The Accidental (Tax-Free) Billionaire

Dan Duncan was the son of an oil-field roughneck. From humble beginnings, Mr. Duncan started his own oil and gas business in 1968 with $10,000 and a truck. Over the years, Duncan grew that business into a prosperous venture which is now known as Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., a publicly traded company (Ticker EPE). At his death on March 28th of this year, Duncan had an estimated net worth of $9 billion and was ranked No. 74 on Forbes list of the world’s richest individuals. It appears that Duncan is the first American billionaire to pass his wealth free of the estate tax since the modern estate tax was originally imposed in 1916.

As we have previously discussed in WealthLawBlog, the federal estate tax is on a one-year hiatus in 2010. In 2009, the first $3.5 million in net worth was exempt from the estate tax, with a top tax rate of 45%. In 2011, the estate tax returns with only a $1 million exemption and a top rate of 55%. Hence, if Duncan had died three months earlier or nine months later, his estate would have been liable for billions in federal estate taxes. 

However, Duncan’s death is not entirely tax free. One quirk in the 2010 estate tax law is an anomaly referred to as “carryover basis.” Generally, under the modern estate tax regimen, while estates are subject to the estate tax, the assets that are subjected to the tax receive a “step-up” in their tax bases equal to the value of such assets as of the decedent’s date of death. This means that the heirs receiving these assets can sell those assets and pay capital gains taxes on only the appreciation in the value of those assets exceeding the stepped-up bases. In 2010, assets receive no step-up in basis except for a limited step-up of $3 million for assets passing to a surviving spouse and $1.3 million for assets passing to other heirs.

In the case of Duncan’s estate, except for these limited exceptions to the step-up basis rule, Duncan’s heirs will inherit the assets in Duncan’s estate with carryover tax bases. If the Duncan heirs sell these assets, then they will pay capital gains taxes on the difference between the sale price of the assets and Duncan’s original basis. Based upon the presumption that much of Duncan’s estate consists of his company shares with a very low basis, the ultimate capital gains taxes payable by Duncan’s heirs could be substantial. Nevertheless, even if the taxes are paid at the increased capital gains rate for 2011 of 20% (increasing to 23.8% in 2013), these taxes are certainly much less than the estate tax rates of 45% to 55%. 

The bottom line: death and taxes are still inevitable. It’s only their timing and severity that varies.

Verna Oller: Frugal and Fabulous

ABC News reports on an amazing woman that left her hometown millions, after quietly tucking away her modest wages and making savvy investments.

Creating a lasting legacy through charitable giving is a tremendous accomplishment.  Calling your estate planner and making sure your ducks are in a row is part of that process.  Too often people dread facing their own mortality in properly preparing an estate plan, but it's not nearly as challenging when you find good people to work with.  Take the time to do it right.

As Winston Churchill said, "We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give." 

 

Oregon Employers Face New Limitations on Using Credit History

Senate Bill 1045, which will take effect on July 1, 2010, prohibits Oregon employers from using the credit history of an applicant or employee in making employment-related decisions. The law does, however, provide some exceptions to the ban on an employer’s use of an employee’s credit history. First, the law is not applicable to employers who are financial institutions, law enforcement agencies, or public safety agencies. Second, the law does not apply to employers who are required by state or federal law to use an employee’s credit history for employment purposes. Finally, and most relevant to private employers, an employer may obtain and use an employee’s credit history if such information is “substantially job-related.”

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (“BOLI”) has recently issued administrative regulations that clarify the provisions set forth in SB 1045. The regulations significantly limit the definition of “substantially job-related” to certain positions. The first position identified is one that requires access to financial information beyond that which is customarily provided in retail transactions that are neither loans nor extensions of credit. The regulations define “financial information customarily provided in retail transactions” as information related to the exchange of cash, checks, and credit or debit card numbers. That means that employers cannot justify the need for a credit history solely based on an employee’s access to cash or run of the mill consumer transactions – as of July 1, 2010, the bar is set much higher for an employer to justify the use of a credit history. The other position provided for in the regulations is less controversial – one in which the employer is required to obtain credit history as a condition of obtaining insurance or a surety or fidelity bond.

If an employer determines that a position qualifies for a credit history check under the “substantially job-related” exception, the regulations impose a disclosure requirement. Specifically, an employer must provide, in writing, the reasons for the investigation of an applicant or employee’s credit history. The regulations do not set out what information an employer should provide.

Thus, in the event that an employer desires to perform a credit history check on an applicant or employee, they must use the “substantially job-related” exception cautiously. Additionally, the employer should prepare a standard notice form, and provide that form to any applicant where the credit history is “substantially job-related”. The form should provide an area where the employer can describe its justification for the credit check. Employers should also be aware of their obligations under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires disclosures in advance of obtaining a consumer report; and also require certain notifications to an applicant or employee in the event the employer uses a consumer report to make a hiring or promotion decision.

What is apparent is that the Oregon legislature and governor have chosen to cut back the ability of employers in Oregon to use credit history in employment decision-making. Employers should make sure that they have a very good reason (that is – one that complies with the law) for wanting a credit history, and proceed cautiously in order to comply with Oregon and federal law regulating this subject.