The 1% Lifestyle: Greedy Clintons Use Trusts to Limit Estate Tax They Back

Posted by on Jun 17, 2014 at 7:59 am

Massive taxes for thee, but not for me. Really hard to believe the greedy Clintons are total hypocrites, huh?

Bill and Hillary Clinton have long supported an estate tax to prevent the U.S. from being dominated by inherited wealth. That doesn’t mean they want to pay it.

To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth. These moves, common among multimillionaires, will help shield some of their estate from the tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death.

The Clintons created residence trusts in 2010 and shifted ownership of their New York house into them in 2011, according to federal financial disclosures and local property records.

Among the tax advantages of such trusts is that any appreciation in the house’s value can happen outside their taxable estate. The move could save the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes, said David Scott Sloan, a partner at Holland & Knight LLP in Boston.

“The goal is really be thoughtful and try to build up the nontaxable estate, and that’s really what this is,” Sloan said. “You’re creating things that are going to be on the nontaxable side of the balance sheet when they die.”

The Clintons’ finances are receiving attention as Hillary Clinton tours the country promoting her book, “Hard Choices.” She said in an interview on ABC television that the couple was “dead broke” and in debt when they left the White House in early 2001. After being criticized for her comments, she told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that she understood the financial struggles of Americans.

Sure she does.

2 Responses to “The 1% Lifestyle: Greedy Clintons Use Trusts to Limit Estate Tax They Back”

  1. Tuerqas on 17/17/14 at 9:32 am

    No really, she does. That whole accountant business is what you hire an accountant for, right? If he is worried about something then the Clintons have ‘troubles’. isn’t that how it works for everyone?

  2. theBuckWheat on 18/18/14 at 8:30 am

    Through the tax code, we allowed tax-exempt foundations to have eternal life, and to have an unaccountable voice to advocate for policies they favor. Foundations do not have shareholders who can vote for a new Board of Directors, they do not have customers who can boycott to force a change in direction or attitude. What they do have is a self -sustaining, self-appointing Board. Further, if a foundation is sufficiently endowed, if it earns more in investment income than it is required to give away each years (only 5%), then the foundation has eternal life.

    The solution is to make foundations mortal again. Raise the 5% payout to 7 1/2%. Foundations will then eventually spend themselves out of business. We will benefit from the increased tax revenue that generates. We benefit as a nation. The founding fathers never envisioned unaccountable voices in the public square, let alone ones exempt from all taxation.

    With this boost, existing foundations would push 50% more money out into their recipient base each year. The downside is that leftist causes would get more funding, for a short period. The upside is that soon those foundations would have spent-out their assets and would be out of business. The other upside is that tax-exempt foundations hold an estimated 4% of the GDP in their portfolios and forcing this money out of investments and into the economy would create jobs and tax revenues for government at all levels.