Death and Capital Gains Taxes (United States)
My understanding is that when you die, the stocks are sold and then   the money is given to the beneficiary or the stock is repurchased in   the beneficiaries name. This is wrong, and the conclusion you draw from michael's otherwise correct answer follows your false assumption.  You seem to understand the Estate Tax federal threshold. Jersey would have its own, and I have no idea how it works there. If the decedent happened to trade in the tax year prior to passing, normal tax rules apply.  Now, if the executor chooses to sell off and liquidate the estate to cash, there's no further taxable gain, a $5M portfolio can have millions in long term gain, but the step up basis pretty much negates all of it.  If that's the case, the beneficiaries aren't likely to repurchase those shares, in fact, they might not even know what the list of stocks was, unless they sifted through the asset list. But, that sale was unnecessary, assets can be divvied up and distributed in-kind, each beneficiary getting their fraction of the number of shares of each stock. And then your share of the $5M has a stepped up basis, meaning if you sell that day, your gains are near zero. You might owe a few dollars for whatever the share move in the time passing between the step up date and date you sell.  I hope that clarifies your misunderstanding.  By the way, the IRS is just an intermediary. It's congress that writes the laws, including the tangled web of tax code. The IRS is the moral equivalent of a great customer service team working for a company we don't care for. "Stocks (among other property) currently is allowed a ""stepped-up basis"" when valuing for estate tax purpose.  From the US IRS web page: To determine if the sale of inherited property is taxable, you must first determine your basis in the property. The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following: The fair market value (FMV) of the property on the date of the decedent's death. The FMV of the property on the alternate valuation date if the executor of the estate chooses to use alternate valuation. See the Instructions for Form 706, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return. If you or your spouse gave the property to the decedent within one year before the decedent's death, see Publication 551, Basis of Assets. Your question continues ""the person that died still has to pay taxes on their profits in the year they died, right?"" Yes. The estate would be subject to tax on realized gains/losses prior to death."
"Look for states that have no income tax. A lot of these states supplement their revenue with higher property taxes, but if you rent and do not own property in the state, then you will have no state tax liability. Similarly, many states treat capital gains no differently than income tax, so if you make your earnings due to a large nest egg, then way you will still incur no tax liability on the state level Look for ""unincorporated"" areas, as these are administrative divisions of states that do not have a municipal government, and as such do not collect local taxes. Look for economic development perks of the new jurisdiction. Many states have some kind of formal tax credit for people that start business or buy in certain areas, but MONEY TALKS and you can make an individual arrangement with any agency, municipality etc. If the secretary at city hall doesn't know about a prepackaged formal arrangement that is offered to citizens, then ask for the ""expedited development package"" which generally has a ""processing fee"" involved. This is something you make up ie. ""What is the processing fee for the expedited development package, quote on quote"" States like Maryland and Nevada have formalized this process, but you are generally paying off the Secretary of State for favorable treatment. You'll always be paying off someone." First of all, in the U.S., no Federal gift tax has to be paid by the recipient of  the gift; it is the donor who has to pay gift tax, if any is due. Nor does the recipient have to pay Federal income tax on the gift; it is not considered taxable income.  I do not believe that any states view matters differently for the purposes of state gift and income taxes, but I am always ready to be disabused of any such fondly-held notions. If your parents were required to pay any gift tax, that would have been at the  time the gift was originally given and only if they gifted more than the maximum allowable exemption per person for that year. Currently the exemption is $14K from each donor per recipient per year. Additional gifts were made by your parents to you during your minority when your parents paid any income tax  due on the distributions in your account, but these amounts would unlikely to have been larger than the exemption for that year. In any case, gift tax is  none of your concern. If you have been declaring the income from distributions from the mutual funds all these years, then the only tax due on the distributions from the funds in 2013 is the Federal income tax for the 2013 tax year (plus a special assessment of Medicare tax on investment income if your income is large; unlikely based on your question and follow-up comment).  If you sold all or part of your shares in the funds in 2013, then you would need to calculate the basis of your investments in the fund in order to figure out if you have capital gains or losses.  Ditto if you are thinking of cashing out in 2014 and wish to estimate how much income tax is due. But if you want to just hang on to the funds, then there is no immediate need to figure out the basis right away, though taking care of the matter and keeping in top of things for the future will be helpful. As a final note, there is no tax due on the appreciation of the fund's shares. The increased value of your account because the fund's share price rose is not a taxable event (nor are decreases in the account deductible). These are called unrealized capital gains (or losses) and you do not pay tax on them (or deduct them as losses) until you realize the gains by  disposing of the property. "I had been pondering this recently myself too.  This question motivated me to do a little research.  It appears that what happens is that (take a deep breath) the capital gain does push you into the next tax bracket, but the capital gain is always interpreted as the ""last"" income you received, so that if your non-capital-gains income is less than the threshold, it will all be taxed in the lower bracket, and only your capital gain will be taxed in the higher bracket (but it will be taxed at the capital-gains rate of that higher bracket). In short, a capital gain can only push capital gains into higher capital-gains tax brackets; it cannot push ordinary income into higher ordinary-income tax brackets.  In addition, the amount of the capital gain is taxed in a marginal fashion, such that any portion of the gain that will ""fit"" into a lower bracket will be taxed at a lower level, with only the topmost portion of any gain being taxed at the top rate. This site is one claiming this: Will capital gain or dividend income push my other income into a higher tax bracket? No, the tax rates apply first to your “ordinary income” (income from sources other than long-term capital gains or qualifying dividends) so these items that are taxed at special rates won’t push your other income into a higher tax bracket. If my ordinary income puts me in the 15% tax bracket, can I receive an unlimited amount of long-term capital gain at the 0% rate? No, the 0% rate applies only to the amount of long-term capital gain and dividend income needed to “fill up” the 15% tax bracket. For example, if your ordinary income is $4,000 below the figure that would put you in the 25% bracket and you have a $10,000 long-term capital gain, you’ll pay 0% on $4,000 of your capital gain and 15% on the rest. There are several Bogleheads forum threads (here, here, here and here) that also touch on the same issue. The last of those links to the IRS capital gains worksheet.  I traced through the logic and I believe it confirms this.  Here's how it works: (In conclusion, we now know Mitt Romney's secret.)" The answer to this question requires looking at the mathematics of the Qualified Dividends and Capital Gains Worksheet (QDCGW). Start with Taxable Income which is the number that appears on Line 43 of Form 1040.  This is after the Adjusted Gross Income has been reduced by the Standard Deduction or Itemized Deductions as the case may be, as well as the exemptions claimed.   Then, subtract off the Qualified Dividends and the Net Long-Term Capital Gains (reduced by Net Short-Term  Capital Losses, if any) to get the non-cap-gains part of the Taxable Income. Assigning somewhat different meanings to the numbers in the OPs' question, let's say that the Taxable Income is $74K of which $10K is Long-Term Capital Gains leaving $64K as the the non-cap-gains taxable income on Line 7 of the QDCGW.   Since $64K is smaller than $72.5K (not $73.8K as stated by the OP) and this is a MFJ return, $72.5K - $64K = $8.5K of the long-term capital gains are taxed at 0%. The balance $1.5K is taxed at 15% giving $225 as the tax due on that part.   The 64K of non-cap-gains taxable income has a tax of $8711 if I am reading the Tax Tables correctly, and so the total tax due is $8711+225 = $8936.  This is as it should be; the non-gains income of $64K was assessed the tax due on it, $8.5K of the cap gains were taxed at 0%, and $1.5K at 15%. There are more complications to be worked out on the QDCGW for high earners who attract the 20% capital gains rate but those are not relevant here. "As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, ""It depends."" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth." Found a great article (with bibliography) that covers taxation on investment activity by non resident aliens - even covers the special 15% tax on dividends for Canadian residents. It's (dividend tax rate) generally 30% for other NRAs  (your 2nd question). And it confirmed my suspicion that there are no capital gains taxes for NRAs. (1st Q) Source: http://invest-faq.com/articles/tax-non-us-nat.html Capital gains tax is an income tax upon your profit from selling investments. Long-term capital gains (investments you have held for more than a year) are taxed significantly less than short-term gains. It doesn't limit how many shares you can sell; it does discourage selling them too quickly after buying.  You can balance losses against gains to reduce the tax due. You can look for tax-advantaged investments (the obvious one being a 401k plan, IRA, or equivalent, though those generally require leaving the money invested until retirement). But in the US, most investments other than the house you are living in (which some of us argue isn't really an investment) are subject to capital gains tax, period. "This forum is not intended to be a discussion group, but I would like to add a different perspective, especially for @MrChrister, on  @littleadv's rhetorical question  ""... estates are after-tax money, i.e.: income tax has been paid on them,    yet the government taxes them again. Why?"" For the cash in an estate, yes, that is after-tax money, but consider other assets such as stocks and real estate. Suppose a rich man bought stock in a small computer start-up company at $10 a share about 35 years ago, and that stock is now worth $500 a share. The man dies and his will bequeaths the shares to his son. According to US tax law, the son's basis in the shares is $500 per share, that is, if the son sells the shares, his capital gains are computed as if he had purchased the shares for $500 each. The son pays no taxes on the inheritance he receives. The deceased father's last income tax return (filed by the executor of the father's will) does not list the $490/share gain as a capital gain since the father did not sell the stock (the gain is what is called an unrealized gain), and so there is no income tax due from the father on the $490/share. Now, if there is no estate tax whatsoever, the father's estate  tax return pays no tax on that gain of $490 per share either. Would this be considered an equitable system? Should the government not tax the gain at all? It is worth noting that it would be possible for a government to eliminate estate taxes entirely, but instead have tax laws  that say that unrealized gains on the deceased's property would be taxed (as capital gains) on the deceased's final tax return."