logoalt Hacker News

jedberglast Thursday at 8:56 PM6 repliesview on HN

It's two sides of the same coin. Imagine a simple example:

Mom and dad buy a house for $100,000. When they die it's worth $1,000,000. In Canada, you'd pay gains on the $900,000 difference. In America, you'd pay inheritance tax on the full $1,000,000 (but no capital gains). So in America you're paying tax on a little bit more (I'm of course ignoring the cap gains baseline exception).

But the reason America does it the way it does is because imagine it's not a house but a piece of art that mom and dad bought 50 years ago. No one know how they got it or what they paid for it. How does Canada even reconcile such a thing? How can you pay cap gains on it if you have no idea what it cost and no one is alive to even help you guess?


Replies

thyrsuslast Thursday at 10:54 PM

This year, the first $15,000,000 of an estate is exempt from federal taxes, so unless it is on top of a different $14,000,001 in estate net assets, the estate tax (a tax on the estate) on that $1,000,000 house is $0. [0]

Some U.S. states have an additional inheritance tax (payable by the inheritors). Those rules vary. [1]

[0] https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe... [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inheritancetax.asp

show 1 reply
phil21yesterday at 4:48 AM

This seems trivial? Just like any other asset when you are alive, if you cannot establish a cost basis it’s assumed at $0.

Easy stuff. If your benefactors care about taxes on their estate they will properly document capital assets. If not? Oh well. It was a windfall gain either way.

This is such a non-issue given the inheritance/gift tax limit being so high I don’t understand why it’s ever talked about.

It’s also not as onerous as people assume. I’ve established cost basis 15 years later on an asset I had no paperwork for by simply looking up the daily average price for said asset when I knew I acquired it. This can even be used for stuff like buying an expensive retail purchase - just use advertised retail cost. The IRS allows broad leeway so long as you are consistent and can explain your reasoning.

dwallinlast Thursday at 10:07 PM

The question is not whether the alternative is perfect, the question is can it be made better than the status quo. It’s not that hard to come up with potential mitigations for the problems you state.

- A taxable threshold, so people who can’t afford lawyers and accountants don’t need to deal with it. Works well for family gifting.

- You don’t need to tax immediately, tax it when it the profit is realized, eg. When you sell that art.

- Taking out a loan against an asset at an increased valuation should trigger a taxable event. (Eg. Stocks go from 1b to 2b valuation and you take out a 500m loan. You are realizing 250k of gains and should pay tax on that gain.)

- Eliminate stepped up cost basis. This is a ridiculous give away.

show 1 reply
Tiktaaliklast Thursday at 9:28 PM

Easier than you'd think.

The value of homes is very well known and assessed annually in many provinces (some have weirdly become laggards). So no real problem there.

Any piece of art that is of any real value would have a provenance and it would be very well known what the value it was at any given time and at sale. If no one knows the artist or can determine the value it is very safe to say its value is nil.

show 2 replies
pinkmuffinerelast Thursday at 9:24 PM

Wow this is a great question. How does this work? +1