[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 222 (Thursday, November 18, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62997-63001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29920]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 26

[REG-103841-99]
RIN 1545-AX08


GST Issues

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations relating to the 
application of the effective date rules of the generation-skipping 
transfer (GST) tax imposed under chapter 13 of the Internal Revenue 
Code. The proposed regulations provide guidance with respect to the 
type of trust modifications that will not affect the exempt status of a 
trust. In addition, the proposed regulations clarify the application of 
the effective date rules in the case of property transferred pursuant 
to the exercise of a general power of appointment. The proposed 
regulations are necessary to provide guidance to taxpayers so that they 
may properly determine if chapter 13 of the Code is applicable to a 
particular trust.

DATES: Written and electronic comments must be received by February 16, 
2000. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing 
scheduled for March 15, 2000 at 10:00, must be received by February 23, 
2000.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:DOM:CORP:R (REG-103841-99), room 
5226, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, 
Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may also be hand delivered Monday 
through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to: CC:DOM:CORP:R 
(REG-103841-99), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively, taxpayers may 
submit comments electronically via the internet by selecting the ``Tax 
Regs'' option on the IRS Home Page, or by submitting comments directly 
to the IRS internet site at http://www.irs.gov/tax__ regs/reglist.html. 
The public hearing will be held in room 2615, Internal Revenue Service 
Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, 
James F. Hogan, (202) 622-3090; concerning submissions of comments, the 
hearing, and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the

[[Page 62998]]

hearing, Michael L. Slaughter, (202) 622-7180 (not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The GST tax provisions were enacted as part of the Tax Reform Act 
of 1986 (TRA), Pub. L. 99-514, 1986-3 (Vol. 1) C.B. 1, 634. Under 
section 1433(a) of the TRA, the GST tax generally applies to all 
generation-skipping transfers made after October 22, 1986, the date the 
TRA was enacted.
    Section 1433(b)(2) of the TRA exempts transfers from certain trusts 
from the GST tax. Hereinafter, a trust that is exempt under section 
1433(b)(2) is referred to as an ``exempt trust.''
    First, under section 1433(b)(2)(A) of the TRA, the GST tax does not 
apply to any transfer from a trust that was irrevocable on September 
25, 1985, to the extent the transfer is not made out of additions to 
the trust after September 25, 1985 (the day before the House Ways and 
Means Committee began considering the bill containing the GST 
provisions). Under Sec. 26.2601-1(b)(1)(ii) of the Generation-skipping 
Transfer Tax Regulations, a trust created on or before September 25, 
1985, is considered irrevocable on that date unless: (1) The settlor 
retained a power that would cause the trust to be included in the 
settlor's gross estate for federal estate tax purposes by reason of 
section 2038 of the Code, if the settlor had died on September 25, 
1985; or (2) the property held in the trust is a life insurance policy 
transferred by the insured and the insured possessed, on September 25, 
1985, any incident of ownership that would have caused the value of the 
trust to be included in the insured's gross estate under section 2042 
of the Code if the insured had died on September 25, 1985.
    Second, under section 1433(b)(2)(B) of the TRA, as amended by the 
Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, the GST tax does not 
apply to any generation-skipping transfer under a will or revocable 
trust executed before October 22, 1986, if the decedent died before 
January 1, 1987.
    Third, under section 1433(b)(2)(C) of the TRA, the GST tax does not 
apply to any generation-skipping transfer under a trust to the extent 
such trust consists of property included in the gross estate of a 
decedent or reinvestments thereof, but only if the decedent was, on 
October 22, 1986, under a mental disability to change the disposition 
of the decedent's property and did not regain competence to dispose of 
the property before death.
    Numerous taxpayers have requested private letter rulings regarding 
the effect that a proposed modification or construction will have on an 
exempt trust for GST tax purposes. In rulings in this area, the IRS has 
held that a modification will not cause the trust to lose its exempt 
status if the modification does not result in any change in the 
quality, value, or timing of any beneficial interest under the trust. 
Although the statute does not specifically address modifications to 
trusts that are exempt under section 1433(b)(2) of the TRA, Treasury 
and the IRS believe that a trust that is modified such that none of the 
beneficial interests change can be viewed as the same trust that was in 
existence on September 25, 1985.
    The majority of the ruling requests received by the Service concern 
proposed modifications intended to enable the trust to adapt to changed 
circumstances or to enable the trustee to administer the trust 
properly. These proposed modifications often are not inconsistent with 
the purpose of the TRA effective date provisions. Accordingly, as 
discussed below, these proposed regulations adopt a more liberal 
standard with respect to changes that may be made to the trust without 
the loss of exempt status. Treasury and the IRS intend that the 
regulations, when finalized, provide sufficient guidance concerning 
modifications that the need for private letter rulings will be greatly 
diminished. Comments are requested regarding whether the proposed 
regulations will achieve this result.
    In addition, the proposed regulations clarify the application of 
the effective date provisions when the exercise or lapse of a general 
power of appointment over an otherwise grandfathered trust results in 
property passing to a skip person.

Explanation of Provisions

1. Modifications to Trusts

    The proposed regulations provide guidance regarding the types of 
modifications, constructions, and settlements of controversies that 
will not cause a trust to lose its exempt status. However, the rules 
contained in these proposed regulations apply only for GST tax 
purposes. Thus, the rules do not apply in determining, for example, 
whether a modification will result in a gift for gift tax purposes, or 
may cause inclusion of the trust assets in the gross estate, or may 
result in the realization of gain for purposes of section 1001 of the 
Code.
    Under the proposed regulations, a court order in a construction 
proceeding that resolves an ambiguity in the terms of a trust 
instrument will not cause the trust to lose its exempt status. The 
judicial action, however, must involve a bona fide issue and the 
court's decision must be consistent with applicable state law that 
would be applied by the highest court of the state. Commissioner v. 
Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456 (1967). Construction proceedings 
determine a settlor's intent as of the date the instrument became 
effective, and thus, a court order construing an instrument that 
satisfies these requirements does not alter or modify the terms of the 
instrument.
    Similarly, under the proposed regulations, a court-approved 
settlement of a bona fide controversy relating to the administration of 
a trust or the construction of terms of the governing instrument of a 
trust will not cause a trust to lose its exempt status. This will be 
the case, however, only if the settlement is the product of arm's 
length negotiations, and the settlement is within the range of 
reasonable outcomes under the governing instrument and applicable state 
law addressing the issues resolved by the settlement. See Ahmanson 
Foundation v. United States, 674 F.2d 761 (9th Cir. 1981); Estate of 
Suzuki v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-624. For example, A and B are 
the sole remainder beneficiaries of a trust established by their 
parent. They disagree as to the portion of the remainder each is 
entitled to under the terms of the trust when the trust terminates. A 
settlement dividing the corpus equally among A, B, and C, B's child and 
the grandchild of the parent who established the trust, would not be 
considered within the range of reasonable outcomes because C is not a 
potential remainderman under any construction of the trust agreement.
    The proposed regulations also address the situation in which a 
trustee distributes trust principal to a new trust for the benefit of 
succeeding generations. In some cases, the governing instrument grants 
the trustee broad discretionary powers to distribute principal to or 
for the benefit of the trust beneficiaries, outright or in trust. Under 
these circumstances, distributions by the trustee to trusts for the 
benefit of trust beneficiaries will not cause the original trust or the 
new trusts to lose exempt status provided the vesting of trust 
principal is not postponed beyond the perpetuities period applicable to 
the original trust.
    Finally, under the proposed regulations, a trust may be modified 
and remain exempt for GST purposes. The modification, however, must not 
shift a beneficial interest in the trust to any beneficiary who 
occupies a lower generation (as defined in section 2651)

[[Page 62999]]

than the person or persons who held the beneficial interest prior to 
the modification and must not extend the time for vesting of any 
beneficial interest in the trust beyond the period provided for in the 
original trust.

2. Exercise of a General Power of Appointment After September 25, 1985

    In Simpson v. United States, 183 F.3d 812 (8th Cir. 1999), the 
decedent exercised a testamentary general power of appointment granted 
under a marital trust that was created in 1966. Pursuant to the 
decedent's exercise of the general power of appointment, the property 
passed to her grandchildren who were skip persons under section 2612. 
The court concluded that the transfer to the grandchildren was exempt 
from the GST tax under section 1433(b)(2)(A) of the TRA, because the 
transfer was ``under a trust'' that was irrevocable on September 25, 
1985.
    The facts in Simpson are similar to those presented in Peterson 
Marital Trust v. Commissioner, 78 F.3d 795 (2nd Cir. 1996). In 
Peterson, the decedent had a testamentary general power to appoint 
property in a pre-September 25, 1985 marital trust created under her 
husband's will. Rather than appointing the property outright, the 
taxpayer allowed the power to lapse and the property passed to her 
husband's grandchildren, who were skip persons under section 2612. The 
court concluded that the transfer was subject to the GST tax. The court 
noted that the effective date provisions in section 1433(b)(2) of the 
TRA were ``designed * * * to protect those taxpayers who, on the basis 
of pre-existing rules, made arrangements from which they could not 
reasonably escape and which, in retrospect, had become singularly 
undesirable.'' Peterson Marital Trust, at 801 (footnote omitted). The 
court concluded that there was no basis to apply the protection 
provided in section 1433(b)(2) to the marital trust because the 
arrangement could have been changed to avoid the GST tax through the 
exercise of the decedent's general power of appointment.
    Treasury and the IRS believe that there is no substantive 
difference between the situation in Simpson where property passed 
pursuant to the exercise of a general power of appointment and the 
situation in Peterson Marital Trust where property passed pursuant to a 
lapse of a general power of appointment. An individual who has a 
general power of appointment has the equivalent of outright ownership 
in the property. Estate of Kruz v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 44, 50-51, 
59-60 (1993). The value of the property subject to the general power is 
includible in the powerholder's gross estate at death under section 
2041(a). In either case, the powerholder can avoid the consequences of 
the GST tax by appointing the property to nonskip persons. Therefore, 
as the court noted in Peterson Marital Trust, there is no basis for 
exempting such dispositions from the GST tax under the TRA effective 
date provisions.
    Accordingly, the proposed regulations clarify that the transfer of 
property pursuant to the exercise, release, or lapse of a general power 
of appointment created in a pre-September 25, 1985 trust is not a 
transfer under the trust, but rather is a transfer by the powerholder 
occurring when the exercise, release, or lapse of the power becomes 
effective, for purposes of section 1433(b)(2)(A) of the TRA.

Special Analysis

    It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is 
not a significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866. Therefore, 
a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined 
that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 
chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because these 
regulations do not impose a collection of information on small 
entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not 
apply. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. 
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the 
regulations will be submitted to the Small Business Administration for 
comment on their impact on small business.

Comments and Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, 
consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight 
(8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely (in the 
manner described in ADDRESSES) to the IRS. Treasury and the IRS 
specifically request comments on the clarity of the proposed 
regulations and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments 
will be available for public inspection and copying.
    A public hearing has been scheduled for March 15, 2000 at 10:00 
a.m. in room 2615, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, 
NW, Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must 
enter at the 10th Street entrance, located between Constitution and 
Pennsylvania Avenues, NW. In addition, all visitors must present photo 
identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, 
visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more 
than 15 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having 
your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
    The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons 
that wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit comments 
by February 16, 2000, and submit an outline of the topics to be 
discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic (signed original and 
eight (8) copies) by February 23, 2000. A period of 10 minutes will be 
allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the 
scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for 
receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available 
free of charge at the hearing.

Drafting Information

    The principal author of these proposed regulations is James F. 
Hogan, Office of the Chief Counsel, IRS. Other personnel from the IRS 
and Treasury Department participated in their development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 26

    Estate taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 26 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 26--GENERATION-SKIPPING TRANSFER TAX REGULATIONS UNDER THE TAX 
REFORM ACT OF 1986

    Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 26 continues to read 
in part as follows:

    Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Paragraph 2. In Sec. 26.2600-1 the Table is amended under 
Sec. 26.2601-1 by revising the entry for paragraphs (b) and (b)(4) and 
adding an entry for paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:


Sec. 26.2600-1.  Table of contents.


Sec. 26.2601-1.  Effective dates.

* * * * *
    (b) Exceptions.
* * * * *
    (4) Retention of trust's exempt status in the case of 
modifications, etc.
    (5) Exceptions to additions rule.
    Paragraph 3. Section 26.2601-1 is amended as follows:

[[Page 63000]]

    1. Adding four sentences to the end of paragraph (b)(1)(i).
    2. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(5).
    3. Adding a new paragraph (b)(4).
    4. Paragraph (c) is amended by adding a new sentence to the end of 
the paragraph.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec. 26.2601-1  Effective Dates.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * * Further, the rule in the first sentence of this paragraph 
(b)(1)(i) does not apply to a transfer of property pursuant to the 
exercise, release, or lapse of a general power of appointment that is 
treated as a taxable transfer under chapter 11 or chapter 12. The 
transfer is made by the person holding the power at the time the 
exercise, release, or lapse of the power becomes effective, and is not 
considered a transfer under a trust that was irrevocable on September 
25, 1985. See Sec. 26.2601-1(b)(1)(v)(B) regarding the treatment of the 
release, exercise, or lapse of a power of appointment that will result 
in a constructive addition to a trust. See Sec. 26.2652-1(a) for the 
definition of a transferor.
* * * * *
    (4) Retention of trust's exempt status in the case of 
modifications, etc. (i) In general. This paragraph provides rules for 
determining when a modification, judicial construction, settlement 
agreement, or trustee action with respect to a trust that is exempt 
from the generation-skipping transfer tax under paragraphs (b)(1), 
(b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section (hereinafter referred to as an exempt 
trust) will not cause the trust to lose its exempt status. The rules 
contained in this paragraph (b)(4) are applicable only for purposes of 
determining whether an exempt trust retains its exempt status for 
generation-skipping transfer tax purposes. The rules do not apply in 
determining, for example, whether the transaction results in a gift 
subject to gift tax, or may cause the trust to be included in the gross 
estate of a beneficiary, or may result in the realization of capital 
gain for purposes of section 1001 of the Code.
    (A) Trustee's discretionary powers. The distribution of trust 
principal from an exempt trust to a new trust will not cause the new 
trust to be subject to the provisions of chapter 13, if--
    (1) The terms of the governing instrument of the exempt trust 
authorize the trustee to make distributions to the new trust without 
the consent or approval of any beneficiary or court, and
    (2) The terms of the governing instrument of the new trust do not 
extend the time for vesting of any beneficial interest in the trust in 
a manner that may postpone or suspend the vesting, absolute ownership, 
or power of alienation of an interest in property for a period, 
measured from the date of creation of the original trust, extending 
beyond any life in being at the date of creation of the original trust 
plus a period of 21 years, plus if necessary, a reasonable period of 
gestation. For purposes of this paragraph (b)(4)(i)(A), the exercise of 
a trustee's distributive power that validly postpones or suspends the 
vesting, absolute ownership, or power of alienation of an interest in 
property for a term of years that will not exceed 90 years (measured 
from the date of creation of the original trust) will not be considered 
an exercise that postpones or suspends vesting, absolute ownership, or 
the power of alienation beyond the perpetuities period. If a trustee's 
distributive power is exercised by creating another power, it is deemed 
to be exercised to whatever extent the second power may be exercised.
    (B) Settlement. A court-approved settlement of a bona fide 
controversy regarding the administration of the trust or the 
construction of terms of the governing instrument will not cause an 
exempt trust to be subject to the provisions of chapter 13, if--
    (1) The settlement is the product of arm's length negotiations, and
    (2) The settlement is within the range of reasonable outcomes under 
the governing instrument and applicable state law addressing the issues 
resolved by the settlement.
    (C) Judicial construction. A judicial construction of a governing 
instrument to resolve an ambiguity in the terms of the instrument or to 
correct a scrivener's error will not cause an exempt trust to be 
subject to the provisions of chapter 13, if--
    (1) The judicial action involves a bona fide issue, and
    (2) The construction is consistent with applicable state law that 
would be applied by the highest court of the state.
    (D) Other changes. A modification of the governing instrument of an 
exempt trust (including a trustee distribution, settlement, or 
construction that does not satisfy paragraphs (b)(4)(i)(A), (B), or (C) 
of this subsection) by judicial reformation, or nonjudicial reformation 
that is valid under applicable state law, will not cause an exempt 
trust to be subject to the provisions of chapter 13, but only if--
    (1) The modification does not shift a beneficial interest in the 
trust to any beneficiary who occupies a lower generation (as defined in 
section 2651) than the person or persons who held the beneficial 
interest prior to the modification, and
    (2) The modification does not extend the time for vesting of any 
beneficial interest in the trust beyond the period provided for in the 
original trust.
    (E) Examples. The following examples illustrate the application of 
this paragraph (b)(4). In each example, assume that the trust 
established in 1980 was irrevocable for purposes of Sec. 26.2601-
1(b)(1)(ii) and that there have been no additions to any trust after 
September 25, 1985.

    Example 1. Trustee's power to distribute principal authorized 
under trust instrument. In 1980, Grantor established an irrevocable 
trust (Trust) for the benefit of Grantor's child, A, A's spouse, and 
A's issue. At the time Trust was established, A had two children, B 
and C. A corporate fiduciary was designated as trustee. Under the 
terms of Trust, the trustee has the discretion to distribute all or 
part of the trust income to one or more of the group consisting of 
A, A's spouse or A's issue. The trustee is also authorized to 
distribute all or part of the trust principal to one or more trusts 
for the benefit of A, A's spouse, or A's issue under terms specified 
by the trustee in the trustee's discretion. Any trust established 
under Trust, however, must terminate 21 years after the death of the 
last child of A to die who was alive at the time Trust was executed. 
Trust will terminate on the death of A, at which time the remaining 
principal will be distributed to A's issue, per stirpes. In 2000, 
the trustee distributed part of Trust's principal to a new trust for 
the benefit of B and C and their issue. The new trust will terminate 
21 years after the death of the survivor of B and C, at which time 
the trust principal will be distributed to the issue of B and C, per 
stirpes. The terms of the governing instrument of Trust authorize 
the trustee to make the distribution to a new trust without the 
consent or approval of any beneficiary or court. In addition, the 
terms of the governing instrument of the new trust do not extend the 
time for vesting of any beneficial interest in a manner that may 
postpone or suspend the vesting, absolute ownership or power of 
alienation of an interest in property for a period, measured from 
the date of creation of Trust, extending beyond any life in being at 
the date of creation of Trust plus a period of 21 years, plus if 
necessary, a reasonable period of gestation. Accordingly, neither 
Trust nor the new trust will be subject to the provisions of chapter 
13 of the Code.
    Example 2. Trustee's power to distribute principal pursuant to 
state statute. In 1980, Grantor established an irrevocable trust 
(Trust) for the benefit of Grantor's child, A, A's spouse, and A's 
issue. At the time Trust was established, A had two children, B and 
C. A corporate fiduciary was designated as trustee. Under the terms 
of Trust, the trustee has the discretion to distribute all or part 
of the trust income or principal to one or more of the group 
consisting of A, A's spouse or

[[Page 63001]]

A's issue. Trust will terminate on the death of A, at which time the 
trust principal will be distributed to A's issue, per stirpes. Under 
a state statute applicable to Trust, a trustee who has the absolute 
discretion under the terms of a testamentary instrument or 
irrevocable inter vivos trust agreement to invade the principal of a 
trust for the benefit of the income beneficiaries of the trust, may 
exercise the discretion by appointing so much or all of the 
principal of the trust in favor of a trustee of a trust under an 
instrument other than that under which the power to invade is 
created, or under the same instrument. The trustee may take the 
action either with consent of all the persons interested in the 
trust but without prior court approval, or with court approval, upon 
notice to all of the parties. The exercise of the discretion, 
however, must not reduce any fixed income interest of any income 
beneficiary of the trust and must be in favor of the beneficiaries 
of the trust. In 2000, the trustee distributes one-half of Trust's 
principal to a new trust that provides for the payment of trust 
income to A for life and further provides that, at A's death, one-
half of the trust remainder will pass to B or B's issue and one-half 
of the trust will pass to C or C's issue. Because the state statute 
requires the consent of all of the parties, the transaction 
constitutes a modification of Trust. However, because the 
modification does not shift any beneficial interest in Trust to a 
beneficiary or beneficiaries who occupy a lower generation than the 
person or persons who held the beneficial interest prior to the 
modification, neither Trust nor the new trust will be subject to the 
provisions of chapter 13 of the Code.
    Example 3. Construction of an ambiguous term in the instrument. 
In 1980, Grantor established an irrevocable trust for the benefit of 
Grantor's children, A and B, and their issue. The trust is to 
terminate on the death of the last to die of A and B, at which time 
the principal is to be distributed to their issue. However, the 
provision governing the termination of the trust is ambiguous 
regarding whether the trust principal is to be distributed per 
stirpes, only to the children of A and B, or per capita among the 
children, grandchildren, and more remote issue of A and B. The 
trustee files a construction suit with the appropriate local court 
to resolve the ambiguity. The court issues an order construing the 
instrument to provide for per capita distributions to the children, 
grandchildren, and more remote issue of A and B living at the time 
the trust terminates. The court's construction is consistent with 
applicable state law as it would be interpreted by the highest court 
of the state and resolves a bona fide controversy regarding the 
proper interpretation of the instrument. Therefore, the trust will 
not be subject to the provisions of chapter 13 of the Code.
    Example 4. Change in trust situs. In 1980, Grantor, who was 
domiciled in State X, executed an irrevocable trust for the benefit 
of Grantor's issue, naming a State X bank as trustee. Under the 
terms of the trust, the trust is to terminate, in all events, no 
later than 21 years after the death of the last to die of certain 
designated individuals living at the time the trust was executed. 
The provisions of the trust do not specify that any particular state 
law is to govern the administration and construction of the trust. 
In State X, the common law rule against perpetuities applies to 
trusts. In 2000, a State Y bank is named as sole trustee. The effect 
of changing trustees is that the situs of the trust changes to State 
Y, and the laws of State Y govern the administration and 
construction of the trust. State Y law contains no rule against 
perpetuities. In this case, however, in view of the terms of the 
trust, the trust will terminate at the same time before and after 
the change in situs. Accordingly, the change in situs does not shift 
any beneficial interest in the trust to a beneficiary who occupies a 
lower generation (as defined in section 2651) than the person or 
persons who held the beneficial interest prior to the transfer. 
Furthermore, the change in situs does not extend the time for 
vesting of any beneficial interest in the trust beyond that provided 
for in the original trust. Therefore, the trust will not be subject 
to the provisions of chapter 13 of the Code. If, in this example, as 
a result of the change in situs, State Y law governed such that the 
time for vesting was extended beyond the period prescribed under the 
terms of the original trust instrument, the trust would not retain 
exempt status.
    Example 5. Division of a trust. In 1980, Grantor established an 
irrevocable trust for the benefit of his two children, A and B, and 
their issue. Under the terms of the trust, the trustee has the 
discretion to distribute income and principal to A, B, and their 
issue in such amounts as the trustee deems appropriate. On the death 
of the last to die of A and B, the trust principal is to be 
distributed to the living issue of A and B, per stirpes. In 2000, 
the appropriate local court approved the division of the trust into 
two equal trusts, one for the benefit of A and A's issue and one for 
the benefit of B and B's issue. The trust for A and A's issue 
provides that the trustee has the discretion to distribute trust 
income and principal to A and A's issue in such amounts as the 
trustee deems appropriate. On A's death, the trust principal is to 
be distributed equally to A's issue, per stirpes. The trust for B 
and B's issue is identical (except for the beneficiaries), and 
terminates at B's death at which time the trust principal is to be 
distributed equally to B's issue, per stirpes. The division of the 
trust into two trusts does not shift any beneficial interest in the 
trust to a beneficiary who occupies a lower generation (as defined 
in section 2651) than the person or persons who held the beneficial 
interest prior to the division. In addition, the division does not 
extend the time for vesting of any beneficial interest in the trust 
beyond the period provided for in the original trust. Therefore, the 
two partitioned trusts resulting from the division will not be 
subject to the provisions of chapter 13 of the Code.
    Example 6. Merger of two trusts. In 1980, Grantor established an 
irrevocable trust for Grantor's child and the child's issue. In 
1983, Grantor's spouse also established a separate irrevocable trust 
for the benefit of the same child and issue. The terms of the 
spouse's trust and Grantor's trust are identical. In 2000, the 
appropriate local court approved the merger of the two trusts into 
one trust to save administrative costs and enhance the management of 
the investments. The merger of the two trusts does not shift any 
beneficial interest in the trust to a beneficiary who occupies a 
lower generation (as defined in section 2651) than the person or 
persons who held the beneficial interest prior to the merger. In 
addition, the merger does not extend the time for vesting of any 
beneficial interest in the trust beyond the period provided for in 
the original trust. Therefore, the trust that resulted from the 
merger will not be subject to the provisions of chapter 13 of the 
Code.
    Example 7. Modification that does not shift an interest to a 
lower generation. In 1980, Grantor established an irrevocable trust 
for the benefit of Grantor's grandchildren, A, B, and C. The trust 
provides that income is to be paid to A, B, and C, in equal shares 
for life. The trust further provides that, upon the death of the 
first grandchild to die, one-third of the principal is to be 
distributed to that grandchild's issue, per stirpes. Upon the death 
of the second grandchild to die, one-half of the remaining trust 
principal is to be distributed to that grandchild's issue, per 
stirpes, and upon the death of the last grandchild to die, the 
remaining principal is to be distributed to that grandchild's issue, 
per stirpes. In 2000, A became disabled. Subsequently, the trustee, 
with the consent of B and C, petitioned the appropriate local court 
and the court approved a modification of the trust that increased 
A's share of trust income. The modification does not shift a portion 
of the income interest to a beneficiary who occupies a generation 
lower than the generation occupied by A, B and C, and does not 
extend the time for vesting of any beneficial interest in the trust 
beyond the period provided for in the original trust. Accordingly, 
the trust as modified will not be subject to the provisions of 
chapter 13 of the Code. However, the modification increasing A's 
share of trust income is a transfer by B and C to A for federal gift 
tax purposes.

    (ii) Effective date. The rules in this paragraph (b)(4) are 
effective as of [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE Federal Register 
AS A FINAL REGULATION].
* * * * *
    (c) * * * The last four sentences in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this 
section are effective as of November 18, 1999.
Robert E. Wenzel,
Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
[FR Doc. 99-29920 Filed 11-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U