One bit of background that I forgot to include in the original e-mail.
Consider two different possible scenarios.
In one scenario, Sterling sells the Clippers and then dies, bequeathing $1 billion in cash to his children. In that case, first he pays capital gains tax on his enormously profitable investment in the Clippers. Then when he dies, he pays estate tax.
In the other scenario, Sterling dies and bequeathes the team to his children who then sell it, earning themselves $1 billion in cash. In that case, there would be an estate tax bill and then his kids would be hit with a capital gains tax bill. So it all evens out.
Except it doesn't! That's thanks to §1014 of the Internal Revenue Code ("basis of property acquired from a decedent"), known to tax junkies as the stepped-up basis rule. The way this works is that if you sell an asset you inherited, the basis for calculating your investment profits is the fair market price of the asset at the time you inherited it rather than the price the person you inherited it from originally paid. Which is to say that if you inherit the Clippers and then sell the team right away, you pay no capital gains tax.
Yglesias got my hopes up, and that's why I was so dissapointed to see the article in the OP.
Whoops, I forgot to finish the title.
Guest Post: Unprepared on Both Sides Edition.
The step-up in basis that occurs on death is absolutely unconscionable in a world without a meaningful estate tax. It means that most capital gains are never taxed, because in the big leagues there are plenty of ways to defer tax realization during your life, and then on death, poof, the tax bill goes away. (And your heirs can then actually take tax losses for any subsequent realized decreases in value.)
I've wondered before if just getting rid of the step up in basis on death would be more politically palatable than reinstating a serious estate tax. I assume not. It would want least avoid cries of "death tax!" No, there's no death tax. But you would carry over the tax basis in the inherited property, so when you sell that thing, you owe tax on all the untaxed appreciation. I'm fairly sure that would raise much more revenue than an estate tax. Package it with a pony for all citizens, and it's sure to win votes.
I think I may have left a comment on this blog seven or eight years ago that was more or less identical to comment 5.
The thing about the step-up basis, which you're substantively right about it, is that it clears up intergenerational recordkeeping. You inherit something, how are you supposed to know what the tax basis was unless the bequeather has all of her records in order?
7. For securities at least, since 2011, brokers must report the basis to the IRS, so no need for recordkeeping by the buyer or heir.
7: How is this problem any different than the general problem of how to know what the tax basis in any asset is in the absence of good recordkeeping?
Anyway, my solution would be to presume that the tax basis is zero, unless you produce records proving otherwise.
7: Then subject the whole thing to tax, as an incentive for good record-keeping. Surely the people who benefit from all this are up to the task. On preview, 8 would cover securities but presumably not things like the Clippers (although maybe other IRS filings would cover the relevant info?).
5 is totally right. I personally had a bit of a problem with 6. I inherited a while ago a little bit of stock that my slightly insane relative had, old-school, been keeping literal shares of (like, the share certificates) in poorly-organized boxes for 25 years before death. I can't remember whether the estate lawyer made any effort to determine the original basis or not, since I tried to stay out of it and there wasn't much money at stake, but there were some efforts made to try and figure out what was and was not owned (a lot of the share certificate were from companies that no longer exist). Anyhow, this is a first world problem and the step-up rule should obviously be eliminated.
9, 10: Because the heirs who benefit are not in control of the decedents' recordkeeping, and this would affect anyone who inherits anything, not just the wealthy who can be presumed to be responsible for having good records.
From the link in 4:
Members of the Senate Governance and Finance Committee didn't defend Sterling but several worried aloud whether the legislation, which would apply to any professional sports team owners who are fined by their leagues for any reason, would violate freedom of speech.
Yes, of course, how could they overlook the clear First Amendment right to a tax deduction for fines levied by private organizations whose rules you contracted to adhere to?
(I'm not saying it's an insoluble problem, or that it's the worst thing in the world. But it is a setup for sob stories.)
12: well, first, if an heir inherits an assets and then sells it for $50,000, I don't think it's any great injustice to then tax that heir on that $50,000, even if someone else already had some tax basis in that asset. The heir isn't getting double taxed.
But if you're really concerned about it, then fine, to simplify record keeping, keep the step up in basis for any assets with a value of up to $[100,000], or whatever. Above that level, people generally keep records.
12, 14: The choice is between a (bigger) windfall for the beneficiary, a windfall for the government, or good recordkeeping. I'm sure there will be sob stories, which will be just as compelling as the sob stories of those poor family farmers who had to sell off the little old farm to pay the estate taxes.
I always wonder how the companies keep track of who has their shares, especially given all this micro-trading. Don't they in theory need an address for everyone?
17: generally your brokerage is the named owner of the security, so the issuer isn't keeping track of all the beneficial (i.e., real) owners.
17: companies only keep track of the record holders (which is usually a relatively small number), not the underlying beneficial owners.
Right. The number of individuals who have actual, as opposed to beneficial, ownership of specific shares is pretty tiny. But such individuals do exist (like in the case of my crazy old-school relative) and companies need to keep records of them, I think.
11 and 12
I'm a pretty good record-keeper (ha!) and we have some stock that was acquired by my father-in-law many years ago. It had previously and has since gone through a whole bunch of spin-offs and stock splits and re-acquisition of spin-offs and then a sale of a subsidiary partly for cash and a host of other things. Not to mention usage of a stock purchase plan. Not to mention some sales. I have spent a great many hours over the years getting all the numbers right and yet who knows if they really are? Quicken doesn't help much as they aren't really structured for this task.
My geek pride stubbornness won't let me just dump all the documentation on an accountant.
It's not a sob story but rather a continuing PITA.
: The choice is between a (bigger) windfall for the beneficiary, a windfall for the government, or good recordkeeping.
I don't know why this topic brings out a conservative impulse in me, but I'm with LB -- it seems really hard to make sure that heirs will have access to good records.
One other question: how are capital gains handled for non-liquid assets handled currently? If you inherit a stamp collection, or antiques, or rare coins what happens? I assume they would be appraised as part of the estate but it seems like a hassle.
But if you're really concerned about it, then fine, to simplify record keeping, keep the step up in basis for any assets with a value of up to $[100,000], or whatever. Above that level, people generally keep records.
I would sign on to that.
20: sure, although it's not so much that companies need to actively keep track of them as that companies need to keep track of who they initially issue shares to, and then those people have to let the company know of they sell or otherwise transfer any shares, etc. (So that new certificates can be issued in the correct names, among other reasons.)
It's not a sob story but rather a continuing PITA.
Right! I think it is desirable to minimize the degree to which taxes are a PITA. That is less important than having a functioning estate tax but if there was a choice between two proposals which would collect approximately similar amounts of money, I would strongly favor the one which makes life simpler for the taxpayers.
I assume they would be appraised as part of the estate but it seems like a hassle.
Perhaps you're unaware, but everything about estate law is a hassle.
22 -- this really would personally harm me, but I do think the right default rule for a healthy society is that everyone inherits nothing, and inheritance is heavily taxed. Any exception to the rule puts the burden entirely on the heir and the decedent. Obviously you'd also need to heavily regulate gifts and a bunch of other things to prevent end runs around this rule.
Also obviously this is never going to happen, unless we abandon our sham of a democracy and appoint me as emperor.
Wait, Halford, are you saying that you come from Money?
Well, some but not that much. "Petit rentier," look it up, it's in Chapter 12 and it's the wave of the future.
27: probably just worried about appreciation of his sister's childhood pony.
We already knew that by the high school Halford went to.
Interesting article about valuing art for tax purposes.
This is an area in which my (naive) default assumption is that there is going to be a divide between people with significant assets who will be motivated to find ways to take advantage of the tax law, and people who have some assets and just want to find the simplest solution that the IRS will agree to.
We had a pony when I was growing up. It's not that expensive when you live in a farming community.
31 -- not the only one here!
I love that pony, because it's pretty much the only thing I can legitimately resent my parents for.
Really? I somehow missed it. I forget, are you my age? Were you there in the late 80's when that guy died in a car crash on the 101? He was dating a friend of mine. (Slumming, really, since she went to El Camino.)
Also, how can you resent your parents for your sister's pony? Did they skimp on your allowance so they could afford her pony?
36 -- yes, but I was younger and didn't know that guy. And I felt that I should also have been entitled to a pony or pony-equivalent.
Maybe they were worried you would slaughter and roast a pony if you were given one.
I didn't know him either, but my friend was sad.
Actually thinking about it I think it was a horse and not a pony. I'm actually not too sure what a pony is, I thought a pony was the name for a baby horse until a few years ago. But this wasn't like a mini-horse.
When my parents moved into our acre in the San Fernando Valley (in 1972), it was way more agricultural. Dad says there were stables where the garage is now, and his first act on the property was to tear those down so he wouldn't be badgered to get horses.
Yes, of course, how could they overlook the clear First Amendment right to a tax deduction for fines levied by private organizations whose rules you contracted to adhere to?
Dude, we're this close to a lawsuit gaining traction somewhere in this great land of ours that claims taxes in general are an infringement of free speech. And I have no faith that the Order of Old White Guy Buttmunches (aka the conservative bloc of the Supreme Court wouldn't agree) wouldn't agree.
Also, wild horses couldn't have made him get you a badger.
There are still a fair number of places in the city of LA and surrounding areas where for relatively not that much money (in LA prices, so like $800,000-1 million) you can get a house zoned for equestrian use that comes with stables.
That's thanks to §1014 of the Internal Revenue Code ("basis of property acquired from a decedent"), known to tax junkies as the stepped-up basis rule.
IME the preferred term is the more colorful "Angel of Death Loophole".
FWIW, the stepped up basis rule doesn't offend my liberal technocratic sensibilities that much, provided there is an estate tax. I'd much rather have the stepped up basis rule and the estate tax than no stepped up basis rule and no estate tax.
Even better would be an annual, graduated wealth tax on assets above $5 million ($10 million for a couple). And ponies for everyone, of course.
I don't see why wild horses would have cared whether we had a badger.
E.g., this place, which is in a pretty goddamn urban area, but comes with stables.
Badgers can only ride tame horses anyway.
Text of the stay on the IRS collecting taxes:
It suffices to say that the issuance of the stay suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that the petitioner has a substantial probability of success. The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether "collecting every legally-levied tax can constitute irreparable harm." One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the monies that have been ordered to be collected are, under a reasonable interpretation of US law, "legally incurred obligation[s]." The collection of monies that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Brat, and to the country, by premptively limiting what he claims to be the free exercise of his political speech. Collect first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing revenue that has the public acceptance democratic stability requires.
The badger knows one big way to get many things.
The bear knows boats are for people only. At least now he does.
My wife and our house guest saw a badger last week. At the National Bison Range.
Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo badger badger Buffalo buffalo?
Hey Carp, you don't have to post it here, and maybe it's wrong of me to even ask, but where were you in those pictures that were recently up on the livre des visages? Because that looked seriously like the nicest place on earth.
Montana. Don't tell anyone, it's a secret.
But if there are naked people, it's Idaho.
The one with a lake? Then I'll stop being prying. I'm just fantasizing about vacations, since probably the furthest I'll get this summer is north Orange County.
Time sensitive advice request. I just posted in on Facebook, but maybe y'all will be more responsive.
I was supposed to hang out with a friend on Saturday, but I didn't, because the cable people arrived after the end of their window and then took three hours. Today it is her birthday. I am supposed to go to her birthday dinner. My refrigerator does not work. I stayed home from work today to wait for the refrigerator repair person and worked from home, although I got less done than I would have at work. I just got an automated call, at the very end of the four hour window, that they are running an hour behind schedule.
I could say fuck it and go out to my friend's birthday dinner, which would entail waiting for a fridge repair man another day. It would also mean I would still not have a working fridge, and neither would my pregnant coworker who is coming to stay on Sunday. One one hand she doesn't really want to cook and she knows about the fridge situation and didn't seem distressed by it, but on the other hand it's a pain not to even be able to keep milk. Or I could stay here and not go to her birthday dinner. Or I could just not spend the money on the repair and buy a new fridge. How often should fridges be replaced?
We're driving to Carpie's undisclosed location later this summer.
was that too early for a threadjack? The thread didn't seem too hopping.
Call on someone who might be free to sit around and wait for the fridge guy? I'm thinking a neighbor with a ten year old who could watch TV and you could pay $10.
[I was up at Lake MacDonald in Glacier National Park this weekend. It's supposed to be our rainy season, but we haven't been getting much at all -- come August, we'll pay for this with fire.]
And then leave the ten-year-old alone with a repairman?
I say fuck it and go to your friend's birthday dnner, and get a new fridge.
If the birthday dinner is a big deal at all, I'd go. IME repairpeople who are already an hour late ultimately don't show up at all. (Also, the cost of a new fridge is plausibly quite close to the cost of a repair visit.)
The problem is that I have to be there to pay the technician, and to approve any repair he might want to do. Also I have no idea who I would be able to find to sit here and wait. There probably are unoccupied neighbors around, but I don't know them well enough.
Buy a small cooler -- big enough for drinks and an ice pack -- and go to the party. You'll use the cooler plenty, as time goes on.
64 is right. A year from now you'll never remember the fridge incident one way or another, but you might remember and regret missing the birthday party. So, try Heebie's plan, but if you can't find someone to wait, go to the party. Especially since the houseguest already knows about the fridge situation.
65 is probably right. Unless you have a subzero or something. In that case, only the first part is right.
(Cooler for visiting friend. Party now. Fridge when next they can come.)
If this is not a free repair you are getting because he fridge is still under warranty, then the first thing you should do is call the repair company and get a live person on the phone and rain the fires of hell down upon them. Then you should go to your friend's birthday dinner. Then tomorrow you should find a repairperson that will meet you at a time that is convenient for you, either early morning or after work, or maybe Saturday, so you don't need to miss another day of work.
rain the fires of hell down upon them.
Not all of us are that powerful, anonymous!
71: Not a free repair. And I tried expressing annoyance with the GE woman on the phone and she was just like, "I'm so sorry about the inconvenience. You will have to make another appointment. You will have to wait again between 1 and 5." Which really means between 1 and 7, apparently. I could try acting really pissed off. Once I did a version of Knecht's thing of saying like I was a crazy robot "I want to talk to a supervisor I want to talk to a supervisor mark me as irate I want to talk to a supervisor" and didn't even let the woman on the phone talk and it worked really well.
It just sounds like you've been spending too much time waiting for service people.
Just go have some fun.
72: You have the power to rain down the fires of hell, Peep. Just look within. You can do it.
Count me among the "Partaaaay" crowd. Also Charley's advice about getting a little cooler isn't bad.
Could you bring the fridge to the party?
56: Lake McDonald is great. We were tooling around in a little motorboat up there last summer and there was a grizzly cub running around the west shore. Right now we're bbqing up the canyon in these pics. Suck it, non westerners.
https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/gswift/sets/72157627181264109/
tooling around in a little motorboat
If we were there, we were the ones glaring.
Don't cancel, go to the party. When the repairman shows up and calls say you'll be back in a few hours, and you're sure he won't mind waiting until you get back.
78: I wouldn't care to have any of those old mountains. In fact, I wouldn't take 'em if Westerners got down on their knees and begged me to. Lakes and rivers are much nicer.
79: ooh we enjoy that pastime. Glaring at jetskiers is even more important, of course.
79: we often rent those two man kayaks but once in a while it's fun to get one of those aluminum boats with an outboard. Especially when the kids were smaller and thought being allowed to drive the boat was the coolest thing ever.
77: If I'd known it was going to be that kind of party,I'd have brought a fridge to store the left over mashed potatoes.
82 -- Not allowed on Lake MacDonald. Socialism FTW.
81 Lakes and rivers are much nicer.
You're gonna have it your way or nothing at all.
I'm not sure why I wasn't expecting that.
The cook is saving tabs from cans. He said it was for kids with cancer. That's an urban legend, right?
(Todays's question is brought to you by a hankering for Dale's Pale Ale.)
Dale's Pale Ale is pretty good stuff. I just had some canned beer myself, but I threw the tab off the roof while shouting "BKAW!" to ward off the witch-vultures.
88: Yes, a very old and enduring one.
I drank PBR on my last trip, so I'm splurging with Dale's. I think they average out to Yuengling.
Not your roof or witches or vultures.
Anyway, I've had a bit too much malt and want something with more hops but not overwhelmed in hops, as apparently somebody decided was the style.
78: my life choices: highly suspect.
Never look left or you'll stare for an inappropriately long time at the tattoo on the thigh of the woman sitting there.
The mountains might be chasing you!
98: what, without describing it?
The real problem is that no one warned VW. Oh, I'm sorry, I can't say anything else, I hurt my lip when I tripped over a vomiting frat boy and fell into a statute of a child molester.
87: because you were movin' too fast?
It's a dark bar, because smokers don't look their best in the bright, and a dark tattoo in terms of color. Generic tattoo blue? Is that a thing?
101: on the other hand, this is back on the market, and we're going to see it Monday. If we buy it, we'll put a tasteful statue of JoePa up in one of the courtyards. WE ARE. Oh, fuck you.
Apparently black tattoo ink eventually fades to blue with sunlight. I always figured it was a product of whatever the jail tattoo method is.
Her thigh hasn't been legal to tattoo for that long.
107: that is a lovely place. That place next door isn't a rental, though, is it?
There's really no good way for a forty-something man to ask about thighs or jail. Not outside of Happy Valley.
112: send the bartender over with a drink and have him ask.
We have a new guy at work who has a tattooed sleeve. I was describing him to a coworker as "the guy with the sleeve." She got this really confused look and asked "Only one sleeve?"
I'll have a question for you Inter-mountain Westerners in a minute.
My wife and I just went away for 4 days to celebrate our 30th, to Traverse City. A great time, and beautiful. But, I began to notice there were no Black or Hispanic people at all, not even in menial jobs. In 4 days I saw about 4-5 of each, all young. One black guy looked like he was in work clothes, everybody else was a tourist like me. Must be a paradise for some white people, but I found it disconcerting. Only non-whites in the area are the Ottawa, or Odawa tribe, mostly farther north although they've got a casino in Traverse.
I remember Bend, Oregon being like that about 20 years ago. Is that changing, or is the Northern inland West still like that, just like the Northland?
That doesn't work when you're both at the bar.
Anyway, young people have too many tattoos.
116: it might! Or alternately it would fail gloriously.
I sort of doubt the bartender would have taken me seriously.
I ATE A BLACK PERSON TODAY.
Some of my best friends are white persons without thigh tattoos. So far as I know.
Your Highness and I must share our favorite fishing spots some time.
Is that changing, or is the Northern inland West still like that, just like the Northland?
Carp's town is noticeably white. SLC isn't heavy on black people but it's about 20 percent Hispanic. Boise is kind of in between, around 7 or 8 percent Hispanic. But yeah, as you go north into ID and MT it's pretty white up there.
Jackson, Wyoming is heavily Hispanic.
I was pretty proud of 122 so I'm going to praise myself for it, much like Emperor Bokassa I would have done.
107 is a nice house which will probably keep one warm during a long, grey, depressing winter.
126: Similar to Park City, with what I assume are the same forces at work. But boy, get up into Missoula, Kalispell, or over to Sandpoint up in ID and it's noticeably whiteyville. NTTAWWT.
I was out collecting signatures today over lunch time. For Medicaid expansion, which we're trying to get on the ballot. 20% or more of the signatures I got were Natives.
The black man I ran into was collecting signatures for the bogus initiative by Charter to get a tax exemption -- they're paid, and kind of pushy. He did tell some people that my petition was more important than his, which was nice.
Similar to Park City, with what I assume are the same forces at work.
Yep. Seems to be true to some extent of Sun Valley as well, at least compared to the rest of Idaho.
But boy, get up into Missoula, Kalispell, or over to Sandpoint up in ID and it's noticeably whiteyville. NTTAWWT.
I actually think there is something wrong with the reasons a lot of white people move to Idaho in particular. This may be less true of Montana.
"Why'd he move there? Why'd he leave the big city?"
I've never been there, but Sandpoint ID has got to have the highest combo natural beauty+racism score in the US.
There's a whole lot more of that in Kalispell than here. But plenty of transplants are there for the recreation. not the demographics.
On capital gains tax: the "uplift" to date of death values is I think pretty standard in various jurisdictions that have capital gains tax (definitely in Ireland and UK). In Ireland this is very well integrated with inheritance tax, which is not an estate tax but a tax on the individual beneficiary's inheritance. There is a tax free threshold for the total of all inheritances and lifetime gifts from parents of 225,000 and after that you pay tax at 33% - the same rate as capital gains tax. (The threshold has dropped and the rate increased in the last few years)
There are some additional reliefs to allow for family farms and businesses essentially allowing that part of the inheritance to be written down to 10% of its value. Anybody who is getting enough that they still have tax to pay on a business has no right to complain IMO.
The death tax follies is one of those things which future economic historians will have a lot of fun with.
||
"All Our Patent Are Belong To You." Elon Musk is disruptive!
|>
138: It's a great move. I'm still waiting on Musk to do something horribly disappointing but he seems to be on the side of the angels more than most in his class.
It's a wicked smart way to use patents. Get solid first mover advantage and then open things up so you become the standard!
If you really want things to be open you publicly disclose what you have rather than patenting it, then no one can. Of course the way the patent office works these days they'd probably grant a patent to some trolls who submit your public disclosure as their own work.
Of course the way the patent office works these days they'd probably grant a patent to some trolls who submit your public disclosure as their own work
Well, right.
Also if you are hoping to sell before you have a mature product a patent gives a bigger fish something to buy.
141: I know that Blue Origin (Jeff Bezos' spaceflight project) has been issued a patent for ailerons on reentry vehicles, despite prior art going back to the 1960s in concept and implemented in practice on DC-X in the early 1990s. In fact the Blue Origin vehicle is closely modeled on DC-X, so it's not like they didn't know about the prior art.
Ailerons? That's almost as good as when a thing patented the content of RFC 822 and sued RIM (as was).