> Loaned money isn't taxable income, so you can save/spend it without affecting your tax rate.
> Death is a popular escape from deferred taxes. When you die, your obligations to the government vanish. Your heirs inherit assets/property at market value. Their assets depreciate from new cost bases.
The article talks about taxes in the USA, and I think the treatment of taxes at death is unfair by giving a significant tax advantage to people who hold assets till death, especially with the step-up basis. The way Canada handles it seems more reasonable to me:
> Capital property generally includes real estate, such as homes and cottages, investments like stocks, mutual funds or crypto-assets, and personal belongings like artwork, collections or jewelry. When a person dies, they are considered to have sold all their property just prior to death, even though there is no actual disposition or sale. This is called a deemed disposition and may result in a capital gain or capital loss
In exchange, Canada does not have an inheritance tax. All taxation is resolved in the estate of the deceased person before the money or assets are passed on without further taxation.
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?
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]
Why? Inheritance taxes are kinda stupid anyway, you already taxed it when it went to the parents, taxing again when moving those assets to next of kin is double dipping.
I can understand step up being considered unfair but the alternative is someone inheriting their family's stuff and getting slapped with a potentially huge tax bill they don't have the cash to afford.
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.
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.
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.
Why should the government collect taxes on jewelery I pass down to my children? I already paid income taxes on the money I used to buy it and sales tax at the point of purchase. Why the hell are they entitled to more?
Pretty good overview of how/why these deductions reduce your taxable income. Couple of things to note.
Depreciation is recaptured if you sell an asset for more than its depreciated basis. People sometimes get into trouble with this if they rapidly depreciate real estate and then sell it. Even if you sell for less than your purchase price it is possible to owe taxes.
You also aren't going to be able to pay no taxes since you do need to realize some income to pay for mortgage/rent, food, transportation, etc. I guess if you had assets you could borrow against it would be possible to pay for these using the loan proceeds (which are not taxable).
Depreciation is permitted for business assets. In order to depreciate the lawnmower, you would need to claim it as a business expense. In order to claim a business expense, you also need to have some business income (net business losses are okay, but not having any income, or having only de minimis income, is a huge red flag). And importantly, you can't use the asset for personal use. Ever.
This type of tax fraud is the #1 cause of tax penalties. And because it's fraud, it also means the IRS has an unlimited time to audit and penalize you for it.
Rich people don't defer their U.S. taxes by buying depreciable property. They do so by buying investment property like stocks, and making charitable donations.
I'm not sure to understand how deferring taxes is a better deal than paying it here and now.
Since I'm not a financial adviser, someone asked me take on which 4k projector to buy last Xmas.
I explained that the tech has improved so much lately, they've become somewhat affordable, I recommended a model and pointed ou that he would certainly get a better device next Xmas, for half the price. I thought he would follow suit given his budget was a bit below the retail price. That would just wait.
His response was he would rather go ahead and up the budget a few hundred dollars to get it right away. That projectors will surely get much better by next year, but that he, certainly, will not.
> Defer US taxes by reinvesting your taxable income into the economy as business expenses, depreciating assets, etc.
Be really careful when doing this. Make sure you have a great accountant - if you go more than a few years without turning a measurable profit, your risk of being audited apparently goes up. My accountant personally cautioned me about this since my business has been in an R&D phase for 5 years so we've been showing a small loss every year. The last thing you want is for the IRS to decide you've been cheating on your taxes.
> For your leveraged investments, pay yourself in refinanced cash when your investments appreciate and/or credit rates drop.
In other words: Gamble that (1) your investments appreciate, or (2) that you will find credit rates drop when convenient.
In 1 word: Gamble.
So, either you are rich and have spare money to gamble, which sure, might be beneficial against taxes. But you could also gamble against any other sector (stocks, housing, startups...)
Or, if you are not rich, just put it in the 401k (or eq).
It seems to me that I'm running into more people who just don't file their taxes. They wait for the IRS to send them a letter saying how much they owe, and they just pay that.
I can't figure out the thought process of someone who finds this sensible. Maybe there isn't one.
I am a big proponent and teach my children pay as little taxes as you possibly can. Use all means available that are not fraud. So this article is a delight.
Our government in my generation failed me and my kids, they are busy in fighting wars, manufacturing crises abroad, and doing other nefarious things.
Question: can I use the means in this article to avoid my last year's tax? What asset categories are available to invest to defer my taxes, where can I learn more?
Along with already mentioned "Buy, Borrow, Die" strategy is the more widely practiced "Expense everything" strategy which often ends in tax disaster for the practitioner.
He expensed lavish Gatsby style parties and everything.
I remember reading a biography of his that one way in 1920s he accomplished was by having bought some big mostly useless plot of land and technically his lavish parties were sales presentations to sell this land. Occasionally some of his acquintances would actually buy a parcel of mostly useless land in middle of nowhere thus the business use was actually maintained. Again, highly unlikely to fly today with IRS and even then there were tax lawsuits.
The issue is that it is impossibly hard to pull off without going into tax fraud territory.
Another interesting case of "Expense everything" were ABBAs stage dresses and suits. They were purposely flashily impractical to avoid falling afoul of Swedish tax laws.
That said tax authorities in most countries do allow some leeway for the small fish. Basically pragmatic tax authorities give you certain limits for certain expenses that you can expense.
So in my European country you can expense a certain amount of gas, travel, clothing, eating out, etc as a self-employed. Yes you should have receipts, but if you stay within limits, it is up to you how honest you want to be about that "business" lunch.
I remember it being it common in US too, someone takes you to lunch and you are supposed to mention their business and talk a few minutes about their business, then in their eyes it was a business expense.
However, the moment you start going over these limits you will face increased scrutiny and you are in for a bad time for claiming as business expense lunch with your friends at Dorsia.
>Death is a popular escape from deferred taxes. When you die, your obligations to the government vanish. Your heirs inherit assets/property at market value. Their assets depreciate from new cost bases.
The article only addresses a subset of economic activity. The larger portion of the adult population are wage earners or retirees, not business owners. For them, large investments in Traditional IRAs or 401k plans are most definitely not able to escape upon death the income taxes that were deferred.
Funny thing, states like CA, TX, TN going after folks who thought it good idea to register vehicles in MN and not pay their own local state sales taxes...
Please consult a real tax lawyer before even following such advice...
Why? They have skin in the game such losing their license if they do something wrong and illegal...
We should force cost basis to rise some % every few years, in order make tax due on unrealized gains. How would that throw a wrench into these tax deferral schemes?
If what was supposed to be your tax dollars is instead going towards giving more people work to do (and hence generate more taxes) the government will be happy.
It is a good thing for life, money and health, to be clear how much is enough. In money frugality always wins. These billionaires they're very miserable. Their faces show stress, worry and animosity. People say money does bring happiness. It is BS. It holds true only if there is health.
174 comments
> Loaned money isn't taxable income, so you can save/spend it without affecting your tax rate.
> Death is a popular escape from deferred taxes. When you die, your obligations to the government vanish. Your heirs inherit assets/property at market value. Their assets depreciate from new cost bases.
The article talks about taxes in the USA, and I think the treatment of taxes at death is unfair by giving a significant tax advantage to people who hold assets till death, especially with the step-up basis. The way Canada handles it seems more reasonable to me:
> Capital property generally includes real estate, such as homes and cottages, investments like stocks, mutual funds or crypto-assets, and personal belongings like artwork, collections or jewelry. When a person dies, they are considered to have sold all their property just prior to death, even though there is no actual disposition or sale. This is called a deemed disposition and may result in a capital gain or capital loss
-- https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individ...
In exchange, Canada does not have an inheritance tax. All taxation is resolved in the estate of the deceased person before the money or assets are passed on without further taxation.
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?
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
I can understand step up being considered unfair but the alternative is someone inheriting their family's stuff and getting slapped with a potentially huge tax bill they don't have the cash to afford.
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.
- 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.
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.
Depreciation is recaptured if you sell an asset for more than its depreciated basis. People sometimes get into trouble with this if they rapidly depreciate real estate and then sell it. Even if you sell for less than your purchase price it is possible to owe taxes.
You also aren't going to be able to pay no taxes since you do need to realize some income to pay for mortgage/rent, food, transportation, etc. I guess if you had assets you could borrow against it would be possible to pay for these using the loan proceeds (which are not taxable).
This blogspam is advocating tax fraud.
Depreciation is permitted for business assets. In order to depreciate the lawnmower, you would need to claim it as a business expense. In order to claim a business expense, you also need to have some business income (net business losses are okay, but not having any income, or having only de minimis income, is a huge red flag). And importantly, you can't use the asset for personal use. Ever.
This type of tax fraud is the #1 cause of tax penalties. And because it's fraud, it also means the IRS has an unlimited time to audit and penalize you for it.
Rich people don't defer their U.S. taxes by buying depreciable property. They do so by buying investment property like stocks, and making charitable donations.
Since I'm not a financial adviser, someone asked me take on which 4k projector to buy last Xmas.
I explained that the tech has improved so much lately, they've become somewhat affordable, I recommended a model and pointed ou that he would certainly get a better device next Xmas, for half the price. I thought he would follow suit given his budget was a bit below the retail price. That would just wait.
His response was he would rather go ahead and up the budget a few hundred dollars to get it right away. That projectors will surely get much better by next year, but that he, certainly, will not.
> Defer US taxes by reinvesting your taxable income into the economy as business expenses, depreciating assets, etc.
Be really careful when doing this. Make sure you have a great accountant - if you go more than a few years without turning a measurable profit, your risk of being audited apparently goes up. My accountant personally cautioned me about this since my business has been in an R&D phase for 5 years so we've been showing a small loss every year. The last thing you want is for the IRS to decide you've been cheating on your taxes.
> For your leveraged investments, pay yourself in refinanced cash when your investments appreciate and/or credit rates drop.
In other words: Gamble that (1) your investments appreciate, or (2) that you will find credit rates drop when convenient.
In 1 word: Gamble.
So, either you are rich and have spare money to gamble, which sure, might be beneficial against taxes. But you could also gamble against any other sector (stocks, housing, startups...)
Or, if you are not rich, just put it in the 401k (or eq).
I can't figure out the thought process of someone who finds this sensible. Maybe there isn't one.
Our government in my generation failed me and my kids, they are busy in fighting wars, manufacturing crises abroad, and doing other nefarious things.
Question: can I use the means in this article to avoid my last year's tax? What asset categories are available to invest to defer my taxes, where can I learn more?
One of the early adopters was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._C._Forbes the founder of Forbes.
He expensed lavish Gatsby style parties and everything.
I remember reading a biography of his that one way in 1920s he accomplished was by having bought some big mostly useless plot of land and technically his lavish parties were sales presentations to sell this land. Occasionally some of his acquintances would actually buy a parcel of mostly useless land in middle of nowhere thus the business use was actually maintained. Again, highly unlikely to fly today with IRS and even then there were tax lawsuits.
The issue is that it is impossibly hard to pull off without going into tax fraud territory.
Another interesting case of "Expense everything" were ABBAs stage dresses and suits. They were purposely flashily impractical to avoid falling afoul of Swedish tax laws.
That said tax authorities in most countries do allow some leeway for the small fish. Basically pragmatic tax authorities give you certain limits for certain expenses that you can expense.
So in my European country you can expense a certain amount of gas, travel, clothing, eating out, etc as a self-employed. Yes you should have receipts, but if you stay within limits, it is up to you how honest you want to be about that "business" lunch.
I remember it being it common in US too, someone takes you to lunch and you are supposed to mention their business and talk a few minutes about their business, then in their eyes it was a business expense.
However, the moment you start going over these limits you will face increased scrutiny and you are in for a bad time for claiming as business expense lunch with your friends at Dorsia.
>Death is a popular escape from deferred taxes. When you die, your obligations to the government vanish. Your heirs inherit assets/property at market value. Their assets depreciate from new cost bases.
The article only addresses a subset of economic activity. The larger portion of the adult population are wage earners or retirees, not business owners. For them, large investments in Traditional IRAs or 401k plans are most definitely not able to escape upon death the income taxes that were deferred.
Please consult a real tax lawyer before even following such advice...
Why? They have skin in the game such losing their license if they do something wrong and illegal...