The Federal Estate Tax: A Brief History

In many ways, the United States inherited the model for the federal estate tax from the British.  In feudal England, the monarch owned all of the real property and granted use of real estate to his nobles during their lifetime (life estate).  When the nobleman died, his heir could continue to use the land upon payment of an estate tax to the sovereign.  These death taxes provided needed income to the Crown to pay for war debts.   In default of heirs, the estate reverted to the Crown (escheat).  The statute Quia Emptores passed in 1290 finally granted the right to of an individual to hold an estate in land in fee simple (freehold) and to sell it (alienation), but it left  the matter of the estate tax in the hands of the Crown.

The original Thirteen Colonies were the result of real estate grants and licences from the British Crown founded on the principles of Quia Emptores.  Whether New York still retained vestiges of Quia Emptores in its real estate law was  the subject of debate in the 19th century.  The court in De Peyster v. Michael, 6 NY 467 (1852), held that Quia Emptores had never been in effect in the colonies, meaning that land was not freely alienable in New York.  Seven years later, in Van Rensselaer v. Hays, 19 NY 68 (1859), the court in that case held that Quia Emptores had always been in effect in New York.  The question was settled in New York State Constitution Article 1 §12 which states “all lands within this state are declared allodial, so that, subject only to liability to escheat, the entire and absolute property is vested in the owners, according to the nature of their respective estates.”  In a prior post, I have addressed the issue of the possibility of an estate escheating to the State when an individual dies without a Will (intestate). 

In 1765 the British Crown had imposed the Stamp Act specifically on the American colonies, the purpose of which was to help defray the military expenses, mainly troop salaries,  for the recently-fought Seven Year’s War with France.  Among the provisions of the Stamp Act was a requirement that legal documents, such as Wills, be produced on special stamped paper produced in London and containing a revenue stamp.  Thus any colonist wishing to make a Will had to pay a tax.  Colonial discontent with taxes such as these would lead to the Revolutionary War.

Ironically the new government did not abandon this practice of enacting a tax on Wills to raise money to pay for military debts.  In an article published in the Journal of Business & Economics Research,  Eddie Metrejean and Cheryl Metrejean demonstrate an historical pattern whereby federal inheritance taxes began to be enacted to pay for wartime expenses.  Just a few years after the Revolution, the new Congress passed the Stamp Act of 1797 establishing a tax on Wills related to the transfer of property after death, once again to pay for a war in 1794 (albeit undeclared) with France.  But the law was quickly abolished before it could take effect.

The issue of an inheritance tax would not arise again until the Civil War.  A wartime inheritance tax was passed as part of the Revenue Act of 1862 affecting only the northern states, whose purpose was to raise over $1 million from estates valued at over $1000.  After the war, the inheritance tax was abolished by the Revenue Act of 1870.  Another short-lived inheritance tax was passed in 1898 to raise revenue for the Spanish-American War.  It was repealed in 1902.

Congress passed its first permanent estate tax with the Revenue Act of 1916, three years after the passage of the 16th Amendment and the institution of the federal income tax.  The constitutionality of new federal estate tax was challenged in New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345 (1921), and in an opinion delivered by Oliver Wendell Holmes the Supreme Court held that the new law posed no “unconstitutional interference with the rights of the states to regulate descent and distribution” (256 U.S. 345, 348 (1921).

In order to close the loophole in the tax that allowed people to escape the inheritance tax by giving away their property, Congress passed a gift tax in 1932 that was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court in Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932).  In 1948, the marital deduction became law, allowing property to pass to one’s spouse without paying any estate tax.

The most significant changes to the federal estate tax occurred with the Tax Reform Act of 1976.  The Act enacted the following changes:

  •  a single unified rate structure for transfers of property at death; 
  • a single unified rate structure for lifetime property transfers; 

  •  a unified exemption from taxes for certain transfers made either during one’s lifetime or at death; 
  •  a generation-skipping tax, taxing the transfer at the unified rate of the “skipped” generation if the beneficiary was two or more generations younger than the donor.

There have been other significant additions to the law.  In 1980, the “stepped-up” basis restored to the pre-1976 provisions, giving the beneficiaries a significant break in the amount of capital gains they would pay on transferred property that they later sold. 

In 1981, the martial deduction became unlimited, but with a catch.  With proper estate planning, the surviving spouse can escape paying any estate tax.  Without estate planning, the surviving spouse is left with a much larger estate on which the estate tax will be imposed.

In 2001 President Bush signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.  The law repealed the federal estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes after 2009, meaning that anyone dying during 2010 is able to pass on his or her estate free of any federal estate, gift, or generation-skipping taxes.  However, state inheritance taxes may still be in effect.  But the 2001 law contained an expiration date:  all of the provisions of the 2001 law are set to expire on December 31, 2010.  Should Congress not act, then the pre-2001 estate tax will automatically reappear in 2011.

I invite you to join my list of subscribers to this blog by clicking on “Sign me up!” under Email Subscription on the left-hand side of the page so that you can receive a notification when the next installment has been published. Thank you.

If you would like to discuss your own personal situation with me, you can get a free 30-minute consultation simply by filling out this contact form.   I will get back to you promptly.

Setting Up a Living Trust for a Non-Citizen: Linda McCartney’s Trust for Paul McCartney as a Model

Lady Linda Eastman McCartney was not only the beloved wife of Sir Paul McCartney.  She was also the daughter of lawyer and art collector Lee Eastman (né Leopold Vail Epstein) and his first wife Louise Sara Lindner Eastman, heiress to the Lindner Department Store fortune who died in a plane crash on March 1, 1962.  Linda was born in New York City and retained her American citizenship throughout her life.

According to the New York Times, Lee Eastman’s firm Eastman and Eastman formed with his son John represented such luminaries as David Bowie, Billy Joel, Andrew Lloyd Webber and the estate of Tennessee Williams.  Eastman also formed M.P.L. Communications dedicated the Paul McCartney’s music ventures.  In addition, Lee Eastman represented McCartney in the dissolution of the Beatles partnership.

Diagnosed with breast cancer in 1995, Linda McCartney died in Tucson, Arizona on 17 April 1998.  One of her memorial services was held at Riverside Church in New York.  Linda McCartney’s Will was probated in New York.  Benefiting from her family’s legal expertise, she left her entire estate to her husband of 29 years, Paul McCartney, in a Qualified Domestic Trust (QDOT).  The QDOT is a very useful estate planning tool when one spouse is not a U.S. citizen because the couple is not able to take advantage of the marital deduction to avoid estate taxes upon the death of the first spouse (note that the estate tax is repealed for 2010).

What is the estate marital deductionSection 2056 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)  permits United States citizens to transfer at death unlimited amounts of assets to the surviving spouse.  The Code also allows couples to create a marital trust such as a Qualified Terminable Interest Property (QTIP) Trust or through A-B Trusts. 

However, when one spouse is a non-citizen, Section 2056 does not apply.  Thus, the surviving spouse will have to pay estate taxes for assets above the federal and state exemptions.   The QDOT is created in order to avoid estate taxes being paid by the surviving spouse on assets that exceed the exemptions.  I.R.C. §2056A governs the requirements for a QDOT:

  • A QDOT must qualify for the marital deduction as provided for in §2056.  That means that the QDOT must specify that all income from the trust be distributed to the surviving spouse.
  • The trustee of the QDOT must be a citizen of the United States.
  • If the estate is valued at more than $2 million, then at least one of the trustees must be a U.S. bank or a trust company; or the individual U.S. trustee must furnish a bond or letter of credit equal to 65 percent of the fair market value of the assets in the trust.
  • If the asset is valued at less than $2 million, then either a U.S. bank or a trust company must be the trustee; or less than 35 percent of the trust assets can be non-U.S. real property. 
  • When distributions are made from the trust, estate tax must be paid on each distribution.  The trust must be drafted such that the trustee has the right to withhold the estate taxes due. 
  • The surviving non-citizen spouse may be eligible for a hardship distribution defined as an immediate need for financial support related to the spouse’s health, maintenance, education, or support.

Because Linda McCartney retained her U.S. citizenship, set up the QDOT trust to benefit Paul, and had her Will probated in New York, Sir Paul was able to avoid paying up to 40% in British inheritance taxes.  The QDOT also meant that she was able to pass her entire estate to her husband free of federal and state estate taxes.

What is the lesson to be learned from Linda McCarthy’s Will?  Each person’s estate is unique, and no boilerplate form can take the place of a carefully crafted Will in the hands of a competent attorney.  Because she obtained excellent legal counsel, Linda was able to pass on the full benefit of her estate to her beloved husband.  Your unique estate deserves the quality attention it will be given by your attorney.

If you would like to discuss your own personal situation with me, you can get a free 30-minute consultation simply by filling out this contact form.   I will get back to you promptly.

I invite you to join my list of subscribers to this blog by clicking on “Sign me up!” under Email Subscription on the left-hand side of the page so that you can receive a notification when the next installment has been published. Thank you.