The
New York Times takes a look at what the death
of Texas pipeline billionaire Dan L. Duncan in the absence of an estate tax might mean for that estate and the U.S. Treasury.
The upshot of the newspaper's piece is the same as what I blogged on May 3 about the convergence of the wealthy Texan's passing and no estate tax law: The bonanza in tax savings for Duncan's descendants is sure to be unsettling
to those who have paid estate taxes on more modest wealth.
Fairness aside, and no one has every said life, much less the U.S. tax code is fair, with each passing day, Congress digs itself, and affected or potentially affected estates, into a deeper tax hole.
Because of that, along with the impending midterm elections and expiration at the end of this year of Dubya's wide-ranging tax cuts, I stand by my prediction (yeah, I know, crazy talk!) that Congress will try to please everyone.
That is, Washington will give estates a choice for 2010. Estates
could pay using 2009's rules or take advantage of the one-year repeal of the estate tax.
No estate tax will benefit some big estates, presumably Duncan's and similarly situated ones.
Other heirs, however, would prefer to have 2009's smaller estate tax exemption, but also get the stepped-up basis allowed under last year's law.
There's no official proposal yet, but this
something-for-everyone approach is getting some buzz on Capitol Hill.
And so we wait, yet again.
Related posts:
- Estate tax is still dead, but dual options for heirs being considered
- Senate pulls the estate tax plug
- The estate tax, a Dickens of a law
- The heiress, farmer and estate taxes
- Death and taxes will continue
- A tax by any other name
- Delaware tax tidbit: estate tax is back
- Dead estate tax costs U.S. billions (Bankrate Taxes Blog)
Want to tell your friends about
this blog post? Click the Tweet This or
Digg
This buttons below or use the Share
This icon to spread the word via e-mail,
Facebook and other popular applications. Thanks!
