“While I’m not suggesting that we allow the 199A deduction to expire entirely, 199A was never intended to be a tax loophole for the wealthiest Americans to use as they please,” he said. “Unfortunately, that’s how it’s often been used by wealthy Americans seeking to minimize their tax liability. Change is necessary to ensure the deduction is benefiting the small businesses who need protection the most.”
In the end, according to Byrnes, many small-business owners would have had to deal with the traditional corporate structure to ensure fair taxation were it not for Section 199A of the 2017 legislation.
“Section 199A is important because it essentially works to level the playing field, at least from a pure tax perspective, between traditional C corporations and pass-through entities,” he argued. “The law already contains built-in income thresholds designed to prevent abuse.”
The Historically High Estate Tax Exemption
When it comes to the renewal of the current estate tax exemption — $13.99 million or $27.98 million per married couple) for 2025 — the professors were again split in their interpretation.
As Byrnes emphasized, a larger estate tax exemption encourages Americans to save and invest in economic growth.
“When transfer tax exemption amounts are lower, saving is disincentivized because Americans are simply worried that the government is going to take that huge 40% chunk of their hard-earned savings rather than allowing wealth to flow freely to future generations,” he argued. “Taxing savings leads to less savings.”
Bloink, on the other hand, said the expanded estate tax exemption only serves to provide another “legal loophole” to allow the wealthiest Americans to avoid paying their fair share.
“Even the $5 million base amount was generous when we consider how few Americans were actually subject to the estate tax pre-TCJA,” he said. “The doubled amount merely gives the ultra-wealthy another means to avoid fair taxation.”
Bloink further argued that the expanded estate tax exemption has had a huge impact on the federal government’s revenue — and thus has contributed to massive increases in the national debt.
“Collecting fair taxes from the wealthiest Americans is the only fair way to stop this cycle where the government digs itself further into debt,” he said. “Trump’s proposals are simply not sustainable from a practical perspective. The funds have to come from somewhere, and we shouldn’t further burden ordinary Americans.”
The country shouldn’t want to penalize successful people from accumulating significant wealth, Byrnes suggested.
“We should want to encourage growth and innovation — and a large estate tax exemption does just that,” he said. “When taxpayers rest assured that their accumulations will pass to their intended beneficiaries, they’re much more likely to invest to grow businesses and invest in economic growth as a whole.”
A Higher RMD Age
In 2019, the professors recalled, Congress increased the age at which taxpayers must begin taking minimum distributions from traditional retirement accounts from 70.5 to 72 via the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act. In 2022, Congress passed the Secure 2.0 Act, which increased the RMD age to 73 in 2023. For 2033 and thereafter, the age will increase from 73 to 75.
Talk of a “Secure 3.0” has been bubbling up in policy circles. What if lawmakers pushed the RMD age even higher?
According to Byrnes, such a policy would make sense, as Americans are living — and working — longer than ever before.
“Raising the age at which RMDs must begin reflects the reality of retirement in our nation,” he said. “Taxpayers should have the freedom to choose to leave their hard-earned retirement funds in their accounts while they continue working — so they aren’t burdened with additional taxable income for retirement withdrawals if they haven’t actually retired yet and are still paying taxes at the same rates as during earning years.”
Bloink was more skeptical, arguing that raising the required beginning age would benefit only those Americans who can afford to leave their retirement funds in place for an additional number of years.
“It also gives ordinary Americans the idea that it’s always best to defer retirement withdrawals in all situations,” he noted. “The amount of any given retirement account owner’s RMD is based on the account value at the end of the prior year and the taxpayer’s age. That means taxpayers who delay RMDs simply because they can will be forced to take larger distributions once they are forced to start withdrawing.”
Pictured: Robert Bloink and William H. Byrnes
