_________________ 

The Federal Gift Tax: 

History, Law, and Economics 

by 

David Joulfaian 

US Department of the Treasury 

Office of Tax Analysis 

 Washington, DC 20220 

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

US Department of the Treasury 

OTA Papers is an occasional series of reports on the research, models, and datasets 

developed to inform and improve Treasury’s tax policy analysis. The papers are works in 

progress and subject to revision. Views and opinions expressed are those of the authors 

and do not necessarily represent official Treasury positions or policy. OTA Papers are 

directed to the authors. 

and suggestions for revision and improvement. Comments are welcome and should be 

distributed in order to document OTA analytic methods and data and invite discussion 

The paper benefited from comments by Robert Carroll, Donald Kiefer, and Michael 

Udell. The invaluable research assistance of Margaret Rolley is gratefully acknowledged. 

Comments and corrections are welcome to david.joulfaian@do.treas.gov. 

OTA Paper 100 November 2007
_________________ 

The Federal Gift Tax: 

History, Law, and Economics 

by 

David Joulfaian 

US Department of the Treasury 

OTA Paper 100 November 2007

OTA Papers is an occasional series of reports on the research, models, and datasets 

developed to inform and improve Treasury’s tax policy analysis. The papers are works in 

progress and subject to revision. Views and opinions expressed are those of the authors 

and do not necessarily represent official Treasury positions or policy. OTA Papers are 

distributed in order to document OTA analytic methods and data and invite discussion 

and suggestions for revision and improvement. Comments are welcome and should be 

directed to the authors. 

Office of Tax Analysis 

US Department of the Treasury 

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

 Washington, DC 20220 

The paper benefited from comments by Robert Carroll, Donald Kiefer, and Michael 

Udell. The invaluable research assistance of Margaret Rolley is gratefully acknowledged. 

Comments and corrections are welcome to david.joulfaian@do.treas.gov. 
Abstract 

The gift tax was first enacted in 1924, repealed in 1926, overhauled and reintroduced in 

1932. At its peak in fiscal year 1999, it raised $4.6 billion in revenues, before the recent 

phased-in tax rate reductions ushered by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 

Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) took effect. It is noteworthy that the gift tax was 

first enacted as a protective measure to minimize estate and income tax avoidance, and 

not for its direct revenue yield. Similarly, EGTRRA, while phasing out the estate tax, 

retained the gift tax for the very same reasons. 

Unlike the estate tax which faces an uncertain future, the gift tax is little affected by 

recent legislative proposals and will remain part of the tax code for the foreseeable future. 

Nevertheless, the gift tax has been the subject of little scrutiny and studies of its 

economic implications are rare. This paper is an attempt to fill this void. It traces the 

evolution of the gift tax since its inception, and sketches out the structure of the tax and 

its complex interactions with the income and estate taxes. 

The paper also provides an overview of the direct fiscal contribution of the gift tax, and 

traces the number of taxpayers over time as well as their attributes. It concludes with a 

discussion of the behavioral effects of the gift tax and a review of the scant literature. 

These include empirical evidence on the choice between gifts and bequests, timing of 

gifts, and compliance among others. 

ii 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 

II. History of the Federal Gift Tax............................................................................... 3 

III. Description of the Current Gift Tax........................................................................ 8 

1. The Tax Base .......................................................................................................... 8 

2. The Tax Rate Schedule ......................................................................................... 10 

3. Generation Skipping Transfers ............................................................................. 11 

4. Interaction with the Estate Tax ............................................................................. 11 

5. Interaction with the Income Tax........................................................................... 12 

6. Administration ...................................................................................................... 12 

7. A Mathematical Presentation................................................................................ 13 

IV. Fiscal Contribution................................................................................................ 17 

1. Revenue yield........................................................................................................ 17 

2. Administration Cost.............................................................................................. 19 

V. The Tax Payers ..................................................................................................... 20 

1. Number of Taxpayers ........................................................................................... 20 

2. Frequency of Making Gifts................................................................................... 21 

3. Gifts Reported on Gift Tax Returns...................................................................... 22 

4. Gifts Reported on Estate Tax Returns .................................................................. 24 

VI. Behavioral Effects................................................................................................. 25 

1. The Choice between Gifts and Bequests .............................................................. 25 

2. Timing of Gifts ..................................................................................................... 26 

3. Compliance ........................................................................................................... 30 

4. Other ..................................................................................................................... 32 

a. Transfers to Recipients Facing Lower Tax Rates............................................. 33 

b. Charitable Contributions................................................................................... 34 

c. Interstate Competition for the Wealthy............................................................. 34 

VII. Conclusion................................................................................................................. 35 

References......................................................................................................................... 37 

iii 
TABLES 

Table 1 Changes in Estate and Gift Tax Rates.......................................................... 39 

Table 2 Evolution of the Gift Tax Rate Schedule (%).............................................. 40 

Table 3 Hiistotical Features of The Gift Tax ............................................................ 41 

Table 4 Historical Features of the Generation Skipping Transfer Tax..................... 42 

Table 5 Temporary Provisions of the Estate and Gift Tax: 2002-2010.................... 43 

Table 6 Gift and Estate Tax Revenues: Fiscal Years 1933-2006 ............................. 44 

Table 7 Tax Administration Cost.............................................................................. 45 

Table 8 Number of Gift Tax Returns Filed: Fiscal Years 1933-2005 ...................... 46 

Table 9 Gift Tax Returns Filed by State in Select Fiscal Years ............................... 47 

Table 10 Gifts Reported on Gift Tax Returns Filed in Fiscal Year 2005 ................... 48 

Table 11 Gifts Reported on Estate Tax Returns of Decedents in 1998 ...................... 49 

Table 12 Determinants of Lifetime Gifts: Choosing Between Gifts and Bequests .... 50 

Table 13 Determinants of Lifetime Transfers (1933-1998)........................................ 51 

Table 14 Estimates of Gift Giving Behavior .............................................................. 52 

Table 15 Gifts Reported in Survey Data and on Tax Returns .................................... 53 

FIGURES 

Figure 1. Gift Tax Receipts: Fiscal Years 1925-2005.................................................. 54 

Figure 2. Relative Frequency of Giving by Year 

(What fraction of the wealthy make gifts every year?)................................ 55 

Figure 3. Relative Frequency of Lifetime Gifts 

(How often the wealthy make gifts?)........................................................... 56 

iv 
 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The gift tax is likely to remain a permanent feature of the federal tax code in sharp 

contrast to the estate tax which faces an uncertain future. Indeed, legislation enacted in 

2001, specifically the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 

(EGTRRA), and more recent proposals have called for the repeal or dramatic scale back 

of the estate tax, while leaving much of the gift tax unaffected. 

The gift tax was first enacted in 1924, repealed in 1926, overhauled and reintroduced in 

1932. It raised $1.9 billion in tax revenues in fiscal year 2006, down from a peak of $4.6 

billion in revenues it raised in fiscal year 1999, before the recent phased-in tax rate 

reductions. It is noteworthy that the gift tax was not enacted for its direct revenue yield. 

Rather it was introduced as a protective measure to minimize estate and income tax 

avoidance.1

 Similarly, EGTRRA, while phasing out the estate tax, retained the gift tax 

for the very same reason. 

During the congressional deliberations in 1932 leading to the enactment of the gift tax, 

one individual is reported to have made about $100 million in gifts; another to have made 

gifts of about $50 million (Roosevelt, 1938: 313-14). Considering that the entire yield of 

the estate tax in 1932 was $400 million, the tax-free inter-vivos transfers of $150 million 

by these two individuals alone, not to mention likely gifts by scores of others, are 

1

 The stated purpose of the proposed introduction of the gift tax in the House Committee report was “To 

assist in the collection of the income and estate taxes and prevent their avoidance through the splitting of 

estates during the lifetime of a taxpayer.” See House of Representatives (1932, pp. 8). 
 

indicative of the potency of the gift tax.2 Yet, to date, the gift tax has been the subject of 

little scrutiny and studies of its economic implications are rare. 

The purpose of this paper is to fill the void in the literature, and shed light on the inner 

workings of the gift tax and its behavioral implications. More specifically, it traces the 

evolution of the gift tax, describes its structure, and explores some of its economic 

consequences. Section II traces developments in the federal gift tax since its inception. 

Section III describes the current structure of the gif tax, focusing on the tax base and rate 

schedule, as well as how the tax is administered. It also explains how the gift tax 

interacts with estate and income taxes, and concludes with a mathematical presentation of 

the various complex features of the tax. 

Section IV examines the fiscal contribution of the gift tax, and in particular the revenue 

collected by the federal government. Section V focuses on the taxpayers, i.e., the donors, 

and provides information on their attributes. Section VI explores the behavioral effects of 

the gift tax, and summarizes the empirical findings in the literature. 

A concluding comment is provided in Section VII which address the failures of the gift 

tax in meetings its objectives. A number of valuation practices undermine the efficacy of 

the gift tax. In addition, and despite its role as a protective tax, there is little 

harmonization between the gift tax, the estate tax, and the income tax. 

2

 Equally impressive is the acceleration in gifts that took place in 1934, 1935, and 1976 prior to the 

introduction of higher gift tax rates. 

2
II. HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL GIFT TAX 

A number of taxes were increased in 1932 to bolster the Depression era finances of the 

Treasury. On June 6, 1932, the maximum estate tax rate was increased from 20 to 45 

percent. As part of the same enabling legislation, the current gift tax was introduced to 

shore up revenues by preempting estate and income tax avoidance. The tax evolved 

during the next seven decades, as illustrated in Table 1. 

At the time of its introduction, the tax rate schedule was set at 75 percent of the rates 

prevailing under the estate tax. As noted in Harriss (1940, p. 147), the gift tax rate was 

deliberately set below that of the estate tax so as to create incentives for the wealthy to 

accelerate their transfers as well as the ensuing tax liability to the cash starved Treasury. 

The benefit to the wealthy from such acceleration is that paying the gift tax would be 

equivalent to pre-paying the estate tax, but at a significant discount. The more immediate 

benefit is that gifts likely to have been made in the future are now made during a regime 

of lower tax rates. 

The gift tax was enacted in 1932 with a tax rate schedule that ranged from 0.75 to 33.75 

percent (see Table 2). The tax provided an annual exclusion of $5,000 per recipient. This 

was coupled with an additional exemption of $50,000 applied to cumulated lifetime 

taxable gifts, as reported in Table 3. In other words, transfers in a given year are taxable 

if they exceed the annual exclusion and when cumulative lifetime taxable gifts exceed 

$50,000. 

3
On May 11, 1934, the maximum estate tax rate was increased to 60 percent, and the gift 

tax rate to 45 percent. The legislated gift tax increase, however, was made effective on 

January 1, 1935, some seven months after the enactment date. On August 31, 1935, estate 

and gift tax rates were raised to 70 and 52.50 percent, respectively. The lifetime gift tax 

exemption was reduced to $40,000. Once again, the change in the gift tax was made 

effective the beginning of the following year for a delay of four months. 

On June 25, 1940, a surtax of 10 percent on estate and gift taxes was introduced. This had 

the effect of increasing the maximum gift tax rate from 52.50 to 57.75 percent. These 

increases were temporary in nature and set to expire at the end of 1945. Unlike earlier 

legislation, the enacted increases went into effect almost immediately. Legislation 

enacted in September 1941 further raised rates except in the case of transfers in excess of 

$50 million, with maximum estate and gift tax rates set at 77 and 57.75 percent, 

respectively. It also reduced the annual exclusion to $3,000 and the lifetime exemption to 

$30,000. Not surprisingly, gift tax increases once again did not take effect until the 

beginning of the following calendar year. 

The Revenue Act of 1948 introduced the marital deduction for spousal transfers, and 

limited it to 50 percent of lifetime gifts. Prior to this Act, spousal transfers were fully 

taxable. But under this Act, transfers of community property continued to be denied a 

marital deduction. The stated purpose of this change was to harmonize the treatment with 

community property states where the spouse shared in the value of the community 

property. 

4
 

The Revenue Act of 1950 made gifts taking place within 3 years of death, up from two, 

subject to estate tax if they are made “in contemplation of death.” Furthermore, and in 

1975, Section 527 was added to the Internal Revenue Code (P.L. 93-635) to clarify the 

tax treatment of gifts to political organizations. This Act exempted from the gift tax gifts 

to political organizations made after May 7, 1974.3

 Otherwise, and with the exception of 

the introduction of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, much of the gift tax remained 

unchanged through 1976. 

Since its inception, the gift tax operated independently of the estate tax. While gifts made 

within two years (later three) from the date of death were included in the gross estate for 

estate tax purposes when deemed to have been made in “contemplation of death,” for all 

practical purposes estate and gift taxes operated as two separate taxes. All of that changed 

with the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (TRA76). The estate and gift tax rate 

schedules were unified with a maximum tax rate of 70 percent effective for transfers as of 

January 1, 1977. The statutory estate tax rate was thus reduced from 77 percent and 

applied to cumulative gifts and bequests, while it was raised from 57.75 percent in the 

case of gifts. Consistent with the earlier pattern, tax rate changes took effect some 3 

months after the enactment date of October 4, 1976. TRA76 also replaced the $30,000 

exemption with a tax credit of $30,000, scheduled to increase to $47,000, which applied 

to the cumulative gifts and bequests for the years 1977 through 1981. This Unified Tax 

Credit was equivalent to an exemption that increased in steps from $120,667 to 175,625. 

3

 It is not clear whether the IRS would have enforced the taxation of such transfers. 

5
 

 

 

TRA76 also required gifts made within 3 years of death, to be included in gross estate at 

death regardless of whether the gifts were made “in contemplation of death.”4 

TRA76 expanded the marital deduction. The deduction exempted the first $100,000 in 

spousal gifts, but kept it at 50 percent of lifetime transfers in excess of $200,000. With 

congressional concerns over tax avoidance schemes in the form of generation skipping 

trusts, TRA76 also introduced the Generation Skipping Transfer Tax (GSTT). The GSTT 

applied to transfers from trusts to beneficiaries, after an exemption of $250,000 per 

deemed donor, but did not apply to direct transfers from donors (e.g. grandparents). 

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA81) introduced the unlimited marital 

deduction5 It also reduced the maximum tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent phased in 

over a four-year period beginning in 1982. These changes, enacted on August 31, 1981, 

set the maximum rate at 65 percent in 1982, 60 percent in 1983, 55 percent in 1984, and 

50 percent in later years. ERTA81 also increased the effective exemption in steps to 

$600,000 by 1987. Legislation enacted in 1984, however, froze the scheduled rate 

reduction at 55 percent for a period of three years. The rate was again frozen at 55 

percent in 1987 for another five years6

, and set to 55 percent permanently in 1993. 

4

 This change has the effect of raising the estate tax rate on gift donors. Through 1976, gifts were added to 

the estate but only if they were made in contemplation of death. This created significant opportunities for 

donors to make gifts prior to estate tax increases, as it was invariably difficult to prove motive. Beginning 

in 1977, as the two taxes were unified, all gifts made within three years of the date of death are added back 

to the estate. 

5

 Recall that no marital deduction was allowed for community property before 1982. See Section 2523(f) 

prior to repeal by P.L. 97-34. 

6

 The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA87) also phased out the benefits of graduated 

rates for transfers between $10,000,000 and $21,800,000, introducing a “bubble” with a marginal tax rate 

6
 

ERTA81 also exempted the payments of tuition and medical expenses from gift taxation. 

It also expended the annual exclusion from $3,000 to $10,000. In addition, gifts made 

within 3 years of death, became no longer included in the gross estate. Instead, gift taxes 

paid on these gifts and gifts of life insurance were added to the gross estate for purposes 

of computing the estate tax liability. 

The Tax Reform Act of 1984 (TRA84) required the treatment of certain below-market 

rate loans as taxable gifts. Beginning with the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86), the 

GSTT applied regardless of whether the transfer is made directly by the donor to a 

grandchild, or through a trust as provided for in TRA76. Consequently, when transfers 

skip a generation as in the case of a grandchild, the underlying assets become subject to 

the GSTT in addition to the gift tax. The GSTT was imposed retroactively to transfers 

made after of September 25, 1985. This change was coupled with a temporary exemption 

of $2 million per donee for transfers over the period October 23, 1986 through 1989. The 

features of the GSTT are summarized in Table 4. 

The Tax Relief Act of 1997 (TRA97) expanded the annual gift tax exclusion of $10,000 

and the $1,000,000 GSTT exemption by indexing them for inflation. It also expanded the 

unified credit in steps so as to exempt $1,000,000 in lifetime transfers by 2006. In 

addition, TRA97 introduced a three year statute of limitations from the date a gift tax 

return is filed. 

of 60 percent (a surtax of 5 percent). Taxable gifts and estates in excess of $10 million faced a flat tax rate 

of 55 percent. 

7 
 

EGTRRA in 2001 introduced more dramatic, albeit temporary, changes. The maximum 

tax rate was gradually reduced to 35 percent in 2010, the “bubble” rate of 60 percent, or 5 

percent surtax, was repealed effective in 2002. The lifetime exemption was increased to 

$1,000,000 in 2002. In addition, the GSTT is repealed in 2010. In 2011, however, the tax 

treatment of gifts reverts to the pre-EGTRRA law, as amended by TRA97. Table 5 

provides a summary of these temporary features of transfer taxes. 

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT GIFT TAX 

The gift tax is computed annually by applying the tax rate schedule to gifts, over some 

threshold, cumulated over life. At death, cumulated taxable gifts are added to the taxable 

estate to derive the estate tax liability. The donor is generally responsible for paying the 

gift tax. Under special arrangements, however, the donee or recipient may agree to pay 

the tax instead. 

1. The Tax Base 

The gift tax applies to lifetime transfers of cash, stocks, bonds, real estate, and 

businesses, among other assets. Real estate, regardless where it is located in the world, is 

included in taxable gifts. Similarly, indirect gifts, such as cancellation of indebtedness, 

are subject to the gift tax.7

 Assets transferred are generally valued at their market value at 

the date of the gift (or appraised value in the absence of a publicly tradable market). 

7

 Section 2511 

8
 

 

By virtue of the unlimited marital deduction, gifts to a spouse are excluded in computing 

taxable gifts.8 Also excluded are amounts donated to charitable organizations and federal, 

state and local governments.9

 Gifts to political organizations are also not subject to tax.10 

Direct payments of medical expenses or tuition of a student are also excluded.11 In 

addition, the tax Code provides for an annual exclusion of $10,000, or $20,000 in split 

gifts by husband and wife per donee, indexed for inflation beginning in 1998.12 

All transfers in excess of the annual exclusion, less the various deductions and 

exemption, form the taxable gifts in a given year. Cumulative lifetime taxable gifts are 

added to the current year taxable gifts in determining the gift tax liability. The latter is 

offset by a unified tax credit of up to $345,800 which effectively exempts the first 

$1,000,000 in cumulative transfers from tax (2011 law). 

Special rules apply to foreigners or nonresident aliens. If the spouse is a non US citizen, 

for instance, annual spousal transfers in excess of $100,000, indexed for inflation using 

1997 as a base, are subject to tax.13 Also, a gift of US property by nonresident aliens is 

8

 Section 2523(a) 

9

 Section 2522 

10 Section 2501(a)(5) as defined in Section 527(e)(1) 

11 Section 2503(e) 

12 Sections 2503(b)(1) and 2503(b)(2). The exclusion is indexed for inflation using CPI-U for the year 

prior to the transfer, relative to CPI-U for 1997, rounded down to the nearest $1,000. The exclusion is 

$12,000 for 2007. 

13 Section 2523(i)(2). The exemption is $125,000 in 2007. 

9
 

taxable but do not benefit from the $1,000,000 exemption, i.e. the unified credit.14 

However gifts of intangibles such as stocks and bonds may be exempt.15 

2. The Tax Rate Schedule 

The tax rate schedule ranges from 18 percent on the first $10,000 to 55 percent for the 

excess over $3,000,000 of taxable gifts (and estates). The tax rate schedule applicable in 

2011 is shown in the last column of Table 2, which applies to cumulative lifetime taxable 

gifts. By virtue of the unified credit which exempts the first $1 million in 2011, the 

lowest applicable tax rate is 41 percent; the infra marginal tax rate is zero.16 

A unique feature of the gift tax is that it applies on a tax exclusive basis. In other words, 

the gift tax is based on the amount received by the donee or beneficiary and not the total 

amount, including tax, relinquished by the donor. To illustrate the implications of this, 

consider the hypothetical example where an individual facing a gift tax rate of 0.50 

wishing to transfer $300 in wealth. He transfers $200 to his children in gifts and pays half 

of it or $100 in gift tax, for total transfers of $300. While the statutory rate is 0.50, the 

effective tax rate is only 0.33, or 100/300. In contrast, the tax liability would be $150 

under the estate tax, or 50 percent of 300. 

14 Section 2505(a) 

15 Section 2501(a)(2) 

10
 

 

 

 

3. Generation Skipping Transfers 

When transfers, either testamentary (at death) or inter-vivos during life, skip a generation, 

as in the case of a grandchild, the underlying assets become subject to the GSTT. This tax 

applies in addition to the gift tax. Transfers are taxed at the maximum estate tax rate17, 

after an exemption of $1,000,000, indexed for inflation beginning in 1998.18 

4. Interaction with the Estate Tax 

As noted earlier, and beginning in 1977, the gift tax shares a common rate schedule with 

the estate tax. Cumulative lifetime taxable gifts in excess of the allowable exemption are 

added to the taxable estate in computing the estate tax. To avoid double taxation, 

however, a credit is provided for previously paid gift taxes. Also, the unified credit is 

used up to reduce the gift tax is no longer available to offset the estate tax. 

In addition, and beginning in 1982, the gift tax paid within three years of the date death is 

included in the gross estate and is subject to the estate tax.19 In other words, donors lose 

much of the benefit of the tax exclusive nature of the gift tax when transfers are made 

close to the date of death. 

16 This unified credit and the benefit of graduated rates are phased out by applying a rate of five percent 

surtax on transfers between $10,000,000 and $24,100,000. In other words, the marginal tax rate is 60 

percent in this “bubble” range. 

17 Section 2602. 

18 Section 2631(a). 

19 Section 2035(b). 

11
 

5. Interaction with the Income Tax 

Capital gains taxation provides another critical difference in the treatment of gifts and 

bequests. Capital gains accrued by the donor are carried over to the recipient in the case 

of gifts, but stepped up at death in case of bequests. Thus, donees may become subject to 

capital gains taxes after the sale of assets received as gifts. To avoid double taxation and 

subject accrued gains to both gift and income taxes, basis is stepped up for gift taxes paid. 

However, basis is increased only by the gift tax pro-rated to accrued gains.20 

6. Administration 

A. Filing Requirements 

Donors making gifts in excess of the annual exclusion of $10,000, indexed for inflation, 

are required to file Form 709, the Federal Gift Tax Return. This requirement is in force 

even though the gift tax does not apply until the unified credit is exhausted. In addition to 

gifts made in the current calendar year, taxpayers are also required to report cumulative 

gifts made in the past. 

Beginning in 1982, cumulative taxable gifts and gift taxes paid are reported on the 

Federal estate tax return, Form 706, to aid in the determination of the estate tax liability. 

Taxable gifts are added to the taxable estate, and a tentative estate tax liability is 

computed. This is reduced by a credit for previously paid gift taxes. In addition, the gift 

tax paid on gifts made within three years of the date of death are reported on Schedule G, 

20 In other words, and assuming accrued gains share β and gift tax rate τ, taxable gains are β(1-τ)≥0. Prior 

to 1977, basis was increased by the full amount of the gift tax, but not to exceed the selling price, with 

taxable gains of (β-τ)≥0. 

12
 

 

and are included in the gross estate reported on Form 706, the estate tax return. Similarly, 

transfers of life insurance made within three years are also included in Schedule G.21 

B. Due Dates 

The gift tax on transfers made in a given year is due on April 15 of the following calendar 

year. The gift tax return is also due on the same date, but can be extended for 6 months 

by filing Form 8892. Those filing an extension to file income tax returns may instead 

complete Form 4868 or 2350.

C. Statute of Limitations 

Taxable gifts are typically added to the taxable estate in determining the estate tax 

liability. Estates are required to attach to the estate tax return schedules documenting all 

prior year gifts. Having all the combined documents available for their review, IRS 

examiners often waited for the filing of the estate tax return to audit the gift tax returns 

filed during life. All of that was changed with the enactment of TRA97 which introduced 

a three year statute of limitations for gift tax returns filed. 

7. A Mathematical Presentation 

A. The Gift Tax 

A unique feature of the gift tax is that it applies on a tax exclusive basis. In other words, 

for a donor with wealth W facing a statutory gift tax rate θg, the effective gift tax rate is: 

21 Note that the bulk of amounts reported on Schedule G of the estate tax returns are revocable trust assets 

and do not reflect lifetime transfers. These assets, while subject to the estate tax, by-pass probate. 

13
 

τ

(1) g 

1 +τ g 

resulting in a gift tax liability of: 

τ g

(2) Tax G = W

1 + τ g 

and tax price of: 

(3) PG = 1+ θg. 

i.e., at a tax rate of 0.55, a donor will give up $1.55 for every $1 received by the 

beneficiary. 

When the underlying asset is stock, real estate, or some other appreciable property, then 

the tax implications of gifts become more complicated. Capital gains taxes may apply to 

gains accrued by the donor, as well as to gains accumulated by the recipient before the 

underlying asset is disposed of n years after receiving the gift when the donor passes 

away. Defining ∃ as the donor’s share of accrued gains in the asset, then the tax on gifts 

becomes: 

n ⎛ τ c βτ g τ c β (1 −τ g ) τ [(1 + π ) −1] ρτ eτ g ⎞ ⎜τ g + + + c + ⎟ n n n ⎜ 1 −τ β (1 + δ ) (1 + δ ) (1 + δ ) ⎟ (4) TAX G = ⎜ c ⎟W

τ βτ ⎜ c g ⎟ 1 +τ g + ⎜ ⎟ 1 −τ c β ⎝ ⎠

where τc is the capital gains tax rate, τe the estate tax rate, π is the asset appreciation rate, 

δ is the donor’s discount rate, and ρ the probability of dying within three years from the 

date gifts were made. The first term reflects the gift tax paid by the donor. The second 

14
 

 

term reflects capital gains taxes that the donor may have to pay if assets are liquidated to 

pay the gift tax. The third term reflects capital gains taxes expected to be paid by the 

beneficiary on gains accrued by the donor. Such gains, however, are reduced by gift 

taxes to avoid double taxation. The fourth term reflects capital gains taxes on gains 

accrued by the donee or recipient, where gifts received have appreciated at the rate π. The 

fifth term accounts for additional estate taxes on gifts made within three years of the date 

of death. If the donor dies within 3 years, the gift tax itself becomes taxable under the 

estate tax; gifts lose much of the benefit of getting taxed on a tax exclusive basis.22 In its 

simplest form, the tax in equation (4) represents the sum of present taxes and the present 

value of future taxes. 

The gift tax price becomes: 

⎛ τ βτ g ⎞ c n

⎜

⎜1+τ g + ⎟

⎟(1+ δ ) 1−τ β ⎝ c ⎠ (5) PG = n n (1+ π ) −τ β(1−τ )−τ [(1+ π ) −1]− ρτ τ c g c e g 

Setting τc=0 and β=0 in (5), modifies (1) to reflect the probability of subjecting the gift 

tax to the estate tax. 

B. The Estate Tax 

In contrast, with estate tax rate τe the estate tax liability is: 

22 See Joulfaian (2005, 2000) for an expanded discussion of the derivation. This equation can be further 

complicated by introducing borrowing and transferring cash as a way to avoid capital gains taxes (Auten 

and Joulfaian, 2001), or endogenizing portfolio allocation between cash or equivalent and appreciable 

assets. One may ignore all future taxes if bequests are not an alternative consideration. 

15
 

 

n τ e (1 + π ) W TAX = (6) E (1+ δ )

n 

where wealth W appreciates at the rate π until the death of the donor in period n, with the 

tax liability discounted to the present at the rate δ. 

The price of bequests is: 

−1 n (1 −τ e ) (1+ δ ) = (7) PB (1+ π )

n 

or simply 

= (8) PB 

1 

1 −τ e 

when π = δ where the underlying asset appreciates at the individuals discount rate. 23 At a 

tax rate of 0.55, the tax price is 2.22. The parent will have to save $2.22 for every dollar 

in inheritances received by the children. 

C. Generation Skipping Transfers 

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 introduced a generation skipping transfer tax on direct 

transfers that skip more than one generation. This has the effect of raising the effective 

gift and estate tax rates on direct transfers to grandchildren to: 

τ τ g g

(9) +

1 + τ (1 + τ )2 

g g 

and 

16
 

(10) τ +τ e (1 −τ e ) e 

respectively. The second term reflects the additional gift and estate taxes levied on 

generation skipping transfers. 

IV. FISCAL CONTRIBUTION 

1. Revenue yield 

In fiscal year 1934, its first full year in effect, gift tax receipts were $9 million. In fiscal 

year 2006, the most recent year, gift tax receipts were $1.9 billion. Gift tax revenues grew 

rapidly in the late 1980s and the 1990s, before the slow down experienced in recent 

years. Trends in receipts since the inception of the tax are summarized in Table 6 and 

Figure 1. 

In fiscal year 1977, which reflects calendar year 1976 transfers, gift tax receipts soared to 

$2 billion, about five times the receipts in the previous year, an all time high in real 

terms. At the time, gift taxes accounted for 24 percent of the combined yield of estate and 

gift tax revenues, well above its historic trend.24 This surge in receipts reflects the 

acceleration in gifts made in anticipation of the higher gift tax rates in 1977 brought 

about by TRA76. This surge may have resulted in lower gift tax receipts in the late 1970s 

when perhaps these transfers would have taken place absent the changes made by 

TRA76. 

23 Note that this equality will not hold for those with wealth in the graduated tax rate schedule range, as the 

tax rate increases with (nominal) wealth appreciation. 

24 Note that, prior to 1977, gift tax rates were set at 75 percent of the prevailing estate tax rates. Adjusted 

for the tax rate differential, the gift tax share stood at 30 percent. 

17 
 

 

This is not the first time that top wealth holders accelerated inter-vivos transfers. In 

1935, estate tax rates were increased mid-year, while corresponding gift tax increases 

were delayed to the end of the calendar year. The maximum estate tax rate, for instance, 

was increased from 60 to 70 percent on August 31, 1935. The same legislation, however, 

increased the maximum gift tax rate from 45 to 52.5 percent (75 percent of the applicable 

estate tax rate), effective January 1, 1936, four months later. In both fiscal years 1935 

and 1936, gift tax receipts stood well above the trend. A similar pattern is also observed 

in fiscal year 1942, as gift tax rate increases lagged behind estate tax rate increases.25 

The strong growth in gift tax receipts in the late 1980s may reflect the deferral of gifts in 

the early 1980s as tax rates were scheduled to decline gradually from 70 percent down to 

50 percent in 1985. The surge in revenues in fiscal year 1990 (calendar year 1989 gifts) 

may also reflect the expiration of the $2 million GSTT exemption per donee at the end of 

calendar year 1989; transfers accelerated to take advantage of the exemption are fully 

taxable under the gift tax but avoid the additional GSTT tax. The overall increase in gift 

taxes may also be explained by the acceleration of spousal bequests in the early 1980s 

brought about by the introduction of the unlimited marital deduction.26 The reduction in 

gifts in recent years may reflect deferrals of transfers induced by the phased-in reduction 

25 The surge in revenues in fiscal year 1973 (calendar year 1972) maybe explained by the acceleration in 

gifts attributed to the changes in filing requirements introduced by the Excise, Estate, and Gift Adjustment 

Act of 1970. 

26 A tax minimizing strategy may require a parent to bequeath his non-cash wealth to his surviving spouse, 

who in turn gifts the stepped up assets to her children, rather then gift them directly. See Joulfaian (2000, 

2005). In addition, by increasing spousal bequests in the 1early 1980s, donors may have arranged for future 

gifts by the surviving spouse when tax rates were lower. 

18
in estate and gift tax rates under EGTRRA, reminiscent of the experience of the early 

1980’s. 

2. Administration Cost 

Little is known about the direct cost of administering the gift tax. Obviously the 

government incurs some costs in administering the gift tax, including processing of tax 

returns and enforcement, which reduces the net intake from the tax. In fiscal year 2005, 

the entire budget of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was about $10 billion. The IRS 

processed about 175 million tax returns, of which only 263,000 were gift tax returns 

(Table 7). 

The gift tax also accounts for a tiny fraction of audited tax returns. In fiscal 2005, the IRS 

examined 1.3 million tax returns, of which only 2,125 were gift tax returns. The latter 

resulted in assessments of $671 million in additional taxes, or $315,700 per examined 

return. Of course the cost of these audits is at least in part offset by their yield and overall 

contribution to collected revenues. The number of gift tax returns examined has remained 

steady over the past decade as gleaned from Table 7. 

Whether measured as a fraction of all returns filed, or as a fraction of the returns 

examined, the gift tax seems to account for a fraction well under one percent of the 

overall number of processed returns. Consequently, it may also account for less than one 

percent of the IRS budget. Given the interaction with the estate tax, the cost of 

administering the estate tax may also need to be considered. However, only 74,172 estate 

19
 

 

tax returns were filed in FY 2005, of which only 6,081 were examined. Again, the 

combined cost is likely to be a small fraction of the $10 billion budget, and the $28.5 

billion in estate and gift tax revenues collected in fiscal year 2006 ($24.5 in FY 2005).27 

V. THE TAXPAYERS 

1. Number of Taxpayers 

Gift tax returns are required to be filed when the amount transferred, other than that for 

tuition and medical expenses, exceeds the annual exclusion. Thus, an individual making 

a gift of $10,000 (indexed) to his son, or a couple making $20,000 (indexed) in split gifts 

to each of their three children, may not file tax returns. Consequently, the majority of 

Americans are not subjected to the gift tax or its filing requirements. 

In fiscal year 2005, the latest year for which data is available, some 277,000 gift tax 

returns were filed.28 The number of tax returns filed grew steadily from fiscal year 1933 

through 2005, as shown in Table 8. The number of returns filed peaked at 386,802 in 

fiscal year 1977, in anticipation of the legislated tax increases to take effect on January 1, 

1977. With the anticipated tax rate reductions along with the expansion of the annual 

exclusion from $3,000 to $10,000 by ERTA81, the number of returns declined 

significantly in the early 1980’s. With economic and population growth, the number 

27 In fiscal year 2005, 94,269 FTE’s were employed by the IRS (2005 Data book), of which 20211 were 

engaged in enforcement (http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/11-06_enforcement_stats.pdf). 

28 These include amended returns. 

20
 

increased over time. The indexing provision of TRA97 and the temporary features of 

EGTRRA have kept this growth in check in recent years.29 

The national trend in filing of federal gift tax returns is mirrored at the state level, most 

likely reflecting each jurisdiction’s particular tax treatment of gifts and demographics. 

Table 9 provides a geographical breakdown of the federal gift tax returns filed over four 

decades. The residents of the states of California, Florida, New York, and Texas filed the 

greatest number of returns and accounted for 40 percent of the taxpayers. The fastest 

growth in the 1990s took place in California, Washington, Texas, Alaska, and New 

Jersey. 

2. Frequency of Making Gifts 

While Table 8 reports the number of donors over time, an interesting question is whether 

these are the same donors making repeated gifts. To address this question one needs 

information on all the lifetime gifts made by the wealth holders. Fortunately, such 

information is typically reported on estate tax returns, which require the reporting of all 

taxable gifts made during life. Joulfaian and McGarry (2004) employ a sample of such 

returns for decedents in 1992 together with information on gifts made over several 

decades. 

In 1992, the applicable estate tax filing threshold was $600,000 in gross assets. The tax 

filing requirement for inter-vivos gifts varied over time. In the early years, the threshold 

29 The surge, or acceleration, in returns filed in fiscal year 1973 may have been brought about by the 

21
 

was $4000-$5000. For the years 1943-1981 the threshold was just $3000, and in 1982 it 

increased to $10,000 as was reported in Section II. Of the sample of 2830 observations 

studied by Joulfaian and McGarry in which the wealthy are over represented, only 866 

estates reported making gifts in excess of the annual exclusion. 

Figure 2 reports the relative frequency of giving by donors in the sample in each year 

from 1936 through 1992. Among those who did, i.e. the 866 estates, the vast majority 

made gifts towards the very end of life. The fraction of the sample giving rises steadily 

and peaks at around 35 percent in 1990-1991 when the average age would have been 

approximately 77. In other words, the probability of making gifts rises with age; the old 

are more likely to make gifts than the young. 

Turning to the question of how many times or how often the wealthy make gifts during 

their lifetime, Figure 3 reports the distribution of the frequency with which taxable gifts 

(in excess of $3,000/$10,000) are made. The vast majority of the sample of those who 

made a taxable inter-vivos gifts, did so in only one year: 28 percent made gifts only once, 

15 percent twice (two years), and just 13 percent three times during life. 

3. Gifts Reported on Gift Tax Returns 

In fiscal year 2005, and as reported in Table 10, some 261,000 gift tax returns were 

filed.30 A total of $23 billion in “taxable” gifts were reported to have been made, i.e. gifts 

change in filing requirements introduced by Excise, Estate, and Gift Adjustment Act of 1970. 

30 This is smaller than the figure of 276,570 returns reported in Table 8 because it excludes amended and 

duplicate returns. 

22 
 

 

in excess of deductions and exemptions. Most of these transfers took place in calendar 

year 2004. About 94,000 reported zero taxable gifts, while only 7,000 filers reported a 

positive gift tax liability. A total of $1.6 billion in gift taxes were paid by the latter, for an 

average of $550,000. About 121,000 taxpayers reported making gifts in prior years 

totaling $66.6 billion. Of the 16 donors reporting gifts in excess of $20 million in 2005, 

for instance, 15 also reported making gifts in prior years. 

Some 35,000 returns reported valuation discounts, and accounted for about a quarter of 

the gifts. These discounts were claimed by donors of all sizes, including 14,373 who 

reported zero taxable gifts. However, large donors seem more likely to claim such 

discounts.31 

One remarkable aspect of the figures reported in Table 10 is the sheer number of returns 

filed with gifts below the annual exclusion. About 37,000 returns with split gifts reported 

gross transfers below $22,000. Of these 7,341 returns reported positive taxable gifts. 

Other donors, 10297 exactly, reported gifts below $11,000. About 10 percent of these, or 

1402 returns, reported positive taxable gifts.32 Little of the filing of these returns may be 

attributable to taxpayer errors given that many had previously filed such returns. This 

may also potentially be the byproduct of the interplay between aggressive estate planning 

and the three year gift tax statute of limitations. It may also be explained by gifts of future 

31 Recall that TRA97 introduced the three year statute of limitations which runs if a gift was adequately 

disclosed on a gift tax return. 

32 For the few returns reporting gifts made prior to 2002, an exclusion of $10,000/$20,000 is employed in 

these calculations. Note that gifts of future interests in property may not benefit from the annual exclusion. 

23
 

interest which do not benefit from the annual exclusion. Clearly, and given the sheer 

number of returns filed, this is an area that warrants further study. 

4. Gifts Reported on Estate Tax Returns 

Another question of interest is how wealthy are the donors. Table 11 provides summary 

statistics on the pattern of inter vivos gifts as gleaned from estate tax returns. These 

returns are for decedents in 1998 with tax returns filed over the years 1998 through 2000. 

Because the unified nature of estate and gift taxes, and as eluded to earlier, gifts made 

during life (adjusted taxable gifts) are reported on the estate tax return and added to the 

taxable estate in determining the estate tax liability.33 

From a universe of 105,218 estates, only 12,242 or 11.6 percent reported making lifetime 

taxable gifts. Of the smallest estates, those with estates under $1 million, only 6 percent 

reported making gifts at any point during life. In contrast, 76 percent for those with 

estates in excess of $20 million reported making such transfers. 

Overall, lifetime gifts represent a small fraction of the gross estate. The average fraction 

transferred is 2.8 percent for all estates. This ranges from a low of 1.3 percent for estates 

under $1 million to a high of 3.4 percent for estates in excess of $20 million. Very little is 

transferred during life.34 

33 Only the gift tax and value of life insurance for transfers made within three years of the date of death are 

reported on schedule G, and form part of the gross estate. On these returns, about $53.5 billion was 

reported on Schedule G by 36,576 estates. Only $386 million was reported as gift tax on 1,011 estates. 

34 It is very likely that lifetime gifts of a particular class of assets are heavily discounted giving rise to the 

illusion of less generosity. 

24
VI. BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS 

The gift tax, like other taxes, may influence behavior. It may influence the choice 

between gifts and bequests, as well as affect the timing of gifts, as gift tax rates change 

over time. Gift taxes may also have compliance implications, interstate mobility, among 

others.35 

1. The Choice between Gifts and Bequests 

As we have seen in Section III, there is considerable divergence in the tax treatment of 

gifts and bequests. This differential treatment may distort the allocation between the two 

modes of transfers. Depending on the wealth holders’ circumstances, and the tax regime 

in place, lifetime gifts might be the tax preferred mode of transfer. Of course in the 

absence of the gift tax, and in the presence of the estate tax and depending on the income 

tax regime in place, there will be a greater preference for gifts. 

Joulfaian (2000 and 2005) provides evidence on the effects of taxes on the timing of 

transfers. In these studies I explore how variations in gift tax rates, along with estate and 

capital gains tax rates, influence the choice of transfers. Using a sample of 2355 estate tax 

returns of parents who died in 1989, the lifetime share of gifts in total transfers, i.e. gifts 

plus bequests, is first computed. Next, a measure of the relative price of gifts is derived 

using equations (5) and (7) in Section III. Gift, estate, and capital gains tax rates are 

calculated for each individual depending on the size of wealth and state of residency. 

25
 

The findings show the relative frequency of gifts declines with the tax price of gifts 

(relative to the price of bequests). The importance of taxes is further explored using 

multivariate analysis. Results from such analyses are summarized in Table 12 which 

reports generalized (Heckman) and FIML (standard) Tobit estimates. These show that the 

share of transfers made during life declines with the gift price. The higher the tax on gifts, 

the greater is the share of bequests in transfers. The findings suggest that much of the 

gifts will no longer take place in the absence of the estate and gift taxes. 

2. Timing of Gifts 

A. Time series evidence 

In addition to the choice between gifts and bequests, the gift tax may also influence the 

timing of gifts. Donors, for instance, may time their gifts so as to maximize after tax 

transfers. Taking a casual look at Figure 1, one cannot help but notice the dramatic 

upsurge in gifts prior to tax increases taking effect. This pattern is repeated prior to 

virtually every announced increase in gift tax rates in the early 1930s and 1940s, and in 

1976. In 1976, for instance, the maximum gift tax rate was expected to increase from 

57.75 percent to 70 percent on January 1, 1977. Prior to the effective date, gifts surged 

and quadrupled. When compared to prior years, however, the pattern following rate 

reductions, such as those announced in 1981, is flat. But a clearer pattern emerges when 

gift tax receipts are compared to estate tax receipts. The share of the gift tax in the 

combined estate and gift tax receipts was one percent in 1981, the year prior to the tax 

35 A number of studies address the effect of estate taxation on gifts. See Bernheim et al. (2004), McGarry 

26 
 

cuts taking effect. This compares to 30 percent in calendar 1976, 27 percent in 1941, 51 

percent in 1935, and 41 percent in 1934 (Table 6).36 

While Figure 1 and Table 6 are quite revealing, they tells us little about the strength of 

the relationship between gifts and taxes. In other words, they don’t tell us by how much 

gifts would change for a given change in the tax treatment of gifts. Joulfaian (2004) 

employs multivariate analysis to further shed light on the magnitude and timing of the 

effects of gift taxation. Gift tax receipts (normalized) over the years 1933-1998 are 

regressed on current, lagged, and expected gift tax prices measured using a predicted gift 

tax rates. These tax prices are derived using equation (5) from Section III, but without the 

estate tax recapture. Control variables include (1) the Standard and Poor index, adjusted 

for inflation, and Real GDP to control for wealth growth and the underlying business 

cycle, (2) the real amount of the lifetime gift tax exemption to control for the segment of 

the population potentially subject to the gift tax as well as bracket creep resulting from 

the lack of indexing the exemption, and (3) and a dummy for 1989 when the GSTT 

temporary exemption was set to expire, after which generation skipping transfers became 

subject to an additional tax. 

Results from this multivariate analysis are reported in Table 13. Column (1) of Table 13 

provides estimates of the determinants of gift tax revenues for the years 1933 through 

1998. The estimated coefficient on the current gift tax price is –14.4, with standard error 

(2000), Page (2003), and Poterba (2001). 

36 Calendar or liability year data roughly translate into fiscal year data lagged by one year. Fiscal year 

1977, for instance, becomes 1976 calendar year. 

27 
 

of 2.9. The estimated coefficient on the lagged tax price is also negative, but not precisely 

measured. On the other hand, the estimated coefficient on the expected tax price is 

positive with a value of 13.2 (s.e. of 2.6). These estimates suggest that the gift tax price 

has a depressing effect on gift tax revenues, but that expected increases may boost gift tax 

revenues in the short run. The transitory elasticity with respect to the gift tax price is 

about -14.4 (s.e.=2.90), with a permanent elasticity, defined as the sum of the coefficients 

on the gift price, that is not precisely measured (-3.47 with s.e.=2.34). The estimated 

transitory elasticity, while large in absolute value, is in harmony with the pattern 

observed in Figure 1. The results also show that the expiration of the GSTT exemption 

may have accelerated transfers into 1989. These findings are robust to a number of 

specifications that consider the effects of the estate tax, or that employ alternative 

measures of the gift tax rates.37 

B. Evidence from a sample of estate tax returns 

Instead of focusing on aggregate time series data to explore the effects of the gift tax on 

the timing of gifts, Joulfaian and McGarry (2004) examine the life time gifts of a group 

of wealthy decedents. More specifically, they employ a sample of estate tax returns of 

decedents in 1992, and trace the gifts made during 56 years prior to the date of death. 

This is the very same data employed in generating Figures 2 and 3. 

37 The coefficient on the price of bequests is negatively and imprecisely measured in column (2). This 

becomes positive and significant in the absence of the expected gift tax price. However, the R is reduced 

from 0.47 to 0.3 in this specification. 

28
In this paper the authors examine how the gift tax influences the probability of making 

gifts, the amount of gifts made in every year of the sample, as well as how lifetime gifts 

are allocated over time. A summary of the findings is provided in Table 14, which control 

for the S&P index, and time/age. Column (1) explores the determinants of the probability 

of giving during life. The coefficient of the current tax price is -23.3 (se=3.6), suggesting 

fewer individuals would make gifts when tax rates are high. The coefficient on the 

expected future tax price is 17.8 (se=3.3), suggesting that more individuals would make 

gifts if they expected tax rates to rise. This finding points to a very strong transitory effect 

on making gifts, with a smaller albeit still strong permanent effect. 

Column (2) of Table 13 focuses on the amount of gifts reported annually, stated in natural 

logarithm. The estimated coefficient on the log of the current tax price is -8.4 (se=4.3), 

while that on the expected price is 8.5 (se=3.9). The gift tax has a large effect on giving 

in the short run, with an estimated elasticity of -8.4, but the permanent effect is close to 

zero. A similar conclusion is arrived at when the dependent variable is stated as the share 

of lifetime gifts made in a given year. The estimated coefficient on the current tax price is 

-27.7 (se=6.2), while that on the expected price is 30.2 (se=6.47). Gifts also are shown to 

surge in 1989, as also reported in Table 13, when the temporary GSTT exemption when 

set to expire. In addition to the tax effects, gifts are also shown to rise over time as donors 

get older. 

Overall, the findings in Joulfaian (2004) and Joulfaian and McGarry (2004) point to a 

very high transitory response to gift taxation, but with much weaker permanent response. 

29
 

3. Compliance 

The gift tax, like all taxes, is susceptible to leakages due to tax evasion and 

noncompliance. High gift tax rates may induce donors to understate the amount of gifts 

made. However, there is little direct evidence on the annual size of noncompliance with 

the gift tax. The most direct evidence on the magnitude of gift tax evasion can be gleaned 

from audited estate tax returns. Eller (2001, p. 123), for instance, examines cumulative 

lifetime gifts reported on audited estate tax returns filed in 1992. She reports that about 

$200 million, or roughly 20 percent, of gifts are underreported.38 

An alternative strategy is to employ survey data to gauge the size of gifts escaping gift 

taxation. Using such survey data, Feinstein (1999) concludes that “the IRS collected 

approximately one billion in gift taxes in 1992, but extrapolations from HRS and 

AHEAD data indicate that households most likely owed more than three billion in taxes.” 

Later, Feinstein and Ho (1999) revise these estimates by discounting transfers for tuition 

and medical expenses, and conclude that about one half, instead of two-thirds, is evaded. 

Table 15 replicates the distribution of total gifts reported in the HRS/AHEAD survey data 

employed by Feinstein and Ho. Using the HRS data for 1992/1993 yields a population 

estimate of 15 million individuals making total gifts of $45.8 billion. Of these, however, 

only 375,000 individuals made gifts in excess of $10,000 per recipient, for a total value 

of $6.5 billion. It is noteworthy that taxable gifts, i.e. those in excess of the annual 

30
 

 

$10,000 exclusion, are well below the $600,000 exempted by virtue of the unified credit. 

In other words, it is most likely that the entire population in the HRS/AHEAD data paid 

zero gift taxes and not the $2-3 billion reported earlier in Feinstein and Ho. 

In contrast to survey data, tax return data contain limited information on transfers as only 

those with transfers in excess of the annual exclusion are required to file. The data on gift 

tax returns filed for transfers made in 1993, reported in the right panel of Table 15, show 

a total of 208,307 tax returns with total gifts of $23.9 billion, or taxable gifts of $17 

billion made by just 138,000 individuals. Of the latter, about 5,800 reported gross gifts in 

excess of $600,000 each, for a total of roughly $4.5 billion in gifts subject to tax well 

above the zero amounts observed in the survey data. 

Table 15 makes it clear that survey data, and in particular the HRS/AHEAD data, fail to 

point to a significant noncompliance with the gift tax. Indeed, the findings in Feinstein 

and Ho may have resulted from overlooking the unified credit which exempted $600,000 

of lifetime gifts in 1992.39 

While there is limited evidence on the size of noncompliance with the gift tax, anecdotal 

evidence points to a serious tax avoidance problem particularly in the area of valuation 

discounts. Indeed, at times the line between noncompliance and tax avoidance is blurred. 

Assets transferred are supposed to reflect the market or the appraised value. Often, 

38 Using the same data, Eller et al (2001) explored how the marginal estate tax rate affects the reporting of 

the estate tax liability. 

31 
 

transfers of fractional interest in a property are valued at a discount. For instance, it is not 

uncommon to claim a minority discount in valuing gifts of closely held businesses among 

other assets.40 Amazing as it may sound, some claim a discount on cash transfers if these 

are rolled into a family limited partnership, and a minority interest is transferred. While 

little research is undertaken to explore the size and scope of such valuation practices, 

these undermine the gift as well as estate tax bases. 

In fiscal year 2005, and as noted earlier, an assessment of addition taxes of $671 million 

was levied on gift tax returns examined (see Table 7), for an average assessment of 

$316,000. The potential additional tax may very well be much larger as less than one 

percent of tax returns are audited. However, little can be said about how under reporting 

of gifts responds to changes in tax regimes. Undoubtedly, the interplay between the 

statute of limitations introduced in TRA97 and the low audit coverage of “exempt” gifts 

creates ample opportunities for noncompliance. 

4. Other 

In addition to the effects of the gift tax on the optimal mode and timing of transfers, the 

tax is also likely to have other economic consequences that are yet to be explored. It may, 

for instance, counteract the incentives for transfers created by the income tax, induce 

charitable contributions during life, and exacerbate interstate competition for the wealthy, 

among other effects. 

39 These survey data do not contain households with sufficient wealth to adequately address compliance 

patterns of the super rich. 

40 The average discount is about 30 percent of the “value” of the gift. See Eller (2004, pp. 59-60). 

32 
 

a. Transfers to Recipients Facing Lower Tax Rates 

Graduated income tax rates have long been thought to create incentives for the transfer of 

wealth from the well off to the less well off children or to multiple trusts created on their 

behalf.41 The return on the underlying assets would be taxed at a tax rate lower than that 

of the donor, for a significant saving in taxes. The gift tax, by offsetting the tax savings 

from income shifting, reduces income tax motivated transfers and “estate splitting” as the 

proponents of the introduction of the gift tax in 1932 had argued. 

Consider a parent wishing to transfer wealth W with return r, in the presence of income 

tax rate of τp and τc for wealthy parent and low income child (or trust on her behalf), 

respectively. Assuming away transfer taxes for now, if wealth is held and transferred at 

death, in period n, than the child receives W[1+r(1-τp)]n

. If the parent instead gifts W, 

than the child will have wealth of W[1+r(1-τc)]n in period n. As long as the child or trust 

income tax rate is lower than that of the parent, i.e., τc<τp, gifts will be preferred as 

W[1+r(1-τp)]n < W[1+r(1-τc)]n . In the presence of the gift tax, with a tax rate of τg, a 

lifetime transfer of W yields the child a much smaller wealth of 1/(1+τg)W[1+r(1-τc)]n .

42 

While the introduction of the gift tax may offset the incentives created by progressive 

income taxation, or capital income taxation in general, there is no empirical evidence to 

41 By creating multiple trusts, a transfer is split into smaller amounts yielding streams of little income to 

each trust so that each is taxed at the lower rates of graduated tax rate schedules. 

42 A graduate tax rate schedule complicates the computations, but should yield a similar qualitative 

outcome. While the gift tax may make income shifting less attractive, the estate tax may tip the balance in 

favor of gifts. 

33
date on the effects of the gift tax on such transfers. However, the compression of the tax 

rate schedule that applies to the income of trusts, introduced by TRA86 and modified in 

subsequent legislations, eliminates the income tax savings from lifetime gifts via trusts. 

Indeed, while the 35 percent maximum income tax rate applies to individuals with 

taxable income in excess of $336,550 in 2006 (single or married), it applies to taxable 

incomes of trusts in excess of only $10,050, thus eliminating much of the income tax 

incentives for estate splitting by creating a large number of trusts. 

b. Charitable Contributions 

The effects of deductibility of charitable contributions under the income tax are well 

documented and thoroughly analyzed (Randolph, 1995; Auten at al., 2002). The effects 

of the estate tax on these lifetime contributions have also been explored (Auten and 

Joulfaian, 1996; Joulfaian, 2001). The latter findings suggest that the estate tax has a 

positive, albeit small, effect on contributions. There are no studies to date that address the 

effects of the gift tax itself. One is tempted to borrow from the findings in literature on 

the estate tax (Joulfaian, 2000b). This might be a reasonable approach if one were to 

assume that the parent or donor is indifferent between the timing of gifts and bequests.43 

c. Interstate Competition for the Wealthy 

The federal estate tax structure is designed so as to minimize interstate competition for 

the wealthy. The federal estate tax credit for state death taxes was introduced in 1925 as a 

counter measure for the initiative by a number of states to abolish inheritance taxes in an 

34
 

 

attempt to attract the wealthy away from other states.44 With a rate schedule of up to 16 

percent of the taxable estate, the credit offsets much of the state inheritance tax liabilities 

of the very wealthy. In contrast, however, no such provision is available under the gift tax 

fully exposing differences is state tax rates.45 

Because gifts take place during life, there are likely to be greater opportunities to plan 

around the gift tax. Certainly the donor has greater control on the timing and disposition 

of gifts than bequests. The donor, for instance, may “temporarily” move to another state 

with lower or no gift taxes. However, there is no empirical evidence on the effects of the 

gift tax on the mobility of the wealthy. One may borrow form the literature on the effects 

of the estate tax with its mixed evidence,46 but then, once again, the overreaching 

assumption has to be made that the donor is indifferent between gifts and bequests. 

VII. CONCLUSION 

The gift tax has evolved since its inception in 1932. The tax base, the rate structure, and 

how the gift tax interacts with the income and estate taxes underwent a number of 

changes over the past seven decades. Yet its primary role as a measure to protect the 

estate and income tax bases from erosion remains its salient feature. The compression of 

43 This may not be fully consistent with the fact that the wealthy give so little of their wealth in the form of 

lifetime gifts (see Table 11). 

44 The tax credit reflected the federal government’s intention to have states adopt taxes “... equivalent to 

25% of the federal tax” (Treasury Report for 1924, p. 11). The intent here was to impose uniform state 

inheritance taxes and minimize interstate competition for the wealthy (Schultz, 1926, p. 161-2). 

45 Actually, only (1-e), the net federal estate tax rate, is paid to the extent that lifetime state gift taxes 

reduce the size of the taxable estate. 

46 See Conway and Rork (2006) and Bakija and Slemrod (2004), for example. 

35
the tax rate schedule of estates and trusts, and the gradual reduction in income tax rates 

brought about by repeated tax reforms over the years has reduced the efficacy of gift tax 

as a protective measure. However, the gift tax will continue to play that role in the 

presence of progressive income taxation and as long as capital income is taxed. Equally 

important, is that the viability of the estate tax cannot be assured in the absence of the gift 

tax. 

While the gift tax is critical in preempting the erosion of the income and estate taxes, a 

number of its features need to be re-examined. There seems to be a lack of coordination 

between the income tax and the gift tax, or the estate tax for that matter. In particular, the 

rate structures share little in common. The maximum ordinary income tax rate is 35 

percent (15 percent for capital gains), for instance, compared to 55 percent for each of the 

gift and estate taxes. Also the tax exclusive nature of the gift tax sets it apart from the 

estate tax. 

Notwithstanding its protective nature, the gift tax itself is undermined by a number of 

valuation practices that weaken much of its efficacy. These practices drastically narrow 

the base of a tax that is saddled with high marginal tax rates. This combination has the 

potential of biasing choices and distorting donor behavior. 

36
References 

Auten, Gerald, Holger Sieg, and Charles T. Clotfelter, “Charitable Giving, Income and 

Taxes: An Analysis of Panel Data,” American Economic Review 92, March 2002, 371-

382. 

Auten, Gerald, and David Joulfaian. "Charitable Contributions and Intergenerational 

Transfers," Journal of Public Economics 59:1, January 1996, 55-68. 

Bakija, Jon and Joel Slemrod. “Do the Rich Flee from High State Taxes? Evidence from 

Federal Estate Tax Returns,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 

10645, 2004. 

Bernheim, Douglas B., Robert J. Lemke, and John Karl Scholz. "Do Estate and Gift 

Taxes Affect the Timing of Private Transfers?" Journal of Public Economics 88:12, 

December 2004, 2617-34. 

Conway, Karen Smith, and Jonathan C. Rork, State “Death Taxes and Elderly Migration 

– The Chicken or the Egg?” National Tax Journal 59: 1, March 2006, 97-128. 

Eller, Martha Britton. “Inter Vivos Wealth Transfers, 1997 Gifts,” Statistics of Income 

Bulletin, Winter 2003 – 2004, Publication 1136, 2004. 

Eller, Martha Britton. “Audit Revaluation of Federal Estate Tax Returns, 1992,” Statistics 

of Income Bulletin, Winter 2000-2001, Publication 1136, 2001. 

Eller, Martha Britton, Brian Erard, and Chih-Chin Ho. “Noncompliance with the Federal 

Estate Tax,” in Rethinking Estate and Gift Taxation, William G. Gale, James R. Hines 

Jr., and Joel Slemrod, editors, the Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 2001, 375-410. 

Feinstein, Jonathan. "Approaches for Estimating Noncompliance: Examples from Federal 

Taxation in the United States," The Economic Journal, Vol. 109, No. 456, June, 1999, 

360-369. 

Feinstein, Jonathan, and Chih-Chin Ho, “Predicting Estate Tax Filings and Taxable 

Gifts,” United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, The IRS 

Research Bulletin, Publication 1500 (Rev. 11-99), 1999, 39-45. 

Harriss, C. Lowell, Gift Taxation in the United States," American Council on Public 

Affairs, Washington, DC, 1940. 

House of Representatives, The Revenue Bill of 1932, 7th Congress, 1st Session, Report 

No. 708, 1932. 

37
Joulfaian, David. "Charitable Giving in Life and at Death," in William G. Gale, James R. 

Hines, Jr., and Joel Slemrod (eds.), Rethinking Estate and Gift Taxation, Brookings 

Institutions, 2001, 350-374. 

Joulfaian, David. “Choosing Between Gifts and Bequests: How Taxes Affect the Timing 

of Wealth Transfers,” Journal of Public Economics 89:11-12, December, 2005, 2069-

2091. 

Joulfaian, David. “Choosing Between Gifts and Bequests: How Taxes Affect the Timing 

of Wealth Transfers,” OTA Paper 86, May 2000a. 

Joulfaian, David. "Gift Taxes and Lifetime Transfers: Time Series Evidence," Journal of 

Public Economics, 88:9-10, August, 2004, 1917-1929. 

Joulfaian, David. "Estates Taxes and Charitable Bequests by the Wealthy," National 

Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 7663, April 2000b. 

Joulfaian, David. "The Federal Estate and Gift tax: Description, Profile of Taxpayers, and 

Economic Consequences," OTA Paper 80, U.S. Department of the Treasury, December 

1998, www.treas.gov/ota/ota80.pdf. 

Joulfaian, David. "Charitable Bequests and Estate Taxes," National Tax Journal 44:2, 

June 1991, 169-180. 

Joulfaian, David and Kathleen McGarry. "Estate and Gift Tax Incentives and Inter Vivos 

Giving," National Tax Journal, 57:2, Part 2, June 2004, 429-444 

McGarry, Kathleen. "Inter Vivos Transfers or Bequests? Estate Taxes and the Timing of 

Parental Giving," Tax Policy and the Economy 14, 2000, 93-121. 

Page, Benjamin R. "Bequest Taxes, Inter Vivos Gifts, and the Bequest Motive," Journal 

of Public Economics 87:5-6, May 2003, 1219-29. 

Poterba, James. "Estate and Gift Taxes and Incentives for Inter Vivos Giving in the 

United States," Journal of Public Economics 79:1, January 2001, 237-264. 

Randolph, William C. "Dynamic Income, Progressive Taxes, and the Timing of 

Charitable Contributions," Journal of Political Economy 103 No. 4, August, 1995, 709-

738. 

Roosevelt, Franklin D. The Public Papers and Addresses, v.4, Random House, New 

York, 1938: 313-14. 

Shultz, William J. The Taxation of Inheritance, Houghton Mifflin, The Riverside Press, 

New York City, 1926. 

United States Department of the Treasury, Treasury Report for 1924, Washington, DC. 

38
Table 1 

Changes in Estate and Gift Tax Rates 

Estate Tax Changes Gift Tax Changes 

Dates in Effect Description Dates in Effect Descript

June 6, 1932 Maximum estate tax rate raised from 20 to 45 percent, 

effective after 5pm. 

June 6, 1932 Gift tax enacted with a max

percent. 

May 11, 1934 Rate increased to 60 percent. Act of May 10, 1934. Jan.1, 1935 Rate increased to 45 percen

Aug. 31, 1935 Rates increased to 70 percent. Act of August 30, 1935. Jan.1, 1936 Rate increased to 52.50 percJune 26, 1940 Temporary10 percent surtax. Enacted June 25, 1940; 

and effective through 1945. 

June 26, 1940 Same as estate tax. 

Sep. 21, 1941 Maximum rate set to 77 percent. Act of September 20, 

1941. 

Jan. 1, 1942 Rate increased to 57.75 perc

Oct. 22, 1942 Estate tax exemption increased. Enacted October 21, 

1942. 

Jan. 1, 1943 Gift tax exemption reduced

Jan. 1, 1977 Rate reduced to 70 percent. Enacted on October 4, 

1976. 

Jan. 1, 1977 Estate and gift tax unified, a

rate increased to 70 percent

Jan. 1, 1982 Maximum rate reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent 

over 4 years (1982-1985). Unlimited deduction for spousal transfers. Enacted on August 31, 1981. 

Jan. 1, 1982 Same as estate tax. 

Jan.1, 1985 Maximum rate frozen at 55 percent by legislation 

enacted on July 18, 1984. 

Jan.1, 1985 Same as estate tax. 

Oct. 23, 1986 Generation skipping tax introduced, with a temporary 

$2 million exemption per donee through 1989. Enacted on October 22, 1986. 

Sep. 26, 1985 Same as estate tax, but retro

Jan. 1, 1988 Maximum rate again frozen at 55 percent. Enacted on 

December 22, 1987. 

Jan. 1, 1988 Same as estate tax. 

Jan. 1, 1993 Maximum rate set at 55 percent permanently. Enacted 

on August 10, 1993. 

Jan. 1, 1993 Same as estate tax. 

Jan 1, 2002 Maximum rate reduced in steps to 45 percent, and tax 

repealed in 2010, to be reintroduced in 2011.* Enacted June 7, 2001. 

Jan. 1, 2002 Maximum rate reduced in s

reset to 55 percent in 2011.

* See Table 5 for temporary rates in effect in 2002 through 2010. 

39 
 

 

 

Table 2 

Evolution of the Gift Tax Rate Schedule (%) 

Wealth ($1,000s) 

From To 

1932-

1934 1935 1936 1940 1942 1977 1982 1983 

1984-

2011* 

0 5 0.75 0.75 1.50 1.65 2.25 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 

5 10 0.75 0.75 1.50 1.65 5.25 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 

10 20 1.50 1.50 3.00 3.30 8.25 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 

20 30 2.25 2.25 4.50 4.95 10.50 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 

30 40 3.00 3.00 6.00 6.60 13.50 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 

40 50 3.75 3.75 7.50 8.25 16.50 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 

50 60 5.00 5.25 9.00 9.90 18.75 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 

60 70 5.00 5.25 9.00 9.90 21.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 

70 80 5.00 6.75 10.50 11.55 21.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 

80 100 5.00 6.75 10.50 11.55 21.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 

100 150 6.50 9.00 12.75 14.03 22.50 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 

150 200 6.50 9.00 12.75 14.03 22.50 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 

200 250 8.00 12.00 15.00 16.50 22.50 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 

250 400 8.00 12.00 15.00 16.50 24.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 

400 500 9.50 14.25 17.25 18.98 24.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 

500 600 9.50 14.25 17.25 18.98 26.25 37.00 37.00 37.00 37.00 

600 750 11.00 16.50 19.50 21.45 26.25 37.00 37.00 37.00 37.00 

750 800 11.00 16.50 19.50 21.45 27.75 39.00 39.00 39.00 39.00 

800 1,000 12.50 18.75 21.75 23.93 27.75 39.00 39.00 39.00 39.00 

1,000 1,250 14.00 21.00 24.00 26.40 29.25 41.00 41.00 41.00 41.00 

1,250 1,500 14.00 21.00 24.00 26.40 31.50 43.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 

1,500 2,000 15.50 23.25 26.25 28.88 33.75 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 

2,000 2,500 17.00 25.50 28.50 31.35 36.75 49.00 49.00 49.00 49.00 

2,500 3,000 18.50 27.75 30.75 33.83 39.75 53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 

3,000 3,500 20.00 30.00 33.00 36.30 42.00 57.00 57.00 57.00 55.00 

3,500 4,000 21.50 32.25 35.25 38.78 44.25 61.00 61.00 60.00 55.00 

4,000 4,500 23.00 34.50 37.50 41.25 47.25 65.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 

4,500 5,000 24.50 36.00 39.75 43.73 47.25 69.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 

5,000 6,000 26.00 37.50 42.00 46.20 50.25 70.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 

6,000 7,000 27.50 39.00 44.25 48.68 52.50 70.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 

7,000 8,000 29.00 40.50 45.75 50.33 54.75 70.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 

8,000 9,000 30.50 42.00 47.25 51.98 57.00 70.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 

9,000 10,000 32.00 43.50 48.75 53.63 57.00 70.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 

10,000 20,000 33.50 45.00 50.50 55.55 57.75 70.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 

20,000 50,000 33.50 45.00 51.75 56.93 57.75 70.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 

50,000 Over 33.50 45.00 52.50 57.75 57.75 70.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 

* See Table 5 for temporary rates in effect in 2002 through 2010. 

40
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3 

Historical Features of The Gift Tax

Year Tax Rate 

Range 

Annual 

Exclusion per 

donee 

Exemption or 

Equivalent 

Amount 

Unified Credit 

Maximum Marital 

Deduction 

1924 1 - 25% $500 $40,000 N.A. N.A. 

1926 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 

1932 0.75 - 33.5 5,000 50,000 N.A. N.A. 

1934 0.75 - 45 5,000 50,000 N.A. N.A. 

1936 1.5 - 52.5 5,000 40,000 N.A. N.A. 

1942 2.25 - 57.75 4,000 40,000 N.A. N.A. 

1943 2.25 - 57.75 3,000 30,000 N.A. N.A. 

1949 2.25 - 57.75 3,000 30,000 N.A. 50 % of Gift 

1955 2.25 - 57.75 3,000 30,000 N.A. 50 % of Gift 

1977 18 - 70 3,000 120,667 $30,000 50 % of Gift 

1978 18 - 70 3,000 134,000 34,000 50 % of Gift 

1979 18 - 70 3,000 147,333 38,000 50 % of Gift 

1980 18 - 70 3,000 161,563 42,000 50 % of Gift 

1981 18 - 70 3,000 175,625 47,000 50 % of Gift 

1982 18 - 65 10,000 225,000 62,800 100 % 

1983 18 - 60 10,000 275,000 79,300 100 % 

1984 18 - 55 10,000 325,000 96,300 100 % 

1985 18 - 55 10,000 400,000 121,800 100 % 

1986 18 - 55 10,000 500,000 155,800 100 % 

1987 18 - 55 10,000 600,000 192,800 100 % 

1996 18 - 55 10,000 600,000 192,800 100 % 

1998 18 - 55 10,000* 625,000 202,050 100 % 

1999 18 - 55 10,000* 650,000 211,300 100 % 

2000 18 - 55 10,000* 675,000 220,550 100 % 

2001 18 - 55 10,000* 675,000 220,550 100 % 

2011 18 - 55 Indexed 1,000,000 345,800 100 % 

Note: Year reflects period when feature took effect. See Table 5 for temporary provisions in effect for 2002-2010. 

* The inflation adjustment is rounded down to the nearest $1,000. In other words, the exemption increases in $1,000 

increments. For the years 2002 through 2005, the exemption was set at $11,000. This increased to $12,000 in 2006. 

41
 

Table 4 

Historical Features of the Generation Skipping Transfer Tax 

Transfers from Trusts Direct Transfers 

Year Maximum Tax 

Rate* 

Exemption 

per “donor” 

Tax Rate 

(%) 

Exemption 

per donor 

Exemption 

per donee 

1916 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 

1977 0.70 $250,000 N.A. N.A. N.A. 

1982 0.65 $250,000 N.A. N.A. N.A. 

1983 0.60 $250,000 N.A. N.A. N.A. 

1984 0.55 $250,000 N.A. N.A. N.A. 

1985 0.55 $250,000 N.A. N.A. N.A. 

1986 0.55 1,000,000 55 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 

1990 0.55 1,000,000 55 1,000,000 N.A. 

1999 0.55 1,010,000 55 1,010,000 N.A. 

2000 0.55 1,030,000 55 1,030,000 N.A. 

2001 0.55 1,060,000 55 1,060,000 N.A. 

2011 0.55 Indexed 55 Indexed N.A. 

Note: Year reflects period when feature took effect. 1998 is the base year for indexing. See 

Table 5 for temporary provisions in effect during 2002-2010. 

* Maximum estate tax rate after TRA86. 

42
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5 

Temporary Provisions of the Estate and Gift Tax: 2002-2010 

Year 

Estate 

Tax Rate 

Range 

Exemption or 

Equivalent 

Amount 

GST 

Exemption 

Gift 

Tax Rate 

Range* 

Gift Tax Exemption 

or Equivalent 

Amount 

2002 18 - 50 1,000,000 1,100,000 18 - 50 1,000,000 

2003 18 - 49 1,000,000 1,120,000 18 - 49 1,000,000 

2004 18 - 48 1,500,000 1,500,000 18 - 48 1,000,000 

2005 18 - 47 1,500,000 1,500,000 18 - 47 1,000,000 

2006 18 - 46 2,000,000 2,000,000 18 - 46 1,000,000 

2007 18 - 45 2,000,000 2,000,000 18 - 45 1,000,000 

2008 18 - 45 2,000,000 2,000,000 18 - 45 1,000,000 

2009 18 - 45 3,500,000 3,500,000 18 - 45 1,000,000 

2010 Repealed Repealed Repealed 18 - 35 1,000,000 

* Range identical to that of the lower brackets in the last column of Table 2. 

43
Table 6 

Gift and Estate Tax Revenues: Fiscal Years 1933-2006 

 ($millions) 

Fiscal 

Year Gift Tax 

Estate 

Tax 

Gift Tax 

Share 

Gift Tax 

Share* 

Fiscal 

Year Gift Tax 

Estate 

Tax 

Gift Tax 

Share 

Gift Tax 

Share* 

1933 5 30 0.14 0.18 1970 439 3,205 0.12 0.15 

1934 9 104 0.08 0.10 1971 432 3,303 0.12 0.15 

1935 72 140 0.34 0.41 1972 363 5,073 0.07 0.09 

1936 160 219 0.42 0.49 1973 637 4,280 0.13 0.17 

1937 24 282 0.08 0.10 1974 441 4,594 0.09 0.11 

1938 35 382 0.08 0.11 1975 375 4,236 0.08 0.11 

1939 28 332 0.08 0.10 1976 432 4,784 0.08 0.11 

1940 29 324 0.08 0.11 1977 1,776 5,551 0.24 0.30 

1941 52 351 0.13 0.16 1978 139 5,146 0.03 0.03 

1942 92 328 0.22 0.27 1979 175 5,236 0.03 0.03 

1943 33 408 0.07 0.10 1980 216 6,173 0.03 0.03 

1944 38 469 0.07 0.10 1981 216 6,571 0.03 0.03 

1945 47 590 0.07 0.10 1982 108 7,883 0.01 0.01 

1946 47 621 0.07 0.09 1983 149 5,904 0.02 0.02 

1947 70 701 0.09 0.12 1984 152 5,858 0.03 0.03 

1948 77 813 0.09 0.11 1985 276 6,146 0.04 0.04 

1949 61 719 0.08 0.10 1986 381 6,577 0.05 0.05 

1950 49 649 0.07 0.09 1987 503 6,990 0.07 0.07 

1951 91 617 0.13 0.16 1988 426 7,168 0.06 0.06 

1952 83 735 0.10 0.13 1989 829 7,916 0.09 0.09 

1953 107 774 0.12 0.16 1990 2,128 9,372 0.19 0.19 

1954 72 862 0.08 0.10 1991 1,236 9,903 0.11 0.11 

1955 88 836 0.10 0.12 1992 1,044 10,099 0.09 0.09 

1956 113 1,048 0.10 0.13 1993 1,436 11,141 0.11 0.11 

1957 125 1,240 0.09 0.12 1994 2,089 13,136 0.14 0.14 

1958 134 1,259 0.10 0.12 1995 1,792 12,971 0.12 0.12 

1959 117 1,216 0.09 0.11 1996 2,191 14,998 0.13 0.13 

1960 187 1,419 0.12 0.15 1997 2,709 17,136 0.14 0.14 

1961 171 1,725 0.09 0.12 1998 3,289 20,787 0.14 0.14 

1962 239 1,777 0.12 0.15 1999 4,646 23,136 0.17 0.17 

1963 216 1,951 0.10 0.13 2000 4,023 24,926 0.14 0.14 

1964 305 2,089 0.13 0.16 2001 3,883 24,441 0.14 0.14 

1965 291 2,425 0.11 0.14 2002 1,626 24,813 0.06 0.06 

1966 447 2,619 0.15 0.19 2003 1,892 19,990 0.09 0.09 

1967 286 2,692 0.10 0.12 2004 1,400 23,397 0.06 0.06 

1968 372 2,679 0.12 0.16 2005 1,981 22,813 0.08 0.08 

1969 393 3,098 0.11 0.14 2006 1,933 26,755 0.07 0.07 

*Adjusts for the gift tax rate that was set at 75 percent of the estate tax rates before calendar year 

1977. 

Source: Joulfaian (1998), Data Book (various years), and unpublished statistics.

44
 

Table 7 

Tax Administration Cost 

(Amounts in $000s) 

Total Gift Tax Estate Tax 

IRS Budget (FY 2005) $10,027,262 n.a. n.a. 

Returns filed (CY 2004) 174,364,531 262,164 74,172 

Returns Examined (FY 2005) 1,328,712 2,125 6,081

 Percent Examined 0.8 0.8 8.2 

Additional Tax Assessed (FY 2005) $48,622,798 $670,901 $970,091

 Per Return Examined $36.6 $315.7 $159.5 

Addendum: 

Fiscal 

Year 

Gift Tax Returns 

Examined 

Additional Tax 

Assessed ($000s) 

1988 1,518 240,807 

1989 1,277 409,437 

1990 1,636 246,775 

1991 1,704 140,902 

1992 2,071 193,849 

1993 2,120 202,009 

1994 n.a. n.a. 

1995 1,893 201,603 

1996 1,924 350,680 

1997 2,085 375,004 

1998 2,010 367,035 

1999 2,369 346,061 

2000 2,097 459,785 

2001 2,005 343,279 

2002 1,899 405,047 

2003 1,855 488,923 

2004 1,979 546,442 

2005 2,125 670,901 

2006 2,051 504,731 

Source: IRS Commissioner’s Annual Report (various years) and Data Book (various years). 

45
Table 8 

Number of Gift Tax Returns Filed: Fiscal Years 1933-2005 

Fiscal Year Number Fiscal Year Number 

1933 1,710 1970 147,693 

1934 3,619 1971 165,481 

1935 11,410 1972 190,743 

1936 22,590 1973 243,895 

1937 17,046 1974 252,653 

1938 16,601 1975 260,094 

1939 13,614 1976 302,464 

1940 14,435 1977 386,802 

1941 17,369 1978 195,194 

1942 30,048 1979 201,785 

1943 23,872 1980 215,993 

1944 20,772 1981 198,620 

1945 22,939 1982 99,533 

1946 23,554 1983 90,098 

1947 27,046 1984 87,216 

1948 30,603 1985 94,610 

1949 27,330 1986 102,965 

1950 32,155 1987 104,627 

1951 39,585 1988 102,569 

1952 45,656 1989 121,294 

1953 49,000 1990 146,014 

1954 48,000 1991 154,966 

1955 58,000 1992 167,680 

1956 68,000 1993 211,363 

1957 77,000 1994 214,302 

1958 79,520 1995 215,010 

1959 85,080 1996 226,334 

1960 91,132 1997 250,842 

1961 93,581 1998 257,722 

1962 95,874 1999 285,641 

1963 100,020 2000 304,558 

1964 107,172 2001 304,079 

1965 121,517 2002 278,926 

1966 133,646 2003 287,456 

1967 136,729 2004 249,019 

1968 138,514 2005 276,570 

1969 150,785 2006 25,5651 

Source: IRS Commissioner’s Annual Report (various years) and Data Book (various years). 

46
Table 9 

Gift Tax Returns Filed by State in Select Fiscal Years 

1971 

1981 1991 2001 1971 1981 

Alabama 1,996 2336 1871 3,536 Nebraska 2,659 4300 Alaska 72 252 183 422 Nevada 443 608 

Arizona 1,446 2009 1673 4,092 New Hampshire 606 868 Arkansas 1,294 1833 1021 1,730 New Jersey 5,859 5342 California 13,647 13,356 13,311 27,373 New Mexico 721 846 Colorado 2,368 3414 2191 5,839 New York 19,265 16,108 1Connecticut 3,958 4417 4223 10,219 North Carolina 3,430 4496 Delaware 655 667 606 941 North Dakota 712 2002 

Florida 8,272 9703 12,170 23,706 Ohio 7,476 7,973 Georgia 3,277 4381 3121 7,761 Oklahoma 2,635 3339 Hawaii 824 1832 1258 1,654 Oregon 1,851 2916 Idaho 584 816 394 1,010 Pennsylvania 6,691 6,801 

Illinois 10,377 10,791 7,111 13,149 Rhode Island 590 631 Indiana 3,436 4760 2736 5,663 South Carolina 1,334 2117 Iowa 3,166 5977 1733 2,734 South Dakota 825 1844 

Kansas 3,093 3,962 1,737 3,150 Tennessee 2,103 2389 Kentucky 1,806 2259 1622 3,659 Texas 9,795 10,882 Louisiana 1,751 2178 1314 2,598 Utah 721 1707 Maine 632 985 845 1,517 Vermont 396 584 Maryland & DC 3,960 4371 3552 6,904 Virginia 3,219 4649 Massachusetts 5,272 5782 5663 10,676 Washington 2,021 2,724 Michigan 5,495 5562 5377 8,835 West Virginia 841 917 Minnesota 2,609 5557 4497 7,141 Wisconsin 3,979 8509 Mississippi 1,200 1403 869 1,533 Wyoming 529 940 Missouri 3,842 4128 2648 5,785 International 515 354 Montana 1,233 2043 767 1,383 Total 165,481 198,620 15

Source: IRS Commissioner’s Annual Report (various years) and Data Book (various years). 

47 
Table 10 

Gifts Reported on Gift Tax Returns Filed in Fiscal Year 2005 

(Amounts in $1,000s) 

Current Gifts* Current Gifts* Gift Tax on Current Gifts Past Gifts 

 ($1,000s) Returns Amount Returns Amount Returns Amount 

Zero 94,035 0 0 0 39,157 18,844,166 

1 - 10 34,599 158,967 734 1,204 21,927 9,100,125 

10 - 200 100,196 6,728,129 2,609 79,650 47,271 23,192,790 

200 - 1,000 31,467 13,211,855 2,605 362,965 11,881 10,003,351 

1,000 - 2,500 811 1,158,540 809 348,020 544 2,475,431 

2,500 - 5,000 172 597,176 172 265,789 163 1,536,189 

5,000 - 10,000 57 400,482 57 185,587 53 634,895 

10,000 - 20,000 17 213,450 17 102,419 15 272,001 

20,000 and over 16 547,869 16 268,508 15 549,045 

All 261,370 23,016,469 7,018 1,605,276 121,024 66,607,993 

Returns with Valuation Discounts Only 

Zero 14,373 0 0 0 5,888 3,761,293 

1 - 10 4,124 13,894 151 207 3,080 2,207,461 

10 - 200 9,400 778,668 317 9,350 5,566 3,092,551 

200 - 1,000 6,603 3,195,076 534 60,816 3,200 1,742,656 

1,000 - 2,500 224 312,955 224 85,438 146 283,427 

2,500 - 5,000 47 163,985 47 72,329 45 509,326 

5,000 - 10,000 12 87,397 12 40,516 11 110,699 

10,000 - 20,000 5 76,237 5 36,558 5 30,166 

20,000 and over 9 325,515 9 156,031 9 429,678 

All 34,797 4,953,727 1,299 461,245 17,950 12,167,257 

Returns with Split Gifts Below the Annual Exclusion ($22,000)** 

Zero 29,227 0 0 0 8,895 1,621,789 

1 - 20 7,341 41,593 40 25 3,513 606,385 

All 36,568 41,593 40 25 12,408 2,228,174 

Returns with Gifts (not Split) Below the Annual Exclusion ($11,000)** 

Zero 8,895 0 0 0 1,848 227,629 

1 - 10 1,402 5,184 8 0 817 37,202 

All 10,297 5,184 8 0 2,665 264,831 

* Gifts exclusive of gift tax, less exemptions and deductions, from Form 709, Schedule A, Part 4, 

Line 11. 

** The appropriate amount should reflect the number of recipients. 

Source: Author’s calculations based on gift tax returns filed in fiscal year 2005, and primarily 

reflect gifts made in 2004. 

48 
Table 11 

Gifts Reported on Estate Tax Returns of Decedents in 1998 

(Amounts in $millions) 

Size of Wealth a 

($000s) All Estates Taxable Gifts Reported on Estate Tax Returns b 

Wealth Percent of Gift Percent of 

From To Number Amount Number Returns Amount Wealth 

Under 1,000 55,478 41,769 3,433 6.19 559 1.34 

1,000 1,500 22,656 27,601 2,070 9.14 559 2.02 

1,500 2,000 9,806 16,824 1,444 14.73 362 2.15 

2,000 2,500 4,986 11,091 1,004 20.14 338 3.05 

2,500 5,000 7,909 26,826 2,147 27.15 1,044 3.89 

5,000 10,000 2,884 19,623 1,193 41.37 676 3.45 

10,000 20,000 958 12,909 541 56.47 589 4.56 

Over 20,000 541 28,826 410 75.79 969 3.36 

All 105,218 185,468 12,242 11.63 5,096 2.75 

Source: Author’s calculations based on estate tax returns filed during 1998-2000; exclude estates 

with negative wealth. 

a

 Wealth is defined as gross estate less debts and estate expenses. b Cumulative lifetime gifts in excess of the annual exclusion, exemption for educational and 

medical expenses, and gifts to spouse and charities. 

49 
 

Table 12 

Determinants of Lifetime Gifts: Choosing Between Gifts and Bequests 

(Standard errors reported in parentheses) 

Variable Criterion Level Tobit 

Constant 

ln Wealth 

Male 

Married 

Number of Children 

Age 

Age2 . 10-3 

Business Share 

ln Gift Tax Price Relative to 

Price of Bequests 

λ

σ

Φ(z) 

Log-Likelihood 

Observations 

-11.0810 

(1.3084) 

0.4157 

(0.0379) 

-0.1806 

(0.0678) 

-0.2167 

(0.0725) 

0.0337 

(0.0225) 

0.1108 

(0.0296) 

-0.6906 

(0.1999) 

0.0892 

(0.1237) 

-1.1562 

(0.3752) 

--

--

--

--

0.3709 

-1,377 

2,361 

-0.4046 

(0.4538) 

0.0094 

(0.0151) 

--

--

-0.0391 

(0.0122) 

0.0008 

(0.0026) 

0.0057 

(0.0050) 

-0.0314 

(0.0322) 

0.0207 

(0.0127) 

-0.1671 

(0.0600) 

0.0590 

(0.0536) 

--

--

1,039 

928 

-0.8070 

(0.1254) 

0.0262 

(0.0033) 

-0.0217 

(0.0058) 

-0.0255

(0.0061) 

0.0027 

(0.0021) 

0.0088

(0.0028) 

-0.0523

(0.0187) 

0.0182 

(0.0116) 

-0.1493 

(0.0338) 

--

--

0.0993 

(0.0012) 

0.3201 

6,923 

2,361 

Source: Joulfaian, David. “Choosing Between Gifts and Bequests: How Taxes Affect the Timing 

of Wealth Transfers,” Journal of Public Economics 89:11-12, December, 2005, 2069-2091. 

50 
Table 13 

Determinants of Lifetime Transfers (1933-1998) 

Dependent Variable = ln Giftst - ln Giftst-1 

Variables (1) (2) 

Coefficient s.e. Coefficient s.e. 

Constant 

d ln Gift Tax Price, lagged 

d ln Gift Tax Price 

d ln Expected Gift Tax Price 

d ln Expected Bequest Price 

d Dummy 1989 

d ln Real S&P Index 

d ln Real GDP 

d ln Real Estate Tax Revenues 

d ln Real Exemption 

Adjusted R2 

Observations 

0.0373 

-2.2655 

-14.3710 

13.1663 

--

0.7267 

0.2460 

0.4365 

0.1170 

-0.4514 

0.4775 

64 

0.0741 

1.5242 

2.9029 

2.5978 

--

0.2954 

0.3796 

1.4101 

0.4018 

0.3430 

0.0354 

-2.2092 

-14.4806 

13.4291 

-0.2568 

0.7270 

0.2398 

0.5123 

0.1326 

-0.4290 

0.4681 

64 

0.0759 

1.5833 

3.0196 

3.1577 

1.7204 

0.2981 

0.3853 

1.5108 

0.4186 

0.3772 

Source: Joulfaian, David. "Gift Taxes and Lifetime Transfers: Time Series Evidence," Journal of 

Public Economics, 88:9-10, August, 2004, 1917-1929. 

51 
 

Table 14 

Estimates of Gift Giving Behavior 

(Gifts made during 1936-1992 reported by the estates of decedents in 1992) 

(Standard errors in parentheses)

Variable 

Intercept 

ln gift tax price 

ln expected gift tax price 

Time

Time2

 /100 

Dummy Year 1989 

ln S&P Index 

Adjusted R2 

Observations 

Probability of Giftst/ 

Making Giftst ln Giftst Lifetime Gifts 

10.89 10.29 6.27 

(1.42) (1.70) (2.69) 

-23.31 -8.38 -27.70 

(3.62) (4.32) (6.21) 

17.78 8.45 30.17 

(3.26) (3.89) (6.47) 

-0.38 0.01 -0.27 

(0.07) (0.08) (0.09) 

0.46 0.05 0.28 

(0.04) (0.05) (0.07) 

1.77 0.66 5.88 

(0.62) (0.74) (1.24) 

-0.39 0.49 --

(0.35) (0.41) --

0.96 0.82 0.75 

56 56 56 

Source: Joulfaian, David and Kathleen McGarry. "Estate and Gift Tax Incentives and Inter Vivos 

Giving," National Tax Journal, 57:2, Part 2, June 2004. 

52 
 

 

Table 15 

Gifts Reported in Survey Data and on Tax Returns 

Gross Gifts per HRS and AHEAD 1992/3 Data 1993 Gift tax Returns 

Individual Donor Taxable Gifts* Taxable Gifts* 

($000’s) Donors $millions Mean Donors $millions Mean 

Under 200 

200 to 600 

600 to 1,000 

1,000 to 2,500 

2,500 to 5,000 

5,000 to 10,000 

10,000 to 20,000 

20,000 to 30,000 

30,000 over 

372,581 6,517 17,492 

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

110,210 4,773 43,308 

22,392 6,791 303,278 

4,730 2,898 612,685 

880 1,150 1,306,818 

128 423 3,304,688

54 374 6,925,926 

22 305 13,863,636 

9 212 23,555,556 

8 394 49,250,000 

Total 372,581 6,517 17,492 138,433 17,319 125,107 

Taxable and non- Donors $millions Mean Donors $millions Mean 

Taxable Gifts** 15,036,541 45,797 3,046 208,307 23,872 114,600 

* Taxable donors and gifts refer to gifts in excess of $10,000 per donee. These become truly 

taxable when they exceed $600,000. Gifts by married households in HRS and AHEAD are split 

equally between the spouses. Gifts reported in HRS/AHEAD are not reduced by transfers for 

educational and medical expenses. Gifts reported on tax returns are not grossed up for the gift 

tax. 

** Include gifts under the annual exclusion of $10,000 ($20,000 for couples). 

53 
R

eceipts 

Figure 1. Gift Tax Receipts: Fiscal Years 1925-2005

($billions)

76543210

Real Nominal 

1925 1929 1933 1937 1941 1945 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 19

Fiscal Year 

54 
Figure 2. Relative Frequency of Giving by Year 

35 30 

P e r c e n t 5 

10 15 20 25 

0 

36 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 8

Year

55 
0 

5 

10 15 20 25 30 35 

P e r c e n t 

Figure 3. Relative Frequency of Lifetime Gifts 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 

Frequency of Gifts 

56