Estate Tax Dormant, Billionaire’s Bequest Is Tax-Free - NYTimes.com.
As the NYT notes:
A Texas pipeline tycoon who died two months ago may become the first American billionaire allowed to pass his fortune to his children and grandchildren tax-free.
When John D. Rockefeller, America’s first billionaire, died in 1937, his estate paid 70 percent.
Dan L. Duncan, a soft-spoken farm boy who started with $10,000 and two propane trucks, and built a network ofnatural gas processing plants and pipelines that made him the richest person in Houston, died in late Marchof a brain hemorrhage at 77.
Had his life ended three months earlier, Mr. Duncan’s riches — Forbes magazine estimated his worth at $9 billion, ranking him as the 74th wealthiest in the world — would have been subject to a federal tax of at least 45 percent. If he had lived past Jan. 1, 2011, the rate would be even higher — 55 percent.
Instead, because Congress allowed the tax to lapse for one year and gave all estates a free pass in 2010, Mr. Duncan’s four children and four grandchildren stand to collect billions that in any other year would have gone to the Treasury.
Which in the current context is a sick joke.
And an appropriate epitaph for George W Bush' s maladministration in favour of the rich.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard, what levels do you think are correct for inheritance tax?
Crazy! I wonder how many offspring of American billionaires are going to be arranging for their parents to be bumped off this year just so they can get their hands on the readies?
President Bush did not do this on his own. He had help from a Democratic congress.
At least in the US, inheritance tax is widely unpopular.
Surely the story of any merit here is the fact that he started with $10,000 and 2 trucks – and built assets worth $9 billion. You might say the lad did well!!!!! My guess is that he did not choose the timing of his death, and it is nonsense to suggest that he was allowed to pass his fortune tax free (as is clear in the text you quote).
I guess you don’t like George W Bush, but I don’t think you can blame him for the actions of Congress, even during his time in office.
@Greg
I’d start at 10% at £100,000
And I’d make it steadily progressive to 50% at £1 million
And I’d charge 50% automatically on all transfers into trust except those for charity and the care of the disabled
I believe in retribution
I think the family home argument is complete nonsense
And I do think lifetime gifts should be brought back into the scope of the tax
Richard, those are fair enough levels I guess, although I find conflict between the idea that if tax has been paid once on a persons assets then they shouldn’t pay it again, and between the idea that the recipient shouldn’t be free of paying tax.
“I believe in retribution”
Freudian slip there: Charles Bronson believed in retribution. I think you believe in redistribution.
“I believe in retribution”
Freudian slip?
This comment has been deleted. It failed the moderation policy noted here. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/comments/. The editor’s decision on this matter is final.
@Peter
Oh dear
I use a spell checker and got it wrong
I’ll administer 1,000 lashings
Will that make you feel so much better?
@Greg
“…if tax has been paid once on a persons assets then they shouldn’t pay it again…”. What a very tired argument that is. How is VAT paid if not from previously taxed income? And surely a dead body can’t pay tax anyway. It is the heirs who in effect pay and that is on entirely unearned income. Wealth taxes are some of the very fairest taxes of all.
@Carol Wilcox
Quite right Carol
I’ve dealt with this here http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/07/31/lets-be-clear-inheritance-tax-is-not-doube-taxation/
Not Bush, Congress – and Democrats to boot.
Anyway, Inheritance Tax is a case of double taxation. Unfair and unwarranted,
A far better system is imposing tax on the amount received by the beneficiaries by including it in their income for income tax purposes.
Alistair said: “it is nonsense to suggest that he was allowed to pass his fortune tax free (as is clear in the text you quote)”
Where is that clear in the text quoted?
Given Communities Minister Bob Neill’s comments in the House of Commons yesterday that those most in need must bear the heaviest burden of deficit reduction, the Lib-Con coalition certainly DOES believe in retribution, not redistribution. The poster lampooning Dave Cameron as Gene Hunt wasn’t wide of the mark… perhaps Cameron as Charles Bronson in “Death Wish” would have been even better.
@Howard
@Strategist
I think the implication in the article is he’d tax planned his way out of much of any liability anyway
This is a of course a very good reason why the use of trusts has to be reviewed worldwide. They are utterly corrosive mechanisms
Maybe you believe it to be a tired argument, but there are plenty who don’t. I can see merits in both arguments.
@Greg
You see merit in a lot of things that are clearly barking mad
Well, there must be a lot of barking mad people out there.
@Greg
You’re right
We’ve found a point of agreement