Deals expected on Indiana inheritance tax, tax refund

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Legislature's budget leaders have drawn close to agreements on plans for phasing out the state's inheritance tax and changing the automatic taxpayer refund championed by Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels so that it could only be triggered every other year.

The inheritance tax proposal would more than double the current exemption levels and then completely phase out over 10 years the tax that now brings in about $165 million a year.

The House and Senate are both considering plans to slightly raise the amount of money the state would need to have leftover in the bank to result in a tax refund.

The plan approved last year by legislators set that level at 10 percent of the state's planned spending. Half of the money above that threshold would go to taxpayers and the other half would be used to pay down teacher pension obligations, which threaten to cost the state more than $1 billion annually in the future.

The Daniels administration is projecting a surplus when the state budget year ends June 30 that would lead to perhaps a $50 per taxpayer credit to 2013 tax returns.

State Budget Director Adam Horst said the Daniels administration wants to keep the refund plan unchanged for this budget year but is open to changes in future years.

Legislators must agree to final versions of the proposals by the end of next week, when House and Senate leaders expect to adjourn this year's session. Budget leaders, however, have agreed to delay any changes until after the first possible round of refunds is determined this summer.

The legislative proposals eliminate the possibility of a refund every year in favor of it triggering only at the end of the state's two-year budget cycle. The House-backed plan would raise the required surplus to 12 percent, while the Senate version raises it to 14 percent.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, pointed out the $3 billion in budget adjustments Daniels made during the recession to balance the state budget would have amounted to a reserve of 22 percent.

The Senate proposal also would have $100 million in state reserves directed to pension fund obligations before any refunds are calculated, with the House plan would direct $200 million toward the refund before sending any additional money toward the pension fund.

"It's just hard for me to get over the idea that if you have a debt, you have to pay that before you declare a dividend for yourself," Kenley said.

Horst said the Daniels administration, however, believes enough money is already being dedicated to the future pension obligations.

Daniels advocated the refund plan, saying if the state's tax collections grow faster than expected it was better to give the money to taxpayers than have the state government spend it.

That plan has largely been embraced by the Republicans who control the House and Senate, but Democrats remain skeptical.

"I just don't think it's wise public policy," said Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend. "Even though the General Assembly is now involved in putting together some type of formula, I just think those issues should be addressed in the budgetary year."

The proposal for eliminating the inheritance tax starts by raising the exemption levels this summer.

The state now exempts inheritances of less than $100,000 to children and grandchildren and has a top rate of 10 percent for portions of estates topping $1.5 million. More distant family members and non-relatives face higher rates. Spouses pay no state inheritance taxes.

The new exemption level for close relatives would be $250,000, with a $25,000 exemption for others. The plan starts phasing out the tax on estates for those who die after July 1, with the tax being eliminated in 2022.

Estimates are that the state would lose about $60 million in revenue the first year and then an additional $10 million each year during the phase out. Horst said he believed the projected growth in state tax collections would cover the loss of the inheritance tax, which now accounts for about 1 percent of state revenue.


  • It is about time.
    When my mom was diagnosed with skin cancer a few years back she raised her life insurance, she beat it-thank God. Although she raised the payout, while I thought it might be a problem, I worried about how much of the inheritance I would actually get. I would have to pay for her burial and headstone, I would have to pay off her house... Although my brother and I would get the same amount, he is a minor and would go to live with his dad and I would be left with the bills. I have never agreed with having an inheritance tax, the money has already been taxed and there is no reason to tax it again. It was just the government's way of making free money. I think that it's about time that it was addressed.
  • It's not just for the rich
    The idea that this is only a benefit for the rich shows an astounding lack of knowledge.

    First, as PJ points out, the money has already been taxed once.

    Second, the rich are aware of the tax and can (and do) make monetary gifts to their kids over the course of years to minmize both gift tax and inheritance tax. Or they create trusts for their kids -- same result.

    Third, the current tax applies equally to everyone that inherits -- not just the wealthy. For example, I know a woman who is as poor as a churchmouse and always has been. Her mother, who had been a good saver all of her life, passed away, leaving her daughter with a sizable inheritance, upon which the tax was levied. The amount of the tax depends upon the size of the inheritance, not the personal wealth of the recipient.

    The reason the Left loves the class warfare schpiel is because they know many will buy into it emotionally without bothering to research the facts. A well-reasoned argument should be supported by knowledge.
  • Inheritance
    This law is most definitely needed for the inheritance tax situation. I am by no means wealthy and in fact will for sure have to pay any final expenses when my parents pass away, but the money which had previously been earned and previously taxed should not be taxed again upon someone's death. As for the Tax Refund, keep it and adjust the budgets accordingly! Why cut spending if there is a surplus. We as citizens have already paid the money in, use it wisely.
  • inheritance
    it sounds like some lawmakers, must be getting close to getting an inheritance. try passing something, we all can benefit from.
  • Don't create surplus by cutting out services to children, education or the needy
    Since the reduction in estate tax would be tied to surpluses, this may not objectionable unless the surplus is the result of cutting funds to education, childrens' services or the needy. Indiana's so-called budget "surplus" is the result of cutting funding for such services, as opposed to quality fiscal management.
  • Remarkable
    Nepotism at it's finest. I wouldn't be apt to call this out if it weren't for the fact that the same politicians removed the tax-exemption for employer education reimbursement. The federal government doesn't charge tax on tuition reimbursement, but our wonderful Republican leaders opted out. Apparently, helping individuals who help themselves is lower on the priority list than ensuring rich kids have an adequate grip on their predecessor's coat tails.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.