Federal Tan Tax Burns Some Badly but Keeps Everybody in the Dark

From the Wall Street Journal:

When Jeanne Chamberlain turns up at work Thursday, she's going to have to grapple with America's first federal tax on tanning services, a 10% levy designed to help pay for Congress's health-care overhaul.

Ms. Chamberlain runs a video-rental store.

These would normally be unrelated facts, but 20 years ago, Ms. Chamberlain followed a number of her peers in adding tanning services to smooth out the bumps in her Rice Lake, Wis., business. Today, she wants to offer one free tan for every three rentals. Should that freebie be taxed? Ms. Chamberlain doesn't know, and even if she did, she doesn't yet have the software in place to help with the calculations.

It's a universal truth in Washington: There's no such thing as a simple tax. Free tans at video-rental stores might be taxable, but tanning services offered by health clubs mostly aren't, thanks to a late exemption. Ultraviolet tans are taxed. Spray tans aren't. Tanning salons are fretting over how to calculate unlimited memberships that combine taxed and non-taxed tans. Customers, meanwhile, have been racing to cram in tanning sessions to avoid the levy.

"It's just total confusion," said Ted Engen, president of Video Buyers Group in Coon Rapids, Minn., who has encouraged numerous video chains to add tanning services. "How come gyms got to be exempt?...Why don't we have that for the video side?"

When they completed their health bill last year, Senate Democrats searched high and low for new taxes to pay for the legislation. One idea, a tax on cosmetic surgery dubbed the “Botax,” was scotched by lobbying by the American Medical Association. Instead, lawmakers turned to the indoor tanning industry.

How To Protect Your Family From Estate Tax Uncertainty

From Forbes.com:

An Illinois woman inherited just about $100 million this year. Estate taxes could consume 53%, 45%, 16% or none of it, depending on whether the federal and/or Illinois estate taxes--which both lapsed on Jan. 1, 2010--are reinstated retroactively. "It's wacky to have so many scenarios and not know what the tax is," complains Richard A. Lang, a Chicago partner of McDermott, Will & Emery representing the estate.

You're not crying for the heiress or her lawyer? Then consider another Lang client, a widow trying to divide her late husband's modest estate with the children from his first marriage without incurring ill feelings or big lawyers' bills. The husband's will was tied to the defunct federal estate tax. Now, by one legal reading the widow gets everything outright. By another, all the assets go into a trust that ultimately goes to the children, with the widow having access to the trust's earnings (and, if need be, principal) while she's alive. "This is going to be worked out," Lang vows.

Lots of families are living in similar estate limbo. Under the crazy terms of the 2001 Bush tax cuts, the federal estate tax expired on Jan. 1, 2010 and then springs back to life on Jan. 1, 2011, with only $1 million in assets exempt from a stiff 55% levy on all assets not left to a spouse or charity. Meanwhile, a long-standing provision, which "steps up" the basis of someone's assets to their market value at his or her death (allowing them to be sold immediately with no capital gains taxes due), has also lapsed for 2010.

President Obama and most Democrats want to restore the estate tax retroactively to its 2009 state--meaning $3.5 million per estate would be exempt, the tax rate would be 45% and all assets would get a step-up in basis. Republicans want a higher exemption and lower rate. When and how this gridlock will end is anyone's guess. After all, rational folks (including most estate planners) had assumed Congress would cut a deal before the tax expired. Complicating matters: Any retroactive tax is likely to face an epic court fight from rich heirs, perhaps including those of Texas pipeline tycoon Dan L. Duncan, who died in March with (we estimate) $9.8 billion.

Continue reading at Forbes.com…