Spouses who are turning full retirement age this year are the last group who can choose whether to take spousal benefits or to take benefits on their own record. The strategy, used by some couples to maximize their benefits, will not be available to people turning full retirement age after 2019. 
​
The claiming strategy -- sometimes known as "Claim Now, Claim More Later" -- allows a higher-earning spouse to claim a spousal benefit at full retirement age by filing a restricted application for benefits. While receiving the spousal benefit, the higher-earning spouse’s regular retirement benefit continues to increase. Then at 70, the higher-earning spouse can claim the maximum amount of his or her retirement benefit and stop receiving the spousal benefit. To use this strategy, the lower-earning spouse must also be claiming benefits. Workers cannot claim spousal benefits unless their spouses are also claiming benefits. 

A 2015 budget law began phasing out the strategy. If you were 62 or older by the end of 2015, you are still able to choose which benefit you want at your full retirement age. You do not have to make the election in the year you turn full retirement age. If your spouse is still working, you can wait to collect benefits until your spouse begins collecting. For example, if your spouse does not begin collecting benefits until you are 68, you can wait to collect benefits and file a restricted application at age 68. However, when workers who were not 62 by the end of 2015 apply for spousal benefits, Social Security will assume it is also an application for benefits on the worker's record. The worker is eligible for the higher benefit, but he or she can't choose to take just the spousal benefits and allow his or her own benefits to keep increasing until age 70. 

The budget law’s phase-out of the claiming strategy does not apply to survivor's benefits. Surviving spouses will still be able to choose to take survivor's benefits first and then switch to retirement benefits later if the retirement benefit is larger.  

​Having a loved one with dementia can be scary, but if you add in a firearm, it can also get dangerous.  To prevent harm to both the individual with dementia and others, it is important to plan ahead for how to deal with any weapons. 

Research shows that 45 percent of all adults aged 65 years or older either own a gun or live in a household with someone who does. For someone with dementia, the risk for suicide increases, and firearms are the most common method of suicide among people with dementia. In addition, a person with dementia who has a gun may put family members or caregivers at risk if the person gets confused about their identities or the possibility of intruders. A 2018 Kaiser Health News investigation that looked at news reports, court records, hospital data and public death records since 2012 and found more than 100 cases in which people with dementia used guns to kill or injure themselves or others. 

The best thing to do is talk about the guns before they become an issue. When someone is first diagnosed with dementia, there should be a conversation about gun ownership similar to the conversation many health professionals have about driving and dementia. Framing the issue as a discussion about safety may help make it easier for the person with dementia to acknowledge a potential problem. A conversation about guns can also be part of a larger long-term care planning discussion with an elder law attorney, who can help families write up a gun agreement that sets forth who will determine when it is time to take the guns away and where the guns should go. Even if the gun owner doesn't remember the agreement when the time comes to put it to use, having a plan in place can be helpful. 

What to do with the guns themselves is a difficult question. One option is to lock the weapon or weapons in a safe and store the ammunition separately. Having the guns remain in the house--even if they are locked away--can be risky. Another option is to remove the weapons from the house altogether. However, in Massachusetts you need to have the proper firearm license to even remove the weapon from the house. Families should talk to an attorney and familiarize themselves with state and federal gun laws before giving away guns.

If a sale of the weapon turns out to be the best solution, we recently had a client sell their weapons to New England Ballistic Services.  President Steve Dahl made the process easy and ensured the safe transport of the weapons. 

Medicare's hospice benefit covers any care that is reasonable and necessary for easing the course of a terminal illness. It is one of Medicare's most comprehensive benefits and can be extremely helpful to both the terminally ill individual and his or her family, but it is little understood and underutilized. Understanding what is offered ahead of time may help Medicare beneficiaries and their families make the difficult decision to choose hospice if the time comes.

The focus of hospice is palliative care, which means helping people who are terminally ill and their families maintain their quality of life. Palliative care addresses physical, intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual needs while also supporting the terminally ill individual's independence, access to information, and ability to make choices about health care. 

To qualify for Medicare's hospice benefit, a beneficiary must be entitled to Medicare Part A, and a doctor must certify that the beneficiary has a life expectancy of six months or less. If the beneficiary lives longer than six months, the doctor can continue to certify the patient for hospice care indefinitely. The beneficiary must also agree to give up any treatment to cure his or her illness and elect to receive only palliative care. This can seem overwhelming, but beneficiaries can also change their minds at any time. It's possible to revoke the benefit and reelect it later, and to do this as often as needed.

Medicare will cover any care that is reasonable and necessary for easing the course of a terminal illness. Hospice nurses and doctors are on-call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to give beneficiaries support and care when needed. Services are usually provided in the home. The Medicare hospice benefit provides for:

• Physician and nurse practitioner services
• Nursing care
• Medical appliances and supplies
• Drugs for symptom management and pain relief 
• Short-term inpatient and respite care 
• Homemaker and home health aide services 
• Counseling 
• Social work service 
• Spiritual care 
• Volunteer participation 
• Bereavement services 

Services are considered appropriate if they are aimed at improving the beneficiary's life and making him or her more comfortable.

Because the beneficiary is electing palliative care over treatment, there are things the hospice benefit will not cover:

• Treatment to cure the beneficiary's illness. 
• Prescription drugs other than for symptom control or pain relief. 
• Care from a provider that wasn't set up by the hospice team, although the beneficiary can choose to have his or her regular doctor be the attending medical professional. 
• Room and board. If the beneficiary is in a nursing home, hospice will not pay for room and board costs. However, if the hospice team determines that the beneficiary needs short-term inpatient care or respite care services, Medicare will cover a stay in a facility. 
• Care from a hospital, either inpatient or outpatient, or ambulance transportation unless it arranged by the hospice team. The beneficiary can use regular Medicare to pay for any treatment not related to the beneficiary's terminal illness. 

If you are lucky enough to own a vacation home, then you need to figure out what will happen to it after you are gone. Many parents hope to keep vacation homes in the family, but guaranteeing that can be tricky.

While meant to be fun and relaxing places to get away from everyday life, vacation houses can cause problems between siblings after their parents pass away. Some siblings may want to use the house, while others may need cash and want to sell. There may be disputes over who pays maintenance costs or when different families can use the house.

One option for passing on a vacation home is to leave it to your children in your will. The problem with this is that if the children own the house equally as joint tenants or tenants in common and one sibling wants to sell, that sibling can demand to be bought out. If the other siblings can't come up with the money to buy out the sibling, the sibling who wants out can force the sale of the house.

Before you decide to leave your vacation house to your children outright, you should have a family meeting to find out whether all the children actually want the house. If they do, you should discuss who will be responsible for maintenance and property taxes, and who has the right to use the property, among other issues. Putting a plan in writing can help prevent or resolve disputes down the road. The plan can also include a buyout option if any heirs decide they do not want to own the property. The buyout price can be less than if the property is sold to a third party and payment terms can extend over several years.

Rather than giving the property to your children outright, you can also put it in a trust or a Limited Liability Company (LLC). LLCs have become a popular estate planning tool for vacation homes. Using an LLC allows parents to transfer interest in the LLC to their children while still retaining control. Parents can use the annual gift tax exclusion to slowly gift their children additional interest in the LLC each year. The LLC agreement can designate a property manager, provide instructions on maintenance costs and property taxes, and include buyout options. Property in an LLC is also protected from creditors.

Another option is to put property into a qualified personal residence trust (QPRT). A QPRT allows the parents to live in the home for a certain number of years and at the end of the term, the children own the home. The main purpose of a QPRT is to reduce taxes on property, but QPRTs are tricky and must be set up just right or there will be no tax savings. 
​
To determine the best way to protect your vacation home, contact us today.

​The new tax law makes it harder to claim a tax deduction for charitable contributions. While charitable giving should not be only about getting a tax break, if you want to reap a tax benefit from your contributions, there are a couple of options. 
​
The Tax Cut and Jobs Act, enacted in December 2017, nearly doubled the standard deduction to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for couples. This means that if your charitable contributions along with any other itemized deductions are less than $12,000 a year, the standard deduction will lower your tax bill more than itemizing your deductions. For most people, the standard deduction will be the better option. 

If you still want to maximize the tax benefits of charitable giving and you have the financial means, one option is to double your charitable donations in one year and then skip the donation the following year. For example, instead of giving $10,000 a year to charity, you could give $20,000 every other year and itemize your deductions in that year. 

Another way to concentrate charitable giving is to establish a donor-advised fund (DAF) through a public charity. A DAF allows you to contribute several years worth of charitable donations to the fund and receive the tax benefit immediately. The money is placed in an account where it can be invested and grow tax-free. You can then make donations to charities from the account at any time, in addition to adding to the account. As with any investment, you need to do research before establishing a DAF. Make sure you understand the fees involved and whether there are any limits on the charitable contributions you can make. You should consult with your financial advisor before taking any steps. 

If you are taking required minimum distributions from an IRA, another option is to donate those distributions directly to charity through a qualified charitable donation. The distributions won't be included in your gross income, which means lower taxes overall. The donation must be made directly from the IRA to the charity and different IRAs have different rules about how to make the distributions. 

If you are paying for your own insurance, you may think you do not need to sign up for Medicare when you turn 65. However, not signing up for Medicare Part B right away can cost you down the road. 

You can first sign up for Medicare during your Initial Enrollment Period, which is the seven-month period that includes the three months before the month you become eligible (usually age 65), the month you are eligible and three months after the month you become eligible. If you do not sign up for Part B right away, you will be subject to a penalty. Your Medicare Part B premium may go up 10 percent for each 12-month period that you could have had Medicare Part B, but did not take it. In addition, you will have to wait for the general enrollment period to enroll. The general enrollment period usually runs between January 1 and March 31 of each year.

There are exceptions to the penalty if you have insurance through an employer or through your spouse's employer, but there is no exception for private insurance. The health insurance must be from an employer where you or your spouse actively works, and even then, if the employer has fewer than 20 employees, you will likely have to sign up for Part B. 

If you don't have an employer or union group health insurance plan, or that plan is secondary to Medicare, it is extremely important to sign up for Medicare Part B during your initial enrollment period. Note that COBRA coverage does not count as a health insurance plan for Medicare purposes. Neither does retiree coverage or VA benefits.
For a New York Times column about a man with private insurance who didn’t realize he needed to sign up for Part B, click here.  
​
For more information about Medicare and turning 65, click here.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is increasing the amount taxpayers can deduct from their 2019 income as a result of buying long-term care insurance.
Premiums for "qualified" long-term care insurance policies (see explanation below) are tax deductible to the extent that they, along with other unreimbursed medical expenses (including Medicare premiums), exceed 7.5 percent of the insured's adjusted gross income.  (The 7.5 percent threshold is for the 2017 and 2018 tax years.  It is scheduled to revert to 10 percent in 2019.)
These premiums -- what the policyholder pays the insurance company to keep the policy in force -- are deductible for the taxpayer, his or her spouse and other dependents. (If you are self-employed, the tax-deductibility rules are a little different: You can take the amount of the premium as a deduction as long as you made a net profit; your medical expenses do not have to exceed a certain percentage of your income.)
However, there is a limit on how large a premium can be deducted, depending on the age of the taxpayer at the end of the year. Following are the deductibility limits for 2019. Any premium amounts for the year above these limits are not considered to be a medical expense.

Another change announced by the IRS involves benefits from per diem or indemnity policies, which pay a predetermined amount each day.  These benefits are not included in income except amounts that exceed the beneficiary's total qualified long-term care expenses or $370 per day, whichever is greater.
For these and other inflation adjustments from the IRS, click here.  

What Is a "Qualified" Policy?
​
To be "qualified," policies issued on or after January 1, 1997, must adhere to certain requirements, among them that the policy must offer the consumer the options of "inflation" and "nonforfeiture" protection, although the consumer can choose not to purchase these features. Policies purchased before January 1, 1997, will be grandfathered and treated as "qualified" as long as they have been approved by the insurance commissioner of the state in which they are sold.

The median cost of a private nursing home room in the United States increased to $100,375 a year in 2018, up 3 percent from 2017, according to Genworth's Cost of Care survey, which the insurer conducts annually.  Massachusetts came in with a state median cost for a private room at a nursing home at $12,775 a month or $153,000 a year. 

At the same time, Genworth reports that the median cost of a semi-private room in a nursing home is $89,297, up 4 percent from 2017. While significant, the rise in prices is not quite as steep as the 5.5 percent and 4.4 percent gains, respectively, in 2017.

But the median cost of assisted living facilities jumped 6.7 percent, to $4,000 a month. The national median rate for the services of a home health aide is $22 an hour, and the cost of adult day care, which provides support services in a protective setting during part of the day, rose from $70 to $72 a day.

Alaska continues to be the costliest state for nursing home care by far, with the median annual cost of a private nursing home room totaling $330,873. Oklahoma again was found to be the most affordable state, with a median annual cost of a private room of $63,510.

The 2018 survey, conducted by CareScout for the fifteenth straight year, was based on responses from more than 15,500 nursing homes, assisted living facilities, adult day health facilities and home care providers.  Survey respondents were contacted by phone during May and June 2018.

As the survey indicates, nursing home care is growing ever more expensive. Contact us today to learn how you can protect some or all of your family's assets.
​
For more on Genworth’s 2018 Cost of Care Survey, including costs for your state, click here.

A recent case involving basketball star Caldwell Jones demonstrates the danger in having only one spouse's name on a reverse mortgage. A federal appeals court has ruled that an insurance company may foreclose on a reverse mortgage after the death of the borrower, Mr. Jones, even though Mr. Jones’ widow is still living in the house. While there are protections in place for non-borrowing spouses, many spouses are still facing foreclosure and eviction.

A reverse mortgage allows homeowners to use the equity in their home to take out a loan, but borrowers must be 62 years or older to qualify for this type of mortgage. If one spouse is under age 62, the younger spouse has to be left off the loan in order for the couple to qualify for a reverse mortgage. Some lenders have actually encouraged couples to put only the older spouse on the mortgage because the couple could borrow more money that way. But couples often did this without realizing the potentially catastrophic implications. If only one spouse's name was on the mortgage and that spouse died, the surviving spouse would be required to either repay the loan in full or face eviction.

In order to protect non-borrowing spouses, the federal government revised its guidelines for reverse mortgages taken out after August 4, 2014 to allow spouses to stay in the house as long as they meet certain criteria, including proving ownership within 90 days of the borrowers death. In 2015, the federal government allowed lenders to defer foreclosure on a widow or widower and assign the mortgage to the federal government. Advocacy groups looking at reverse mortgage foreclosures have found that despite these new regulations, lenders are still foreclosing on non-borrowing spouses. Of the 591 non-borrowing spouses who have sought help to avoid foreclosure, only 317 received assistance.

These regulations did not help Mr. Jones' wife, Vanessa. Mr. Jones, who blocked more than 2,200 shots during his 17-year professional basketball career, obtained a reverse mortgage in 2014 on the Georgia home he lived in with his wife. The contract defined the "borrower" to be "Caldwell Jones, Jr., a married man." Ms. Jones did not put her name on the reverse mortgage because she was under age 62 at the time of the mortgage. Mr. Jones died later that year, and when Ms. Jones did not repay the loan, the insurer began foreclosure proceedings.

Ms. Jones sued the insurer in federal court to prevent the foreclosure, arguing that federal law prohibited the insurer from foreclosing on the house while she lived in it. Under a provision in federal law, the federal government "may not insure" a reverse mortgage unless the "homeowner" does not have to repay the loan until the homeowner either dies or sells the mortgaged property and defines "homeowner" to include the borrower’s spouse.

On appeal, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (Estate of Caldwell Jones, Jr. v. Live Well Financial (U.S. Ct. App., 11th Cir., No. 17-14677, Sept. 5, 2018)) ruled that the federal law in question only covers what the federal government can insure and does not govern the insurer's right to foreclose. The court agrees with Ms. Jones that the law is intended to safeguard widows and implies that the federal government should not have insured the loan in the first place, but finds that federal law does not cover the insurer's private right to demand immediate payment and pursue foreclosure.
​
When purchasing a reverse mortgage, it is always safer to put both spouse's names on the mortgage. If one spouse is underage when the mortgage is originally taken out, that spouse can be added to the mortgage when he or she reaches age 65. If you have a reverse mortgage with only one spouse on it, contact us to find out the best way to protect the non-borrowing spouse.