Give a Gift

Making Your Money Last

No Federal Estate Tax? Not a Chance

If Congress continues to do nothing about the federal estate tax, the levy will be back with a vengeance in 2011.

By Kevin McCormally, Editorial Director, Kiplinger.com

April 1, 2010
Text Size T T
  • Comments
  • Print This Article
  • Order a Reprint
  • Advertisement

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article was originally published in the February 2010 issue of Kiplinger's Retirement Report. To subscribe, click here.

Congress missed the deadline when it came to dealing with the federal estate tax. Despite more than eight years' notice, lawmakers allowed the estate tax to die on December 31. That levy -- which claimed 45% of the amount of an estate exceeding $3.5 million in 2009 -- has disappeared in a triumph for opponents who have long condemned the "death tax."

Related Links


Although that might sound like cause for celebration, contain yourself. If Congress continues to do nothing, the estate tax will come back to life with a vengeance in 2011. As the law now stands, in 2011, just $1 million will pass to heirs tax-free, and bigger estates will be taxed at a top rate of 60%. What's more, a complicated new tax rule came into play on January 1 that requires some heirs to pay tax on profit from inherited assets that have long been tax-free.

At Kiplinger's, we expect that Congress will reinstate the estate tax and eliminate the complicated alternative. In the meantime, we've pulled together these questions and answers to help you navigate the treacherous waters ahead.

How did the rules work? A husband or wife could leave any amount to a spouse free of estate tax. For bequests to others, in 2009, everyone could leave assets of up to $3.5 million tax-free. Above that level, a 45% tax applied. The high exemption level meant few estates -- by one estimate, less than 15,000 -- actually owed the tax.

What replaces the estate tax for 2010? To understand the alternative, you must know the stepped-up basis rule. The old law set the tax basis of inherited assets at their value on the date of death of the owner. Because that new basis was generally higher than the owner's basis, the step-up effectively forgave the tax on any appreciation before the owner's death. If stock that someone bought for $10 was worth $100 when he or she died, $100 became the tax basis for the person who inherited the stock. The heir owed tax only if he or she sold the stock for more than $100.

As the law stands now, heirs are allowed to take a step-up in basis for only $1.3 million of appreciation. A surviving spouse can take an extra $3 million step-up. This means the tax can be forgiven on only $4.3 million of appreciation.

For any excess, in 2010, heirs are stuck with carry-over basis, meaning their basis is the same as the original owner's. When the heirs ultimately sell the assets, they'll pay tax on appreciation during the previous owner's life. In the example above, if you inherit that $100 stock, your basis would be $10, and you'd owe capital-gains tax on the $90 of appreciation when you sell. So the estate tax is being replaced by a capital-gains tax on some beneficiaries.

The executor is charged with deciding which assets get a stepped-up basis and which do not. The executor's decisions could lead to fights among heirs, some of whom will receive a tax break and some of whom may not. Another hellacious problem will be reconstructing the original owner's basis for the assets stuck with carryover basis.

Did the federal gift tax expire, too? That tax lives on, but at a lower rate. As in 2009, you can give up to $13,000 to any number of recipients each year without having to worry about the gift tax. For gifts above that amount, everyone has a credit that covers the tax on the first $1 million of gifts. For 2010, the top rate on taxable gifts is 35%, down from 45% last year.

What does Kiplinger's think will happen? We expect that Congress will retroactively reinstate the federal estate tax in a form similar to the law that applied for 2009. However, the exemption amount may be raised to as high as $5 million, and the top rate may fall from 45% last year to 35% going forward.

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed retroactive tax changes. Congress frequently approves tax decreases retroactively. Although a law reinstating the estate tax would likely be challenged in court, we doubt such a challenge would prevail.

For more authoritative guidance on retirement investing, slashing taxes and getting the best health care, click here for a FREE sample issue of Kiplinger’s Retirement Report.



DISCUSS

Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy

Reader Comments (5)

Posted by: David M. Frees III, Esq at 04/06/2010 11:51:15 PM

How does the passage of time alter your view of ta retroactive application of the estate tax for 2010? Thanks in advance for your view. David Frees www.PaEstatePlanners.com

Posted by: kevin mccormally at 04/08/2010 04:01:24 PM

Kevin McCormally at Kiplinger here, with an answer for David Frees who wonders how the passage of time affects my belief that the estate tax will be revived retroactively. Great question. Although Congress is proving itself more dysfunctional than normal this year (and that's saying something!), I still expect the lawmakers to reinstate the estate tax back to January 1. The key way that their delay affects things is that it makes it more and more certain that whatever they do will be challenged in court. Every time someone with a large enough estate to be impacted dies, there are more heirs with a great deal of money at stake. I also believe that such court challenges will be unsuccessful, but they will be time consuming. Also, the more time that passes, the more powerful become the forces that want to see a larger exemption (more than 2009's $3.5 million) and a lower rate than 2009's 45%. Thanks for your question.

Posted by: Jane at 07/14/2010 05:52:52 AM

I recieved $250.00 from a Legal setttlement, unfortunately it's taxable, How can I reduce or eliminate this tax burden?

Posted by: Stepnen J. Dunn at 07/26/2010 09:03:48 AM

Kevin, what's your authority for saying that, "As the law stands now, heirs are allowed to take a step-up in basis for only $1.3 million of appreciation"? Code Section 1014, providing for step-up in adjusted basis of property included in a decedent's estate, does not apply to estates of decedents dying after December 31, 2009. Thanks.

Posted by: kevin mccormally at 09/03/2010 02:23:11 PM

Kevin McCormally here with an answer for Stephen Dunn who asks for authority about the partial step up rule in effect for 2010. Here's the language from the code: TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter O > PART II > 1022 1022. Treatment of property from a decedent dying after December 31, 2009 (a) In general Except as otherwise provided in this section--; (1) property acquired from a decedent dying after December 31, 2009, shall be treated for purposes of this subtitle as transferred by gift, and (2) the basis of the person acquiring property from such a decedent shall be the lesser of--; (A) the adjusted basis of the decedent, or (B) the fair market value of the property at the date of the decedents death. (b) Basis increase for certain property (1) In general In the case of property to which this subsection applies, the basis of such property under subsection (a) shall be increased by its basis increase under this subsection. (2) Basis increase For purposes of this subsection--; (A) In general The basis increase under this subsection for any property is the portion of the aggregate basis increase which is allocated to the property pursuant to this section. (B) Aggregate basis increase In the case of any estate, the aggregate basis increase under this subsection is $1,300,000. (C) Limit increased by unused built-in losses and loss carryovers The limitation under subparagraph (B) shall be increased by--; (i) the sum of the amount of any capital loss carryover under section 1212 (b), and the amount of any net operating loss carryover under section 172, which would (but for the decedents death) be carried from the decedents last taxable year to a later taxable year of the decedent, plus (ii) the sum of the amount of any losses that would have been allowable under section 165 if the property acquired from the decedent had been sold at fair market value immediately before the decedents death. (3) Decedent nonresidents who are not citizens of the United States In the case of a decedent nonresident not a citizen of the United States--; (A) paragraph (2)(B) shall be applied by substituting $60,000 for $1,300,000, and (B) paragraph (2)(C) shall not apply. (c) Additional basis increase for property acquired by surviving spouse (1) In general In the case of property to which this subsection applies and which is qualified spousal property, the basis of such property under subsection (a) (as increased under subsection (b)) shall be increased by its spousal property basis increase. (2) Spousal property basis increase For purposes of this subsection--; (A) In general The spousal property basis increase for property referred to in paragraph (1) is the portion of the aggregate spousal property basis increase which is allocated to the property pursuant to this section. (B) Aggregate spousal property basis increase In the case of any estate, the aggregate spousal property basis increase is $3,000,000.




Connect With Kiplinger

E-mail Updates: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox.

email-sign-up

Featured Videos From Kiplinger




facebook
twitter
RSS