The Illogical and Sexist QTIP Provisions: I Just Can't Say it Ain't so
12 Pages Posted: 14 Oct 2008
Date Written: October 9, 2008
Professor Zelenak and I agree on one half of my thesis: that the QTIP provisions are illogical and do not serve their purported policy goal. They were based on the premise that a married couple acts as a unit about "their" property and, quite obviously, they were motivated by the fear that in fact husband and wife do not. However, he disagrees with the other half of my thesis: that the QTIP provisions are degrading to women, sexist, and financially a bad deal for widows. While he would like to separate these two ideas, the sexism of the statute is, to a large degree, intertwined with its illogic. The QTIP provisions are degrading to women and sexist for two reasons: (1) they treat women as the invisible member of a marital unit; and (2) they implicitly equate giving an income interest to women with giving them the property itself.
The article elaborates on the author's disagreement with Professor Zelenak.
Keywords: QTIP, qualified terminable interest property, marital deduction, sexist, degrading women, estate tax, gift tax, transfer tax
JEL Classification: H10, H 29 , K34
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation