MasonLaw, PC | NC Elder & Special Needs Law Attorney
  • We Do Elder Law
  • Special Needs Law
  • Resources
    • Hot Topics
    • Blog
      • Reader Favorites
      • General
      • Medicaid
      • Medicare
      • Social Security
      • Tax Issues
      • Wills
    • Newsletter
  • About
    • Bob Mason, Attorney
    • Staff
      • Tammy Webster, Client Services Manager
      • Jennifer Barbee Swift, Benefits Specialist
      • Ann Mason, Practice Manager
    • Testimonials
    • News
  • Contact
  • Client Portal
  • We Do Elder Law
  • Special Needs Law
  • Resources
    • Hot Topics
    • Blog
      • Reader Favorites
      • General
      • Medicaid
      • Medicare
      • Social Security
      • Tax Issues
      • Wills
    • Newsletter
  • About
    • Bob Mason, Attorney
    • Staff
      • Tammy Webster, Client Services Manager
      • Jennifer Barbee Swift, Benefits Specialist
      • Ann Mason, Practice Manager
    • Testimonials
    • News
  • Contact
  • Client Portal

Blog

You are here: Home / Blog

February 16, 2026 by bob mason 4 Comments

Your house appreciated. A 30-year-old tax rule hasn’t.

“I feel your pain.”

Remember 1997? Titanic was still in theaters, CD players were cutting-edge, and Congress decided that if you sold your home, you could exclude up to $250,000 of gain (or $500,000 for married couples) from tax under Internal Revenue Code Section 121.

That change came from the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 — a law so old it still predates the first iPhone, the first Facebook post, and most of the passwords we all reuse.

Back then, the exclusion probably made perfect sense. In 1997, home values were dramatically lower. Even adjusted for inflation alone, $250,000 in 1997 is roughly equivalent to about $500,000 in 2026 dollars. And of course, in many parts of the country (including Charlotte), home values have increased far more than inflation.

Fast forward nearly 30 years, and the $250,000 cap hasn’t budged an inch. It’s still $250,000. $500,000 for a married couple. In some markets like Charlotte, it doesn’t even cover the appreciation on a fairly ordinary home — especially if the owners have lived there for decades.

For example, Fred and Ethel purchased a residence back when the Gipper was President in the Southpark area of Charlotte for $150,000. The residence is now worth close to a million. If they sold now, they’d have $850,000 capital gains. The exclusion would take out $500,000, but $350,000 would still be taxable (that’d be north of $50,000 to Uncle Sam alone).

It could be worse. Let’s say Fred died in 2010 when the residence was worth $500,000. His “half” of the residence received stepped-up-at-death basis to $250,000. Ethel’s half stayed at $75,000 (half the original purchase price). So, the total basis in Ethel’s hands now stands at $325,000. If she sells for a million, the gain will be $675,000. The problem is that poor Ethel only has a $250,000 exclusion (Fred’s exclusion died two years after him; the idea was to give Ethel a chance to do something after Fred’s death but before the second anniversary of his death in 2012). That leaves Ethel with a $425,000 taxable gain.

But here’s the part that’s especially interesting (and not just for tax nerds like me).

Some economists argue that this outdated exclusion contributes to what’s called a “lock-in effect.” In plain English, the idea is simple: if selling your home means paying a big capital gains tax bill, you might decide not to sell.

Even if you’d like to downsize. Even if the stairs are becoming a little less charming every year. Even if you don’t really need four bedrooms anymore, and you’re tired of paying someone to rake leaves the size of dinner plates.

And when you combine that with another familiar rule — the step-up in basis at death — the incentive becomes even stronger.

Sell now, and you may owe capital gains tax on the amount above the exclusion.

Hold until death, and your kids may inherit the home with a stepped-up basis, meaning the capital gain can be reduced dramatically… or even wiped out entirely.

So for many families, the tax system quietly rewards staying put.

And that’s where this stops being just a tax story and starts being a housing story.

If enough people hold on to homes longer than they otherwise would, it keeps some perfectly good houses off the market. That doesn’t help a country that already has a well-documented residential housing shortage. It doesn’t create more inventory. It doesn’t help younger families looking for starter homes. And it doesn’t help older homeowners who might actually prefer to move, if the tax consequences weren’t so lopsided.

Tax law can freeze in time, but home values sure don’t.

The punchline here is that Congress wrote this rule in 1997, when it was one thing. In 2026, it has become something else — not because Congress changed it, but because everything around it changed.

Whether Congress ever updates the exclusion is anyone’s guess. But for now, the $250,000/$500,000 limits remain a reminder that sometimes the most important tax rules aren’t the complicated ones. They’re the old ones that never got updated.

And if you’ve been living in the same home a long time, and you’re thinking about selling (or holding it for step-up planning), it’s worth running the numbers before you make a decision to sell.

Filed Under: Tax Issues Tagged With: capital gains tax, residence sale, Taxes

February 15, 2026 by bob mason 27 Comments

The Medicaid transfer penalty is the most common issue we deal with when we submit an application for Medicaid nursing home benefits. Last September the Division of Health Benefits released new procedures in which they are REALLY cracking down on transfers and gathering much additional information to check for transfers.

Question: Do you know someone who MIGHT have to consider a nursing home placement and a Medicaid application within the next 5 years?

Next Question: Is that person able to swing the $12,000 monthly bill?

If you answered “Yes” and “No” please do yourself a favor and read on.

I won’t waste your time going back over the Medicaid application issue because I have written about it elsewhere. You can read that here.

What I want to do here is emphasize a couple of extremely important Medicaid matters and give you a few pointers.

The Medicaid Transfer Penalty

In every other client meeting I have someone asks about “that five year look back rule.” What they are asking about is the general Medicaid nursing home rule that “sanctions” certain asset transfers. DSS “looks back” five years and adds up all free gift-type transfers. They then divide by $11,904 (which, by federal law, is supposed to be the current average per bed private pay rate in North Carolina) to calculate the sanction.

If Grandma transferred $119,040 to Francine four years ago and applies for Medicaid this month there could be a 10-month sanction. That is the amount of time Medicaid will refuse to pay the nursing home. No, Medicaid doesn’t take the money back; it simply will not pay the nursing home. It’s your problem.

There are a few exceptions: Transfers between spouses, transfers to a disabled child, modest and recurring donations (think of church), or other transfers made with absolutely no thought of qualifying for Medicaid (good luck, the burden of proving that is on you).

The transfer rule can bite in other unexpected ways. Read on.

Madeleine and Sneaky Medicaid Transfers

Madeline asked for our help qualifying her mother (Agnes) for Medicaid after Agnes’s admission to the nursing home. We pursued a number of strategies and got her mother currently qualified for Medicaid. The problems came up after we submitted the application.

As part of the application, we stated Agnes had made no sanctionable transfers within the past five years (after Madeleine assured us that was the case).

A few days after the submission, DSS told us they wanted to see FIVE years of bank statements. Madeleine wasn’t happy, but we had warned her.

Ten days later we submitted the six inch high stack of statements.

Three days later DSS asked us to explain a series of withdrawals over the years. Nearly every month the bank statement showed withdrawals of $200 to $500 “CASH.” They totaled around $30,000.

No, no, Madeleine!

I asked Madeleine what they were. She said, “Why, they were to me. I reimbursed myself for mileage and other expenses like groceries I bought for Mom. Is that a problem? They weren’t gifts.”

My answer? “Madeleine, it’s a problem if we can’t begin to substantiate what they reimbursed you for. Did you keep detailed records?”

Her response was something like “not-really-but-sorta.” We were looking at close to a 3-month transfer of assets penalty.  What that means is Medicaid will not pay the nursing home for three months once they have determined that Agnes is otherwise qualified for Medicaid (but for the transfers).

Fortunately, after much painstaking work, records reconstruction, and affidavits we were able to lower the penalty to less than a month.

But it wasn’t easy.

What could have been done

There isn’t a clear-cut answer other than: Be careful.

Here is what I suggest, depending upon your level of paranoia, dedication, and attention to detail.

Consider a simple “Reimbursement Agreement” in which Mom agrees to reimburse you for documented out-of-pocket expenses. Shortly after the end of every month, give her a statement with copies of receipts attached. Have her write YOU a check for that exact amount. PLEASE file the statement in your “Reimbursement Folder.” OK, you might think, the “Reimbursement Agreement” is a bit over-the-top. While I don’t think so, at least implement the system of “statements with receipts attached.”

Give the bank a copy of Mom’s power of attorney and ask that you be an authorized signer on her account. Then pay for Mom’s expenses with her account – and PLEASE do not write checks to “CASH.”

Dad Pays Pamela for Personal Care

When Pamela came to see me about “finally” having to put Dad in the nursing home she explained that Dad had been frail for years. Until 6 months ago he needed help around the house with basic chores, shopping, cooking, and the like. Six months ago, Dad took a turn for the worse and his physician said at that time that he probably belonged in a nursing home. Pamela couldn’t bring herself to do it. Until now.

Pamela also said she’d been paying herself about $2,200 a month the past 6 months or so for taking care of Dad a good bit of the day (not unreasonable since she quit her job). She’d also been paying “some other ladies cash under the table” (the IRS would take issue with that).

The Medicaid Transfer Penalty Problem

Problems? You bet! In fact, would I actually be writing about this if it wasn’t a problem?

Federal law (which NC is obligated to follow) simply requires that payments made for services rendered must be a fair market exchange. Period.

The NC Adult Medicaid Manual, however, attempts to pose stricter standards. In order for payment for “personal care services” to be a nonsanctionable transfer, the payments must be:

·       Pursuant to a written contract.

·       Must pertain to future services only (in other words you can’t go back and “paper up” a transaction after the fact).

·       Pursuant to a physician’s written statement that says the services are “necessary to prevent entry . . . to a nursing facility or intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded.”

Payments for Care Services Must Be Handled Correctly

Literally read, this would sanction payments made to a home health agency or non-related home health worker providing services needed to keep the applicant safe, or entertained, or whatever. If this was the case, the NC Association of Home & Hospice Care would be outside the Department of Health & Human Services building in Raleigh with pitchforks and torches.

I think this is overzealous manual writing from several years ago that wasn’t carefully thought through.

The concept is this: Dad could spend thousands of dollars buying a case of mink-lined wading boots if that is what “floats his boat.”

Payments to Family Members

The next section of the manual says that any transfer to a family member for services that the person provided for free in the past, must be pursuant to a written agreement entered into on or before the person renders the services.

Theoretically, Medicaid could sanction Granddad for paying his grandson to mow his yard. I think that is nonsense, but it certainly could be applied to a daughter providing personal care services.

The American Council on Aging maintains a useful website that also describes this problem in a general fashion and not state specific.

The Medicaid Transfer Penalty Solution

My Bottom Line: Even for a non-related homecare provider, get a written agreement before the services are rendered, and then honor it. Do this especially if the provider is a relative. Have a physician paper it up with an order before the provider renders the services. After all, a physician wants to help, and one could argue that services meant to keep Mom from falling are “necessary to prevent the entry” into a nursing home.

Finally, not that Medicaid cares, but the IRS certainly does. If you’re paying someone “under the table” STOP IT. There are many inexpensive payroll services out there.

Back to Pamela. Can I help her? It is going to be tough. We might be able to get “the other ladies” Toast: What you'll be after a Medicaid transfer penaltycovered, but I don’t believe we’ll have any luck with her. A descriptive photo appears to the right. Fill in the blank: “Pamela is ____________.”

Medicaid Transfer Penalty Takeaway

This is frightfully confusing stuff. Penalties can be horrific (multiply $11,000 by the number of months messed up). In many cases you can avoid later penalties, but it must be structured correctly under the tutelage of someone who knows what they’re doing.

Yes, you might have to pay some attorney fees, but in the long run that could be the best “bang for the buck” – certainly better than DIY (which can, in the end, be very expensive).

 

Note to Readers: This is an extensive rewrite of two earlier versions of this article.

Filed Under: Featured, Medicaid, Nursing Homes, Reader Favorites, Uncategorized Tagged With: Medicaid penalties, NC Medicaid nursing home, transfers of assets

March 23, 2025 by bob mason Leave a Comment

Based on multiple true events.

It’s maddening! Chelsea is stuck! Her father executed a power of attorney prepared by a local elder law attorney in 2020 (OK, it was me). The POA has all the necessary bells and whistles to enable Chelsea, his only child, to take care of any business matters that might come up after a possible incapacity.

After the death of his wife Ethel, Norman moved from Silver Pond to be closer to his daughter Chelsea in North Carolina (she and her husband Bill had moved from California some years ago).

Recently he had a serious stroke. Chelsea immediately stepped in to help because Norman named her as his agent under his power of attorney. Just a week before his stroke he told Chelsea he was afraid he would lose everything he had if he “ever got sick.”

The POA Problem

Dad has all of his investments and a modest IRA at Big Bank & Trust.  There’s only one problem.

Stern woman

Uh . . . NO

“We can’t use your power of attorney because bank policy requires that you use our form POA which has been pre-approved by Legal,” declares the banking rep with the assured authority of a TSA screener looking for contraband.

“But Dad has had a major stroke! We aren’t even sure how much he understands anything.” Chelsea just can’t believe this.

The banking rep must realize she was a bit harsh. With a comforting hand on Chelsea’s shoulder she assures her that she “can always bring a guardianship proceeding.” In fact, the banking rep helpfully offers the name of a local attorney to handle the guardianship.

The Other Attorney

Chelsea visited the attorney recommended by the bank. The attorney, a nice enough young man a year out of law school, explains the guardianship process and tells Chelsea that as guardian she’ll have all the authority she needs to pay all of Norman’s bills and expenses.

Chelsea was startled. “But what about transferring his assets to a trust? Or to me? Dad always said he was afraid of losing everything in case he went to a nursing home?”

“Sorry,” explained the nice enough young attorney, “but you’ll need court approval for that . . . and depending on what county you’re in, good luck with that!”

Despair . . . and Then POA Help

Man consoling woman

Why don’t you go see that first attorney?

That evening Bill suggested that Chelsea return to that elder law attorney Norman had seen in 2020.

Chelsea appeared in my office and told me the sad tale of hers and her father’s situation (which you just read about).

I must admit, I wondered to myself why she hadn’t come to see me in the first place. I explained that North Carolina law is on her side. Read on to find out why.

If the Power of Attorney is Good, the Banks Must Honor It

Up until almost twenty years ago the refusal of banks and other financial institutions to honor otherwise valid powers of attorney was becoming a real problem. As with Chelsea and her father, it wasn’t always possible for the principal (Dad) to simply execute a new power.

Further, an institution’s form power may have contained provisions that the customer would rather not have in a power of attorney.

Finally, institutional legal departments (oftentimes hundreds of miles away in other states) were taking too long to review North Carolina powers of attorney.

The Uniform Power of Attorney Act (a model act that states can use to pattern their own statutes) came to the rescue. North Carolina’s current power of attorney statutes are based on this act.

Pardon the statutory citations . . . we do have some geek readers.

NCGS § 32C-1-120(b)(1) says a bank or other financial institution has seven business days to notify the agent under the POA (Chelsea) whether they intend to honor the power. As part of that process, the bank may require the agent to execute an affidavit. In the affidavit the agent swears that the power has not been revoked and that there are no conditions that would otherwise render the power invalid. Alternatively, the bank may ask for a legal opinion from the person’s attorney on any matter of law the bank is uncertain of.

Unless the bank is aware of some fact that would render the power invalid, it better honor the power of attorney and allow the agent to conduct business according to its terms. Being wrong has consequences.

Under NCGS § 32C-1-120(b)(3) a person cannot require a different form POA if the one presented appears to be valid. Bad, bank, bad!

If a bank refuses to honor a power of attorney, the agent may initiate a special proceeding before the clerk of the superior court to render a decision as to the validity of the power of attorney.  NCGS § 32C-120(e). The validity of the POA will be the only issue on the table.

If the power of attorney is found to be valid under North Carolina law, the institution is liable for the costs and attorney’s fees incurred in bringing the proceeding.  Of course, if the agent was fibbing a bit and the power wasn’t valid because it had been revoked, for example, the agent would be on the hook.

Bottom Line: POA Problem Fixed

A few phone calls to the bank legal department, with a discussion of North Carolina law, quickly straightened the problem out. I have threatened the procedure on several occasions and have never had to follow through with a special proceeding. The financial institutions don’t want the hassle.

 

Filed Under: General, Powers of Attorney, Reader Favorites Tagged With: powers of attorney

March 1, 2025 by bob mason Leave a Comment

The CTA is ON HOLD! Sort of.

Eye roll emojiThursday evening FinCEN announced its intention not to enforce the pending March 21 reporting deadline.

As I wrote just over a week ago, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a new March 21 reporting deadline.

In the Thursday evening announcement FinCEN wrote that “Today, FinCEN announced that it will not issue any fines or penalties or take any other enforcement actions against any companies based on any failure to file or update beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports pursuant to the Corporate Transparency Act by the current deadlines. No fines or penalties will be issued, and no enforcement actions will be taken, until a forthcoming interim final rule becomes effective and the new relevant due dates in the interim final rule have passed.”

I will keep you posted when any “interim final rule” is issued.

Remember: This is the SAME government that has nuclear weapons.

Filed Under: Corporate Transparency Act, Reader Favorites Tagged With: Corporate Transparency Act, CTA

February 19, 2025 by bob mason Leave a Comment

The Corporate Transparency Act/CTA is a GO!The Corporate Transparency Act is BACK! The CTA is ON!

Yesterday, a Texas federal district court lifted the last remaining stay on enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”).

Within the past few hours, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued new deadlines.

Because of this, affected small corporate entities have until March 21, 2025, to file the necessary information with FinCEN.

If you ignore this and you are an affected LLC, S corporation, or C corporation (most small businesses are) and you do not report information regarding the entity and the “beneficial owners” you will be subject to fines of up to $591 a day and potential federal felony prosecution come March 22.

For more background on the CTA read this. Please take this seriously!

What to do about CTA Compliance

My recommendation: Ask your accountant, attorney, or financial advisor if they can help (the answer will likely be “no”). At Mason Law, PC, we made the decision that we could not efficiently offer reporting services. Therefore, I have been advising people to use Perfect Form, LLC. Mason Law, PC has used them. The pricing is quite reasonable. The data entry portal is very user-friendly. And, no, I don’t have any connection with them. Perfect Form, LLC.

My CTA Editorial

Congress enacted the CTA over a presidential veto on December 11, 2020. Drafters buried the CTA deeply in the huge National Defense Authorization Act of 2021. Supporters say that it will be a tool for policing money laundering, terrorist financing, and other nefarious financial conduct. It will also bring the US in line with other European-style enforcement measures.

However, we aren’t Europe. The CTA will force over 32 million small businesses, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding, to divulge information and keep it updated. I believe in cracking down on money laundering and such, but is this overkill?

Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville re-introduced the Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act to repeal the CTA (it was too late in the last Congress to advance). North Carolina senators Tillis and Budd are co-sponsors. Ohio Representative Warren Davidson re-introduced the bill in the House, with North Carolina’s Edwards, Foxx, Hudson, Rouzer, and Murphy co-sponsoring. President Trump might be amenable to signing the repeal (after all, he was the president who vetoed it the first time around).

Filed Under: Corporate Transparency Act, Reader Favorites, Uncategorized Tagged With: Corporate Transparency Act

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 28
  • Next Page »

Browse Articles Here!

Or Search On A Topic

Recent Posts

  • Home Prices Heat Up. The Tax Break Stays Frozen.
  • Medicaid Transfer Penalty: Avoid This Costly Mistake
  • Valid POA MUST Be Honored
Protecting North Carolina families with expert elder law and special needs legal services.

Quick Links

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Contact / Schedule
  • Free Booklet and Newsletter Signup
  • Privacy Policy

Practice Areas

  • Elder Law
  • Special Needs
  • Medicaid Planning
  • Medicare Planning
  • Estate Planning

© 2026 MASONLAW, PC · NC ELDER & SPECIAL NEEDS LAW ATTORNEY