On March 28 the 74th richest person in the world, Houston businessman Dan Duncan, died. Mr. Duncan, who made his money by piping, processing and storing oil, left an estate estimated to be worth nearly $10 billion, and his death has left those of us monitoring the federal estate tax situation to wonder if it has permanently derailed plans to reinstate the tax retroactively. Why? Because while someone of Mr. Duncan's wealth most certainly had a comprehensive and complex estate plan designed to minimize estate taxes, it is hard to believe that the tax on $10 billion could be completely eliminated. And so if Congress were to take the steps necessary to not only bring back the federal estate tax but apply it retroactively to January 1, then there is no doubt that with literally billions of dollars at stake Mr. Duncan's heirs (his wife, four children and four grandchildren) would vigorously challenge the constitutionality of the retroactive law because they have the resources to do so.
And, of course, as the days continue to pass by and Congress continues to do nothing about the estate tax debacle, another billionaire or two may die, not to mention hundreds of millionaires, so you can pretty much kiss a retroactive estate tax goodbye.
- Pipeline Tycoon Dan Duncan Worth $9.8 Billion At Death
- Death of billionaire, Dan Duncan, might make a retroactive estate tax less likely
- Overview of Current Federal Estate Tax Laws
- Predictions About the New Federal Estate Tax Law
- Update on Predictions About the New Federal Estate Tax Law
- What is the Future of the Federal Estate Tax?
- How to Reduce or Even Eliminate Your Estate Tax Bill
- Update June 16, 2010 - Billionaire's Children and Grandchildren Reap the Benefits of Estate Tax Repeal
It is amazing that Congress has neglected to pass a reasonable estate tax law, leaving us with confusion & instability. This is even more amazing considering the fact that they need the revenue it would produce in 2010. Furthermore, this is not an issue where the two parties have vastly different positions. Both parties have suggested leaving the law as it was in 2009. We need a bipartisan common sense committee to address the obvious issues while the rest fight over political differences.