The Social Security Administration (SSA) has revised its Program Operations Manual System (POMS) to allow first-party trusts to pay for travel expenses incurred by non-beneficiaries in limited cases. In addition, the revised POMS clarifies the rule that payment of some administrative expenses upon early termination of the trust or otherwise, including trustee fees, will not violate the sole benefit rule.
A controversy surrounding trusts and travel expenses began last spring, when the SSA added two examples to POMS Section 1120.201. The new wording stated that trusts that permit a trustee to reimburse a beneficiary’s family for expenses incurred in visiting the beneficiary would violate the “sole benefit rule” and would therefore not qualify as exempt resources. I blogged about the 2012 revisions to the POMS section here.
The SSA removed the offending examples after attorneys and other advocates objected, but the agency warned that it would revisit the issue. The latest revisions, announced in a Policy Transmittal and effective May 15, 2013, represent a compromise position.
According to the updated POMS Section 1120.201.F.2, the general rule is that a trust is established for the sole benefit of an individual “if the trust benefits no one but that individual, whether at the time the trust is established or at any time for the remainder of the individual’s life.” However, the revised POMS establishes two exceptions, one for third-party payments and one for administrative expenses.
The new rule states that payments do not violate the sole benefit rule if they are to third parties for goods or services received by the beneficiary, payments of third-party travel expenses “which are necessary in order for the trust beneficiary to obtain medical treatment,” or payments that allow a third party to “visit a trust beneficiary who resides in an institution, nursing home, or other long-term care facility (e.g., group homes and assisted living facilities) or other supported living arrangement in which a non-family member or entity is being paid to provide or oversee the individuals living arrangement.” However, [t]he travel must be for the purpose of ensuring the safety and/or medical well-being of the individual.”
The new POMS section also provides a 90-day safe harbor period for revision of a trust that was previously judged to be an exempt resource but has run afoul of the new travel provisions. The 90-day period does not start running until the beneficiary or his representative payee is informed that the trust violates the new rules.
Revised POMS Section 1120.201.F.2.c, which is incorporated into several additional sections, including 1120.199 (the early termination rules) and 1120.203, makes it clear that payments for “reasonable compensation for a trustee(s) to manage the trust, as well as reasonable costs associated with investment, legal or other services rendered on behalf of the individual with regard to the trust” do not violate the sole benefit rule.
(This blog post is provided courtesy of the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP). ASNP is dedicated to serving the legal planning needs of people with disabilities and their families by maintaining a professional organization of attorneys skilled in the complex areas of public entitlements, estate, trust and tax planning, and the legal issues involving individuals with physical and cognitive disabilities. Mr. Vanarelli is a founding member of ASNP.)
Categories
- Affordable Care Act
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Arbitration
- Attorney Ethics
- Attorneys Fees
- Beneficiary Designations
- Blog Roundup and Highlights
- Blogs and Blogging
- Care Facilities
- Caregivers
- Cemetery
- Collaborative Family Law
- Conservatorships
- Consumer Fraud
- Contempt
- Contracts
- Defamation
- Developmental Disabilities
- Discovery
- Discrimination Laws
- Doctrine of Probable Intent
- Domestic Violence
- Elder Abuse
- Elder Law
- Elective Share
- End-of-Life Decisions
- Estate Administration
- Estate Litigation
- Estate Planning
- Events
- Family Law
- Fiduciary
- Financial Exploitation of the Elderly
- Funeral
- Future of the Legal Profession
- Geriatric Care Managers
- Governmental or Public Benefit Programs
- Guardianship
- Health Issues
- Housing for the Elderly and Disabled
- In Remembrance
- Insolvent Estates
- Institutional Liens
- Insurance
- Interesting New Cases
- Intestacy
- Law Firm News
- Law Firm Videos
- Law Practice Management / Development
- Lawyers and Lawyering
- Legal Capacity or Competancy
- Legal Malpractice
- Legal Rights of the Disabled
- Liens
- Litigation
- Mediation
- Medicaid Appeals
- Medicaid Applications
- Medicaid Planning
- Annuities
- Care Contracts
- Divorce
- Estate Recovery
- Family Part Non-Dissolution Support Orders
- Gifts
- Life Estates
- Loan repayments
- MMMNA
- Promissory Notes
- Qualified Income Trusts
- Spousal Refusal
- Transfers For Reasons Other Than To Qualify For Medicaid
- Transfers to "Caregiver" Child(ren)
- Transfers to Disabled Adult Children
- Trusts
- Undue Hardship Provision
- Multiple-Party Deposit Account Act
- New Cases
- New Laws
- News Briefs
- Newsletters
- Non-Probate Assets
- Nursing Facility Litigation
- Personal Achievements and Awards
- Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Probate
- Punitive Damages
- Reconsideration
- Retirement Benefits
- Reverse Mortgages
- Section 8 Housing
- Settlement of Litigation
- Social Media
- Special Education
- Special Needs Planning
- Surrogate Decision-Making
- Taxation
- Technology
- Texting
- Top Ten
- Trials
- Trustees
- Uncategorized
- Veterans Benefits
- Web Sites and the Internet
- Webinar
- Writing Intended To Be A Will
Vanarelli & Li, LLC on Social Media