That is a question that everyone wants – and more importantly needs – to have answered. Whether I’m teaching professional education to attorneys, accountants and financial advisors or I’m teaching owners of wealth how to preserve their wealth from taxes and litigation, the question invariably comes up.

To answer that question it is important to understand the two foundational concepts that underlie the modern estate tax system: revenue generation and wealth redistribution. Let’s look at the history of estate taxes and how these two concepts came to be the core drivers behind this confiscatory tax.

Someone once said, "There are two things you don’t want to witness being made: sausage and taxes."

Before we look at the evolution of estate taxes in this country, let’s consider their beginnings. Taxation of property at death began, believe it or not, around 700 B.C. In the first century A.D., Roman Emperor Augustus Caesar taxed successions and legacies to all but close relatives. By the 18^th century, stamp duties and registration fees on wills and other documents relating to transfers at death were very common.

During the Middle Ages, transfer taxes were based on the belief that the state owned all property. In feudal England, the king would grant use of property to certain individuals. After their death, their heirs would be allowed to continue to use the property only if they paid the king an estate tax.

However, there began to develop a sharp divide on the right to tax transfers at death. John Locke, an English philosopher during last half of the 17^th century, considered the right to transfer accumulated property at death to be a divinely inspired right. Adam Smith, father of classical economics, was not in favor of transfer taxes either.

On the other hand, the well known English jurist William Blackstone, a contemporary of Smith, in his "1769 Commentaries on the Law of England," wrote that possession of property ended with the death of the owner. He believed there was no "natural right" to transfer property. Further, that the right to control property after death was granted by civil law. Thus, government had the right to impose regulations on transfers at death. His interpretation of the law has been the bedrock on which modern death taxes have rested.

To the surprise of many, the estate tax system in the United States began in 1797 with The Stamp Act. Congress needed revenue to finance the naval buildup necessary for national defense against France. In an effort to raise the needed revenue, Federal stamps were required on wills offered for probate, inventories and letters of administration. When the war ended five years later, the tax was repealed.

In 1815, it was proposed to fund the war with England, but the war ended before tax was implemented.

Many states followed suit and received revenue from inheritance taxes. Supreme Court Justices John Marshal and Joseph Story affirmed the State’s right to regulate inheritances.

In 1862, the Federal government needed revenue to finance the Civil War. A new dimension was added that had not existed before. In addition to the document tax, a tax on the privilege of leaving an inheritance was introduced. Interestingly, bequests to charities were taxed at the top rate. At the time, there was no controversy surrounding the tax. Instead, the Congressional Globe praised the estate tax as "a large source of revenue, which could be conveniently collected." The Internal Revenue Record agreed, calling the estate tax "one of the best, fairest, and most easily borne [taxes] that political economists have yet discovered as applicable to modern society." California Senator James McDougall agreed, saying "those who pay it, never having had it, never feel the loss of it."

The increasing cost of the Civil War led Congress to modify the previous tax two years later by increasing the tax rates and by adding a brand new concept: a tax on transfers during life, thus creating the first gift tax. The end of the Civil War prompted Congress to again repeal the inheritance tax in 1870. The repeal of the tax made no headlines at the time.

In 1874, a taxpayer actually challenged the legality of the Civil War estate taxes, arguing that they were direct taxes. The Supreme Court disagreed and upheld the constitutionality of the Federal inheritance tax. The nation’s highest court ruled that the estate tax was not a direct tax, but an excise tax authorized under the Constitution. In other words, it is a tax on your "right" to transfer property at death.

The Spanish-American War prompted the need for more revenue and the estate tax was the answer again in 1898. At the time, Congressman Oscar Underwood of Alabama wrote, "The inheritance tax is levied on a class of wealth, a class of property, and a class of citizens that do not otherwise pay their fair share of the burden of government."

Europe’s growing anger toward the privileged families, who owned much of the country’s wealth and kept it in the family through bequests, was influencing some in America. The populist movement was calling for limits on inheritance and tax laws that forced the wealthy to "pay their fair share." Some believed that it was the responsibility of government to ensure equal opportunity for every citizen and that inheritance created an unfair playing field.

However, not everyone shared Underwood’s, Europe’s and the populist’s point of view. By the close of the century, debates over inheritance became very intense. When the war ended in 1902, the opponents of the estate tax moved swiftly to repeal the tax.

These debates spawned the idea that Federal taxes were an appropriate method to address social inequities. The estate tax was heralded as an appropriate tool to ensure that every citizen begin life with an equal opportunity to succeed. President Theodore Roosevelt endorsed an inheritance tax whose "primary objective should be to put a constantly increasing burden on the inheritance of those swollen fortunes, which it is certainly of no benefit to this country to perpetuate." Roosevelt would later say that the tax should be directed at "malefactors of great wealth, the wealthy criminal class."

President Wilson picked up the torch where Roosevelt left off, pledging to ensure equality of opportunity for every American. Wilson’s elimination of tariffs on U.S. allies at the start of World War I caused a loss of needed revenue. Facing a large deficit, Congress considered the estate tax the clear answer to their need for revenue. Representative Hull from Tennessee proposed the estate tax to remedy what he called "an irrepressible conflict" between the rich and the poor.

The debate continued, yet on September 8, 1916, Congress resurrected an old friend, along with a new friend. The Revenue Act of 1916 brought back the estate tax and introduced a new tax, the modern-day income tax. Unlike its predecessors, this estate tax would be different. First, it was no longer just about revenue – now it was seen as a tool to address societal inequities. It had become a political tax – a method to accomplish wealth redistribution. As a result, when this war ended, this estate tax did not. Despite sizable budget surpluses, Congress increased rates and added the gift tax on lifetime transfers. The estate tax was seen as a key method to redistribute wealth.

Challenged and upheld by the United States Supreme Court, the Federal estate tax became an enduring component of the Federal tax system – even to this day. Tax rates would soar to 77 percent in an attempt to keep wealth from transferring from generation to generation. In 1976, transfers to grandchildren, called generation-skipping transfers (GSTs), began to be taxed.

Two centuries have passed, yet the debate still rages in Congress, academia, the media and among economists – without resolution! The fundamental differences surrounding the Federal government’s role in ensuring equal opportunity through wealth redistribution haven’t changed. Today, proponents of the estate tax label it a fair source of revenue and an "effective tool for preventing the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few powerful families."

Understanding the foundational principles that underlie the estate tax help us see more clearly into the future of the tax. The estate tax originally had one purpose and one purpose only: to raise revenue. To that purpose was added the concept of wealth redistribution. With a clear understanding of these principles, my answer to the question is always this question, "Does anyone believe that the need for revenue or the mindset regarding the government’s role in wealth redistribution have changed permanently in Washington?"

What do you think? That’s the real answer to the future of estate taxes.

I have an even better question: "Does it make sense to depend on Congress to preserve your wealth?"

Columbia Law Professor George Cooper conducted and published a study as a member of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., entitled, A Voluntary Tax? Cooper writes, "For most of the past generation, the rate of tax has been as high as 77 percent. Yet, because the owners of great wealth retain estate planners skilled in legal stratagems for tax avoidance, the estate and gift tax laws have never seriously interfered with the intergenerational transfer of large fortunes….The fact that any substantial amount of tax is now being collected can be attributed only to taxpayer indifference to avoidance opportunities or a lack of aggressiveness on the part of estate planners…."

Indifference or poor planning advice – neither seems like a good reason to surrender your wealth to estate or any other unnecessary tax. Find a wealth preservation specialist who is skilled in tax avoidance and make the estate tax a voluntary tax for you – and opt out of it – today. Having disinherited the IRS through planning will allow you to answer the question, "Who cares about estate taxes anymore?"

"Not me!"