The Note

When Becky entered her mother’s house, she saw a note on the kitchen counter. “Dear children, I know you are grieving and by now are probably wondering what happened. Yes, I killed myself by car accident to save you estate taxes. There are several things you need to not do. 1. Don’t apply for any life insurance benefits. They won’t pay and will order a coroner’s inquest. 2. Destroy this letter. Don’t save it for posterity, it will only cause you grief. 3. Know that I did this because I love you.”

Becky cried. No amount of money was worth her mother’s life. None. She dutifully destroyed the letter by lighting it on fire in the kitchen sink and washing the ashes down the garbage disposal.

Death

At 11:25 p.m., her heart stopped. The doctors tried to revive her, but at 11:35 p.m. she passed away. The doctors informed her children of the results. “We tried, but her injuries were just too great”.

On January 4, 2011, Laura Holden looked at what was left of Beatrice’s body on her autopsy table. Clearly consistent with a car accident. She took some toxicology screens and found no evidence of drugs or alcohol. She looked at the death certificate signed by the doctor and saw as the third cause “Possible Suicide” and the time and date of death. She shook her head, suicides were always the worst from auto accidents because that meant a coroner’s inquest might be requested by an insurance company.

Jaws of Life

After touching his stethoscope to her cool skin and heard the faintest of pulses. Here it was 4:50 a.m. on New Year’s Day, 2010, and he’s out in the freezing cold. He doubted that she would survive removal from the car, but they now had to try. He did a roadside blood typing and hooked her up to an IV of type O plasma. After an hour of jaws of life, reciprocating saws with diamond bits, they got Beatrice onto a stretcher and helicoptered her to a shock trauma unit. Needless to say the road was a huge back-up at 7:00 a.m. rush hour. At 7:30 a.m. she arrived at the shock trauma unit. She needed a transfusion, she lost both legs, the had massive bone damage, which would require surgery and her pet scan showed only slight brain activity. The doctors called her children and advised them that she was critical and that there was little hope and did they want the hospital to go to extraordinary means to save her life. Unaware of her estate planning views and with no Advanced Medical Directive, out of love and care for her, they ordered the doctors to try and save her life. After 10 hours of surgeries, she was still in critical condition.

HAPPY NEW YEARS!!!

Well its now 2010 and today there is no estate tax. There is no guarantee that Congress will not retroactively pass one that might pass Supreme Court muster. So, despite the possible tax savings for a person worth over $1.0 Million who dies in 2010, if these savings get cancelled out retroactively, you’ll still be dead. So spend your wealth, and enjoy the New Year. We’ll return to the perils of Granny tomorrow.

Suppose Decedent dies on January 1, 2010 and has what’s known as a formula clause which leaves the “maximum amount that can pass tax free” to a family style trust for the benefit of the husband and children. Now, consider Congress retroactively changes the law changing that amount to $3.5 Million. Now as of January 1, 2010, what is the trustee of the trust entitled to receive, all of decedent’s estate or $3.5 Million. Does he need to disclaim? Is he taxed on the entire amount if he funds that trust immediately? Lots of questions and unfortunately no good answers.

In Today’s Washington Post, there is an editorial asking for the fix to be put into place for the Estate Tax.

My view is that first and foremost, Congress needs to deal with the one year repeal of the estate tax. That is not only unworkable, but can lead to the bizarre situations set up over the past few months on this blog. I also believe that the estate tax needs to be either eliminated or overhauled. Why? First, by creating the unified credit on a per individual basis as opposed to a couple basis, it creates a need for unnatural planning. Second, it discriminates against non-citizen spouses (who do not get a marital deduction for what they inherit). Third, it discriminates against unmarried people and their significant others. The estate tax itself is also discriminatory. It discriminates against people who save. It discriminates against entrepreneurs and innovators. It discriminates against farmers (who are land rich and cash poor). My view is that the tax ought to be repealed completely. But understanding that government needs money to pay the bills and dead people don’t squawk as much as the living, I can live with an estate tax. The fix ought to be this. First, the rate. The rate ought to be the same as the capital gains rate because all other assets have already been taxed. This seems to be the fairest method of dealing with this. Second, there should be an exemption of $10 Million per couple and $5 Million per individual. This reduces the number of estates filing to a fraction. The exemption should be indexed to the inflation rate for real estate nationwide (this helps farmers to some degree and small businesses which own real property). The underlying issue and one that is one of philosophy is that of “inherited wealth”. Our Founding Fathers abhorred royalty. Concentrations of wealth create an economic royalty which can lead to a political royalty. After all, kings and lords owned lands which they rented to serfs who worked the land and turned over the profits to the Kings and Lords through duties. An estate tax in essence redistributes that wealth, but not to the people, but to the Government which increases its power and size. The Founding Fathers also abhorred a strong central government. So, with an estate tax you have two competing issues one of concentration of wealth (which is bad) and bigger Government which is also bad. The Government is ill served to play the role of Robin Hood and so which is the greater evil. Inherited wealth or big government. Inherited wealth can be toxic, but to grow it has to invest or it gets consumed. Increased Government hurts growth due to the need for it to micromanage everything. I have no problem with taxes being levied to pay for necessary Government functions, but I do have problems when Government uses the tax code to change behavior. The estate tax is one such area abused in this way. If you need an estate tax to pay for the essentials of Government, then by all means levy one. But don’t enact one to punish the rich, or to redistribute wealth or to grow government. That is not what taxes are for.