And for the last time Curly , we are talking about a procedure and action, not an object such as a dead person.
Reality is a peice of paper you get at the post office describing tha action you take.
Go down there and ask them for form #706 and see what you get. Ask for a death tax form and you will get a choice of 20,000 forms referring to it. Go to your CPA and ask to file a death tax claim and he will begin by pulling out any one of these forms designed and printed by your government.
Grow up and stop saying I am arguing oranges when you damn well what I’m talking about.It is apples.
The only thing you could tax off a dead body would be tissue , bones and fluids, so drop it moron.
I can do this all day long, you want to know why ? Because you went after a good man for no good reason.
And because of that I will slap you around on this issue till your blue in the face.
You do not reserve the right to say something does not exist just because it came out of his mouth. Especially when what came out ofs his mouth is a perfectly acceptable term that everyone knows what means. To the point that it has been put in books for study in law offices and schools, legal documents refering to it in congress , the IRS calls it that on legal tenders of transfer.
You’re the only freekin person I’ve heard that wont use the term, like a baby, just cause you dont like the guy.
I am sick of people like you, I see what you’re doing to everything around us, you bring down hope, you bring down moral, you offer no spirit and you lie about honest decent people. You errode the basic fabric of our country.
I have nothing against leftys that are civil and can talk to an understanding.
But you always ahead of time have the answers just because you say thay are the answers. And then you shove your opinions on people with contempt and slander and malignment for those who differ.
I will ride your ass Jersey every corner you come around untill you get the message that folks like you will not be tolerated.
I’ve been to your website and you are one of the nastiest people I’ve ever seen.
You twist everything to such a level its predictable to the point where its just sheer hatred.
You are an angry unthoughtful man with nothing to bring to the table but garbage
and critsizm.
Now , if you are half a man, tell me what the legall and tangible form below says.

———————————————————————————————————————
Instructions for Form 706 (9/2007)
… Line 3b. State Death Tax Deduction … Schedule P—Credit for Foreign Death Taxes … claim the credits for foreign death taxes or tax on prior transfers
———————————————————————————————————————

27 Sept 07
Instructions for Form 706 (9/2007)
… Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return … Line 3b. State Death Tax Deduction … Schedule P—Credit for Foreign Death Taxes …

———————————————————————————————————————

You can say it does not exist all you want my little man.
But I left you holding the proof (numerous times)
And while you stand there with it in your hands you will continue to throw a fit like a 5 year old a say it doesnt exist.
Next thing you know you’ll try to tell me the moon is made out of cheese.
Oh god, I shouldnt of said that

JMJ

We all know by now that you cant tax dead people jersey.

I would not ask you to prove a negative , but untill you can prove all my research and proof as flawed, you lose.
You only have your word, which has turned out to be worthless.
If you are half a man you will tell me what this legal IRS form says.

———————————————————————————————————————
Instructions for Form 706 (9/2007)
… Line 3b. State Death Tax Deduction … Schedule P—Credit for Foreign Death Taxes … claim the credits for foreign death taxes or tax on prior transfers
———————————————————————————————————————

JMJ

JMJ

Face it ! The only reason you’re putting up such a little hissy fit is because the right gave it a name and it took !!
It took so well that thats what we call it now ! On legal and judicial documents everywhere !

Senate Floor Statement of Senator Sessions
SENATOR SESSIONS ON THE DEATH TAX REPEAL PERMANENCY ACT OF 2005

Thursday, June 8, 2006

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Texas. Earlier this year, 26 Senators signed a letter that I produced asking Senator FRIST, the majority leader, to bring up this bill. He has worked hard to find the time, and here we are.
I recall, and I will set the record straight, that the death tax is eliminated already in the year 2010. It goes to zero. But the next year, the exemption is $1 million and the rate is 55 percent, a confiscatory rate.

The American heritage is one of savings and frugality and a belief in the right to own private property and leave that property to whomever people choose on their death. That is why overwhelmingly people who are not impacted by the death tax believe it is wrong and say in poll after poll it should be eliminated.

The cost of collecting this tax exceeds what it brings in to the Government coffers. That is the definition of a bad tax–the very definition of it. A good tax is one that is simple and fair and low cost to collect. This one is exactly the opposite, causing all kinds of gymnastics to avoid it.

Finally, and importantly, it savages growing closely held businesses. I think about one man I met traveling in Alabama. He and his sons own three motels. He met with me and told me they were paying $80,000 a year for a life insurance policy because when that father dies, it will take that much life insurance, $7,000 a month, to pay the death tax.

They are competing with the big guys–Howard Johnson’s, Holiday Inn, Marriott–trying to really get up there, but every month they are paying $7,000 that could be used to pay down the mortgage on their motels and build a competitive business. That is why this tax is adversely impacting our country. It is against savings, it is against frugality.

I received a call from Robert Johnson this week, head of Black Entertainment Television. He is competing with CBS, NBC, Fox, and ABC. He is trying to do well. He has a family-held business. If something happens to him, he said there is no other African American who can buy this business. It is going to be bought up by some conglomerate.

I ask my colleagues to remember that CBS, ABC, FOX, and NBC never pay a death tax. Holiday Inn never pays a death tax. It is the small, closely held businesses that are expanding, have no cash for investing in their next new motel who compete with the big guys who have to suck out that money.

Those who want to keep estate tax claim repealing it will cost the Government too much money.

I would like to discuss this issue in some detail. They point to two Government reports–one by the Joint Committee on Taxation, or JCT, and one by the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. Both these reports assert that repealing the death tax will reduce Government revenues by approximately $280 billion from 2011 to 2015. However, simply put, these cost estimates are not realistic.

Before discussing why, it is important to note that the JCT does not generally share the specifics of their revenue estimates, describe their methodology, or reveal their assumptions to the general public or Members of Congress. We thus must speculate exactly how JCT arrives at their revenue projections. Of course, if the JCT is so confident in the quality of their estimates, one must ask why they are reluctant to reveal their methods and assumptions.

There are many reasons to believe that revenue loss estimates by JCT and CBO regarding repeal of death tax are on the “high side.” First, as Joint Economic Committee points out, JCT has estimated that the total revenue loss from death tax repeal would actually exceed revenue the tax raises. This is a curious notion, to say the least. At the time of JCT’s analysis, estate tax was expected to raise $218 billion from 2011 to 2015–the 5-years after the death tax returns to its 55 percent top rate. However, JCT estimates that over that same period of time, repeal would lose $281 billion in revenue. In other words, revenue lost from estate tax repeal would equal 129 percent of the actual revenue the tax is supposed to raise. A similar pattern exists for CBO estimate where revenue lost from repeal equals 120 percent of the actual revenue it is estimated to raise. This pattern–present in both estimates–certainly begins to raise questions about these scores.

Second, passing the bill before us would eliminate the stepped-up basis rule. What is the stepped-up basis rule? Current law allows inherited assets to be valued at their current market value at the time of decedent’s death. The heirs get a stepped-up basis rather than having as a basis the original purchase price. No capital gains tax is therefore applied to any increase in the value of that asset. This reduces capital gains tax collections significantly. For example, if an heir were to inherit a house valued at $250,000 that was originally purchased by her father for

[Page: S5625] GPO’s PDF

$100,000, the daughter would pay no capital gains tax on the $150,000 increase in the value of that home. The bill we are debating today would effectively change this to require that a capital gains tax be paid on the full increase in the asset price from the time it was originally purchased. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out this week, the JCT has calculated that changing how inherited assets are treated in terms of capital gains tax law would raise $50 billion to $60 billion a year. Most important, this $50 to $60 billion exceeds the amount of revenue the estate tax raises annually, which has only accounted for 1 percent to 2 percent of all Federal receipts over the years. In other words, the estate tax has not traditionally been a major source of revenue for the Federal Government and elimination of the stepped-up basis rule should more than cover any loss of revenue from eliminating this tax.

A 2005 study from one econometrics firm–CONSAD Research Corporation–backs up this analysis. In particular, they found that the revenue impact of permanent repeal coupled with a limited stepped-up basis rule for the calculation of estates’ capital gains realizations would actually yield a small net gain in revenues through 2014.

Third, JCT and CBO scores ignore fact that existence of estate tax itself helps reduce income tax collections. For example, the estate tax encourages widespread tax avoidance, given its high top tax rate, which would return to 55 percent if we do not pass this bill. To avoid paying the estate tax, parents in high-income brackets often shift resources to their children in lower tax brackets, lowering income tax receipts. Similarly, income tax revenue is lost when transfers are made to tax-exempt groups, such as charities and family trusts.

Existence of estate tax also reduces income tax collections by reducing the amount of capital in the economy. Joint Economic Committee estimates that the estate tax has resulted in $847 billion less in savings and capital investment in the United States over the long run–in other words, investment in such assets as office buildings, retirement accounts, houses, factory equipment and so forth. Similarly, recent studies have shown that the estate tax encourages consumption rather than savings and wealth accumulation, shrinking the size of taxable estates.

In addition, according to Heritage Foundation economists, the estate tax costs our economy between 170,000 and 250,000 productive jobs each year. These jobs are never created because the investments that would have financed them are not made, as these resources are diverted to pay the death tax itself or pay for complex trusts and insurance policies to avoid the tax. If these jobs were created, each of these 170,000 to 250,000 individuals would be paying income tax, lessening revenue loss from estate tax repeal.

The estate tax also imposes an excessive compliance cost on taxpayers, again lowering income tax collections. Estate planning can be very complex, requiring the average family which engages in it to spend anywhere from $30,000 to $150,000 according to one study. It should be noted that twice the number of estates were required in 2004 to file all the death tax paperwork than actually paid the tax. Many of these filings require hiring lawyers and accountants at a significant cost to these estates. In fact, Alicia Munnell, a professor of finance at Boston College and a former member of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, has estimated that the costs of complying with estate tax laws are roughly the same as the revenue raised. In particular, she has written that “in the United States, resources spent on avoiding wealth transfer taxes are of the same general magnitude as the yield.” Similarly, she wrote in another article, “the compliance, or, more appropriately, the avoidance costs of the transfer tax system may well approach the revenue yields.” Put another way, for every dollar of tax revenue raised by the estate tax, Munnell estimates that another dollar is wasted simply to comply with or avoid the tax.

Fourth, another reason it is safe to believe that the estimates we are discussing today are inaccurate is that, according to an analysis by the American Family Business Institute, the CBO underestimates economic growth in its analysis and thus tax revenues. Specifically, in scoring revenue loss with repeal, CBO assumes that over the next 10 years that real GDP growth will average 2.95 percent per year. This forecast is an underestimation of historical averages. Over the past 40 years, average growth in GDP is 3.20 percent; the 30-year average is 3.23 percent; the 20-year average is 3.11 percent; and the past 10-year average is 3.34 percent. If we assume a 0.1 percent per year increase in GDP growth above CBO baseline, which would keep GDP below any of the averages I just mentioned, the result is a revenue loss from repeal of only $87 billion over the next 10 years. In other words, revenue loss is more than 300 percent lower if we assume only a slightly higher growth in GDP, which is still lower than other recent 10-year GDP averages.

Finally, past estimates by JCT and CBO have been wildly off base. JCT forecast that the capital gains tax reduction enacted in 2003 would “cost” $3 billion from fiscal years 2003 to 2005.

What happened? The cut in capital gains tax rate raised revenue. In fact, tax receipts from capital gains tax are now expected to be $87 billion more than CBO originally predicted for years 2003 to 2006. Similarly, JCT estimated total revenue loss for the first year of the 2004 American JOBS Creation Act–a bill that provided several corporate tax cuts would be $4.5 billion. In reality, enactment of this law actually resulted in a revenue gain of $16 billion.

Finally, Congress reduced the capital gains rate from 28 to 20 percent in 1997. JCT estimated at that time that such a reduction would result in a revenue loss of $21.2 billion over 10 years. However, over the first 4 years following this rate reduction alone, revenues from capital gains tax were $47.8 billion more than JCT estimates.

Given all these problems with the JCT and CBO estimates, what are we to believe about the cost of repealing the death tax? Personally, I believe that even though the Federal Government may lose some revenue from eliminating the estate tax, that amount will be negligible, if the Government loses any money at all. Thus, the argument that we cannot afford to eliminate the death tax is a hollow one. Two-thirds of the American people support repeal of the death tax according to a recent survey.

It is time to follow their wishes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

The death tax has other harmful economic consequences. The existence of the tax forces small businesses to divert scarce resources away from business expansion and job creation in order to pay for expensive estate planning. According to the Internal Revenue Service, when the death tax was in full effect in 2001, the IRS collected $23.5 billion from the death tax. In 2005, after Congress dramatically reduced the rate and scope of the tax, the IRS still collected $21.7 billion. There is good reason to believe that eliminating the tax entirely would generate a boom in prosperity, and the taxes collected on more productive activities would sufficiently replace any revenue that was previously collected under the death tax.

Hey ! You should see a real shrink !

Jersey said;
The Death Tax does not exist in any evidential, tangible form.

I present to you a document that says ” FORM ” on it, please read the form below that calls itself a “FORM”.
You can also find these physical “TANGIBLE forms at your nearest post office.
———————————————————————————————————————
Instructions for Form 706 (9/2007)
… Line 3b. State Death Tax Deduction … Schedule P—Credit for Foreign Death Taxes … claim the credits for foreign death taxes or tax on prior transfers
———————————————————————————————————————

Jersey said;
“”There is no margin of taxation on the act of Death.”"

LOL !!!!!!! OH! MY ! GOD ! HE SAID IT AGAIN !!! LOL !!!

This is the fourth time this character has told me that you cant tax death !!!

Jersey the o so wise one , knower of all knowledge said this;
“It’s a wise form of taxation. The Lucky Rich are often not the best citizens, let alone apt for public influence. In America, where I live, we reward work over luck.”

DUH GEE O.K. If you say so jersey, uh, alright whatever you say.

The lucky rich !!! It doesnt matter o great wise one ! That money 9 out of 10 times was produced by some guy who busted his ass his whole life ! So his kids and grandchildren could have a decent life !
And all you selfish gimme gimme little entitlement minded lazy farts want is a hand out !

If you tax one man who honestly earned his living as opposed to thievery you imply.
It is called wealth redistribution.
And that wealth is redistributed to the entitlement minded lazy morons who dont know how to make a buck. Thats all its for.
But what amazes me is that you dont say that you think its a wise form of taxation , you say it is a wise form of taxation with authority and righteousness as if your word is gospel and truth.
This is what separates the moonbats from real people. They at least have the respect and intelligence to make opinions clear as opinions and not fact just because they SAY SO.
None of that is really here nor there. Because you show nothing tanginle to back up your claims, ever. Its just your mouthity mouth mouth.

Jersey said;
and you can’t prove there is no Death Tax.

Yea, but I can prove there is one !
So you see , you’re screwed by taking that stupid position and defending it with what pathetic means you can.

I can do this all day Jersey and will slap the crap out of you all day with pleasure if for any reason just because I think you are the lowest form of human I have ever seen.
Once again, read it and weep

27 Sept 07
Instruction 706-NA (Rev. October 2006)
Instructions for Form 706-NA, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return (Estate of nonresident not a citizen of the U.S.)
… States at the • The state death tax credit has been time of … credit has been time of death. For purposes of this repealed … is preferable the date of death value of the For information …

27 Sept 07
Instructions for Form 706 (9/2007)
… Line 3b. State Death Tax Deduction … Schedule P—Credit for Foreign Death Taxes … claim the credits for foreign death taxes or tax on prior transfers, …

27 Sept 07
Instructions for Form 706 (9/2007)
… Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return … Line 3b. State Death Tax Deduction … Schedule P—Credit for Foreign Death Taxes …

27 Sept 07
Internal Revenue Bulletin - August 22, 2005 - Rev. Proc. 2005-55
… Federal Estate Taxes and State Death Taxes, of the Sample Trust … for income, estate, and gift tax purposes, respectively, if the other … inconsistent with the applicable federal tax requirements), or that omits any …

27 Sept 07
Internal Revenue Bulletin - August 22, 2005 - Rev. Proc. 2005-55
… Federal Estate Taxes and State Death Taxes, of the Sample Trust … for income, estate, and gift tax purposes, respectively, if the other … inconsistent with the applicable federal tax requirements), or that omits any …

27 Sept 07
Internal Revenue Bulletin - August 22, 2005 - Rev. Proc. 2005-54
… Federal Estate Taxes and State Death Taxes, of the Sample Trust … for income, estate, and gift tax purposes, respectively, if the other … inconsistent with the applicable federal tax requirements), or that omits any …

27 Sept 07
Internal Revenue Bulletin - August 4, 2003 - Rev. Proc. 2003-56
… Federal Estate Taxes and State Death Taxes, of the Sample Trust … for income, estate, and gift tax purposes, respectively, if the other … inconsistent with the applicable federal tax requirements), or that omits any …

27 Sept 07
Internal Revenue Bulletin - August 4, 2003 - Rev. Proc. 2003-55
… Federal Estate Taxes and State Death Taxes, of the Sample Trust … for income, estate, and gift tax purposes, respectively, if the other … inconsistent with the applicable federal tax requirements), or that omits any …

micky2 said,
November 2, 2007 at 7:05 pm

Heres your link to reality

http://search.irs.gov/web/query.html?st=11&charset=utf-8&col=allirs&qs=-Wct%3A%22Internal+Revenue+Manual%22&qt=death+tax&cqp=&fcol=&chkbox0=0&chkbox1=0&chkbox2=0&chkbox3=0&ch

Here ya go JERSEY !
They even write books on how to apply death tax laws and complete the forms !
Tax lawyers and lae students study death tax law !

You can find it the library at Notre Dame !
http://worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/5370654?page=frame&url=http%3A%2F%2Finnopac.law.nd.edu%2Fsearch%2Fo5370654&title=University+of+Notre+Dame%2C+Law+School&linktype=opac&detail=XND%3AUniversity+of+Notre+Dame%2C+Law+School%3AAcademic

Death taxes : completing the forms & computing the taxes, program material.
by California Continuing Education of the Bar.
Type: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Berkeley, Calif. : California Continuing Education of the Bar, 1979.
OCLC: 5370654
Related Subjects: Inheritance and transfer tax — California. | Inheritance and transfer tax — United States.
Citations: Cite this Item | Export to EndNote | Export to RefWorks

And Micky, you can’t prove a negative. You can’t prove that something that doesn’t exist doesn’t exist. That’s why you can’t prove there is no God, or prove there are no Spaghetti Monsters, and you can’t prove there is no Death Tax. You can’t prove non-existence. However, you can prove that you have no solid evidence to prove existence. Either you have it, or you don’t. You can’t just have talk about it, or semantic or colloquial association. It has to really exist. The Death Tax does not exist in any evidential, tangible form. There is no margin of taxation on the act of Death. But there are taxes on windfall, unearned income. And that’s what inherited estates are.

These taxes have been around for longer than most other types, and were progressively adapted here over 100 years ago to avert the establishment of an American aristocracy. Sure enough, the Robber Barrons, et al, saw their political power somewhat diminish through the 20th century. It’s a wise form of taxation. The Lucky Rich are often not the best citizens, let alone apt for public influence. In America, where I live, we reward work over luck.

JMJ