The Illogical and Sexist QTIP Provisions: I Just Can't Say it Ain't so

12 Pages Posted: 14 Oct 2008

See all articles by Wendy C. Gerzog

Wendy C. Gerzog

University of Baltimore - School of Law

Date Written: October 9, 2008

Abstract

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

Gerzog, Wendy C., The Illogical and Sexist QTIP Provisions: I Just Can't Say it Ain't so (October 9, 2008). North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 76, No. 5, 1998. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1281620

Wendy C. Gerzog (Contact Author)

University of Baltimore - School of Law ( email )

1420 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
United States
410-837-4522 (Phone)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
44
Abstract Views
581
PlumX Metrics
!

Under construction: SSRN citations will be offline until July when we will launch a brand new and improved citations service, check here for more details.

For more information