| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/17 |
| 2006/6/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:43288 Activity:low |
6/6 So are people voting for Angelides or Westly? Westly even has the
former eBayer and Asian ch1c thing going on.
http://csua.org/u/g3c (westly2006.com)
\_ http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_3851538
"Angelides promises to raise taxes on the rich and on
corporations. Westly, while promising to close the deficit without
cuts to schools, will not say how he plans to find the money.
Westly is a dot-com millionaire from eBay who is largely self-
funding his campaign... Angelides, a former chairman of the
state Democratic Party, has the edge, with a potential army of
party volunteers and the unions that have endorsed him. To counter
it, Westly is expected to mount an expensive direct mail campaign
to convince absentee voters to cast their ballots for him."
Sounds to me that Westly is a Republican in disguise of
a Democrat.
\_ I am probably not voting for Angelides, but I'm totally
NOT voting for Westly and I hope everyone understands why.
Westly started his aggressive negative ads against Angelides
early on and they're very mean spirited ads. This is an
indication that he's a complete ass. Furthermore I have had
enough experience with upper-class white male who are completely
out of touch with reality. Enough is enough and I just want to
see new faces, preferably non-white representatives. I was so
happy that Jim Hahn the I-prefer-status-quo-because-everything-
looks-alright didn't get re-elected. Just say no to white male
who are out of touch with reality. Just say no to Westly.
\_ Your sentiment is strongly felt in Hawaii, the reason why
pale looking blond candidates historically don't compete well
with the native candidates. Many Hawaiians resent whites for
historical reasons, but they do of course welcome the tourism
money they bring in. I'm guessing your sentiment is starting
to be felt by many natives in California, many of them are
non-whites and feel that California should be controlled by
people who are more in-touch with their world.
\_ Because us whiteys are all just too busy keeping the ethnic
underclasses down. -John
\_ but Westly is trying to undo his evil while upper class
\_ white
heritage by marrying a h07 azn woman! That makes Westly
a better candidate. I'm voting for him. White Power!
\_ Well, today is the primary, who are you voting for? Nice
racist screed BTW.
\_ You could've just said, "I hate white people" instead of your
long rant.
\_ Yes, I hate white people. However, I assure you that I'm not
the only person feeling this way. Many Californians are
non-white, and feel that whoever represents them should
reflect them instead of rich white men who live in huge
mansions and own big SUVs. -op
\_ You and they are idiots for making assumptions like
that. I guess you'd be fine with a rich Chinese man
who lives in a huge mansion and owns a big Mercedes.
Who cares what they say, they reflect me!
\_ Why is it that corrupt and incompetent black New
Oreleans candidates do better than white candidates
in Louisiana? Because the majority of the voters is
an idiot. And yes if I were a chink I'd still vote for
a rich Mercedes driving chink, he'd have more
sympathy as to why I want to lobby to reverse bills
that discriminate against our culture, like
local laws that prohibit the culture of processing
live food in front of the restaurants. Maybe you
should ask why many non-whites resent dominant whites
before you start calling them idiots. Fuck you for
not respecting our culture. -Minority Power
\_ LOL. Thanks -- that's the funniest thing I've
read on motd all week. With an attitude like that,
you deserve whatever oppression you get.
\_ I think (hope) you've been trolled. -John
\_ Angel(ides) of Death 666
\_ I don't like either one of them, but mostly because of these
asinine attack ads. It's to the point where I'd almost throw my
political ideals aside and vote for any candidate who refrains
from attacking.
\_ Ah, the blissfulness of not having TV.
\_ What is asinine about attack ads? How are they any more
asinine than ads claiming the candidate loves children and
dogs? -tom
\_ In the context of Primaries, they're asinine because they
make it harder for the losing candidate to support the
winning candidate without appearing like an utter
hypocrite.
\_ Why do you hate children and dogs?
\_ Umm, no on 82?
\_ What, you make more that 400k per year?
\_ "...and then they came for me..."
There's tyranny to democracy too, you know.
\_ That may be true, but I don't think making the tax curve
a little more progressive is tyrannical.
\_ It's not more progressive. The people who benefit from
this are the middle/upper-middle class parents who
are already sending their kids to pre-school. poor
kids can already go to first start. i would have voted
for increasing funds to first start, but we don't need
yet another program with yet another tax that actually
helps somewhat wealthy (100k-400k) parents.
\_ So let's see... the people who benefit are the
people who are paying for it and perhaps some
others with lower incomes. Wild idea!
\_ It's not making the tax curve on the whole more
progressive. When you do that and you want to spend gvt
money on something (almost) everyone pays at least a
little. This is saying "hey, let's make the minority
pay for this because there are more of us and we can
_make_ them pay it" If the money were going to pay for
something like "roads that expensive SUVs ripped up" or
"a larger airport for business travelers" or something
even remotely related to the "burden of the rich on
society" it would be one thing, but this is as arbitrary
as that Mental Hospital thing that passed earlier.
Someone's just found an easy way of getting things
funded: bill those who are too few in number to fight it.
\_ I am opposed to these sorts of taxes, but while
these people are few in number they are not
small in influence on our politicians.
\_ I am voting against and I make significantly less than 400k.
I am disgusted by those kinds of measures. Everyone should pay
at least SOMETHING if they want the benefits.
\_ The government is not a fee-for-service business. -tom
\_ Nor is the government a way for the majority to abuse
the minority for the majority benefit.
\_ There are a number of problems with those sorts
of measures. For one thing, high incomes like that tend
to be very flighty. They are often tied to the
stockmarket and other highly volitile sources of income.
Which rasies the question, of what will happen when
there's a downturn and tax reciepts on the rich drop?
Oops. Not to mention, I don't really think the way to
fix our mess of a school system is to expand it.
\_ I agree. We should privatize the school system, and
revive it like the way GWB tried to privatize
social security, like the way the Republicans tried
to privatize electricity and utilities, so on and
so forth.
\_ Way to open your mouth and prove yourself a fool.
\_ I'm voting against 82 because the LA Times board said the system
is poorly implemented and I'm trusting them on that. I'm also
for small, efficient government with a safety net and against
welfare for people who can work but don't.
I'm also for a progressive tax system, with an inheritance tax
rate of 0% for amounts up to $1.5 million (kids get the family
house + extra for free, or $500K/kid assuming 3 kids,
inflation-adjusted) and >= 50% for extra inheritance. The
inheritance tax money can be used to subsidize a lower tax rate
for people who are still working. -dem
I am disgusted by those kinds of measures. "Oh this will be
FREE because we'll make the RICH pay for it!" "Oh lovely! You
have my vote! What else can we make them pay for?"
I think, out of principle, no tax should be levied ONLY on
a certain tax bracket. It's just wrong. Everyone should pay
at least SOMETHING if they want the benefits. The people
making a lot of money are often important players in the
economy and stuff like this just provides incentives to
drive them out. I also hate the idiot democrats that say
things like "make businesses pay for everything!" Way to
screw over the very things the entire state economy depends
on. I'm gonna go Republican this year because the dems are
too stupid. At least the CA Republicans seem a lot smarter than
the federal ones. The CA Dems are like a caricature of
themselves, always promising "free stuff from the government".
I'll vote for the Green secretary of state though. Only
because I'm a firm believer in IRV.
\_ Ok friends and relatives, Tuesday is California's
primary, so it's time for me to get cranky and tell y'all
how to vote! :-)
Actually this election is rather short and there isn't
much to it, and it actually has not been much to do, as
far as ballot Propositions go, so let us start with them:
STATE PROPOSITIONS:
Proposition 81 - $600 million in library bonds -- NO. As
much as I might like to, NO. Not at this time.
Prop 81 would increase state spending by $1.17 billion
because, in order to finance $600 million in bonds, the
state would pay $570 million in interest over 30 years.
I was a bookish kid and enjoyed the library, and I still
do. And I know how wonderful for young and old minds they
can be. However....
In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 14, which
was $350 million in bonds for library building projects,
25 year bonds which we are still paying off, for a
projected legislative analyst cost of $600 million in
year 2000 dollars.
Meanwhile, Governor Ahnold recently issued a lot of bond
debt for infrastructure improvements. (Those improvements
should have been paid from raided gasoline tax funds, but
I'm getting off topic.)
The point is that more bonds, at this time, is just plain
irresponsible. Was it just the other day we were reading
in the papers about a state financing crisis? Now the
economy has improved and state revenues are up, but that
could sour as fuel prices rise, another calamity breaks
out somewhere in the world, or any host of other
reasons. It is irresponsible to do this at this time.
Proposition 82 - Socialized pre-school -- NO. Oh hell NO.
Prop 82 would amend the state constitution to offer
taxpayer-funded universal preschool to all four-year old
children in California. The state would determine the
educational standards for the preschool programs.
Now doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy, given that
Governor Ahnold just had to veto SB1437, a demand hatched
by the most demented of State Senators, Sheila Kuehl--Mom
and Dad, you might remember her from the Dobie Gillis
by the most demented of State Senators, Sheila Kuehl--
you might remember her from the Dobie Gillis
show-- to "require social science textbooks sold in
California to include the significant contributions of
gay, bisexual and transgendered people."
In an age when kids often don't even know the basics,
this attempt to politicize education further is
positively horrid. What's next? Saying whether a notable
preferred blonds to brunettes? What people do to
contribute to history, not who they sleep with, is what
matters in an education. Students have a hard enough
time learning history - and every other subject in
California's schools. Adding notable cross-dressers or
people who have gender reassignment surgery - two
inappropriate subjects for high school - to the curricula
will not correct the woeful state of education.
The fact that SB1437 made it all the way through both
houses of the Legislature and we were only spared it by
Governor Ahnold's veto, as well as the Legislature's
majority endorsement of the illegal alien rallies on
Communist May Day no less, tell you everything you need
to know about the current rulers of the California
Democrat Party. Help!
But I digress. Back to Prop 82:
Teachers in the preschool programs would also have more
educational requirements and would be paid more than
existing public preschool teachers. In order to fund this
universal preschool, an additional 1.7% income tax would
be levied on individuals earning over $400,000 per year
(and couples earning over $800,000 per year). It sounds
fun to make someone who earns more than you pay for your
kids state-run preschool, but watch all those business
owners get Nevada incorporation or some other state's
incorporation and leave the state overnight if this
passes. High income almost always means high or even
higher overhead, something the socialists who cooked up
this proposal never seem to grasp.
Approximately 62% of California children already attend
some kind of preschool or daycare program before going to
kindergarten. Prop 82 would simply require the state to
pay for preschool, and presumably shut some perfectly
fine church or private business pre-school programs out.
As if the state government doesn't have already have its
hands full enough with focus on improving education in
K-12 levels (California test scores in science currently
rank second to last) rather than building a whole new
bureaucracy to control the education of four-year-olds.
Prop 82 paves the way for mandatory preschool and lowered
compulsory attendance ages. This will infringe upon the
rights of parents to direct the education of their own
children and determine when their own children are
physically, mentally, and emotionally ready to start
school.
Additionally, studies touting that children receive an
educational advantage by attending preschool are not
reliable because they a) do not show any long-term
advantage or b) they are based on insufficient data.
Prop 82 is an all-around bad idea.
NON-PARTISAN OFFICES:
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: Diane A. Lenning
Jack O'Connell is the current incumbent, and given the
advantages of incumbency will probably be re-elected
handily.
However, if you want to know why I really like this lady,
check out her website at http://www.dianelenning.com
compare it with those of the other candidates on page 44
of the Official Voter Information Guide, and decide for
yourself. In particular, check out
http://www.dianelenning.com/issues.html
PARTISAN OFFICES:
Well, all of you know I am a Republican and am only
focused on that primary as a result. This is not to say
that registered Democrats are bad. I have a co-worker who
is a registered Democrat even though he has not voted for
one in a general election in nearly 30 years, because he
likes "to practice primary damage control, voting for
lesser evils," he says. I understand that. In fact, so
much of politics is damage control, for either party.
Allow me two observations about the Democrat Primaries:
1. For all the alleged unpopularity of convervative
Republican ideas, two Democrat primary candidates seem to
be running on them.
Governor wannabe Steve Westly is just bashing rival
Democrat Phil Angelides for being a tax raising socialist
weenie, and Attorney General wannabe Rocky Delgadillo is
bashing Jerry Brown (rising out of his political coffin
as current Mayor of Oakland) for being a criminal
coddling commiecrat and is raising the spectre of Brown
court appointees Rose Bird and Cruz Reynoso. (Man, I
could VOTE for a Democrat like that; go Rocky go!)
2. A serious game of political "musical chairs" is going
on in the Democrat Party, which means that term limits
may be doing some good after all: --Current Controller
Steve Westly and Current Treasurer Phil Angelides are
fighting for Governor. --Current Insurance Commissioner
John Garamendi and Current State Senator Jackie Speier
are fighting for Lieutenant Governor. --Current
Lieutenant Govenor Cruz Bustamante is running for
Insurance Commissioner, flip-flopping with Garamendi!
--Aspirant state legislators State Senator Joe Dunn and
Franchise Tax Board head John Chiang are fighting for
Steve Westly's old controller slot. --Meanwhile, former
Governor and current Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown is trying
to rise out of his political coffin and become Attorney
General.
From a "damage control" and admittedly Republican biased
perspective, here goes my take on the Democrat Primary:
Dem GOVERNOR: Steve Westly, because he is less sleazy
than Angelides. I only say this because my sleazy state
employee's union, for which I pay compulsory dues, is
backing Angelides.
Dem LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Jackie Speier. She may be a
wacky lefty, but she's transparent, unlike the political
snake Garamendi.
Dem CONTROLLER: John Chiang is less obnoxiously partisan
than Joe Dunn, and the Controller probably shouldn't be
an obnoxiously partisan office. I admired Karen
O'Connell, yes a Democrat, when she was Controller (I
think no relation to Jack?), because she stated the
budget like it was, to Republican and Democrat
legislators alike.
Dem ATTORNEY GENERAL: Go Rocky Delgadillo, go....even if
I will still vote for the all around awesome Chuck
Poochigian in the fall.
OK, now onto the Republicans. Here, the primary contests
are few:
Rep GOVERNOR: Ahnold has no serious opposition.
Rep LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Tom McClintock has no serious
opposition either.
He is the Last Honest Politician or, to quote Ayn Rand's
optimistic protagonist, "The first of their return."
This guy ran in the Governor's recall race on a
shoestring budget and in spite of the official Ahnold the
Republican bandwagon, still did respectably well. I wish
Ahnold had campaigned for McClintock in the recall and
chose to become a "Senatator" vs. Dianne Feinstein in
2004 instead of a "Governator", but oh well, Ahnold went
for the sure thing.
If McClintock can win Lieutenant Governor this fall,
there is hope for Cali. Otherwise, stick a fork in the
state and turn it over.
Rep CONTROLLER: Abel Maldonado. The other prominent
Republican, Tony Strickland, would be great too! But what
I liked about Mr. Maldonado was his bold opening
candidate statement on page 34 of the Official Voter
Information Guide. Somebody in the Republican Party gets
it about the ilegal alien problem!
Sadly, the President, his advisor Karl Rove, and a good
many Republican senators DON'T get it, which explains
their utterly low approval ratings, and they deserve to
suffer the consequences this fall. Sadly, some major
"conservative" media, like the Wall Street Journal, in
their quest for ever cheapr gardeners and maids, don't
get it either.
(Mr. Strickland, to his credit, also has a comment about
the problem at the end of his candidate statement).
Perhaps Mr. Maldonado makes such a bold opening statement
and isn't afraid of being called "anti-Latino" by the
Smearing Left because he IS Latino.
Rep TREASURER: Keith Richman. The other prominent
Republican, Claude Parrish, also appears to be a stand up
guy, and he'd be fine too, just like Tony Strickland for
Controller above. I especially liked Mr. Parrish's stern
admonition "to oppose all but the most vital bond
issues!"
But like Mr. Maldonado in his candidate statement above,
Richman discusses the real fiscal impact of importing a
larger underclass, and when too many Republicans at the
national level just don't get it about excessive
immigration (obviously illegal, but also certain
categories of legal immigration have been abused),
Mr. Richman's candor is refreshing.
Rep ATTORNEY GENERAL: Chuck Poochigian has no serious
opposition.
Rep INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: Steve Poizner has no serious
opposition. Like Tom McClintock, if he can win this
fall, there is hope for Cali.
Rep SENATOR: Richard Mountjoy has no serious
opposition. He is as hard Right as his opponent this
Fall, the wretched Soviet Slut, Wobblie Wench, (OK,
enough invective) Barbara Boxer, is hard left. He will
also campaign on a shoestring budget. And you know what?
I say GOOD to all that.
For the last decade and a half, the Republicans have made
three choices in taking on the Boxer - Feinstein Axis (in
fairness, Dianne Feinstein is not shrill like Boxer is):
1. Serious principled conservative (so-called
"extremist") Republican candidate, who campaigns on a
shoestring budget and who loses VERY narrowly (Bruce
Herschensohn 1992).
2. Pathetic "moderate" Republican candidate who has
backing of party establishment, is afraid to raise hard
questions, and gets utterly trounced (Matt Fong 1998, Tom
Campbell 2000, Bill Jones 2004). Are we learning anything
here?
3. Vacuous and vapid rich Republican candidate who also
has backing of party establishment, throws his fortune
into the race, and still loses, albeit very narrowly
(Mike Huffington 1994)
I know which path Mr. Mountjoy will take, and I know what
path I am on. I want a real choice, not a pathetic
echo. The only way to fight a nasty bitch like Boxer is
with a crusty ol' bastard (and I say that with affection)
like Mountjoy. If he loses, he at least loses narrowly
and doesn't spend much.
FOR EITHER PARTY:
CONGRESS REPRESENTATIVE, STATE ASSEMBLY, and STATE SENATE
critters: Given gerrymandered districts, incumbents rule
the roost. Deal with what you have where ever you live.
\_ You couldn't post a link?
\_ You can already gift up to $1 million over a lifetime and
leave $2 million in your estate tax-free.
\_ http://csua.org/u/g3v (irs.gov)
"The total amount used against your gift tax reduces the
credit available to use against your estate tax."
My reading is if you gift $1 million today and keel over,
you can leave $1 million more tax-free for $2 million total.
$3.5 mill total in 2009, and unlimited in 2010, but the gift
part (while you're alive) is always $1 million. |
| 5/17 |
|
| csua.org/u/g3c -> www.westly2006.com/site/c.ehKOIWPFIuE/b.1185083/k.9BA8/Home_Page_Chinese.htm Hidden links: 23. |
| www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_3851538 By Steve Geissinger, SACRAMENTO BUREAU SACRAMENTO -- Voters know Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants a second term in office, but who are those Democrats seeking to oppose him? Polls show Californians just do not recognize the names Phil Angelides and Steve Westly very well, despite their stints in statewide elected posts. And what they are seeing of them in their bitter TV ad battle and debates is turning off many voters. Moreover, Schwarzenegger's popularity -- with some help from state Senate President Pro-Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, and other Democratic lawmakers -- is rebounding. For the record, Angelides is state treasurer and Westly is state controller. Despite all the sentiment among Democrats that Schwarzenegger has failed them, polls and analysts say voters have yet to embrace a Democratic alternative. "They don't pay attention to the primaries until the final weeks," said Mark DiCamillo, who directs the nonpartisan Field Poll. The primary election is Tuesday, June 6 -- two weeks away. Angelides outpaced Westly in the polls for a while, until that flip-flopped. Late last month, the situation reversed again as delegates to thestate Democratic convention overwhelmingly backed Angelides. Once voters figure out who they are, according to experts, the choice between them will not be that easy since their policy platforms differ little. The two essentially hold the same attitudes on issues such as the environment, gay marriage and crime. That did not stop them from trading jabs at debates, however. And there is a big difference between them on one key matter -- how to close the state's perennial budget gap. Angelides promises to raise taxes on the rich and on corporations. Westly, while promising to close the deficit without cuts to schools, will not say how he plans to find the money. Even so, Westly is using the tax issue to attack his rival in debates and television advertisements. Most voters, including Democrats, do not support raising taxes, except on the wealthy, even to fund education. "With high gas prices, housing and health care costs, can working families afford Phil Angelides' tax plan?" Angelides has struck back in a TV ad, trying to paint Westly as a hypocrite. It shows Westly recently saying, "I promise, unilaterally, I will not do a single negative ad on TV against my opponent unless he attacks me first." The Angelides ad closes with a newspaper headline: "Westly first to air negative TV ad." Angelides' campaign also has pointed out the irony of Westly going negative after he demanded earlier that Angelides sign a "positive campaign pledge." Analysts expect the attacks to escalate, as each tries to ruin the other's reputation. The outlines of the attacks have become clear in debates. But Angelides' history has not visibly hurt him, even among environmental groups. Angelides has pointed to Westly's wealth, asserting that he is trying to buy the governor's office with TV ads. Westly is a dot-com millionaire from eBay who is largely self-funding his campaign. He had put more than $32 million of his own money into the race as of mid-May Angelides also is accusing Westly of exaggerating his accomplishments as controller and is reminding voters that Westly closely cooperated with Schwarzenegger during his first year in office -- an assertion Westly denies. But the Democratic candidates have been overshadowed lately by Schwarzenegger. "The governor pre-empts them on a daily basis with good news," said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics in Sacramento. "If he hadn't had a surplus, and if Perata hadn't decided he was going to fix public policy, he'd be dead meat." Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, are promoting the bonds and lauding the governor for helping engineer the accomplishment. Then, handed a tax windfall, Schwarzenegger proposed a revised budget that provides more money to schools, pays down debt and bolsters reserves. Education groups, which helped defeat Schwarzenegger's proposals during last year's special election, were given a deal to pay them past money they say they were owed. If voters remain disengaged from the Democratic primary, the outcome may depend less on the push to persuade them on TV and radio, and in the news media than on the effort to get them to vote. That is where Angelides, a former chairman of the state Democratic Party, has the edge, with a potential army of party volunteers and the unions that have endorsed him. To counter it, Westly is expected to mount an expensive direct mail campaign to convince absentee voters to cast their ballots for him. And whatever the outcome of the Democratic primary, underlying it all is an incalculable wild card come the November general election -- star power. It's not Angelides or Westly you see on late night TV whipping the bad guys. |
| www.dianelenning.com Links Biographical Highlights Occupation: Educator/Author/Businessowner MA-Secondary Education/History. Author: "Call of the American Dream" online at Amazon or Barnes and Noble Businessowner: Family Accounting, Investing, & Consulting Business since 1979 US Senatorial Medal of Freedom Award, 2004 political activism/lobbying, local, state, and national levels; VE, CERT, Citizens Corps, HB, Learning for Life, OC, Ham Radio Prior Chair Republican Educators Caucus-National Education Association. Delegate Local/State/National Representative Assembly, CTA,/NEA. Top Priorities if Elected Fiscal Responsibility through budget shortfalls: restructuring Course Offerings Improving Test Scores and Academic Achievement through scientifically supported instructional methods and strategies. Maintain and support a high level of Academic, Vocational, and Self-Improvement Curriculum for the community in collaboration with staff members. |
| www.dianelenning.com/issues.html English language and academic acquisition through English Immersion 4 Student Empowerment through passing the HS Exit Exam (HSEE) providing academic success, and successful job-entry into business 5 Academic/curriculum alignment with state and national standards We will expand on these themes in the coming weeks. We also will address other relevant current issues regarding education, particularly important bills that will come before the state legislature that directly impact the area of education. |
| csua.org/u/g3v -> www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98968,00.html Where To File Estate and Gift Taxes If you give someone money or property during your life, you may be subject to federal gift tax. The money and property you own when you die (your estate) may be subject to federal estate tax. The purpose of this web page is to give you a general understanding of when these taxes apply and when they do not. It explains how much money or property you can give away during your lifetime or leave to your heirs at your death before any tax will be owed. News and Events: Posted 6-5-06: For Estate Tax returns after 12/31/1976, Line 4 of Form 706 lists the cumulative amount of adjusted taxable gifts within the meaning of IRC section 2503. The computation of gift tax payable (Line 7 of Form 706) uses the IRC section 2001 rate schedule in effect as of the date of the decedent's death, rather than the actual amount of gift taxes paid with respect to the gifts. With the top bracket tax rates decreasing from 55% (in 2001) down to 45% (in 2007) and an annual drop in rates in-between, Estate Tax Attorneys have encountered situations where gift taxes paid were greater than the tax calculated using the rate in effect at the date of death. It appears that some Form 706 software used by practitioners require a manual input of the gift tax payable line. Some preparers are reporting gift taxes actually paid rather than calculating the gift tax payable under date of death rates. Cases with this issue will involve estates where large gifts were made during life and at a time when tax rates were higher than at date of death. The annual exclusion for gifts is raised to $12,000 beginning in 2006 The applicable exclusion amount is increased to $2,000,000 for estates and remains at $1,000,000 for gifts Federal Transfer Certificates (International) Estate and Gift has received many questions about Federal Transfer Certificates (regarding international issues). For instructions about obtaining transfer certificates, contact: IRS Estate Tax Group 1114 International Programs SBSE; For questions about transfer certificates or about the estate and gift taxation of nonresidents of the United States, use (202) 874-1660. For all other estate and gift taxation questions, use (800) 829-1040. The annual exclusion for gifts made in 2004 and 2005 will remain at $11,000. Form 706 for dates of death occurring in 2005 is now available. The instructions (which include rate schedules) may be found at the "Forms and Publications" link, below. There are few significant changes to Form 706 from the 2002 version. The one change that will impact all filers is the reduction in the allowable State Death Tax Credit to 50% of the amount computed under IRC S:2011. Note: The credit is repealed for decedents dying in 2005 and later years. NOTE regarding Extensions of Time to File/Pay US Estate Tax (Form 4768, Forms and Publications link, below). Some errors are being made regarding completion and filing of this form. Be sure to file the second page and to fill in the decedent's name and social security number. It may not be clear, but this means that returns should not be filed until January 1 through the due date of the year following the year in which the gift is made. In other words, any gifts made in 2004 will not be due (and cannot be processed) until after December 31, 2004. Individuals who make certain qualifying gifts are required to file Form 709, United States Gift Tax Return. The 2003 version and instructions are now available at the "Forms and Publications" link, below. Form 709-A, United States Short Form Gift Tax Return, is now obsolete and should not be filed. Form 709, United States Gift (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return. In other news: Form 709 has been modified for the 2004 filing season (for gifts made in 2003). Click "Forms and Publications" below for the new form and instructions (which includes the rate schedule). If you are filing a request for an extension of time to file an estate or gift tax return, remember that the request must go to the Cincinnati Service Center (see the address, below), even if you file your income or other tax returns elsewhere. SBA (Small Business Administration) Estate and Gift Taxes Introduction No Tax Owed Most gifts are not subject to the gift tax and most estates are not subject to the estate tax. For example, there is usually no tax if you make a gift to your spouse or a qualified charity or if your estate goes to your spouse or qualified charity at your death. If you make a gift to someone else, the gift tax does not apply until the value of the gifts you give that person is more than the annual exclusion for the year. No Return Needed Generally, you do not need to file a gift tax return unless you give someone, other than your spouse, money or property worth more than the annual exclusion ($11,000 in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005; Although a return may be required, no actual gift tax will become payable until the cumulative lifetime taxable gifts exceed the applicable exclusion amount. The donor is primarily responsible for the payment of the Gift Tax. An estate tax return generally will not be needed unless the estate is worth more than the applicable exclusion amount ($1,000,000 for 2002) for the year of death. To reemphasize: Most relatively simple estates (cash, publicly traded securities, small amounts of other, easily valued assets and no special deductions or elections or jointly held property) with a total value under $1,000,000 and a date of death in 2002 or 2003 and $1,500,000 and a date of death in 2004 or 2005 do not require the filing of an estate tax return. No Tax on the Person Receiving your Gift or Estate The person who receives your gift or your estate generally will not have to pay any gift tax or estate tax because of it. In addition, that person will not have to pay income tax on the value of the gift or inheritance received. NOTE: There are some technical applications for "Income in Respect of Decedent" under S:691 that will have to be considered for income earned but not otherwise taxed prior to the date of death. No Income Tax Deduction Making a gift or leaving your estate to your heirs does not ordinarily affect your federal income tax. You cannot deduct the value of gifts you make (other than gifts that are deductible charitable contributions). Unified Credit A credit is an amount that eliminates or reduces tax. The unified credit applies to both the gift tax and the estate tax. You must subtract the unified credit from any gift tax that you owe. Any unified credit you use against your gift tax in one year reduces the amount of credit that you can use against your gift tax in a later year. The total amount used against your gift tax reduces the credit available to use against your estate tax. In 2001, the unified credit was $220,550, which eliminated taxes on a total of $675,000 (applicable exclusion amount) of taxable gifts and taxable estate. These amounts were increased for gifts made, and for estates of decedents dying, after 2001. The following shows the unified credit and the applicable exclusion amount for the calendar year in which a gift is made or a decedent dies. For Gift Tax Purposes in years 2002 and 2003 the Unified Credit is $345,800, the Applicable Exclusion Amount is $1,000,000. For Estate Tax Purposes in years 2002 and 2003 the Unified Credit is $345,800 and the Applicable Exclusion Amount is $1,000,000. For Gift Tax Purposes in years 2004 and 2005 the Unified Credit is $345,800, the Applicable Exclusion Amount is $1,000,000. For Estate Tax Purposes in years 2004 and 2005 the Unified Credit is $555,800 and the Applicable Exclusion Amount is $1,500,000. For Gift Tax Purposes in years 2006, 2007 and 2008 the Unified Credit is $345,800, the Applicable Exclusion Amount is $1,000,000. For Estate Tax Purposes in years 2006, 2007 and 2008 the Unified Credit is $780,800 and the Applicable Exclusion Amount is $2,000,000. For Gift Tax Purposes in year 2009 the Unified Credit is $345,800, the Applicable Exclusion Amount is $1,000,000. For Estate Tax Purposes in year 2009 the Unified Credit is $1,455,800 and the Applicable Exclusion Amount is $3,500,000. Estate ... |