For reasons of tax policy, we oppose the New Hampshire estate tax proposed in House Bill 691.
If adopted, the proposed statute would impose an 8 percent tax on all estates over $2 million passing to anyone other than a spouse. But the adoption of an estate tax will not provide a net benefit to the state.
The proposed tax will affect only the very wealthy who live here or who have property here. These individuals usually can choose where they live, and they can decide whether they want to maintain expensive properties in New Hampshire.
Many of the affluent clients we advise have homes in Florida or other warm-weather states (including California, Arizona and South Carolina) that have no estate tax. Our clients with homes in Florida often ask whether they should be New Hampshire residents or Florida residents. When the estate tax is a neutral issue (meaning neither state has such a tax), New Hampshire and Florida are more or less equal. Not surprisingly, our clients with New Hampshire connections tend to remain New Hampshire residents or to retain residential property here because they are not concerned that it will be exposed to taxation when they die.
The other New England states all have an estate tax. Many people choose New Hampshire as their state of residence rather than one of our neighboring states (notably Massachusetts) because of the absence of an estate tax. Often, these are retirees who would not otherwise be here. Accordingly, we are concerned that if we adopt the proposed estate tax, New Hampshire will lose its favorable position as a place that does not penalize its wealthy property owners
when they die. This could cause people who can conveniently do so to move their state of residence to Florida or elsewhere - or cause others not to move to New Hampshire in the first place.
If this should happen, we would lose the New Hampshire interest and dividends tax revenue these individuals would pay if they were New Hampshire residents, as well as other benefits we could derive from their contributions to the economic life of the state.
The National Bureau of Economic Research has conducted a study on how changes in state tax policy affect the residences of wealthy elderly people. The study concluded that high state inheritance and estate taxes have statistically significant negative impacts on the number of federal estate tax returns filed in a state. This is consistent with the notion that elderly people change their state of residence to avoid high state taxes. The results suggested that migration of wealthy individuals in response to a state estate or inheritance tax would cause revenue losses in the state.
New Hampshire has worked hard in recent years to make this state a desirable place to remain after retirement and to attract other retirees. For example, we have done away with the rule against perpetuities (allowing trusts to last indefinitely, if you choose); revised our trust laws to make them the most modem and flexible in the nation; and liberalized the probate process.
An estate tax will undermine those efforts and send the unwanted message that New Hampshire is not fully committed to being the premiere destination in the country for trust and other wealth-related businesses. In addition, the loss of the interest and dividends tax will not be insignificant. New Hampshire also will suffer other losses, since wealthy people will spend less time and money here.
The fiscal note to HB 691 reported that the revenue gain would be in the range of $5 million in the first year and $10 million in the second year. However, it fails to address the decline in revenue from the losses of interest and dividends tax and other benefits to New Hampshire's economy that result from the in-state activities and expenditures of those who choose New Hampshire as their state of residence.
Those wealthy individuals will seek estate planning and income tax advice from attorneys and accountants, who will be obligated to advise that there are more favorable jurisdictions than New Hampshire in which to live and die. (next page »)
HUDSON, N.H. (AP) -- Police in New Hampshire say they…
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Environment New Hampshire is releasing…
AMHERST, Mass. (AP) -- The University of Massachusetts…
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- The summer heat is letting up…
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Undecided New Hampshire voters…
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Police in New Hampshire's largest…
Comments
HB 691 Short Sighted
By Anonymous - 03/30/2009 - 12:41 pmThese authors make a very good point at the short-sightedness of proposed tax policy of HB 691. As the authors so accurately point out, retirees with assets in excess of $2 million are closely watching this legislation as it will impact their decision as to whether or not to continue to maintain residency in NH. Since these are retirees, they likely have interest and dividends on which they now support themselves and are paying NH tax at the rate of 5%. And because they are on a fixed income, they are watching everything that impacts that income, especially taxes.
Retired folks with assets in that range likely have another residence in a warmer climate as well. Residency is determined to be the state in which you spend six months and one day and register your car and vote. If NH state of residency becomes a tax liability it is so easy to simply change state of residence by spending one more day in the tax favorable state. So not only does NH not get the 8% death tax they are seeking, but NH also loses the 5% Interest and Dividends tax.
Those folks that worked on the fiscal note of this bill only did half their homework. Not only will NH not collect the money that is suggested, but this HB 691 will be a net TAX LOSS for the state of NH when these retirees change their state or residency and then also escape the 5% Interest and Dividends Tax.
Whatever are Reps. McEachern, Shattuck and Skinder thinking? Why would they want to push our state into further budget crisis with this proposal?
to vote
No sympathy from here
By Anonymous - 03/29/2009 - 1:02 pmWhen I hear of these retired people who may not keep their NH residence because of the "inheritance tax," I can't help but think of the retired people here who can no longer afford their homes because of the high property tax. If someone chooses to sell their residence because of an 8% tax on their belongings after they die, let them go. I know if I inherited $2 million, I would be more than glad to pay 8% tax on it. Anyone who wouldn't be, shame on you.
to vote
Tax free New Hampshire?
By Damkeeper - 03/29/2009 - 10:39 amWe might not have a general income tax or sales tax but the State manages to beat us to death with taxes and fees on everything else.
'Live Free or Die'? Even when you're dead, the State will get a share of what you owned.
Disgusting.
to vote
This is "rich"!
By Hunter Dan - 03/29/2009 - 8:15 amThree wealthy lawyers telling New Hampshire not to raise taxes on wealthy folks . . . what next . . . going to alternative fuels is bad for New Hampshire because they don't make a Hummer limo that runs on alternative fules?!?!
to vote