Question U - Did you have a competent tax attorney when you went through this?

(12-15-2017 11:37 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Question U - Did you have a competent tax attorney when you went through this?

Well, they understood what an insurance deductible was, if thats the bar you want to set.

The estate tax exemption amount has moved around quite a bit over the last decade or two, so many estates got dinged in those years that would not have done so under current law. The exemption was under $1 million through 2001, then $1 million for 2002-03, then $1.5 million for 2004-05, then $2 million for 2006-08, $3.5 million in 2009, then the squirrelly 2010 situation, and it has been above $5 million since then.

Here's how I would approach it. I would classify estate assets into three pots--family farms/businesses, other investments, and other/personal assets. I would say that any family business or family farm is excluded from the taxable amount, provided the family continues to operate it for at least 5 years. I they sell out within 5 years, then they amend the estate return, with no penalty, or alternatively report proceeds less carryover basis as LTCG in the year of sale. After 5 years, they get the step up in basis to FMV as of the date of death. For other investments--stocks, bonds, property held for investment purposes--I would exempt the first $1 million or $2 million, and roll the rest into the other assets pot. I'd make the other assets pot subject to capital gains on the difference between FMV and original basis, with a step up in basis, or alternatively allow it to flow through without tax and retain the original basis.

(12-15-2017 11:38 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 11:37 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Question U - Did you have a competent tax attorney when you went through this?

Well, they understood what an insurance deductible was, if thats the bar you want to set.

That's good, because they sure must have screwed you on knowing estate tax law.

And one more question. If they had to sell the business, why did most of the employees lose their job? Seems odd that the new owner kept next to none of the employees. And what type of small business would actually have to relocate as you intimate? Aren't most small businesses localized?

So in other words, your story sounds like total . Sorry.

Finally, still waiting on ANY evidence from you (or anyone) that this is anything but a rare occurrence...if it even happened at all.

(12-15-2017 11:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:09 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:35 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  A million ain't what it used to be, especially if you live in a large city with the high housing prices.

and have children.

The statics do not bear it out that this affects anything near the middle class. For example in 2013 out of the 2.6 million people that died there were 4700 who had to pay anything in estate taxes, a grand total of .2% of those that died.

Thats going to be almost exclusively small business owners or someone in Kaplony's situation. It is almost certainly not the uber rich paying it, because they divest much of their wealth prior to dying.

In the case of small businesses where the owner ( or one of the owners) dies, the government comes in, values the company at multiples of what it earns in a year, and demands the taxes to be paid on that amount with a set number of months. The company typically doesnt have anything remotely close to this amount, and so most companies are forced to sell, where the employees end up losing their jobs or being forced to relocate. Its basically an atom bomb for a successful small business who employees dozens of well paid people.

Ummm...dude, YOU said most companies!

There is simply no evidence of this. None.

hasn't Kap shared his personal story before? Does that not count as evidence?

(12-15-2017 12:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 11:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:09 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:35 PM)solohawks Wrote:  and have children.

The statics do not bear it out that this affects anything near the middle class. For example in 2013 out of the 2.6 million people that died there were 4700 who had to pay anything in estate taxes, a grand total of .2% of those that died.

Thats going to be almost exclusively small business owners or someone in Kaplony's situation. It is almost certainly not the uber rich paying it, because they divest much of their wealth prior to dying.

In the case of small businesses where the owner ( or one of the owners) dies, the government comes in, values the company at multiples of what it earns in a year, and demands the taxes to be paid on that amount with a set number of months. The company typically doesnt have anything remotely close to this amount, and so most companies are forced to sell, where the employees end up losing their jobs or being forced to relocate. Its basically an atom bomb for a successful small business who employees dozens of well paid people.

Ummm...dude, YOU said most companies!

There is simply no evidence of this. None.

hasn't Kap shared his personal story before? Does that not count as evidence?

The assertion made by U and by Rep. Hurt is that this happens in most or many estate tax situations. 1 or 2 anecdotal stories is not most.

(12-15-2017 12:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 12:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 11:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:09 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The statics do not bear it out that this affects anything near the middle class. For example in 2013 out of the 2.6 million people that died there were 4700 who had to pay anything in estate taxes, a grand total of .2% of those that died.

Thats going to be almost exclusively small business owners or someone in Kaplony's situation. It is almost certainly not the uber rich paying it, because they divest much of their wealth prior to dying.

In the case of small businesses where the owner ( or one of the owners) dies, the government comes in, values the company at multiples of what it earns in a year, and demands the taxes to be paid on that amount with a set number of months. The company typically doesnt have anything remotely close to this amount, and so most companies are forced to sell, where the employees end up losing their jobs or being forced to relocate. Its basically an atom bomb for a successful small business who employees dozens of well paid people.

Ummm...dude, YOU said most companies!

There is simply no evidence of this. None.

hasn't Kap shared his personal story before? Does that not count as evidence?

The assertion made by U and by Rep. Hurt is that this happens in most or many estate tax situations. 1 or 2 anecdotal stories is not most.

Reading comprehension issues for you.

MOST companies that are in the situation ARE FORCED TO SELL.

Thats because they have no alternative. The tax liability they incur on an inflated valuation of the asset is so steep, and due in a short amount of time (less than 13 months or so) that the family (or families in the case of multiple ownership) cant come up with the liquidated cash to pay the tax in the timeframe allowed. So they are forced into a sale, where the sale price becomes the valuation and the cash from the sale is used to pay off the tax liability. And the employees of the company are then sometimes forced to relocate, or are simply out of a job if the company merges.

Nope...the comprehension issues are yours. Nowhere did you assert that this only happens to some businesses. Again, your words.

Quote:In the case of small businesses where the owner ( or one of the owners) dies, the government comes in, values the company at multiples of what it earns in a year, and demands the taxes to be paid on that amount with a set number of months. The company typically doesnt have anything remotely close to this amount...

Where does that say that this only happens in some cases? It doesn't. It asserts that this is what happens to all small businesses where the owner dies.

Try again.

And you're still not addressing why this would force the new owner to get a whole set of new employees or relocate a small business.

Again, not denying that this may have happened to you or even to Kaplony. But that still does not mean this is the norm.

(12-15-2017 01:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nope...the comprehension issues are yours. Nowhere did you assert that this only happens to some businesses. Again, your words.

Quote:In the case of small businesses where the owner ( or one of the owners) dies, the government comes in, values the company at multiples of what it earns in a year, and demands the taxes to be paid on that amount with a set number of months. The company typically doesnt have anything remotely close to this amount...

Where does that say that this only happens in some cases? It doesn't. It asserts that this is what happens to all small businesses where the owner dies.

Try again.

And you're still not addressing why this would force the new owner to get a whole set of new employees or relocate a small business.

You are in no position to understand what I'm saying. First, you have to pull your head out of your ass. Let me know when that happens, then clearly state what you need to be educated on, and I'll try again. But I'm not going to go through this again until you confirm your head is out of your ass.

(12-15-2017 01:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 01:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nope...the comprehension issues are yours. Nowhere did you assert that this only happens to some businesses. Again, your words.

Quote:In the case of small businesses where the owner ( or one of the owners) dies, the government comes in, values the company at multiples of what it earns in a year, and demands the taxes to be paid on that amount with a set number of months. The company typically doesnt have anything remotely close to this amount...

Where does that say that this only happens in some cases? It doesn't. It asserts that this is what happens to all small businesses where the owner dies.

Try again.

And you're still not addressing why this would force the new owner to get a whole set of new employees or relocate a small business.

You are in no position to understand what I'm saying. First, you have to pull your head out of your ass. Let me know when that happens, then clearly state what you need to be educated on, and I'll try again. But I'm not going to go through this again until you confirm your head is out of your ass.

Deflect all you want. Still does not change the FACT that this is not a normal occurrence and that you still cannot cite ANY evidence to the contrary.

Until you do, there is no point in continually making you look foolish.

(12-15-2017 01:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 01:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 01:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nope...the comprehension issues are yours. Nowhere did you assert that this only happens to some businesses. Again, your words.

Quote:In the case of small businesses where the owner ( or one of the owners) dies, the government comes in, values the company at multiples of what it earns in a year, and demands the taxes to be paid on that amount with a set number of months. The company typically doesnt have anything remotely close to this amount...

Where does that say that this only happens in some cases? It doesn't. It asserts that this is what happens to all small businesses where the owner dies.

Try again.

And you're still not addressing why this would force the new owner to get a whole set of new employees or relocate a small business.

You are in no position to understand what I'm saying. First, you have to pull your head out of your ass. Let me know when that happens, then clearly state what you need to be educated on, and I'll try again. But I'm not going to go through this again until you confirm your head is out of your ass.

Deflect all you want. Still does not change the FACT that this is not a normal occurrence and that you still cannot cite ANY evidence to the contrary.

Until you do, there is no point in continually making you look foolish.