Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics

Editor-in-Chief: Cavalcanti, Tiago / Kambourov, Gueorgui

Ed. by Abraham, Arpad / Carceles-Poveda , Eva / Debortoli, Davide / Schwartzman, Felipe / Wang, Pengfei


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.674

CiteScore 2018: 0.70

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.605
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.694

Online
ISSN
1935-1690
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Bequest taxes, donations, and house prices

Giorgio Bellettini / Filippo Taddei
  • SAIS – The Johns Hopkins University, Bologna, Italy and Collegio Carlo Alberto, Turin, Italy
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Giulio Zanella
Published Online: 2013-10-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bejm-2012-0069

Abstract

This paper is an empirical investigation into the effect of bequest taxes (estate or inheritance tax, in the US) and inter vivos real estate donations taxes (gift tax, in the US) on (i) house prices, (ii) house donations, and (iii) market transactions. In a simple model with intergenerational altruism, a lower tax rate unambiguously increases (i) and has an ambiguous effect on (ii) and (iii). We test these predictions using an original and unique data set containing information on sales, donations and real estate prices in 13 large Italian cities between 1993 and 2004. This period spans a major reform that first decreased and then abolished the inter vivos real estate donations tax and bequest tax in Italy. We find that the reform is associated with cumulative real appreciation of about 5% between 2001 and 2004, an increase in donations, and a decrease in market transactions over the same period.

Keywords: bequests; donations; estate tax; gift tax; house prices; inheritance tax; JEL codes: E60; E65; H24

References

  • Abraham, M. J., and P. H. Hendershott. 1996. “Bubbles in Metropolitan Housing Markets.” Journal of Housing Research 7 (2): 191–207.Google Scholar

  • Bernheim, D., J. R. Lemke, and J. K. Scholz. 2004. “Do Estate and Gift Taxes Affect the Timing of Private Transfers?” Journal of Public Economics 88 (12): 2617–2634.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bertocchi, G. 2011. “The Vanishing Bequest Tax: The Comparative Evolution of Bequest Taxation in Historical Perspective.” Economics and Politics 23: 107–131.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bruce, D., and D. Holtz-Eakin. 1999. “Fundamental Tax Reform and Residential Housing.” Journal of Housing Economics 8: 249–271.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cagetti, M., and M. De Nardi. 2009. “Estate taxation, Entrepreneurship, and Wealth.” American Economic Review 99 (1): 85–111.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Case, E. K., and R. J. Shiller. 2003. “Is There a Bubble in the Housing Market?” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2: 299–342.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Constantinides, M. G., B. J. Donaldson, and M. Rajnish. 2007. “Junior is Rich: Bequests as Consumption.” Economic Theory 32 (1): 125–155.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Farhi, E., and I. Werning. 2007. “Inequality and Social Discounting.” Journal of Political Economy 115 (3): 365–402.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Farhi, E., and I. Werning. 2010. “Progressive Estate Taxation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 125 (2): 635–673.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fugazza, C., M. Guidolin, and G. Nicodano. 2007. “Investing for the Long-Run in European Real Estate.” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 34 (1): 35–80.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Girouard, N., M. Kennedy, P. J. van den Noord, and C. André. 2006. “Recent House Price Developments: The Role of Fundamentals.” OECD Economics Department Working Papers, no. 475.Google Scholar

  • Glaeser, L. E., J. Gyourko, and R. E. Saks. 2005a. “Why is Manhattan So Expensive? Regulation and the Rise in Housing Prices.” Journal of Law and Economics 48: 331–369.Google Scholar

  • Glaeser, L. E., J. Gyourko, and R. E. Saks. 2005b. “Why Have Housing Prices Gone Up?” American Economic Review 95 (2): 329–333.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Goodhart, C., and B. Hofmann. 2008. “House Prices, Money, Credit, and the Macroeconomy.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24 (1): 180–205.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Grossmann, V., and P. Poutvaara. 2009. “Pareto-improving Bequest Taxation.” International Tax and Public Finance 16: 647–669.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hendershott, H. P., and G. Pryce. 2006. “The Sensitivity of Homeowner Leverage to the Deductibility of Home Mortgage Interest.” Journal of Urban Economics 60 (1): 50–68.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Himmelberg, C., C. Mayer, and T. Sinai. 2005. “Assessing High House Prices: Bubbles, Fundamentals, and Misperceptions.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (4): 67–92.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jappelli, T., M. Padula, and G. Pica. 2010. “Estate Taxation and Intergenerational Transfers.” CSEF Working Paper 243.Google Scholar

  • Joulfaian, D. 2004. “Taxes and Lifetime Transfers: Time Series Evidence.” Journal of Public Economics 88(9–10): 1917–1929.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kopczuk, W. 2009. “Economics of Estate Taxation: A Brief Review of Theory and Evidence.” Tax Law Review 63 (1): 139–157.Google Scholar

  • McCarthy, J., and R. W. Peach. 2004. “Are Home Prices the Next Bubble?” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review, December, 1–17.Google Scholar

  • Pelizzon, L., and G. Weber. 2008. “Are Household Portfolios Efficient? An Analysis Conditional on Housing.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 43 (2): 401–431.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Poterba, M. J. 1984. “Tax Subsidies to Owner-Occupied Housing: An Asset-Market Approach.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 99 (4): 729–752.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Poterba, M. J. 1991. “House Price Dynamics: The Role of Tax Policy and Demography.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2: 143–183.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Smith, H. S., and G. Smith. 2006. “Bubble, Bubble, Where is the Housing Bubble.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1: 1–50.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Terrones, M. 2004. “The Global House Price Boom.” In The World Economic Outlook: The Global Demographic Transition, Chapter 2, 71–89. International Monetary Fund (IMF).Google Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Giorgio Bellettini, University of Bologna, P.ZZA Scaravilli 2, 40126 Bologna, Italy and CESifo, Munich, Germany, e-mail:


Published Online: 2013-10-12

Published in Print: 2013-01-01


The tax was then reintroduced in 2006, but only on transfers above one billion Euros.

The surge in real estate prices had been a global phenomenon until 2007. According to the September 2004 World Economic Outlook, between 1997 and 2003 real estate prices in Australia, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain and the UK rose by more than 70%, while Italy and the US had experienced increase in excess of 30%. Italy stands as a noticeable exception: although it experienced a reduction in real interest rates like other countries in this group, it also experienced very low economic growth and demographic stagnation. Nevertheless, it displayed substantial real estate appreciation. This is an additional motivation to investigate the role of bequest taxation.

We show in Section 4 that in Bari, Catania, and Cagliari the number of donations was actually larger than market transactions.

Constantinides, Donaldson, and Rajnish (2007) point out the potentially important role of bequests for asset pricing in the context of the equity premium puzzle. Bernheim, Lemke, and Scholz (2004) show how agents react to tax incentives in the timing of intergenerational transfers. Recently, the theoretical connection between intergenerational transfers and estate taxation has received renewed attention in, among others, Kopczuk (2009), and Farhi and Werning (2007, 2010).

Although in this paper we do not make any normative claim about the optimal level of bequest taxation, Kopczuk (2009) pointed out that the normative analysis of the inheritance tax is very sensitive to what is assumed about the motivation of bequest. Ours is a positive investigation that can be generalized to all assets used to make intergenerational transfers. In particular, we believe that it is important to focus on real estate. In addition to being a crucial asset for intergenerational transfers, it also represents a sizable share of optimal portfolio strategy and a central element of most financial crises, as documented for instance in Fugazza, Guidolin, and Nicodano (2007) and Pelizzon and Weber (2008).

For a review of recent contributions, see Girouard et al. (2006) and Goodhart and Hofmann (2008).

This approach is subject to the limitations discussed by Kopczuk (2009): the specific type of bequest motive that is considered turns out to affect the welfare implications of bequest taxation.

We assume that a unit of house stock provides a unit of housing, so we use “house” and “housing” interchangeably.

Since this is a one-period model, there is no distinction between donations and bequests.

In virtually all fiscal systems bequests are taxed in the same way, no matter what their form is.

Notice that tax revenues would affect the equilibrium of the model only if their largest share were transferred to the elder generation.

Since transfers are taxed in the same way irrespective of the means, the first-order conditions for Hdon and D are identical and the composition of transfers in equilibrium is indeterminate.

For a study of the transitional dynamics of bequest behavior between different equilibria, see Grossmann and Poutvaara (2009).

Notice that Proposition 1 can be extended to any financial or real asset used for inter-generational transfers.

Corriere della Sera, October 26, 1999.

Corriere della Sera, December 15, 1999.

It is of course possible that some of these non-market transactions are actually disguised market transactions to evade house sale taxes. We cannot correct for this form of tax evasion.

We were able to retrieve this information only for year 2001. Given that we are considering existing units, the average is unlikely to vary much between 1993 and 2004.

To relate this analysis to the model, it is understood that we interpret our panel of annual data as generated by a sequence of overlapping generations, 1 born one year after the other.

Notice that the number of observations is sufficiently larger than the number of equations to make seemingly unrelated regression reliable.

In a few instances, clustering actually causes standard errors to decrease. In these cases we conservatively report the larger standard errors obtained when not clustering.

Our results are somehow consistent with those in Joulfaian (2004), who documents dramatic changes in the amount of gifts in the US in response to changes in the tax treatment of lifetime transfers, especially in the short run.


Citation Information: The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages 355–379, ISSN (Online) 1935-1690, ISSN (Print) 2194-6116, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bejm-2012-0069.

Export Citation

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Giorgio Bellettini, Filippo Taddei, and Giulio Zanella
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in