ILNews

Indiana's inheritance tax phasing out

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Legislature passed a law during the 2012 session that will gradually phase out the state’s inheritance tax by allowing a credit against the amount of taxes owed.

The initial credit, beginning on July 1, will be 10 percent in 2013 and will increase by 10 percent each fiscal year, reaching 90 percent in 2021, and 100 percent in 2022. The new law also expands the definition of a Class A transferee to include the spouse, widow or widower of the transferor’s child or stepchild. That means people included in the expanded transferee category will be entitled to the same exemptions and lower tax rates that a transferor’s children enjoy.

R.J. McConnell, a partner at Bose McKinney & Evans who is also a member of the estate and wealth management group, explained that the expanded Class A category won’t necessarily change how people plan their estates overall, but it may be important for some families.

mcconnell McConnell

“The good news is, if a family wants to leave money and treat kids and stepchildren the same, they not only receive the same treatment from their parents, but they receive the same treatment from the government,” McConnell said. “I think it’s a wonderful remedy, in the interest of fairness.”

Benefits for those left behind

Beginning this year, the exemption for Class A beneficiaries was raised to $250,000, meaning that each child of a transferee can inherit $250,000 tax-free.

So far, clients aren’t banging at the door to revise their estate plans based on the changes in Indiana law.

Jeanne Longsworth, of the Fort Wayne firm Longsworth Law, concentrates her practice on wealth transfer, estate planning and associated areas of law.

“It’s way too early. I don’t think the general population understands what the phase-out is … the phase-out is over a nine-year period of time,” she said. “I haven’t had anybody coming in and saying, ‘Let’s rethink this.’”

She said that the most present concern for her clients is the federal estate tax.

“I would say for the majority of clients I work with, the federal tax is the really burdensome one because of the rates,” she said.

Currently, federal law taxes estates at 35 percent, with the first $5 million exempt from taxation. But that is likely to change soon.

“All that goes out the window on January 1 if Congress doesn’t do something,” McConnell said. Without intervention, the exempt amount will be $1 million, and the tax rate will revert to 55 percent, as it was in 2001.

“It’s a train wreck – particularly for families with illiquid assets like farmland or businesses,” McConnell said. “The $5 million exempts from tax 98.5 percent of all Americans. But there are a lot of families whose estate, whose business, whose farm ground is exempt from tax today, but would be subject to tax in January if the exemption goes down to $1 million. It would just be a huge unfairness.”

Protecting assets from penalties

The fact that 2012 is an election year causes further questions about whether the federal estate tax law may change. Some wealthy parents are therefore choosing to make lifetime gifts to their beneficiaries this year rather than run the risk that their estates will be subject to a much higher tax rate in the future. This year, the gift tax exemption is $5 million.

McConnell said the concept of portability will also disappear in 2013 without legislative intervention.

“Portability says that if you don’t use the entire exemption in the estate of the first to die, it’s portable and can be used in the second estate – meaning, that if dad did nothing, mom would have $10 million of exemption portability.”

That means that the mother would then be able to pass on to her children that entire $10 million tax-free.

Before the change in Indiana’s inheritance tax law, families leaving property to heirs had to weigh the pros and cons of paying inheritance tax early, at a lower rate, or risking a greater tax penalty for heirs, should the property continue to go up in value. Now, knowing that the inheritance tax is fading away, that’s no longer a concern.

“It’s basically kicking the can down the road until presumably the tax is gone,” McConnell said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • unnecessary
    This was an unnecessary change in law, a needless fiddling with a tax that impacted very very few hoosiers, but one that erodes a tax base benefitting very many hoosiers. Just because some people wanted to chalk up a "tax cut" on their legislative brag-list, and didnt give a fig about replacing the revenue any other way. Really stupid. I am a republican my whole life and this just shames me like hell. I have to use a fake name over this because I know my fellow republicans are all brain washed over tax cutting too.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT