Wednesday, July 05, 2006

A Case for a Federal Inheritance Tax

Category: Estate and Inheritance Tax

In a different look on the estate tax repeal (or virtual repeal debate) Maya MacGuineas and Ian Davidoff in washingtonpost.com's Think Tank Town discuss the merits of repealing the estate tax and replacing it with an inheritance tax in "Tax Inheritance, Not 'Death'".

Under current law, the federal estate tax is a tax on the amount of assets you own at death. The estate pays the tax, and the net balance is distributed to the beneficiaries. A person does not pay any tax on his or her inheritance.

While I disagree with the article's summary of estate tax repeal opponents that "opponents of estate tax repeal have fallen back on a divisive class-warfare approach. The estate tax affects fewer than two percent of the richest Americans. Thus, they argue, the other ninety-eight percent of the population should oppose repeal." (see my prior posts of Truths about the Estate Tax - Debunking the Popular Myths, Effects of the Federal Estate Tax on Farms and Small Businesses - Congressional Budget Office Paper, and other similar posts at Estate Tax - You and Yours Blawg where I discuss the cost passthrough of a repeal of the estate tax to other taxpayers - most likely in the middle brackets), the authors' thoughts about the alternative of a federal inheritance tax are intriguing.

In "Tax Inheritance, Not 'Death'", the authors propose that any inheritance should be treated as income and taxed as income. This would be in keeping with the theoretical underpinning of our current system of progressive taxes (ie: lower tax rates for lowers earners and higher tax rates for higher earners) on earned income. As for the argument that this is "double taxation" the article says "so what", new money coming to you is income, and income should be taxed. Recall that the current estate tax tends to act to tax all theretofore untaxed capital gains at a person's death, and rewards the beneficiaries with a new "stepped up" basis.

The heart of the argument for an inheritance tax is excerpted below:

While it may seem perverse to tax one person's earnings twice, a key feature of inherited wealth is that upon transfer it goes from being one person's income to another's. There is nothing unreasonable then, about asking the person who receives an inheritance to pay their fair share on their new income -- particularly when all other earners, including minimum wage workers, pay taxes on the very first dollar they earn. To discuss whether to increase the size of estates exempted from taxation to $3 million, $10 million, or to make it unlimited is to move in the wrong direction in a society that values hard work. The current favorable treatment of inherited versus earned income is the opposite of what it should be.

A far better approach would be to tax people equivalently on all the income they receive, whether it be from earned or inherited income, by replacing the estate tax with an income tax on inheritances. Under such a tax, inheritances would be treated the same as other forms of earned income and taxed in the same manner.

Whereas under an estate tax, the tax owed is based on the size of the estate regardless of how it is distributed, under an inheritance tax, how much an individual inherits along with their economic circumstances would be considered. The result would be much fairer. The housekeeper and the wealthy niece who each receive a $50,000 windfall would pay taxes based on their own different tax rates. Likewise, two middle-class workers, one of whom inherits $10,000 and another who inherits $1,000,000, would be taxed at the rates that apply to their total income.

Changing from an estate tax to an inheritance tax would not only be fairer, it would be better tax policy. A general objective of tax policy is to create the broadest base with the lowest possible rates to minimize economic harm. Under the inheritance tax, the base would be significantly broadened by taxing all inheritances (except for, say, those less than $10,000) rather than narrowed as under the proposed estate tax compromises. At the same time, the estate tax rate, which ran as high as 55%, would be lowered significantly to current income tax rates, which range from 0% to 35%.

And creating an inheritance tax rather than eliminating the estate tax would save the Treasury hundreds of billions of dollars at a time when it desperately needs the money.

This argument does have an appeal to me in that it treats an inheritance as earnings - new money in your pocket, and new money means a new tax to you.





Bookmark and Share

6 Comments:

At 7/05/2006 12:34 PM, Anonymous equality 7-2125 said...

I see the appeal when the inheritance is cash, because paying the tax is easy. What if the inheritance is real estate, such as a personal residence? Or a small business, or a minority interest in same? Where would the cash come from? How would you treat a surviving spouse?

Given that an inheritance is once in a lifetime, wouldn't it be more fair to permit income averaging?

What happens to the gift tax?

An interesting idea, but lots of potential problems.

 
At 7/07/2006 5:20 PM, Blogger Deirdre R. Wheatley-Liss, Esq. said...

You make an excellent comment as to what happens where the inheritance is not a liquid asset. My inital thought is that there would need to some mechanism where the executor received legally binding assurnces from the beneficiary as to the ability to pay the inheritance tax prior to distribution of the assets - or it would be sold. The beneficiary may need to demonstrate funds for tax prior to an in kind transfer.

As to the gift tax, it would seem that it could be unified as well, under the theory that income is income is income, that gifts should be taxed to to the recipient as well. There could be exclusions to the federal inhertiance tax much as there is an annual exclusion not to exonerate small gifts from tax reporting.

 
At 7/11/2006 11:55 AM, Blogger Michael Bindner said...

I post on my blog the comment that if an asset is still productive, it should remain untaxed until it is liquidated and if it is liquidated to an ESOP or related transfer to the rank and file employees it should be tax free to the heirs (or the estate).

Your comments about the gift tax show why some form of tax on estates or heirs is just. If the payer transferred or sold these assets without dying, tax would be owed, either gift or capital gains - unless the asset were tranferred to an ESOP. See my blog at http://xianleft.blogspot.com or my site at http://www.geocities.com/iowaequity/taxreformproposal.html

 
At 2/19/2008 2:39 AM, Blogger Seo Link Master said...

You need us if you have any of these tax problems: Back
Taxes
, Unfiled Returns, Missing Records, Threat of Levy, or, if you need an Installment Agreement or an Offer in Compromise A tax levy or garnishment or attachment are all the same thing. The terms may be used interchangeably. A wage garnishment or levy may be against any asset. In the enforcement of tax collections. We prepare all Federal and State Unfiled tax Returns The Fair Tax Act (HR
25/S 1025) is a bill in the United States Congress for changing Tax Solutions laws to replace the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and all federal income taxes (including Alternative Minimum Tax), Past due tax returns, Past due tax returns, Past due returns, Past due taxes, Unpaid tax, Tax negotiation, Wage levy, Robert M. Adams, Bob Adams, Try to Be Happy, Search Engine Optimization

 
At 11/21/2009 10:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!

 
At 4/02/2015 4:33 AM, Blogger Rustam khan said...

The Tax Advisor Helpful tips and useful guidance to help you manage those ever increasing tax charges. Helping you pay less tax and avoid unecessary fines. Tax planning tips, tax return status.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home