<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">I had such a client in King County in 2015. Near the end of his life, it came to his (and his family’s) attention that King County Assessor’s Current Use department interpreted RCW 83.34.108(6)(k) to deprive the heirs of beneficial owners
(RLT Trustor/Beneficiary types) of the two-year time window exemption provided for sale or transfer of land with removal of the current use classification without imposition/recoupment of the previous seven years of tax reduction (plus interest and penalty).
The County’s rationale was/is that, if the property was held by a trust (a living trust does not “die”), no two-year exemption window opens for the trust beneficiaries upon the death of the trustor. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To verify the County’s position, I met with the (then) King County Assessor’s current use officer, and she confirmed this. She may actually have been the source of the advice. In the nick of time, the trustor deeded the current-use forest
land back to his individual name, then passed away a few weeks later.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While I can’t take credit for avoiding the “trap,” neither do I share blame for assisting with the prior estate planning use of the RLT. Some other advisor did that work.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">BTW—I can think of at least two other estate planning or elder law situations where having chosen a revocable living trust might preclude a substantial benefit—the testamentary division exemption under the subdivision statute, and the “testamentary
spousal special needs trust”. Can anyone think of other examples?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Sarah Dion<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 03, 2019 5:02 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBAPT] Question about RCW 88.33 and transfer of real property into Revocable Living Trust<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi all-<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have a client who owns real property in Chelan County that has been designated "forest land" under RCW 88.33.130. He would like to transfer ownership of this property to an RLT (assume for good reasons). I am trying to make sure the transfer
won't wreak havoc with this designation. I've been trying to figure this out, but am coming up empty. I confess I don't have many clients who own forest land! <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Does anyone have insight on this or ideas? Thanks in advance!<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Sarah Jael Dion<br>
<br>
Dion Law PLLC <br>
206-550-4005<br>
</span><a href="mailto:sarah@dionlaw.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155CC">sarah@dionlaw.com</span></a><span style="color:black"><br>
</span><a href="http://www.dionlaw.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155CC">www.dionlaw.com</span></a><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please notify me immediately and delete the message. Please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>