Department of Revenue raises "death tax"
from the grave
By passing Initiative
402 in 1981, voters thought they had abolished this state's inheritance
taxes. In reality the inheritance tax was abolished in favor of an "estate
tax." This estate tax is also called a "pick-up tax," because
the amount payable in the state estate tax was equal to the amount that
one could credit against federal estate tax obligations. For example, if
an estate received a $25,000 tax credit toward any federal excise taxes,
it would owe $25,000 in Washington estate taxes. In other words, there was
no net cost to an estate, and the state simply "picks up" the
amount saved in federal taxes.
In 2001, the federal government took a key step toward abolishing the federal
estate tax by increasing the size of taxable estates to $1 million in 2002
and ultimately eliminating the estate taxes by 2010. The federal government
partially financed the federal breaks by cutting the credit for state estate
taxes paid. The credits dropped to 75 percent of state taxes in 2002; 50
percent in 2003; 25 percent in 2004 and will drop to 0 percent in 2005.
Because of this federal tax code change, states faced a tough choice: forgo
estate tax revenue or impose an estate tax that would cost real money and
might drive wealthy estate holders away. Twenty-five states including California,
Texas, and Florida followed the fed's lead and are only collecting the "pick-up
tax" revenue.
Unfortunately for Washingtonians, as the federal estate tax was lowered,
our state Department of Revenue (DOR) increased the amount due from deceased
property owners.
Equally troubling, DOR announced (without legislative approval)
that the threshold for filing and paying Washington state estate taxes would
be reduced from $1,000,000 in assets to $700,000. This conflicts with existing
state law (RCW
83.100.050) which states, "No Washington return need be filed
if no federal return is required." The federal government's threshold
for filing was increased to $1,000,000. This means that in 2003, a Washington
resident who died owning a taxable estate of $1 million owed zero federal
estate tax, but owed $33,200 in Washington state estate taxes.
Estate tax filing threshold
Year
Washington
Federal
2002
$700,000
$1,000,000
2003
$700,000
$1,000,000
2004
$850,000
$1,500,000
2005
$950,000
$1,500,000
2006
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
2007
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
Source: DOR
It is worth noting that a $700,000 - $1,000,000 estate is not unusual for
middle-income families when considering the value of a home, life insurance,
and retirement funds.
A class action lawsuit was filed last year in Thurston County protesting
DOR's actions and requesting refunds of taxes already paid. Last December,
however, the trial court ruled in favor of DOR and recommended the case
should receive direct review by the Supreme Court, rather than the Court
of Appeals. The State Supreme Court heard arguments on September 30 and,
at one point during the hearing, Justice Bridge asked the attorney representing
the state if the Department of Revenue was merely trying to impose a tax
"through the back door" without a statute expressly authorizing
DOR's actions.
DOR's arbitrary estate tax change without legislative approval is particularly
bad for farmers and small business owners who want to pass their livelihoods
on to their families. If the high court rules with DOR, lawmakers will have
to address this issue in the upcoming session. If the Supreme Court does
not act by the start of the 2005 Legislative Session, lawmakers should pass
legislation to re-tie Washington's estate law to the current Internal Revenue
Service Code. Washington's voters have already said no to a death tax, and
the legislature should ensure the state's bureaucracy does not unduly punish
citizens working to successfully provide for their family's economic well-being.
As one concerned businessman recently stated about DOR's estate tax policy:
"This is a terrible example of stealth government by politicians and
by the state revenue bureaucracy. It's counter to the peoples' will and
it kills jobs and businesses." The legislature should not allow DOR's
estate tax policy to continue.
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"