【英语国际】美国遗产税让富人“没法活”

It has come to this: Congress, quite by accident, is incentivizing death.

When the Senate allowed the estate tax to lapse at the end of last year, it encouraged wealthy people near death's door to stay alive until Jan. 1 so they could spare their heirs a 45% tax hit.

Now the situation has reversed: If Congress doesn't change the law soon-and many experts think it won't-the estate tax will come roaring back in 2011.

Not only will the top rate jump to 55%, but the exemption will shrink from $3.5 million per individual in 2009 to just $1 million in 2011, potentially affecting eight times as many taxpayers.

The math is ugly: On a $5 million estate, the tax consequence of dying a minute after midnight on Jan. 1, 2011 rather than two minutes earlier could be more than $2 million; on a $15 million estate, the difference could be about $8 million.

Of course, there is a 'death incentive' whenever Congress raises the estate tax. But it hasn't happened in decades; the top rate has held steady or fallen since 1942, according to tax historian Joseph Thorndike of Tax Analysts, a nonprofit group. In fact, the jump from zero to 55% would be 'the largest increase in a major tax that we've ever seen,' Mr. Thorndike says.

That possibility presents a bizarre menu of options for wealthy older people-and their heirs. Estate planning was never cheerful, but now it is getting downright macabre, at least for the tax averse.

'You don't know whether to commit suicide or just go on living and working,' says Eugene Sukup, an outspoken critic of the estate tax and the founder of Sukup Manufacturing, a maker of grain bins that employs 450 people in Sheffield, Iowa. Born in Nebraska during the Dust Bowl, the 81-year-old Mr. Sukup is a National Guard veteran and high school graduate who founded his firm, which now owns more than 70 patents, with $15,000 in 1963. He says his estate taxes, which would be zero this year, could be more that $15 million if he were to die next year.

Advisers say the estate-tax dilemma is especially awkward for heirs. 'At least in December 2009, people wanted to keep their relatives alive,' says Ronald Aucutt, an estate-tax attorney with McGuire Woods in the Washington area. Now he and others are worried that heirs may be tempted to pull plugs on Dec. 31. Economists might call the taking of a life to reap a tax advantage a 'perverse incentive.' District attorneys might call it homicide.

Taxpayers trying to cope with such surreal situations need to understand how they came to be. The roots go back to 2001, when Congress cut the estate tax rate to 45% from 55% and increased the exemption gradually over a decade. From its 2001 level of $675,000, the exemption rose to $3.5 million per individual by 2009.

Thanks to legislative sausage making, the rules got extreme after that: The tax disappeared altogether in 2010, but was programmed to revert in 2011 to a $1 million exemption with a top 55% rate.

Few Washington insiders expected Congress to allow the tax to snap back so sharply next year. So why, with nine years to act, didn't it fix the problem? Political wisdom holds that estate tax changes can't happen in election years for fear of angering voters, and Hurricane Katrina derailed a 2005 opportunity. Late last year, the House of Representatives passed an extension of the 2009 estate tax, but the Senate didn't act.

Compounding the problem, lawmakers didn't hammer out a fix early this year, as many had expected. Extending the 2009 law retroactive to the beginning of 2010 would have made a seamless transition and resolved issues taxpayers are now facing. Instead, the estate tax has been in limbo all year.

Senators are divided among three possible solutions. Some favor the pre-Bush rate of 55%, while others advocate a 35% rate (with a more generous exemption). A third group prefers the old 45% rate.

Many Washington insiders are betting Congress won't act this year because of an overflowing to-do list, the fall election and fewer than 40 working days left in 2010. At least one near-deal has failed the Senate this year.

***

Pressure to act will likely grow following the November elections, when Congress is expected to address many other expiring Bush-era tax breaks, including income taxes and capital-gains rates.

Meanwhile, the living and their relatives face a complex calculus with unknown variables. The Internal Revenue Service has yet to issue guidance explaining current estate-tax law, and no one knows if Congress will include retroactive elements when members deal with the tax.

'Not only is the future uncertain, but the past is also. We have no idea what the law is,' Mr. Aucutt says.

So far in 2010, an estimated 25,000 taxpayers have died whose estates are affected by current law, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That group includes least two billionaires, real-estate magnate Walter Shorenstein and energy titan Dan Duncan.

Another unknown is whether-assuming lawmakers act-changes will be retroactive to the beginning of 2010, and if they will be mandatory. Experts say a pure retroactive extension might be constitutional, but they doubt one is feasible at this late date.

'Enough very wealthy people have died whose estates have the means to challenge a retroactive tax, and that could tie the issue up in the courts for years,' says tax-law professor Michael Graetz of Columbia University.

Whatever the outcome, few see the zero-tax regime persisting for very long because of the nation's stratospheric debt and deficits. 'I don't see how Congress can get out of this without creating winners and losers,' says Beth Kaufman, an attorney at Caplin & Drysdale in Washington.

Estate planners and doctors caution against making life-and-death decisions based on money. Yet many people ignore that advice. Robert Teague, a pulmonologist who ran a chronic ventilator facility at a Houston hospital for two decades, found that money regularly figured in end-of-life decisions. 'In about 10% of the cases I handled at any one time, financial considerations came into play,' he says.

Struggling to Live

In 2009, more than a few dying people struggled to live into 2010 in hopes of preserving assets for their heirs. Clara Laub, a widow who helped her husband build a Fresno, Calif., grape farm from 20 acres into more than 900 acres worth several million dollars, was diagnosed with advanced cancer in October, 2009. Her daughter Debbie Jacobsen, who helps run the farm, says her mother struggled to live past December and died on New Year's morning: 'She made my son promise to tell her the date and time every day, even if we wouldn't,' Mrs. Jacobsen says.

In New York the lapsing tax spawned a major family conflict, according to one attorney. As a wealthy patriarch lay dying at the end of the year, it became clear that under the terms of the will his children would receive more if he died in 2010, while his wife (not the children's mother) stood to benefit if he died in 2009. The wife then filed a 'do not resuscitate' order and the children challenged it. The patriarch lived a few days into 2010, but his estate, like Mrs. Laub's, remains unsettled given the legislative uncertainty.

Mr. Aucutt, who has practiced estate-tax law for 35 years, expects to see 'truly gruesome' cases toward the end of the year, given the huge difference between 2010 and 2011 rates.

Without knowing what the estate tax is, has been or will be, advisers say it is difficult to offer counsel that applies broadly, as techniques that work under one version of the law backfire in others.

Whatever happens, advisers say people who might be affected should take a careful look at their power-of-attorney documents. Under last year's law, large gifts before death sometimes made sense, depending on the state of residence. This year they could be a terrible move.

Advisers also suggest paying attention to health-care proxies. Who will be making choices, using what factors? Anne L. Stone, an attorney in McLean, Va., has an elderly female client who recently instructed her to write a provision into a health proxy directing her children to take estate taxes into account when making end-of-life decisions.

What about the options for taxpayers who are so eager to reduce their heirs' tax burden that they are considering ending their lives? Three states-Oregon, Washington and Montana-allow versions of the practice. Oregon's law took effect in 1997 and Washington enacted a similar one in 2009. Montana's Supreme Court recently ruled that nothing in the state constitution prohibited doctors aiding patients with dying, but voters haven't yet specifically authorized it.

'Suicide Tourism'

Still, states strongly discourage what's becoming known as 'suicide tourism' with elaborate residency and documentation requirements.

Similarly, some countries, such as Switzerland and the Netherlands, have long allowed physicians to aid patients in dying. But only Switzerland extends this benefit to foreigners.

Doctors and hospice professionals, meanwhile, say moving terminally ill patients to places with so-called aid-in-dying laws is usually a bad idea because it adds stress at an already difficult time. 'Many people are thinking about [the estate tax], but the truth is that committing suicide is not a normal way of ending your life,' says Porter Storey, vice president of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine.

The uncertainty of the legislation is causing stress even for relatively healthy taxpayers like Art Nickel, who is 78 and lives in the Denver area. He owns a substantial sum in low-cost stock accumulated during a 35-year career as an IBM systems engineer. Like Mr. Sukup, he started with nothing and worked his way up, putting himself through the University of Wisconsin and serving in the Air Force.

'I plan to keep living,' Mr. Nickel says, 'but I don't know how to plan until Congress straightens this mess out.'

Tim Gruber for The Wall Street Journal81岁的尤金•苏库普去墓地祭拜他的父母和祖父母。
遗产税问题已发展到这种地步：美国国会正在激励死亡，尽管纯属无意。

去年年底美国参议院允许取消遗产税，这项决定鼓励濒临死亡的富人坚持活到今年1月1日，这样他们就能让自己的继承人免缴税率高达45%的重税。

Getty Images电视节目主持人演员Art Linkletter。现在情势已经逆转：如果国会不快点修改法律──许多专家都认为国会不会这样做──2011年，遗产税就会卷土重来。

不仅遗产税的最高税率将跃升至55%，而且免征额也将从2009年的每人350万美元降至2011年的每人仅100万美元，受其潜在影响的纳税人是现在的8倍之多。

数学计算的结果很骇人：对于一笔500万美元的遗产而言，要是死亡时间在2011年1月1日凌晨0点之后1分钟，而没能提前2分钟死亡，就要多交二百多万美元的遗产税；对于一笔1,500万美元的遗产而言，则要多交约800万美元的遗产税。

Associated Press演员Dennis Hopper。当然，只要国会提高遗产税税率，就会产生“死亡激励”。但几十年来都未发生这种情况；据非营利组织“税务分析师”（Tax Analysts）的税收史学家约瑟夫•桑代克（Joseph Thorndike）称，自从1942年以来，遗产税的最高税率一直保持稳定或下降。实际上，遗产税税率从0跃升至55%将是“我们经历过的最大的主要税种税率增幅”，桑代克说。

这种可能性给有钱的老年人──以及他们的继承人──提出了一份怪异的选择清单。遗产规划从来就不是令人愉快的事，但现在它简直变得恐怖，至少对于不愿缴税的人来说是如此。

Associated PressTaco Bell 创始人Glen Bell。
“你不知道该自杀，还是该继续生活和工作”，尤金•苏库普（Eugene Sukup）说。这位对遗产税直言不讳的批评者也是Sukup Manufacturing的创建者，这家公司是一家位于爱荷华州谢菲尔德（Sheffield）的米箱生产商，雇有450名员工。苏库普在沙尘暴横行的年代出生于内布拉斯加州，今年81岁，他是美国国民警卫队的退伍军人，高中学历。他在1963年投资15,000美元创办了自己的企业，如今这家企业拥有70多项专利。他说，他今年的遗产税是0，但如果他明年死去，遗产税就会超过1,500万美元。

税务顾问称，遗产税难题对于继承人来说尤其棘手。“至少在2009年12月，人们仍希望让他们的亲人活着”，位于华盛顿地区的McGuire Woods律师事务所的遗产税律师罗纳德•奥卡特（Ronald Aucutt）说。现在，他和其他人担心，继承人可能试图在今年12月31日“拔下插头”。经济学家可能将夺去生命以换取税收优惠的行为称为“反常激励”，但地区检察官可能会称其为杀人。

Associated Press作家 Louis Auchincloss。想要应对这种离奇情况的纳税人需要了解它的由来。这要追溯到2001年，当时国会将遗产税税率从55%削减至45%，并在10年中逐渐提高免征额。遗产税免征额从2001年的每人675,000美元升至2009年的每人350万美元。

拜见草率且不透明的立法过程所赐，在此之后，遗产税法规变得极端化：遗产税在2010年消失无踪，但按照计划却要在2011年恢复征收，而且在免征额变为100万美元的同时，最高税率却升至55%。

几乎没有华盛顿内部人士预期国会会允许在明年如此大动作地复征遗产税。那么为什么国会有9年可以行动，却没有解决这个问题？根据政治常识，由于担心激怒选民，在选举年不会对遗产税法规进行修改，而卡特里娜飓风搅黄了2005年的修改机会。去年年底，众议院通过了延长2009年遗产税法规有效期的议案，但此项议案却被参议院搁置。

Associated Press房地产开发商Walter Shorenstein。使这一问题更加严重的是，立法者并未如许多人预料的那样，在今年年初讨论出解决办法。将2009年遗产税法规的追溯力延伸至2010年年初本来能让遗产税法规无缝过渡，并解决纳税人现在面临的问题。但是，在整个一年中遗产税问题都处于悬而未决的状态。

参议员分为三派，分别支持三种可能的解决方案：有些人赞同布什政府执政之前55%的税率，有些人支持35%的税率（以及更高的免征额），第三派赞同维持原来45%的税率。

Getty Images作家 J. D. Salinger。许多华盛顿内部人士预计，由于国会要做的事情太多，秋季选举在即，再加上2010年只剩下不到40个工作日，国会今年不会有所行动。今年至少有一项几近敲定的议案在参议院未获通过。

在11月的选举过后，国会面临的行动压力将可能增加，预计届时国会将处理其他许多即将到期的布什政府时期的税收减免措施，包括所得税和资本利得税税率优惠。

同时，活着的人和他们的亲人还面临着一个带有未知变量的复杂算式。美国国税局（Internal Revenue Service）尚未发布解释当前遗产税法规的指南，没有人知道国会是否会在议员讨论遗产税时将追溯因素考虑在内。

“不仅未来不确定，过去也不确定。我们不知道法律会怎样规定”，奥卡特说。

根据无党派机构“税收政策中心”（Tax Policy Center）的估计，2010年迄今去世的纳税人中，有25,000人的遗产受到目前法律的影响。这些人中至少包括两名亿万富翁：房地产大亨沃尔特•肖恩斯坦（Walter Shorenstein）和能源巨头丹•邓肯（Dan Duncan）。

另一个未知因素是──假如立法者有所行动──遗产税法规变动是否可追溯至2010年年初，以及这种追溯是否是强制性的。专家称，纯追溯性法规有效期延长可能是符合宪法的，但他们怀疑在这么晚的日期修改法规是否可行。

“在去世的人中有许多大富翁，他们的遗产足以拥有质疑追溯征税的影响力，这会使该问题在法院中淹滞数年”，哥伦比亚大学（Columbia University）的税法教授迈克尔•格雷茨（Michael Graetz）说。

不论结果如何，由于美国的巨额债务和赤字，几乎没有人认为零税制会维持很长时间。“我不认为国会能在不损伤任何一方利益的情况下解决这个问题”，位于华盛顿的Caplin & Drysdale律师事务所的律师贝丝•考夫曼（Beth Kaufman）说。

遗产规划师和医生警告人们提防基于金钱考虑作出的生死抉择。然而，许多人仍然无视这一告诫。在休斯敦一家医院的慢性病呼吸机治疗病房工作了20年的肺科医生罗伯特•蒂格（Robert Teague）发现，人们在临终决定中经常会考虑金钱因素。“在每次我接诊的病例中，都有约10%的人会考虑金钱因素”，他说。

挣扎求生

2009年，不少垂死的人怀着给他们的继承人留下更多资产的希望，挣扎着活到了2010年。克拉拉•劳布（Clara Laub）是一位寡妇，她曾帮助她的丈夫在加利福尼亚州弗雷斯诺市（Fresno）建起一座葡萄园，开始时这座葡萄园的面积只有20英亩，如今它的面积已超过900英亩，价值数百万美元。2009年10月，她被诊断为晚期癌症。她的女儿黛比•雅各布森（Debbie Jacobsen）帮她经营这座葡萄园，她说，她的母亲挣扎着活过12月，在新年的早上去世。“她让我儿子承诺每天告诉她当天的日期和时间，尽管我们不愿意这样做，”雅各布森说。

据一位律师说，在纽约，即将消失的遗产税引发了严重的家庭冲突。2009年年底，一位富有的长者正处于弥留之际，显然，如果他在2010年去世，那么根据遗嘱条款，他的子女将分得更多遗产，而如果他在2009年去世，他的妻子（她不是孩子的母亲）将会得益。于是他的妻子签署了“放弃抢救书”，而他的子女反对这样做。这位长者在2010年到来之后数日才去世，但鉴于法律上的不确定性，他的遗产就像劳布的遗产一样，仍然没有进行分割。

已有35年遗产税法执业经验的奥卡特预计，鉴于2010年和2011年的巨大税率差异，到今年年底将会出现“真正触目惊心”的案例。

税务顾问称，在不知道遗产税现在、过去和未来的情况时，很难提供广泛适用的建议，因为在某个版本的法律下有效的方法可能会在其他版本的法律下产生事与愿违的后果。

税务顾问称，不管发生什么情况，可能受到影响的人都应该仔细阅读他们的授权委托文件。根据去年的法律，在去世之前进行大额赠与有时是明智之举，这取决于所居住的州。而在今年，这样做却可能是拙劣之举。

税务顾问还建议人们注意医疗委托书。由谁来做决定？以什么因素为决定依据？弗吉尼亚州麦克莱恩（McLean）的一位律师安妮•L•斯通（Anne L. Stone）有一位年长的女性客户，这位客户最近吩咐她在健康委托书中写入一项条款，要求她的子女在做出临终决定时将遗产税考虑在内。

对于那些急于减轻继承人的税收负担，以至于考虑结束自己生命的纳税人而言，他们的选择是什么呢？美国的三个州──俄勒冈州、华盛顿州和蒙大拿州──允许医生协助病人自杀。俄勒冈州的法律于1997年生效，华盛顿州在2009年通过了类似的法律。蒙大拿州的最高法院最近裁定，该州宪法中没有条文禁止医生协助病人自杀，但选民们尚未明确授予医生此项权力。

“自杀之旅”

然而，美国的许多州仍然用繁杂的居住地和证明文件要求强力阻止所谓的“自杀之旅”。

类似地，有些国家，例如瑞士和荷兰，长期以来一直允许医师协助病人自杀。但是，只有瑞士将此项规定惠及外国人。

同时，医生和临终关怀专家称，将病危的病人移至实行所谓协助自杀法律的地方通常是个坏主意，因为在这种本已很困难的时刻，这样做会增加压力。“许多人都在考虑[遗产税]，但事实是，自杀不是终结生命的正常方式”，美国临终关怀与姑息疗法学会（American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine）副总裁波特•斯托里（Porter Storey）说。

即使对于今年78岁，住在丹佛（Denver）区的阿特•尼克尔（Art Nickel）这样相对健康的纳税人而言，法律的不确定性也会造成压力。他在IBM公司当了35年的系统工程师，在此期间，他积攒了一大笔低成本股票。和苏库普一样，他白手起家，靠自己的努力不断进步，考入了威斯康星大学（University of Wisconsin），后来进入空军服役。

“我打算活下去”，尼克尔说。“但在国会理清这个问题之前，我不知道该如何计划。”