Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

applicable exclusion amount

Read a random definition: quorum call

A quick definition of applicable exclusion amount:

The applicable exclusion amount is the amount of gifts and estate transfers that are exempt from an individual's gift and estate taxes. This means that a person can give or transfer up to a certain amount without having to pay taxes on it. The amount changes over time and can be used on one gift, split between gifts and estate transfers, or used entirely on estates. There are also exceptions for gifts to charity or education expenses, as well as spousal exceptions. However, Congress has debated reducing this amount, so it may change in the future. Examples of the applicable exclusion amount in practice include giving gifts to children or spouses without incurring taxes, or using both a person's and their spouse's exclusion amount to transfer assets to their children tax-free.

A more thorough explanation:

The applicable exclusion amount, also known as unified credit, is the total amount of gifts and estate transfers that are exempted from an individual's gift and estate taxes. This exclusion can be used on one gift, partially on gifts and partially on estate transfers, or entirely on estates. It is a contested area of tax law that changes frequently and creates a significant exception to the approximately 40% Federal estate tax.

Every U.S. citizen has an applicable exclusion amount for all gifts made inter vivos or estate transfers at death. Some gifts do not count towards the amount, such as to charity or paying someone's education expenses. There are also spousal exceptions that allow free transfers to the spouses without counting against the individual's lifetime exclusion amount, and a spouse can transfer what exclusion amount is not used in their lifetime to their spouse upon testacy.

The amount has ranged from less than $1,000,000 in 2000 to over $11,000,000 in 2018. In 2011, Congress set the amount at $5,000,000 with increases every year to adjust for inflation, and this method lasted for a few years until the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 added $5,000,000 to the 2011 amount until 2026. After adjusting for inflation, the cap was set at $11,180,000 for the year 2018, and the cap is set to increase every year for inflation until reverting back to the prior $5,000,000 cap plus inflation. However, Congress has already debated multiple times reducing this cap since 2017, and if history serves, Congress will likely change the exclusion amount before it reverts back in 2026 to the 2011 system.

John gives his three children as a gift $4,000,000 each during his lifetime, and John has $10,000,000 pass to his children through his estate. If the applicable exclusion amount was $12,000,000, the lifetime gifts of $4,000,000 would not be subject to estate tax because they would not go over the $12,000,000 exclusion amount. However, all of John's exclusion amount would be used up on the lifetime gifts, and the $10,000,000 estate would face estate taxes of around $4,000,000. This example illustrates how the applicable exclusion amount can be used on lifetime gifts and estate transfers.

Sammy gives her daughter $20,000,000 upon graduating law school, and later, Sammy gives her daughter $10,000,000 more upon getting married. If the applicable exclusion amount is $12,000,000, Sammy would face gift taxes on $8,000,000 of the first gift and all of the second, resulting in about $8,000,000 in gift taxes. This example illustrates how the applicable exclusion amount can be exceeded, resulting in gift taxes.

Rachel and Ross are married, but Ross dies leaving $15,000,000 to Rachel without using any of his exclusion amount during his life. If the exclusion amount is $12,000,000, Rachel could use both her and Ross's exclusion amount to transfer $24,000,000 to their son without amassing any estate tax. This example illustrates how the spousal exception can be used to transfer more assets without incurring estate tax.

appellee | appointees

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.