Debunking the Prop. 13 debunkers

Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

June 6, 2011 |  7:09 am

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., responds to Steve Lopez’s June 1 column, "Debunking the myth of Prop. 13." If you would like to write a full-length response to a recent Times article, editorial or Op-Ed piece, here are our FAQs and submission policy. 
In his latest attack on Proposition 13, columnist Steve Lopez retreats to the ivory tower for moral support. When a USC demographics professor tells Lopez that support for Prop. 13 is based on myth, and that blocking tax increases is pathetic, dishonest and a long-term disaster, Lopez accepts the professor's words as gospel.
The only "myths" to debunk about Proposition 13 are those promoted by the tax-and-spend lobby and public employees unions, which would like you to believe that the state's landmark 1978 initiative to limit property tax increases has "devastated" California's education system while at the same time not providing any real benefits to homeowners and renters today.
First and foremost, Proposition 13 did not dictate how our government would spend property tax revenues. It simply set a property tax rate of 1% and limited annual tax increases to no more than 2%.
Proposition 13 is not responsible for shifting the responsibility of education funding from the local level to Sacramento. Years before Proposition 13 passed, the California Supreme Court ruled in Serrano vs. Priest, an equal-protection case, that school funding must be equalized for all California students. That meant education funding could not be based on property tax receipts, because wealthy neighborhoods with high property values could spend more per student than poor neighborhoods with lower property values. The funding of our education system based on varying property tax receipts was found unconstitutional, but you never hear the Proposition 13's opponents discuss this ruling or its implications.
You also never hear them talk about the fact that spending per pupil has actually increased 30%, adjusted for inflation, since Proposition 13 passed in 1978, according to research by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.
Second, everyone benefits from Proposition 13. The moment California homeowners get the keys to their new home, they benefit from the law's protection -- and not just when the home value soars or if they've lived in their home for decades. Proposition 13 protects Californians from potential annual percentage increases in their tax bills in the double digits or more. For example, just a few months before Proposition 13 passed in 1978, then-Los Angeles County Assessor Alexander Pope announced that many parcels of property would see assessed valuations increase by as much as 100%. 
Proposition 13 saved many homeowners and businesses by simply setting the tax limit to provide stability. It allowed property owners to budget for their future and gave them protection from runaway taxes that would have forced many to sell their homes.
Government also benefits from Proposition 13, protecting it from severe yearly swings in revenue, including when the real estate market crashes and results in huge decreases in property value. The value reserve built into the system lets government predict revenues coming in, although, unfortunately, that doesn't prevent many politicians from spending above and well beyond that amount.
And renters also reap benefits. Without Proposition 13, you can be sure that higher business property taxes on apartment buildings would be passed on, in the form of higher rents, to working families and seniors living on fixed incomes.
The truth is, the system works. Critics such as Lopez say commercial property owners receive more benefits from Proposition 13. But since the measure passed, the assessed value of homeowner property has grown at an average of 8.1% per year, and assessed value of non‐homeowner property subject to Proposition 13 has grown an average of 8.4% per year, according to data from the California State Board of Equalization.
Finally, California property taxes are not among the lowest in the nation. Even with Proposition 13, we still rank higher than 36 other states when it comes to per-capita property taxes, according to the Tax Foundation. Without Proposition 13's protections, California taxpayers would fare far worse and property taxes would be at or near the top, just as we are when it comes to sales, car, gas and personal income taxes.
There is one thing Lopez and I can agree on: California politicians are too busy bickering and tinkering rather than doing their jobs. But instead of blaming California's problems on Proposition 13, it's time to focus on the real issues, such as runaway pension costs and unaccountable politicians refusing to rein in spending, while beleaguered California working families are forced to cut back.
-- Jon Coupal
RELATED:
Editorial: To fix California's budget, we need taxes too
Tim Rutten: It's time to pass California tax hikes legislatively
Editorial: A broken budgeting process
Steve Lopez: It's time to tinker with "untouchable" Prop. 13

April 15, 2011: House to vote today on budget. Hey – didn't they do that yesterday?

House Speaker John Boehner (l.), seen here with President Obama at a bipartisan meeting in the White House on April 13, will call today for a budget vote. Like he did yesterday. 

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

Hold it a second – didn’t they do that yesterday? It was all over the news – lawmakers on Thursday had a big vote on a bill that squeezed $38 billion out of Uncle Sam’s spending plans. It passed, by a vote of 260 to 167.

Are they reenacting the movie “Groundhog Day” in Washington, with everybody doing the same thing over and over until Bill Murray wakes up and sees his shadow? Did the danged bill get lost in traffic on its way to the White House, and now they have to pass it again so President Obama has something to sign?

No, and no again. They’re voting on something different today. It’s all part of a US federal budget process that’s as confusing as a teenager’s excuses and more tangled up than the syntax of Charlie Sheen.

We’ll try to explain. On Thursday, the House passed a bill that funds the US government for fiscal year 2011, the one that’s already occurring. That’s right – only in Washington do they keep fighting past fiscal deadlines and then make adjustments to a budget that government managers are already implementing. It’s a little bit like changing the size of the ice rink after the hockey game has started.

The bill that’s already passed is the one that President Obama and Speaker John Boehner have struggled over for so long. If it hadn’t passed, the government would have shut down because all their temporary funds would have expired. In the end, neither side got everything they wanted.

“Welcome to divided government,” said Speaker Boehner, following Thursday’s vote.

On Friday, the House is voting on something different – the budget for the next fiscal year, 2012.

Only they’re not voting on something that will set spending levels in a hard-and-fast manner. That would be too simple. No, under the rules of the budget process, they are voting on a non-binding resolution – a sort of promise about overall goals they will try and follow, both for 2012 and beyond, in that mythical land known to Washington budgeters as “the out years.”

The resolution isn’t law itself. The President doesn’t get to sign it (or veto it). But it sets the stage for lots of things that might happen later in specific pieces of legislation.

Got that?

Specifically, Friday’s vote is on the GOP’s 2012-and-beyond budget outline drawn up by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin. It would cut $6 trillion from federal spending over the next decade, compared to the competing outline submitted to Congress by President Obama in February.

Representative Ryan’s plan is the one that would change Medicare from a government entitlement program to a voucher-like system in which the US would help seniors buy private health insurance. To Republicans, it is something that shows they are serious about putting the nation’s fiscal house back in order. 

“The biggest threat to Medicare is the status quo and the people defending it,” said Ryan on Thursday.

To Democrats, it is a drastic program that voters won’t like when they figure out its real effects.

“They force seniors to leave the Medicare program and go into the private insurance market where costs continue to rise day in and day out,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D) of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House budget panel.

To a certain extent, their argument here is moot. Ryan's plan is expected to pass the House easily, but run into a wall in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

2011 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (OVDI)

IR-2011-14, Feb. 8, 2011
WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service announced today a special voluntary disclosure initiative designed to bring offshore money back into the U.S. tax system and help people with undisclosed income from hidden offshore accounts get current with their taxes. The new voluntary disclosure initiative will be available through Aug. 31, 2011.

“As we continue to amass more information and pursue more people internationally, the risk to individuals hiding assets offshore is increasing,” said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. “This new effort gives those hiding money in foreign accounts a tough, fair way to resolve their tax problems once and for all. And it gives people a chance to come in before we find them.”

The IRS decision to open a second special disclosure initiative follows continuing interest from taxpayers with foreign accounts. The first special voluntary disclosure program closed with 15,000 voluntary disclosures on Oct. 15, 2009. Since that time, more than 3,000 taxpayers have come forward to the IRS with bank accounts from around the world. These taxpayers will also be eligible to take advantage of the special provisions of the new initiative.

“As I’ve said all along, the goal is to get people back into the U.S. tax system,” Shulman said. “Combating international tax evasion is a top priority for the IRS. We have additional cases and banks under review. The situation will just get worse in the months ahead for those hiding assets and income offshore. This new disclosure initiative is the last, best chance for people to get back into the system.”

The new initiative announced today – called the 2011 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (OVDI) -- includes several changes from the 2009 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP). The overall penalty structure for 2011 is higher, meaning that people who did not come in through the 2009 voluntary disclosure program will not be rewarded for waiting. However, the 2011 initiative does add new features.

For the 2011 initiative, there is a new penalty framework that requires individuals to pay a penalty of 25 percent of the amount in the foreign bank accounts in the year with the highest aggregate account balance covering the 2003 to 2010 time period. Some taxpayers will be eligible for 5 or 12.5 percent penalties. Participants also must pay back-taxes and interest for up to eight years as well as paying accuracy-related and/or delinquency penalties.

Taxpayers participating in the new initiative must file all original and amended tax returns and include payment for taxes, interest and accuracy-related penalties by the Aug. 31 deadline.

The IRS is also making other modifications to the 2011 disclosure initiative.

Participants face a 25 percent penalty, but taxpayers in limited situations can qualify for a 5 percent penalty.

The IRS also created a new penalty category of 12.5 percent for treating smaller offshore accounts.  People whose offshore accounts or assets did not surpass $75,000 in any calendar year covered by the 2011 initiative will qualify for this lower rate.

The 2011 initiative offers clear benefits to encourage taxpayers to come in now rather than risk IRS detection. Taxpayers hiding assets offshore who do not come forward will face far higher penalty scenarios as well as the possibility of criminal prosecution.

“This is a fair offer for people with offshore accounts who want to get right with the nation’s taxpayers,” Shulman said. “This initiative offers them the chance to get certainty about how their case will be handled. Just as importantly, those who truly come in voluntarily can avoid criminal prosecution as well.”

The IRS is handling processing of the voluntary disclosures in centralized units to more efficiently process the applications.

The IRS has launched a new section on www.IRS.gov that includes the full terms and conditions on the 2011 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative, including an extensive set of questions and answers to help taxpayers and tax professionals. The web site also includes details on how people can make a voluntary disclosure.

In the first voluntary disclosure program in 2009, taxpayers faced up to a 20 percent penalty covering up to a six-year period. Taxpayers came forward with about 15,000 voluntary disclosures in that effort covering banks in more than 60 countries.

Shulman said IRS efforts in the international arena will only increase as time goes on.

“Tax secrecy continues to erode,” Shulman said. “We are not letting up on international tax issues, and more is in the works. For those hiding cash or assets offshore, the time to come in is now. The risk of being caught will only increase.”

Tax Refunds Move to Debit Cards

Tax Refunds Move to Debit Cards 

By SUDEEP REDDY

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Treasury Department plans to launch a pilot program Thursday to deliver tax refunds through prepaid debit cards, an effort to cut the expense of paper checks and aid lower-income taxpayers who don't have bank accounts.

About 600,000 low- and moderate-income taxpayers nationwide, a slice of those earning about $35,000 or less annually, will receive letters inviting them to activate a debit card that can receive direct deposits.

The Treasury Department's new program will deliver some tax refunds on prepaid debit cards, giving recipients an alternative to check-cashing outlets.

The program will cost the government about $1.5 million and marks the latest federal effort to send fewer payments by mail. The U.S. still issues an estimated 45 million paper checks a year for tax refunds. Each one costs the government about $1, including the cost of processing roughly 600,000 claims a year for missing checks. Each payment by direct deposit costs the U.S. about 10 cents.

"My goal, one that's been talked about for many years, is to get out of the check-payment business," said Richard Gregg, Treasury's Fiscal Assistant Secretary and one of the officials overseeing the program.

At the same time, officials across government have been exploring how to nudge consumers who don't have bank accounts toward lower-cost financial-services providers. An estimated nine million households—about one in every 12—don't have bank accounts, according to a Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. survey.

Some consumers were dropped by their banks while others say they avoid the traditional banking system owing to concerns about fees and overdraft charges. Many rely on higher-cost neighborhood check-cashing outlets and generally don't save much money as a result. The FDIC and Treasury already have separate programs to draw consumers without accounts into the banking system.

The new Treasury pilot program will provide consumers a debit card that has many features of a checking account, such as free bill paying and free ATM withdrawals at select machines. Consumers also can use the card for shopping, without added fees.

"They can use it in an ongoing way to pay bills, save money, get cash and have a real basic, robust, safe and convenient transaction account," said Treasury Financial Access Innovations Director Joshua Wright.

Half the 600,000 offers from Treasury will carry a $4.95 monthly fee, while the rest will be free. The letters will use a mix of messages, including some offering recipients a savings-account feature. Treasury officials said the different approaches will allow them to determine which is most likely to lead consumers to sign up for the card.

The program will be managed by Green Dot Corp., which has about 3.3 million prepaid cards across the U.S. The Monrovia, Calif., firm generally enrolls customers through retail stores or the Internet. "The fact that it's coming as an opportunity from the government directly to take advantage of the product is a different twist," said Steven Streit, the firm's chief executive.

On Green Dot's existing cards, about 40% of the dollar volume is from payroll direct deposit; consumers can also load funds directly. Most customers with direct deposit don't pay a monthly fee for their cards; the maximum monthly fee is $5.95 a month. The firm, which doesn't charge overdraft fees, earns most of its money from "interchange fees"—charges largely incurred by merchants when credit- and debit-card users make purchases.

The Treasury Department said it was also starting a pilot program to encourage some workers who receive wages through payroll cards—roughly 1.7 million people—to receive their 2010 tax refunds on those cards.

Write to Sudeep Reddy at sudeep.reddy@wsj.com

Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010

                        President Obama signed into law on December 17, 2010, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 (the “TRUIRJCA”).  The new tax act puts a little something under the Christmas tree for everyone.

                        1.         Tax Rates.  Everyone is most likely aware that the new law extends the Bush's income tax cuts, the Bill for 2011 and 2012. 

                        2.         Estate Tax.  The bill gives an option in the case of 2010 Decedents.  Currently the Federal estate tax (the "estate tax") is repealed in 2010.  Therefore, for a person dying in 2010, regardless of the size of his or her estate, no estate taxes will be due.  Also, for 2010 there is no "step-up" in basis provision.  Instead, current law grants every decedent a total of $1,300,000 in “step-up” adjustments which the decedent's executor can allocate to appreciated assets owned by the decedent at death.  

                        A.        Repeal is "Repealed" Under the new law; the estate tax repeal is "repealed," so that the estate tax would once again be effective for persons dying in 2010.  However, the exemption amount would be set at $5,000,000 and the top estate tax rate would be 35%.  The $5,000,000 exemption amount would be indexed for inflation after 2011.  As for the income tax issues, because the estate tax is revived, so too are the former "step-up" rules, so that if the estate is subject to the estate tax, all of the estate's assets receive a full "step-up" in cost basis to the value of such assets at the decedent’s death.

                        B.        Opt Out of the Estate Tax.  A special election would be available for all decedents dying in 2010 whereby the estate can "opt out" of the estate tax, meaning that no estate tax would be due for 2010, and the estate would be subject to the 2010 rules as if the TRUIRJCA had not been passed.  For example, estates of decedents whose estates are well in excess of $5,000,000 may wish to opt out of the estate tax and forego the full cost basis “step-up” because the overall tax that would be due on the recognition of gain would be less than the estate tax that would be due on the decedent’s death. 

                        C.        Returns.  As of now, it is not known how the "opt-out" election will be made; the Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS") will eventually publish rules and forms guiding taxpayers on the election.  In addition, should an estate be subject to the estate tax, estate tax returns for estates of decedents dying in 2010 will be due within 9 months after December 17, 2010 (ordinarily, such returns are due 9 months after the decedent's date of death).

                        3.         Gift Tax Achieves Unification.  The gift tax exemption is again unified with the estate tax exemption and is increased to $5,000,000.  Under current law, each individual has a lifetime exemption from the Federal gift tax (the "gift tax") of $1,000,000.  Under the new law, the main change with respect to the gift tax is that as of 2011 the gift tax lifetime exemption amount is "unified" with the estate tax exemption, meaning that the amount of the gift tax exemption increases from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000. 

                        4.         Payroll Tax Cut.  The law includes a temporary employee payroll cut for 2011 which would provide a payroll/self-employment for 2011.  The Social Security tax on wages earned up to $106,800 would be reduced from 6.2% to 4.2%, and the Social Security tax that self-employed individuals pay would be reduced from 12.4% to 10.4%.

                        5.         Business Tax Benefits.  Several tax relief provisions are extended through 2011, including the following:

• Work Opportunity Tax Credit
• Empowerment Zones
• District of Columbia Enterprise Zones
• Indian Employment Credit
• R&D Credit
• New Markets Tax Credit

                        6.         Business Receive a 100% Write-off.  Businesses may deduct 100 percent of new equipment business investments in 2011.

                        7.         Unemployment.  The new law extends unemployment benefits for the next 13 months.

                        8.         Two Year AMT Patch.  An alternative minimum tax patch is retroactively enacted for 2010 and extends through 2011.

                        9.         Disaster Benefits.  The disaster relief provisions are extended through 2011.

                        10.       Tax Breaks for Individuals Retroactively Reinstated and Extended Through 2011.  The following tax breaks for individuals are retroactively reinstated or extended:

• $250 above-the-line deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary
• school teachers is extended through 2011;
• election to take an itemized deduction for State and local general sales taxes in lieu of the itemized deduction permitted for State and local income taxes is extended through 2011;
• $1,000 child tax credit is expanded through 2012;
• higher education tax credit (the American Opportunity tax credit) is extended through 2012;
• expanded dependent care credit is extended through 2012;
• expanded adoption credit (but not refundability) is extended through 2012;
• increased contribution limits and carryforward period for contributions of appreciated real property (including partial interests in real property) for conservation purposes is extended through 2011;
• above-the-line deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses is extended through 2011;
• provision that permits taxpayers age 70 1/2 or older to make tax-free distributions to charity from an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) of up to $100,000 per taxpayer, per tax year (additionally, individuals will be allowed to treat IRA transfers to charities during January of 2011 and as if made during 2010) is extended through 2011;
• student loan deduction rules are extended through 2012;
• deduction for mortgage insurance premiums for a qualified residence interest; and
• the Section 1202 exclusion of 100% of gain on Qualified Small Business Stock.

Virginia health-care ruling strikes down key provision of Obama's plan

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson struck down on Monday a key facet of the federal health-care reform law. (Jay Paul For The Washington Post)

By Rosalind S. Helderman

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, December 13, 2010; 2:39 PM

RICHMOND - A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a key provision of the nation's sweeping health-care overhaul is unconstitutional, the most significant legal setback so far for President Obama's signature domestic initiative.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson found that Congress could not order individuals to buy health insurance.

In a 42-page opinion, Hudson said the provision of the law that requires most individuals to get insurance or pay a fine by 2014 is an unprecedented expansion of federal power that cannot be supported by Congress's power to regulate interstate trade.

"Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market," he wrote. "In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.]

Hudson is the first judge to rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. He said, however, that portions of the law that do not rest on the requirement that individuals obtain insurance are legal and can proceed. Hudson indicated there was no need for him to enjoin the law and halt its implementation, since the mandate does not go into effect until 2014.

The ruling comes in a case filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R), who said he was defending a new state statute that made it illegal to require people to carry health insurance in Virginia.

"I am gratified we prevailed," Cuccinelli said in a statement. "This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution."

Federal officials responded that they are confident the statute will ultimately be upheld. A victory for Cuccinelli at this early legal stage means no more for the law's fate than previous rulings that have found the opposite, they have argued.

"We are disappointed in today's ruling but continue to believe - as other federal courts in Virginia and Michigan have found - that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice, said in a statement. "There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail."

At the White House, spokesman Robert Gibbs pointed to the other rulings in favor of the individual mandate. "We are confident that [the individual mandate] is constitutional, he said. "We disagree with the ruling."

According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, a slim majority of all Americans - including almost all Republicans - oppose the health-care reform law.  But the legislation's detractors are split on whether and how much of it should be rolled back.

Overall, 52 percent of those polled oppose the overhaul to the health-care system; 43 percent are supportive of it.  Fully 86 percent of Republicans are against the legislation; 67 percent of Democrats support it. Independents divide down the middle, with 47 percent in favor and the same number opposed.

Obama-GOP deal would tax only 3,500 inheritances

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER The Associated Press  Wednesday, December 8, 2010; 4:45 PM  WASHINGTON -- More than 40,000 estates of between $1 million and $10 million wouldn't have to pay inheritance taxes next year under the deal struck by Republicans and President Barack Obama.  The package would leave only about 3,500 of the largest estates subject to federal taxes next year, a boon for the wealthy that many House Democrats say they can't accept. 

The estate tax has emerged as one of the biggest obstacles to bringing Democrats aboard the tax cuts-employment benefits package negotiated by Obama and GOP leaders in Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the lower estate tax "a bridge too far," while others in her caucus said it was a giveaway to the rich that would do little to create jobs. 

The federal estate tax reaches fewer than 1 percent of inheritances, but it has long been a political lightening rod among lawmakers from both parties. Many Republicans want to eliminate the estate tax altogether, derisively calling it a "death tax" that makes it hard for parents to transfer small businesses to their children.  Estate tax opponents got their wish this year, when the tax was temporarily repealed. But the tax holiday will be short-lived because, under current law, the estate tax is scheduled to return next year with a top rate of 55 percent for estates larger than $1 million for individuals and $2 million for married couples. 

The package Obama negotiated would set the top rate at 35 percent and exempt the first $5 million of an individual's estate. Couples could exempt $10 million.  At those levels, the tax would affect just 0.14 percent of all estates in 2011, or about 3,500 estates, generating about $11.2 billion in revenue, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group.  Under the current law, more than 44,000 estates would be taxed next year, generating $34.4 billion in taxes.  Many House Democrats are livid that Obama would give Republicans a major victory on the estate tax, especially when the rates are scheduled to go up so much next year.  "To out of nowhere throw in something that would not have any prospect of passing, I think, either chamber, is stunning," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D. 

The overall tax package would extend for two years a sweeping array of tax cuts scheduled to expire in January, including those for the working poor, the middle class and the rich.  Republicans have lined up to support the overall tax package, looking at the lower estate tax as acceptable considering the rate increases scheduled to take effect under current law. It is a "sensible estate tax agreement," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said.  The Family Business Estate Tax Coalition, a group working to repeal the tax, said the $5 million exemption for individuals and 35 percent rate "will provide much needed estate tax relief until full repeal becomes possible."

Republicans and business groups have long argued that families often have to sell or close family businesses in order to come up with the cash to pay the federal inheritance tax. Supporters of the tax counter that the impact on family businesses could be reduced with some tax planning.  Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., said uncertainty about the estate tax has made it harder for small business owners to invest in their companies. Lincoln, who was defeated for re-election last month, sponsored an estate tax bill with Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that was used as a model for the agreement. She said the new agreement will allow small business owners "to invest in their small businesses, farms and ranches, growing those operations and creating jobs." 

Other business groups, however, remain opposed to any federal estate tax.  "President Obama falsely claims that the compromise extends all of the expiring tax relief, when it actually brings the job-killing death tax back to life," said Dick Patten, president of the American Family Business Institute, another group dedicated to repealing the estate tax entirely.