Repeal of the Estate Tax – A Capital Gain For the Rich–What About the Rest of Us?
No Step-Up
In dying this year, Dan Duncan appears to have become the first U.S. billionaire to leave a multi-billion dollar estate to his children and grandchildren free from U.S. estate tax. This avoidance of U.S. estate tax does not result from charitable giving, nor from the clever use of U.S. estate tax loopholes, but from a curious quirk of the Bush tax cuts of 2001, which repealed the estate tax for persons dying in the year 2010. Only.
Under the Bush tax cuts, the one-year 2010 estate tax repeal is “sunsetted” next year, 2011. At that point, the federal estate tax will come back into force with a vengeance, with higher rates and lowered exemptions, limiting the amount passing to non-spousal and non-charitable heirs, without federal estate tax, to only $1 million.
What this means is that if you are a relatively wealthy person and your heirs are likely to have tried very hard to keep you alive on December 31, 2009, but may not try nearly so hard on December 31, 2010. In other words, if you are a wealthy old person, or wealthy young person, trust no one this year! Don’t let an heir touch a hair on your head!
For the last ten years, trust and estate attorneys have made jokes about the prospective 2010 effect of the Bush tax cuts, sure that the Federal Government would act to change the rules before the end of 2009. But in December 2009 congressmen were so fearful of being tagged as voting for an increase in the notorious “death tax” that no agreement was reached.
This is not a post about the unfairness to wealthy people of a weird one-year loophole. Nor is it about the dangers of allowing increasingly high concentrations of wealth in the society. Nor even about the dangers to old rich people from greedy heirs.
No, this post is about how this year’s rules (surprise! surprise!) actually raise the prospective tax burden of the middle class and lower. Here’s how it works:
(Because I’m a lawyer, I’m going to start out by saying that this is a vast oversimplification, even though it will sound very complicated. I’m also going to say that nobody should rely on this post for tax advice.)
Actually, I just spent about four paragraphs writing my oversimplification and then, in sympathy for you, I cut it. I’ll just go for the juglar:
In 2009, a person could leave an estate of 3.5 million or less (not including bequests for spouses and charities), without federal estate tax. Under the traditional (non-2010) rules, appreciated assets that were inherited got a “stepped-up” cost basis to their value as of the date of death of the decedent. This meant that the assets could be sold by heirs with relatively reduced capital gains tax (or, if sold promptly, with none at all.) This also means that in 2009, the heirs of a person with an estate of approximately 3.5 million or less did not have a federal estate tax burden, and actually had some federal income tax benefits, related to the death.
In 2010, the Bush tax rules offset the loss of fiscal revenue from the repeal of the estate tax by eliminating the capital gains benefits that had previously been granted on dying. Just as there is no estate tax, there is, in 2010, no “step-up” in cost basis for the appreciated assets of the deceased. For the very wealthy, this exchange of tax burdens is a bonanza—(i) because capital gains tax rates are considerably lower than estate tax rates; and (ii) because capital gains tax is only assessed if gains are actually realized, i.e. when assets are sold. Many wealthy heirs may not need to sell inherited assets, such as stock or jewelry or houses, or can offset the gains by realizing losses on other assets.
However, the loss of the capital gains step-up imposes additional tax costs on those less wealthy people whose estates would not have been subject to the federal estate tax under prior rules, but who now will have to pay higher capital gains taxes on the sale of inherited appreciated assets. (Keep in mind that the lower cost basis will not get changed at the end of this year, so could affect sales far in the future.)
So once again (even after Bush leaves office), his tax policies favor the rich.
The amazing thing to me is that no one is talking about this. (Yes, I know it’s complicated.)
Even weirder is the feeling I have that many lower and/or middle-class Americans, who seem to have a perverse habit of rooting for economic policies which do not, in fact, favor them, may be happy about the one-year repeal of the estate tax. I imagine them thinking that it’s a blow against big government, not realizing, of course, that they may personally pay the price tag.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be aware that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments or enclosures) is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to any other person any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Explore posts in the same categories: news, UncategorizedTags: "death tax" repeal; capital gains effect of "death tax" repeal, 2010 capital gains issues related to estate tax repeal, 2010 estate tax repeal, Dan Duncan, inequity of estate tax repeal, manicddaily, Manicddaily drawing of no-step-up, no-step-up in cost basis in 2010, one year repeal of estate tax posing danger to old people
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
ManicDDaily 
June 10, 2010 at 11:11 pm
1. I’ll be interested in what these keywords do for your site traffic.
2. Not enough…(I humbly suggest you) send it to they NYC as an op-ed.
3. (IHSY) also post the uncut version for the serious news-of-Bush-crimes junkies.
June 10, 2010 at 11:26 pm
So far–not a big lure for traffic! (Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart together much much much better.)
I have thought of doing something for a bigger forum. I’m simply amazed that there is not more discussion of this topic. It’s pretty insane. One accountant with whom I work actually thinks that the capital gains effects will be enough to balance out the lost of revenue from the estate tax–of course, this is because the capital gains tax will be applicable to so very many people; while the estate tax is much higher per applicable estate, it would only apply to the estates over 3.5 million. (I don’t know any actual statistics about this, however.)
I don’t know what IHSY stands for. The uncut version (of my post) mainly described how a step-up in cost basis works in traditional times, and very very briefly explains how capital gains taxes work. I don’t know how much the average person knows about this, or is interested in knowing.
June 11, 2010 at 12:06 am
IHSY — Sorry about that…just trying to avoid spelling out twice “I humbly suggest you…”
Not a standard abbreviation so far as I know, and less obvious from the context than I’d supposed.
You say:
Even weirder is the feeling I have that many lower and/or middle-class Americans, who seem to have a perverse habit of rooting for economic policies which do not, in fact, favor them, may be happy about the one-year repeal of the estate tax.
I say:
You may meet the occasional American citizen who pays their taxes with pride and basks in the glow of at least that part of government spending that serves to help people who need the help. But everyone hates the IRS.
It’s a messenger/message type confusion.
Or consider this comparison: back in the day some people gladly paid a few thousand more for a Saturn rather than haggle for a comparable car only to find that their friend got the same car for less by haggling better.
The complicated code pits the citizen against the government. Everyone feels that everyone else plays the game better. No one knows the whole code well enough to just whether unfairness isn’t built in.
The enemy of one’s enemy isn’t necessarily one’s friend, but it’s hard not to cheer when one’s enemy loses a round. The public evidently found it very amusing when Ted Bundy, a serial killer, escaped from prison — a local dinner made a specialty of Bundyburgers, buns with no meat. If the public could cheer for Bundy (because they dislike the police), it’s not surprising at all that they can cheer for Dan Duncan. The man did the next best thing to taking it with him!
In this computer age, I think the government should track tax dollars instead of dumping them in a huge fund. Then every now and then you or I would get an automated email saying “We just used $200 of your return from year XXXX towards painting the YYY Bridge” (or whatever). I think people would feel better about paying their taxes if they had a concrete sense of how their money got spent. Better yet, emphasize the war effort for returns from Republican districts, education spending for returns from Democratic districts, etc.
Even better, someone need to invent, propose and sell a natural progressive tax. If it’s not clear what I mean by “natural,” a flat tax would be a natural regressive tax. I guess I mean a tax based a simple, defensible philosophical principle for the fair distribution of burden.
June 11, 2010 at 6:26 am
Ah. Thanks. I definitely will think about it.