance policy pays out more than the accumulated value of the premiums or it doesn't. Both piles of money escaped the Estate Tax.

If I put my money into an insurance policy with the hopes that the pay off will be greater than if I invested the money on my own, that sure sounds like a "investment decision" to me. What else is it?

And it seems reasonable that the insurance company can't give away more than they take in on average and stay in business. And there is nothing wrong with that, I'm not 'demonizing' insurance companies at all. I have some insurance policies and I expect that on average I will pay more than I receive. But I am willing to pay to mitigate risk in those cases. It's a fair deal, and one I regularly turn own when I feel I can self-insure.


I'm going to repeat the above quote to address it separately:



This is where the insurance reps are tricky (recall your "worth their salt" comment). It's not either/or, yet that is how you present it here. It is not "buy the insurance or do nothing, so the insurance is better". To be apples-apples, you have to assume gifting in each case, and then the applicable question becomes "is applying the gifting to insurance better than letting the gifting accumulate in an account?".

-ERD50

You are thinking in a way too analytical sense and not a practical sense.

#1 - I am giving you numbers from one case because if I gave it to you from every case would take all day. Call an insurance company and ask what a second-to-die UL policy would cost for $5 million for a 40, 50, 60, and 70 year old couple at standard rates. Take any of those rates and tell me how many years it would take to pay $5 million in premiums. The $5 million is tax free (if in the ILIT). The investment gains on investing $13k each year are taxable. On average, the premium cost for a 40 year old couple will be around 0.5 cents on the dollar, a 50 year old couple around 0.7 cents on the dollar, a 60 year old couple around 1 cent on the dollar, and a 70 year old couple around 1.5 cents on the dollar. How many cents do you need to get to 100? Like I said, they probably aren't going to live to age 160 or 200.

#2 - Most people that well off financially either have children or grandchildren that they want to have their assets when they die, but NOT while they are alive. If you are 40 years old with two 20 year old kids, are you going to gift them $13k per year each? Probably not, because they'll just go out and spend/party with it. That's what a trust is for. A trust gives the insured control on how assets are distributed, to whom, and when, instead of leaving that up to the beneficiaries.

#3 - What happens if you don't buy the insurance, gift them the money, then you kick the bucket two years later? Now they're screwed.

 

[dgoldenz]

I'm assuming (maybe incorrectly) that in the case kaneohe describes, that the 'kids' are the named beneficiaries on the policy and that the 'kids' paid the premiums from day one. As I understand it, the insurance pay out at death of the insured (the gift-giver) would NOT be part of the gift-giver's estate, but part of the kid's estate.

If the gift-giver is the beneficiary, then yes, the pay out would then become part of the gift-givers estate. Defeats the whole intent.

Am I wrong?

-ERD50

If the kids could just be the owner of the policy and keep it out of the estate, there would be little use for an ILIT aside from structuring distribution, which can be done with a revocable trust anyway.

Also, would you want your kids owning a $10 million policy on your life? Probably not. My guess is that you would prefer to create a trust that owns the policy instead.

What happens when one of the kids gets divorced and the ex-wife wants part of the life insurance money because her ex-husband owns part of a $10 million policy?

What happens when one of your kids is named in a multi-million dollar lawsuit? If the money is in their pocket, the person suing them can go after it. If the money is held in an ILIT, they can't.

 

[youbet]

#1 - I am giving you numbers from one case because if I gave it to you from every case would take all day. Call an insurance company and ask what a second-to-die UL policy would cost for $5 million for a 40, 50, 60, and 70 year old couple at standard rates. Take any of those rates and tell me how many years it would take to pay $5 million in premiums. The $5 million is tax free (if in the ILIT). The investment gains on investing $13k each year are taxable. On average, the premium cost for a 40 year old couple will be around 0.5 cents on the dollar, a 50 year old couple around 0.7 cents on the dollar, a 60 year old couple around 1 cent on the dollar, and a 70 year old couple around 1.5 cents on the dollar. How many cents do you need to get to 100? Like I said, they probably aren't going to live to age 160 or 200.

Again, this makes no sense. Are you saying that life insurance companies set themselves up for huge losses (on average) by selling policies where the insured would have to live to "160 or 200" in order for premiums to equal the death benefit?

DW and I are 63. You say we could buy a one million bux policy for a mere $10k/yr premium. What's the catch? It sounds too good to be true.

 

[dgoldenz]

Again, this makes no sense. Are you saying that LI insurance companies set themselves up for huge losses (on average) by selling policies where the insured would have to live to "160 or 200" in order for premiums to equal the death benefit?

DW and I are 63. You say we could buy a one million bux policy for a mere $10k/yr premium. What's the catch? It sounds too good to be true.

I'm not an actuary, so I don't know how they price the policies. These would be the costs for a $1,000,000 policy guaranteed for life, solved for minimum cash value and maximum death benefit, with West Coast Life. I accidentally ran them with maximum cash value earlier, so if you saw those premiums, they were wrong.

73 year old couple - $17,739 per year
63 year old couple - $10,003 per year
53 year old couple - $6,103 per year
43 year old couple - $3,875 per year

The premiums can also be structured to terminate at a specific age, while the death benefit stays guaranteed forever (ex: pay to age 100, guarantee benefit forever, or pay to age 65, guarantee benefit forever, etc)

 

[ERD50]

You are thinking in a way too analytical sense and not a practical sense.

Granted, there can be other, entirely valid factors/concerns outside a straight analysis of the numbers - just like make/buy, rent/own, etc. But, let's deal with those separately, and first determine the numbers. After that, an individual can look at whether those other considerations (which are subjective and will vary for each situation) outweigh the numbers for their case. Just like I do when I buy any insurance product.

Throwing them together clouds the issue. When I see an issue being clouded, I've learned there is usually a reason (agenda) for it.

#1 - I am giving you numbers from one case because if I gave it to you from every case would take all day....

Well, you started with the number examples, so I do feel it is in your court to defend them. I don't need numerous examples, lets just take one. Can you provide numbers and sources for:

65 YO male, average health.

Cost for a $1M policy from a highly rated insurer.

Actuary numbers for Life Expectancy for said 65 YO male, average health.

That should be easy for someone with your experience and resources.

Oh, and those practical matters can work the other way also. What if the beneficiary has a legitimate and real need for the money now rather than some uncertain date of death of the insured? Take a loan out against the policy - gets complicated, no?

-ERD50

 

[dgoldenz]

Granted, there can be other, entirely valid factors/concerns outside a straight analysis of the numbers - just like make/buy, rent/own, etc. But, let's deal with those separately, and first determine the numbers. After that, an individual can look at whether those other considerations (which are subjective and will vary for each situation) outweigh the numbers for their case. Just like I do when I buy any insurance product.

Throwing them together clouds the issue. When I see an issue being clouded, I've learned there is usually a reason (agenda) for it.

Well, you started with the number examples, so I do feel it is in your court to defend them. I don't need numerous examples, lets just take one. Can you provide numbers and sources for:

65 YO male, average health.

Cost for a $1M policy from a highly rated insurer.

Actuary numbers for Life Expectancy for said 65 YO male, average health.

That should be easy for someone with your experience and resources.

Oh, and those practical matters can work the other way also. What if the beneficiary has a legitimate and real need for the money now rather than some uncertain date of death of the insured? Take a loan out against the policy - gets complicated, no?

-ERD50

Age 65 isn't the time to be buying a single life UL policy, and a loan should never be taken on a no-lapse UL policy. You also can't take a loan on a policy held within an ILIT. To answer your questions:

Standard rates - $24,482 per year
Preferred rates - $19,872 per year
Preferred Plus rates - $18,724 per year

I don't know what the life expectancy is since I'm not an actuary, but I'd guess around 20 years (~age 85). Maybe age 90 if they could qualify for P+ rates.

A second-to-die policy will be much cheaper, see my post above. That only works if they are married though.

If the beneficiary has a real need for the money now, that's their problem. They are the beneficiary, remember?

 

[Martha]

Ask the government. The life insurance proceeds are considered part of the estate of the insured unless it is placed in an ILIT.

No. The key issue is transfer of the policy. There are other reasons to do a trust but a trust is not necessary to avoid estate taxes.

For someone with $10 million in assets, better to spend $5k and have a top estate planning attorney draw up an ILIT and estate plan than to be cheap and screw things up for the kids.

Abosolutely.

 

[Martha]

Then it's considered part of the estate. Think about it this way - when the insured dies, money is being transferred to the children with life insurance proceeds. That money is transferred along with all other provisions of the will/trust/etc. Most people don't worry about it because they will never exceed the threshold for having to pay an estate tax, but if they were to exceed it when the life insurance is included, then it would be taxable.

Kaneohe is talking about when the policy itself if owned by the kids. Either the kids purchased it outright or it was given or sold them them. This does in fact take the policy out of the estate. (with a possible three year look back for transfers). The kids will have the pay the premium but mommy or daddy can gift money to the kids to make the premium payment.

 

[dgoldenz]

Kaneohe is talking about when the policy itself if owned by the kids. Either the kids purchased it outright or it was given or sold them them. This does in fact take the policy out of the estate. (with a possible three year look back for transfers). The kids will have the pay the premium but mommy or daddy can gift money to the kids to make the premium payment.

I'm not an estate planning attorney, do you have a reference for this? In any case, it would not be a smart move to have your kids own a policy on your life of that size. Again, what happens when one of the kids gets divorced? The ex-spouse is going to want a piece of that life insurance policy. Do you now want your now-divorced daughter or son in law with a stake in your death worth millions of dollars? There's just no good reason to not put the policy in an ILIT if estate preservation is the end goal.

 

[ERD50]

Age 65 isn't the time to be buying a single life UL policy...

OK, so you seem to be cherry-picking your examples. What if I AM a 65 YO single?

To answer your questions:

Standard rates - $24,482 per year

...

I don't know what the life expectancy is since I'm not an actuary, but I'd guess around 20 years (~age 85).

I'm not an actuary either, but I have a web browser. Vanguard says 83 YO average LE.

https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/retirement/plan-for-a-long-retirement-tool
NOTE: Calculations are based on mortality data from the Society of Actuaries Retirement Participant 2000 Table.

You are also totally (conveniently?) ignoring the time value of money. For apples-apples, you need to add some real rate of return to the accumulated amount.

I don't know how much fine print and ifs/and/buts are in those policies, the numbers you present look fairly attractive - but that leads to a real world question. If the returns are so good, why are there not numerous threads on this board with people recc taking out LI policies on all the old people that they know? Sounds like a real financial winner. You don't need an Estate Tax issue to take advantage of that straight financial analysis.

If the beneficiary has a real need for the money now, that's their problem. They are the beneficiary, remember?

Again, this is a factor outside of whether ins will provide a monetary benefit. The answer will be different for different people. Some people wish to gift while they are alive - no right/wrong.

(just saw your latest post before hitting submit):

In any case, it would not be a smart move to have your kids own a policy on your life of that size.

One step at a time. It either can be done or it cannot. Determine THAT, and then talk about if it is suitable in a particular case or not. Again, all these outside circumstances cloud the issue. Get the facts straight first.

-ERD50

 

[dgoldenz]

OK, so you seem to be cherry-picking your examples. What if I AM a 65 YO single?

Then you will pay the price for not having bought the policy earlier and not being married. What do you want me to say to that? Maybe said person bought term and invested the difference, and now they will pay a substantial price for needing a new policy at an older age. On the other hand, they also didn't pay premiums for the first 65 years on this hypothetical policy.

I'm not an actuary either, but I have a web browser. Vanguard says 83 YO average LE.

https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/retirement/plan-for-a-long-retirement-tool
NOTE: Calculations are based on mortality data from the Society of Actuaries Retirement Participant 2000 Table.

I said about 20 years for a 65 year old, so I guess I was pretty close there.

You are also totally (conveniently?) ignoring the time value of money. For apples-apples, you need to add some real rate of return to the accumulated amount.

I don't know how much fine print and ifs/and/buts are in those policies, the numbers you present look fairly attractive - but that leads to a real world question. If the returns are so good, why are there not numerous threads on this board with people recc taking out LI policies on all the old people that they know? Sounds like a real financial winner. You don't need an Estate Tax issue to take advantage of that straight financial analysis.

I understand there is a time value of money, but as with all life insurance there's also the possibility that you kick the bucket tomorrow. That's why insurance is for insurance and investments are for investments. Regardless, do you know of any safe investments at 73 year old couple can make which will net their kids $1 million tax free for only $17k per year? Probably not.

There are no fine print/ifs/ands/buts (there are, but it's just policy jargon on how the rates are calculated) - you pay the premium and don't touch the cash value, the policy stays in force for life. Think of it as term insurance that is guaranteed for life. You can't take a loan on a term policy and you can't have late payments, same deal here.

Your second statement is a bit out there. If your neighbor came over to your house and asked if he could buy a $1 million policy so he gets paid when you croak, what would you say? I'm sure you know what "insurable interest" is. There's an industry for life settlements, but that's a whole different ballgame.

 

[ERD50]

I'm not an estate planning attorney, do you have a reference for this?

OK, Martha may be busy, she usually comes back with the exact statute (that no one but lawyers can understand ). So a quick google of the terms: "estate tax insurance beneficiary" brought up this:

Life Insurance Ownership - Federal estate taxes

There are a few basic ways to prevent life insurance proceeds from being included in your estate for purposes of the federal estate tax. The easiest and most practical way is to never own it in the first place. That is, the insured party should not be the owner of the policy, but rather, the beneficiary should purchase and own the policy. If your beneficiary (such as your spouse or children) purchases the policy and pays the premiums, the death benefit should not be included in your federal estate. If your beneficiary cannot afford to make the premium payments, you may be able to give him the premium money. If you choose this route, make sure the premium money is placed in an unrestricted bank account titled in the beneficiary's name; for if you pay the premium directly, the IRS will claim that you were the actual owner of the policy and, therefore, will include insurance proceeds in your estate

And to be honest, I'm surprised that someone in the industry (even though they are not an attorney) and making these general comments is unaware of this. It strikes me as pretty basic to the whole situation.

Then you will pay the price for not having bought the policy earlier and not being married. What do you want me to say to that?

Maybe not, but I don't expect you to say things like:

"dgoldenz: A guaranteed universal life or second-to-die universal life (if he's married) is the lowest cost way to pay the tax." without a reasonable qualifier, like "in some situations...."

Your second statement is a bit out there. If your neighbor came over to your house and asked if he could buy a $1 million policy so he gets paid when you croak, what would you say?

Actually, I'm thinking of saying" Hey, why don't we take out policies on each other? Look at these great benefits to our families! Ins cos are giving away money, let's get some!".

-ERD50

 

[dgoldenz]

OK, Martha may be busy, she usually comes back with the exact statute (that no one but lawyers can understand ). So a quick google of the terms: "estate tax insurance beneficiary" brought up this:

Life Insurance Ownership - Federal estate taxes

Thanks, good information. It also says the proceeds "should" not be considered part of your estate, not that it "will" not be considered. I'm sure there's a qualifier in that statement and there may be exceptions. When it's owned by an ILIT, you don't have to worry about that.

And to be honest, I'm surprised that someone in the industry (even though they are not an attorney) and making these general comments is unaware of this. It strikes me as pretty basic to the whole situation.

Like I said, I am not an attorney and there is always one involved on these types of cases that knows the laws and specifics.

Maybe not, but I don't expect you to say things like:

"dgoldenz: A guaranteed universal life or second-to-die universal life (if he's married) is the lowest cost way to pay the tax." without a reasonable qualifier, like "in some situations...."

See my signature for a reasonable qualifier. You could add "in some situations" to just about any statement relating to insurance.

 

[Martha]

I'm not an estate planning attorney, do you have a reference for this? In any case, it would not be a smart move to have your kids own a policy on your life of that size. Again, what happens when one of the kids gets divorced? The ex-spouse is going to want a piece of that life insurance policy. Do you now want your now-divorced daughter or son in law with a stake in your death worth millions of dollars? There's just no good reason to not put the policy in an ILIT if estate preservation is the end goal.

I agree that there are other reasons one might want to have a trust, which I alluded to above. I just wanted to correct the idea that a trust is necessary.

Here you go: United States Code: Title 26,2042. Proceeds of life insurance | LII / Legal Information Institute


So, if you give your entire interest in an insurance policy away to someone (like your adult kids) or some entity (like a charity) and you retain no control whatsoever, it is not going to be part of your estate. The owner of the policy pays the premiums. The owner decides on the beneficiary. You can't have any control. It would not be part of the estate at all if not for the three year look back period.
26 U.S.C. § 2035 : US Code - Section 2035: Adjustments for certain gifts made within 3 years of decedent's death

 

[harley]

Man, I step away from the computer for 18 hours and the thread goes berserk!

Dgoldenz, I see that ERD50 and Martha have already supplied references, so no need for me to. But I read and watch Ed Slott a lot, and he recommends the "kids own the policy and you gift them the premiums" process as a way to pay the estate taxes. It's not foolproof, obviously, but in a lot of cases it works well. As you and Martha said, a trust has it's place in estate planning. But it's not the only way to minimize the tax impact on estates.

As far as an ILIT being a way to avoid having an ex-spouse having a claim, I don't see a difference. If they can claim ownership of a life insurance policy that hasn't paid off yet, I imagine they can do the same for an unfulfilled trust. For that matter, if I was going through a divorce and was worried about it, I'd just miss a few premiums, have the policy cancelled, and pick it up again when the divorce was finalized. The premiums would increase due to increased age, but it would be a lot cheaper than losing half of the inheritance.

Now, let it be known that I am not a lawyer, a CPA, or an insurance agent. I'm merely a guy who has made a hobby of trying to keep my money out of the hands of the gov't, through whatever legal means I can find.