Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:11:52.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Estate Tax Provision of the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act: Which Farmers Benefit?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

J. Lowenberg-DeBoer
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University Department of Economics, Iowa State University
Michael D. Boehlje
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Iowa State University

Abstract

This analysis used simulation to compare the cost of intergenerational transfer of farm estates under the pre-1981 tax rules and the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) provisions. ERTA reduces transfer costs for almost all the estates considered. Large estates tend to benefit more than small estates if they qualify for use valuation or if they are large enough to be affected by the reduction in tax rates. ERTA does not create new forces for change in U.S. agriculture, but it tends to strengthen the tendency toward larger farm size and favor those who already own farm resources.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boehlje, Michael. “An Analysis of the Implications of Selected Income and Estate Tax Provisions on the Structure of Agriculture.” CARD Rep. 105, The Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University; Ames, IA; 1981.Google Scholar
Boehlje, Michael and Harl, Neil E.. “Use Valuation Under the 1976 Tax Reform Act: Problems and Implications.” Proceedings of Symposium on Farm Estate Issues Raised by the Tax Reform Act of 1976, U.S. Department of Agriculture, ESCS-73; November 1979; pages 631.Google Scholar
Boehlje, Michael, Harl, Neil E., and Reinders, David, “Computer Assisted Estate and Business Planning,” Law-Econ. 163, Economics Department, Iowa State University; Ames, Iowa; July, 1980.Google Scholar
Hady, Thomas F.The Impact of Estate and Inheritance Taxes on the Farm Enterprise.Agr. Finance Rev., 24 (June, 1963):2633.Google Scholar
Harl, Neil E.Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981: Review and Analysis.Agr. Law J. (Winter, 1982):705762.Google Scholar
Harl, Neil E.Agricultural Law. New York: Matthew Bender, 1983.Google Scholar
Johnson, Sandra. “The Impact of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 on the Inter-generational Transfer of Farm Estates.” Masters Thesis, Iowa State University, 1982.Google Scholar
Matthews, Stephen and Stock, Randall. “Estate Tax Shelter for Farmland Owners: Implications for Farmland Control.” Proceedings of Symposium on Farm Estate Issues Raised by the Tax Reform Act of 1976, U.S. Department of Agriculture, ESCS-73; November, 1979; pages 5768.Google Scholar
Sisson, Charles A.The Tax System and the Structure of American Agriculture, Part III—Estate and Gift Taxes and the Taxation of Foreign Investment.Tax Notes, 9 (October 1, 1979):419426.Google Scholar
Sisson, Charles A.Tax Burdens in American Agriculture: An Intersectoral Comparison. Ames, Iowa; Iowa State University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Uchtmann, D. L., Kaneen, C., and Guither, H. D.. “Inheritance and Gift Taxation of Agricultural Property: A Euro-American Comparison.South Dakota Law Rev., 24 (Summer, 1979):649680.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. “Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.: PL 97-34, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector, State Income and Balance Sheet Statistics, 1980.USDA, Economic Research Service, Bulletin 678, 1980.Google Scholar
Woods, W. Fred. “Increasing Impact of Federal Estate and Gift Taxes on the Farm Sector.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv., AER-242; July, 1973.Google Scholar