Suchergebnisse

The Commission's official statement of position in a letter (dated Dec. 28, 1964) to California Governor Edmund G. Brown and the California State Legislature ; Title supplied by cataloguer ; The Commission's official statement of position in a letter (dated Dec. 28, 1964) to California Governor Edmund G. Brown and the California State Legislature ; Mode of access: Internet.

Intro -- Contents -- About the Author -- Abbreviations -- Preface -- Introduction -- Part 1: A Detailed Overview of the Inheritance Tax Regime -- 1.1 A reminder -- 1.2 IHT in a nutshell (transfers of value) -- 1.3 The meaning of domicile -- 1.4 The geographical ambit of IHT -- 1.5 The nil-rate band and the rate of IHT -- 1.6 The ticking seven-year clock -- 1.7 Many nil-rate bands -- 1.8 The spouse/civil partner exemption -- 1.9 The transferable nil-rate band -- 1.10 Using up the transferable nil-rate band -- 1.11 Multiple transferable nil-rate bands? -- 1.12 Maximising the tax savings from transerable nil-rate bands -- 1.13 Evidential issues raised by transferable nil-rate bands -- 1.14 More on domicile -- 1.15 The IHT charge on gifts (PETs and chargeable transfers) -- 1.16 Exemptions (transfers that are exempt from IHT) -- 1.17 Reliefs available in respect of inheritance tax -- 1.18 Capital gains tax (CGT) -- 1.19 Associated operations -- 1.20 Gifts with a reservation of benefit -- 1.21 Pre-owned assets -- 1.22 Wills -- 1.23 Severance of tenancy -- 1.24 Trusts -- 1.25 Valuing assets for IHT purposes -- 1.26 Conclusion of Part 1 -- Part 2: Planning During Your Lifetime to Reduce the Burden of Inheritance Tax on Your Death -- 2.1 Evaluating relevance of tax planning -- 2.2 Basic tax-planning solutions -- 2.3 Discounted gift schemes -- 2.4 Loan trusts -- 2.5 Making use of the CGT annual exemption of your spouse or civil partner -- 2.6 Using trusts to mitigate both CGT and IHT -- 2.7 Sale and purchase of smaller replacement home -- 2.8 Gifting part of your home -- 2.9 Severing and gifting part of your home -- 2.10 Commercial arrangements and the family home -- 2.11 Gift and leaseback of the family home -- 2.12 Will arrangements for couples living as partners -- 2.13 Business property: AIM/USM shares -- 2.14 Sheltering assets in the family.

The report explores the role that inheritance taxation could play in raising revenues, addressing inequalities and improving efficiency in OECD countries. It provides background on the distribution and evolution of household wealth and inheritances, assesses the case for and against inheritance taxation drawing on existing theoretical and empirical literature, and examines the design of inheritance, estate and gift taxes in OECD countries.

Inheritance tax is the subject of recent political controversy in Britain. Public opinion appears to be a major barrier to boosting this tax. Evidence exists that suggests considerable public disquiet with inheritance tax. Recently, some commentators have argued that the way that inheritance tax is presented or `framed' could enhance public support for this tax. This article presents original focus group evidence on this claim. I note that while opposition to inheritance tax is deep-rooted, framing can help mitigate opposition. This article is important because it provides evidence on a live area of policy debate.

Until recently, in those circumstances where there was a valuation range with respect to a particular asset, executors faced a choice: among estates subject to the estate tax, declaring a high value would increase the estate tax liability; however, due to the Internal Revenue Code's "basis equal to fair market value" rule applicable at death, declaring a low value would expose heirs to a greater capital gains tax on subsequent asset disposition. Because the estate tax rates were higher and that tax was immediate (as opposed to deferred until a later sale by the heir), executors typically minimized asset values, with the corresponding effect of tax basis diminishment. This commonplace strategy thus negated the possibility that taxpayers might exploit the basis equal to fair market rule. But this is often no longer the case. Through a series of exemption level increases, tax rate reductions, and other reforms, Congress has gutted the nation's transfer tax system. What remains is a teetering transfer tax system that applies only to a handful of the wealthiest taxpayers. For the rest, the transfer tax system provides no disincentive to executors from assigning the highest defensible valuations to a decedent's assets, opening the opportunity to capitalize upon the basis equal to fair market value rule. Unfortunately, the I.R.S. lacks the tools and resources to combat this practice. To preserve the integrity of the capital gains tax and the revenue that it produces, Congress must therefore intercede.

?Lars Zipfel untersucht die Grundlagen des Erbschaftsteuerrechtsauf steueroptimale Vermogensubertragungen. Besonderes Augenmerk legt er dabei ?auf die Analyse von Unternehmensubertragungen den damit verbundenen Bewertungen und Begunstigungen gelegt. Der Analyse fur die Inanspruchnahme der erbschaftsteuerlichen Vorteile fur Unternehmensvermogen, insbesondere des Verwaltungsvermogenstests, des Lohnsummentests und der Behaltensvoraussetzungen folgt die Darstellung zahlreicher Gestaltungen.