B (3:16)

And on that one, with somebody looking through their trust, where do they go? Look to see if that exists. Is that just the power of substitution or kind of. Where. Where would you see what would be the terminology there? And then I do want to talk about why that's important.

A (3:27)

Yeah. Every trust is drafted differently. And so generally speaking, if you're trying to change something within the trust, you're looking at its powers. Because with investment usually also comes reinvestment. Right. So if it's as simple as, you know, I'm currently. I currently hold like real estate within this trust, and now I want to convert it to some. Something with higher growth. I want to sell the real estate, go and, you know, invest in some crypto or something like that. That's just a reinvestment of the. The proceeds within the trust. And that's still considered to be the principle of the trust, like it's seed fund. You're just changing the way that it looks. That's just like a very typical power of the trustee. So you look within the trustee powers when you're talking about the power of substitution. And the reason why it becomes so important, Thomas, is that usually it's not the trustee that holds the power of substitution for the assets, but the grantor himself or the.

B (4:26)

Right, Exactly.

A (4:28)

So you're actually swapping back with the grantor. You're saying, hey, grantor, you first put real estate into this thing for whatever reason, the trustee, because they have duties to the beneficiaries, you know, duties of loyalty and prudent investment or whatever. They. They don't feel like they can just go out there and like, purchase the asset that you think would be better. And in fact, maybe that asset, like at that level of concentration, is only the grantor who has that. Think of like a startup founder, they're super, super, you know, they have a closely held investment. They're super concentrated. Concentrated in that. So actually what you want to do is swap assets with the gr. That's where that substitution power comes in.

B (5:09)

Yeah, and that's where the value comes in. Like I think for me and my clients, you know, there's not many opportunities quite yet to do that, but it's kind of more of end of life planning. Right. So let's say you were a founder, you had early shares, you got qsbs eligibility inside of this trust, but the growth is huge since then. Maybe you got 10 million, it's now worth 100 million. I guess that's a bad example because I don't know where you're going to come up with a new 100 million. But the thought is, okay, great, we'd much rather get a step up in basis on these shares than have those, you know, pass away with those in shares. You maybe would rather move cash, cash into the trust and move this kind of high growth asset out of the trust so they can get a step up in basis here and have less to worry about from that cash. Like that's where I really see it becoming valuable. But you also need a lot of planning to make sure that actually happens for sure.

A (5:55)

So deathbed planning, it's very important to have that substitution power. But also actually with things like grats, grats usually have substitution powers because you're trying to beat a certain hurdle rate, the 7520 rate with the assets that are inside of it. So you really only put, you know, kind of hot assets like things that you expect to have some growth potential to be able to kind of make up for the annuity that comes back to the grantor. So as the GRAT is going on, you know, let's say it's a five year grat, you're two years in and you're like, oh shoot, like those initial two assets asset classes that I put in there are not performing the way that I thought. You know, should I just call this a loss or do I want to try to rescue that grat? You might actually use a power substitution to do the same thing. Powers of substitution are not just kind of willy nilly put into trust, by the way. So it's not. If your trust, the irrevocable trust you're working on, doesn't have a power of substitution, it's not necessarily because you had a bad attorney who forgot to put one in. There are certain powers that are called administrative powers between the grantor and their trust that cause that trust to become a grantor trust under income tax rules. And so these actually Also include the power to borrow without adequate interest or security against the trust fund. There are certain of these kind of buzzwords and powers that are baked into section 675 of the code. And so the power of substitution is one of them. And so it may be that your trust should not be a grantor trust, which is why, you know, it should be paying its own income taxes. And so that's why the attorney or whoever decided not to put a substitution power into your trust.

B (7:37)

Well, so now I think that's a really good intro, part of some of the easier sides. Now, if we actually want to modify it, you know, where. Where does that look like?

A (7:45)

You know, this is where you, like, want to modify something significant about the trust. And it may actually be even taking away beneficiaries, changing beneficiaries, things like that, or, you know, changing the shares that the beneficiaries get under sort of trust law question that.

B (8:02)

So are the. What are the most common reasons people do. I think that's actually, I didn't even think about that question of before we modify it. Why. And I know you listed like, maybe percentages. Hey, we want to change, you know, where this goes to. Maybe we want to get rid of certain beneficiaries. Maybe we want to add new beneficiaries, grandkids, et cetera. What are other reasons that you saw.

A (8:21)

Yes, changing the state of the trust, right. Into a state with better income tax profile. So let's say you have a trust, a very old trust that was formed in California, and now the beneficiaries have moved out of state. You want, you know, a better tax profile. It's still paying federal taxes, but you want it to go and pay, you know, New Hampshire taxes. This happened to one of my clients. Honestly, trust companies are trying to get your business too, right? So there are a lot of other incentives that the trust company might offer you to change trustees. And one of those, of course, is state income tax. And so you need to be able to take this old clunky California trust and move it to the new state. And it doesn't have the language that allows like a trust protector to make that decision, for example. But honestly, it can be changing the charities, you know, changing because you're no longer involved, your grand tour, your client is no longer as involved with a specification rules.

B (9:20)

You could change your mind at what you thought. I mean, think about maybe you started this forever ago and you didn't want your kids to get it till 40. And now you see the state of the world and say they actually probably need this earlier to help on houses and other things.

A (9:32)

Yes. And I think also families are starting to get savvier and understanding that maybe back in the day it seemed like a good idea to have forced distributions of either net income. Right. Because you're sitting saying, oh well, the income can be skimmed off and given to my kids as like, you know, annual income to them. So that seems like a good idea. I'm going to force the trustee to pay, you know, the net income out to the beneficiaries or these principal distributions that are like every five years my kid gets X amount. Right. There are also issues with GST trusts where they're not properly structured to take advantage of the fact that they're exempt from GST tax forevermore. And all of a sudden you realize, oh crap, this TR like actually has this really nice tax profile that you know, we're going to waste if we don't change the trust. And so that's where you might seek to modify an irrevocable trust as well.

B (10:28)

Okay, okay, thank you for going down that tangent for me. I was just trying to think of situations where it actually warrant changing because I think sometimes you have these topics, right. And as an advisor, if you haven't thought through them, you're just like, great, it's good to know this. But that doesn't really come up until you actually think about how I actually likely you could or would want to change them. Yes.

A (10:47)

And so there are different ways. Some are provided again by state law. And so the first one that I want to talk about is the non judicial settlement agreement. Some are provided by your trust agreement and usually, you know, your, the state law kind of provides default rules, but your trust agreement can actually also just give additional powers even if state law doesn't provide for it. But the bottom line for all of these sort of options is that the last resort for you is to go to court. Right. So in the name is non judicial settlement agreement. Well, it's because you could also go the judicial route and ask the court whose laws govern your trust to go ahead and be sympathetic to your cause and make the change and accept the change. So there's a gamut there of options that you have. All of these do need an attorney to be involved. This is not kind of like a do it yourself thing because you need to have a really deep understanding not only of the trust agreement, but all the implications of doing that thing so that you're not opening up either the trustee or anybody else to more liability because you've made a significant change to that trust.

B (12:00)

Makes sense. Never want to go that route, but sometimes you do what you got to do, I guess.

A (12:04)

Yep, exactly. So, so to my mind, if you have kind of a smaller family or set of beneficiaries, your grantor is still alive. And this was like a, you know, actually this is a good thing for the beneficiaries that I'm changing this. And all of them would agree, you know, I had one of these circumstances with a client where actually they were just reshuffling, I think the shares among beneficiaries and making some changes for tax reasons, like, you know, moving the trust. They actually just went straight to the beneficiaries. The client, you know, said to probably called up each kid beforehand. All of them were adults and being like, hey, you know, I'm going to go ahead and make this change. I'm hoping that you can sign off on this. And so this is where you think of like the Murdoch family. I think this was probably the most recent example of a failed non judicial agreement. But the idea there was, you know, patriarchal, wants to make a change, thinks it's in the best interests of all the family members, thinks, you know, this is a pretty tight knit group. I don't need to have like everybody on, on the planet like signing off on this. So I'm just going to go to every single child and ask that they sign off. The risk that you run, of course, is that the child won't sign off. But generally speaking, the client you're working with should have a pretty good sense of how that conversation will go.

B (13:27)

Yeah.

A (13:27)

So that you avoid that. Yeah.

B (13:29)

Okay, that makes sense. Anything else to add on that one?

A (13:32)

Yes, a couple of things. So the first is unexpected pitfalls is that technically all of the remainder beneficiaries may have to sign off too, which involves, you know, grandchildren, et cetera. So who gets to represent that grandchild, you know, whether their parents stand in their shoes to also bind their own, you know, minors and other beneficiaries. That's a big question. So all of a sudden what seems to be an intimate family starts to not look like an intimate family. Because you're also considering G3. Right. And having a conversation with them. Just so you know. So a lawyer kind of needs to make that determination. Kind of give your client an assessment of the risk that, you know, one of these younger beneficiaries might someday come back and be like, no, my dad could not have signed off for me. I wouldn't have agreed you know, that kind of risk. And then, but there, you know, there's a little bit of the, like, are you going to bite the hand that feeds you?

B (14:25)

Right, yeah.

A (14:26)

Generally speaking, I think beneficiaries are just happy to be beneficiaries.

B (14:31)

You'd hope so.

A (14:32)

Yes. And then the second thing that you need to be aware of is some practitioners, most practitioners think that if there is actually some beneficiaries, shares are being reduced and some other beneficiaries shares are being increased. It is actually a taxable gift from those that like first bucket to the second bucket. Meaning you're saying, effectively by signing off, I agree that my share is going to be less and so I'm actually making effectively a gift to the other beneficiaries. And that complicates like tax returns and things like that.

B (15:07)

Yeah, yeah. You may be using some of your own gifting, et cetera.

A (15:11)

Yeah, exactly. And then each of the beneficiaries should technically be represented or can be represented by counsel of their own. To be able to sign off on something like this.

B (15:20)

You can just imagine with the really wealthy family, there's like nine attorneys in a room each seeing it sounds like it'd be a terrible room to be in. Yeah, there's just so much litigation in this area. You know, like I have a few clients who are from very wealthy families and it's like, you know, they all, they've just talked about how many different lawsuits and issues that they've had by managing family trusts. And it's just like, man, you can see how these, how money definitely creates a lot of issues in families.

A (15:45)

Oh, for sure. And I mean, the reason why we know so much about the Murdoch family's failed non judicial settlement agreement is because, yes, they ended up going to court. It turned out three out of the four kids didn't agree with the non judicial settlement agreement and fought it.

B (16:00)

Dang. Not fun stuff.

A (16:01)

So there's risk.

B (16:03)

For sure. For sure.

A (16:05)

So if, if your patriarch wants to minimize that risk, you pick a different strategy.

B (16:11)

Makes sense. Okay, so that's the first one really, right?

A (16:14)

Mm, yep. And so the second one is to have somebody closer to the chest who is going to sign off on the change. And this is either a trust protector or actually a trustee doing what's called a decanting of the trust. And these are slightly different mechanisms. So a trust protector or actually for the states where there's no trust protector statute or for whatever reason the attorney wanted to draft it a little differently. It can be just effectively an independent Trustee like an independent fiduciary. So by the way, this is the approach that Wealth.com takes because we think that underlying the trust protector statutes is actually really just piggybacking off a power that like any trustee should be able to have. And so that's just call in somebody who's independent from estate tax purposes so there's no like estate tax inclusion problem and just have that person make a change. And so usually in the trust agreement there will be a power for that trust protector to be appointed number one and number two, that spells out what kind of modifications that person can have and can make. And so these can't be too broad because then all of a sudden it imp like the best interests of the beneficiaries. And that's like a fiduciary duty like concern. Right. There's a tension between like a trust protector taking an action that actually reduces the share or like somehow like works against the beneficiaries. Sometimes the grantors want something different for their beneficiaries. And so I have an example of that from private practice. But you can have a trust protector who steps in and let's say for example, there's a change in law and all of a sudden the tax implications to that trust and the beneficiaries is not great anymore. This happen a lot actually in the cross border context where like beneficiaries move across borders and all of a sudden you see like they're going to be subject to like a huge amount of US income tax or something like that. So you want to, you know, restructure the trust a little bit to make sure that that beneficiary is not going to get hit with those taxes. So you might ask a trust protector to come in and like make some changes there. An example of this was we had a client who, you know, her company is about to ipo, is forming irrevocable grantor trusts in really nice jurisdictions, like a dynasty trust. And based on the calculations and the roadshow, you know, the numbers from the ipo, I was like, okay, my kids are each going to end up with 40 million, like great, that's a good amount of money. And the stock just went bonanza. And each kid ended up with almost like a billion dollars or something like that. And that's when the client was like, holy cows, what do I do with something like that? And so you can start using some of those decanting powers and things like that to try to further limit the child's access to their bank accounts basically to their Trust accounts, did they try

B (19:15)

to take shares away or value away from them or just control?

A (19:19)

So it's just control. In that case, it's really, really difficult to truly take things away from a beneficiary.

B (19:24)

They wanted girls out of their estate anyways. Right, exactly. No matter what it is.

A (19:28)

So you form different kinds of trusts. You try to, you know, fully utilize, you know, exemption. Actually, that's a, that's a pretty typical power is just to sever trusts and combine and merge trusts as well that are, you know, similarly drafted. So anyway, so this client basically had to go through this whole exercise of like, further segmenting their trust.

B (19:48)

Everybody induce their own individual different roles.

A (19:52)

Exactly, exactly. Yep. And so a lot of paperwork through that. And we actually also had a client who wanted to move states, and their old trusts were not well drafted for that. And so they were able to appoint a trust protector who made a series of different changes to be able to move those trusts to a different state. And so that's another way in which trust protectors come into play.

B (20:17)

Why would moving be an issue?

A (20:19)

So if your trust agreement is very poorly drafted, there are ways in, you know, it may not have the provision that allows your trustee to actually even contemplate moving. And so in that case, to make sure that the trustee has a basis to do it, you want to insert that language every time.

B (20:38)

I don't think you want to be shackled from a trust to moving states. That would suck.

A (20:43)

Well, I will tell you on these, some of these conversations that I have, not just with trust companies, but actually just advisors. People have gotten really savvy. And the number one question that I ask is, does the wealth.comform have the ability for a trustee to change the state? It's like one of the top questions that comes up. So people are getting savvier about this. For sure.

B (21:06)

Makes sense. Okay, cool. So that's the decanting side of things. What else we have to go into?

A (21:11)

Yes, so the decanting. I just want to add one more thing that's a little different from trust protector. Oftentimes, like the way that a trust protector makes, you know, takes action, is basically creating an amendment to your trust. It's just like, here's, you know, two, three more pages where I've made changes to like, rescue these provisions of the trust. And decanting is actually slightly different. And I just want to mention it. You need to find a trustee who is going to be able to take the trust agreement or state law and say, I have enough here to be able to distribute all the trust principle, not just the income, but all of the entire trust to a completely new trust. So you effectively have the trustee create a trust, which is kind of a weird thing to wrap your head around so that the grantor is kind of not the grantor anymore. So it's like the trustee created that trust out of nothing, out of whole cloth by pouring it into a new instrument.

B (22:12)

And what would be the benefit of that? Just so if I'm the person with my trust, the benefits for me, I can distribute it, I could go put it into a new trust. Would I want to go irrevocable again or would this be like, I actually don't want to go irrevocable?

A (22:24)

Yeah, it has to stay irrevocable. It has to stay irrevocable. So it basically piggybacks off of the trustee's own distribution powers to be like, if you have, if your trustee has the ability to distribute all of the principal to certain beneficiaries, it can actually cut out certain of the beneficiaries by distributing only to certain people within that class. And so it's a very, you know, it's very popular these days, decantings, because you can actually completely restate the trust effectively. So you're not just doing like a one off, like change, you're actually completely making a new trust. And so that becomes popular to kind of, especially for these old clunky trusts, to kind of modernize them. But the other thing that's kind of nice is that the, the beneficiaries don't see the old document. You just forevermore present to them the new trust document and that's just effectively the new constitution for that trust.

B (23:23)

Okay. I'm thinking that that helps the problems because if they made rule changes, they don't even know about them.

A (23:28)

Yeah, effectively. Yeah. So it's a very, very powerful tool. And then of course, the last thing is just for whatever reason, if there's a lot of risk, you can't find a trustee who's willing to take whatever action you're asking them. You can just always go to court, but the court is going to, of course, have a whole process behind it. You have to have, you know, a reason to change that trust that the court agrees is a good enough reason for them to kind of stick out their necks and sign off on the change that you're asking for. And so involving the judiciary is always

B (24:01)

an option, just probably a longer, slower, more painful one, especially in California.

A (24:08)

Yes. That being said, I will tell you that for Certain planning. And this happened to one of my clients. If it's important enough to have kind of the formal sign off from a court like that, imprimatur we call it, this feeling of this is super, super official and so no one can really go against it. You might still seek a judicial settlement actually, that might actually be a desirable thing. So we had a client, for example, who wasn't quite sure if his trust was a non grantor trust and so was doing qsbs planning with his trust. And all of a sudden in the coming year, the IRS is going to be looking at the trust agreement to determine whether or not he gets his capital gains treatment that he wanted. And so there we actually sought a judicial change to the trust so that because a judge has signed off, the IRS is more likely to see this as more formal, as more reliable. Now the federal government doesn't always respect all decisions at the state court level. So that is a little bit of a risk. But by and large, like it's so much better than maybe having a trustee who's made the decision. Right. And like decanted. So you make that decision strategically too.

B (25:31)

Okay, that makes sense. What else have we not talked about as it relates to this topic?

A (25:36)

I think we've covered a lot of ground.

B (25:38)

Yeah, no, for sure. I just, you're the expert here. I wanted to make sure there wasn't another one that we were missing, but I think it kind of opened my eyes to one, I don't know if I'd say how easily they can be changed, but how many more options I think there are to change than I think the average advisor knows. And two, that there's a lot more reasons to change than I think people realize. I think there's a lot of fear in irrevocable trust planning from advisors to be like, I don't want to kind of help push my client into something that can never be changed, that they're stuck with. Because you know, like for me, I'm working with clients that are 30, 40, 50, who knows what can happen in the next 30, 40, 50 years from them. And they're probably going to want to make changes. And so I think as advisors that we can open the conversation of saying, hey, you're very wealthy, you know, there's a lot of value here into qsbs stacking, you know, just different planning on taxes, control, et cetera. Here's just so you know that there are ways to be able to change these in the future. Let's make sure your documents are set up in a way that you're able to do that.

A (26:35)

Exactly. And if your client is nervous because they think it's going to be so rigid and inflexible, you can talk to the attorney when that trust is being drafted about how to bake in the maximum amount of flexibility for your client. There are certain provisions, like silent trust provisions, where the beneficiaries actually don't even have the right to know that they're beneficiaries, that the trust even exists. So think about that as, like, for a while, where your client is still alive. They actually don't even need to tell their beneficiaries that there is a trust and they can keep working on it. They can keep, you know, changing things about it, and the beneficiaries would have no clue. Right. And so there are actually ways in which I think, think you can bake a great deal of flexibility, even about the beneficiaries, into your trusts. And so don't let that fear, you know, kind of stop your client from even having a conversation with an attorney about their goals, because the attorney might actually have quite a big bag of tricks to be able to, you know, bring comfort to your client that there are ways to continue working with that irrevocable trust.

B (27:40)

Yep, that makes sense. Okay, sweet and super valuable episode, everybody. Appreciate you listening. Please don't forget to rate and subscribe and tune back in for another read episode here in a couple weeks.