Property, such as your home, held in an irrevocable trust 'that is not included in the taxable estate at death' will no longer receive a step-up in basis. Here’s why the wording of that is key. In March, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2023-2, which had a substantial impact on estate planning, particularly where an irrevocable trust is involved. I’m really more interested in the con’s opinions on the board in this. I know the libbies want higher taxes for anything and everything. Fellow posters, should I be worried that this govt grab will continue and my children’s inheritance will continue to be at more risk. Liberals won’t stop coming for our money. Damn democrats can’t help themselves trying to figure out how to grab more tax revenue. I will NEVER vote for a democrat. Never. IRS Quietly Changed the Rules on Your Children’s Inheritance
You would be dead, no? Why worry? 12.92m for 2023 is healthy amount before the estate tax. The irrevocable trust is good for a few reasons, but debatable if estate is less than the exemption. the Rev Rul will likely be challenged. There are ways to extract appreciated assets out of a irrevocable trust and put them back into the descendant’s estate prior to death. That might resolve the basis adjustment. good luck!
But how are we, as Floridians, gonna pay for DeSantis to ship migrants fron Texas to California, if we all aren't willing to pay extra dimes? Don't cheer on big gov and then pretend you don't want to bathe in it's costs
Your solution to funding govt is to remove the people that enforce the funding of govt???? Absolutely brilliant!!!
You are more than welcome to give away your hard earned money. I’m very uninterested in that proposition. If one is not interested in building up a business to hand over to your children…then what’s it all about?
Thus issue is more complicated and nuanced than “libbies just want to collect more taxes” First off, the property is only in the trust to begin with so the property owner can qualify for state financial living assistance without having to otherwise “spend down” their assets. So it’s there only for a taxpayer to procure a substantial benefit in the first place. Second, why should something not in the taxable estate receive a step up basis similar to an estate asset in the first place? Either take the step up basis if it’s in the estate (and maybe pay estate tax if the threshold is exceeded) or treat it as a non-estate transfer and deal with the consequences of omitting it from the estate to avoid the spend down requirement. Allowing the property to remain outside the estate for tax purposes solely so as to avoid the spend down requirements AND exclude it from the estate tax seems like a bit of a double dip in favor of the taxpayer. And we don’t need to debate the merits of the estate tax-that’s a whole separate issue as right now it’s prevailing law.
You arent going to get super rich no matter what you do, you dont have to kiss their ass, that wont help either
Less than 2% of the US population has been subject to the estate tax. And recently, that number has been been just .02%. Personally, I don't understand it. If my family is rich enough to pay the estate tax, I'm not going to complain. Even after paying an estate tax, I'd be inheriting more than 98% or more of the population. And there are ways to transfer wealth before death that would lower the taxes. But hey, if you want to complain about the ultra-rich paying more taxes, go for it. If you are in the category that will pay the estate tax, good for you, and sorry, I'm not shedding a tear for your problems. If you aren't and are still complaining? I've got nothing.
You post supporting big gov Republican programs and expansions of Republican power all the time. You told me you support big gov when it opposes libbies. Literally word for word you said that. How do you propose that gets funded? Make up your mind.
Are you concerned about inheritance laws and the future of leaving something behind for your children? There seems to be other avenues to avoid these kinds of laws intended to get our money. Thank you for your response North.
Good point. Generally speaking, and historically pubs do not propose laws that seek to tax those who are trying to keep money around for their family. I am concerned that the trend is heading in the wrong direction. It was proposed not long ago by democrats to lower the threshold from 13m to 5.5. Maybe I read that wrong, but I don’t think so.