Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Not twice though. Club claims it's wrong to tax it twice, because it's formerly been taxed as income. Putting aside the merits of the argument, it's factually untrue. Many estates have sizable untaxed gains. Note that this is particularly likely to be true for houses, which many old people keep to death so that the kid gets a step up in basis.
|
I never said taxed as income. For most people, the largest asset in an estate is a home, which has been taxed at the time of purchase. But if we are going to treat disposition by inheritance like every other transfer of property, then I guess some sort of tax on transfer is appropriate. Query though, why we don't tax the recipient based on value of the property at the time it is acquired. That would seem to be consistent with Ty's (not Wonk's) theory for the tax in the first place.
Threaded Mode