BUY, BORROW, DIE

How the Tax Advantage Works and Why the American Model Cannot Be Mechanically Replicated in Ukraine?

Buy, Borrow, Die is an American model for managing taxable events in which an owner holds an appreciating asset, obtains liquidity through borrowing, and, under certain conditions, transfers the asset to heirs with its tax basis stepped up to fair market value (step-up in basis). Its key advantage is created not by “cheap tax-free credit,” but by deferring the realization of gains and controlling when appreciation becomes taxable income.

Mechanically replicating the model is particularly risky for a Ukrainian tax resident. The principal amount of a genuine loan is generally not included in taxable income while the agreement remains in effect; however, an inherited investment asset does not receive the American step-up in tax basis to fair market value. As a result, heirs may simultaneously receive an asset with a low acquisition cost, an obligation to repay the debt, and a future tax liability upon sale.

In brief, the main conclusion is as follows:

• Buy creates potential appreciation and the option to choose the timing of realization.
• Borrow provides liquidity but does not increase net assets: the cash is matched by debt.
• Die changes the tax outcome only where the law of the relevant jurisdiction provides a special basis for inherited assets—and even in the United States this stage is not free: above the exclusion amount, a 40% federal estate tax applies.
• Professional structuring should optimize after-tax, risk-adjusted wealth rather than minimize a single year’s tax.

Is It True That Jeff Bezos Paid Zero Income Tax?

Yes. According to ProPublica, Jeff Bezos paid no U.S. federal income tax in 2007 and 2011, but this does not mean that he paid no taxes of any kind, nor does it prove that he used the full Buy, Borrow, Die strategy. ProPublica attributed the 2007 result to investment losses and deductions, including interest expense, and the 2011 result to investment losses exceeding income.

One documented detail from 2011 is particularly revealing: with a net worth of approximately $18 billion, Bezos had investment losses exceeding his income, and he claimed and received a $4,000 tax credit for his four children—a benefit designed for families with income of up to $110,000. The zero result arose from losses and deductions permitted by law, not from the proven implementation of a three-stage strategy; nevertheless, the detail clearly illustrates the gap between the tax base and the economic base.

It is important to distinguish verified data from its popular interpretation:

• the wealth of the 25 richest Americans, according to Forbes estimates, increased by $401 billion between 2014 and 2018;
• over the same period, they paid $13.6 billion in federal income tax;
• ProPublica described the ratio between these figures as a 3.4% true tax rate;
• for Warren Buffett, the comparable figure was 0.1% (a $24.3 billion increase in wealth against $23.7 million in tax);
• this is a metric devised for a journalistic investigation, not an effective rate calculated from a tax return in accordance with the law.

The distinction is fundamental. The statutory tax rate applies to recognized income, whereas the denominator of the true tax rate is the estimated increase in wealth, a significant portion of which may have remained unrealized. The 3.4% figure therefore demonstrates the gap between economic and taxable income, but it is not evidence of illegal tax evasion or of a special “billionaires’ tax rate.”

What Actually Creates the Tax Advantage?

The tax advantage is created by optionality: an owner of capital can often choose when, how much, and on what terms to realize gains, while a wage earner generally does not control when taxable income arises. This asymmetry—not credit itself—is the foundation of the model.

A sound analysis must distinguish among three economic categories:

• employment or business income — cash flow that is generally taxed as it accrues or is received;
• unrealized gains — changes in the market value of an asset that constitute neither cash flow nor liquidity;
• borrowed funds — a source of financing matched by an obligation to repay principal and interest.

An owner of capital has a range of lawful options: realizing an asset in stages, matching gains against losses, changing the portfolio structure, making charitable transfers, accounting for tax residence, and designing succession. The economic value of that choice equals the difference between the present value of the immediate tax and the expected present value of the tax under the selected scenario.

The principal sources of that value are:

• deferral of tax and compounding on the amount that remains invested;
• the ability to offset investment losses and use deductions provided by law;
• partial rather than immediate realization of an asset;
• the lawful choice of the timing and jurisdiction of a taxable event;
• a change in the tax basis upon inheritance—but only where expressly permitted by the applicable law.

How Does Buy, Borrow, Die Work in the United States?

Within the U.S. federal tax framework, the model sequentially combines the realization principle, the non-taxable receipt of genuine loan proceeds, and the general rule stepping up the tax basis to fair market value (step-up in basis) for property acquired from a decedent. Each stage has an independent legal basis and its own exceptions.

Buy—hold rather than sell. Under §1001 of the Internal Revenue Code, gain is generally determined upon a sale or other disposition as the excess of the amount realized over the adjusted tax basis. Until an asset is realized, its appreciation generally does not become taxable gain, although dividends, interest, rent, and other current income may be taxed separately.

Borrow—obtain liquidity against collateral. The IRS states expressly that loan proceeds are not included in gross income because the borrower has an obligation to repay them. If the debt is subsequently forgiven, its tax treatment may change.

Die—transfer the asset with a new basis. The general rule in §1014 IRC establishes a basis equal to the fair market value on the date of death, or on an alternative valuation date where applicable, for property acquired from a decedent. Consequently, appreciation accumulated during the owner’s lifetime will, in many cases, not be included in the calculation of the heir’s future capital gain.

However, §1014 is not an unconditional benefit, and three qualifications are fundamental:

• revaluation works in both directions: if an asset has accumulated a loss, a step-down occurs, and inheriting the loss-making asset eliminates the tax loss;
• under §1014(e), an asset given to a decedent less than one year before death and returned to the donor does not receive a basis adjustment;
• under Rev. Rul. 2023-2, assets of an irrevocable grantor trust that are not included in the estate do not receive a basis adjustment.

The formula was popularized by University of Southern California tax law professor Edward McCaffery, who reduced the life cycle to the phrase “buy, borrow, die.” However, even in the United States, the final stage does not automatically eliminate all taxes: the exceptions to §1014, federal estate tax, state taxes, estate expenses, and requirements concerning the validity of the debt continue to apply.

As of July 14, 2026, the basic federal estate tax exclusion is $15 million per decedent ($30 million for a married couple), indexed annually; above the exclusion, a rate of up to 40% applies to the entire value of the estate, not merely to the appreciation. The provision was introduced by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (signed on July 4, 2025) without a built-in expiration date; its “permanent” nature means only that there is no automatic sunset, not that it is protected from amendment by future legislation.

Why Is an Asset-Backed Loan Not “Free Money”?

A loan substitutes interest expense, a liability, LTV risk, and the possibility of forced liquidation at an unfavorable time for the immediate sale of an asset. It creates liquidity but not net wealth: cash and debt arise on the balance sheet simultaneously. Credit is not a “third form of money,” but the rental of someone else’s money against one’s own assets; that rental has a price (interest), a term, and a lender’s right to terminate the arrangement.

A comparison of selling and borrowing must include:

• tax on the embedded gain upon sale;
• interest, fees, and the potential cost of hedging the loan;
• changes in the value and liquidity of the collateral;
• a safe loan-to-value ratio and a buffer before a margin call;
• currency matching among the debt, income, and asset;
• the source used to service interest;
• the tax consequences of a forced sale;
• the effect of the collateral and debt on corporate control and inheritance.

A simplified test can be expressed as a formula. If the owner needs net liquidity L, the proportion of unrealized gain in the asset to be sold is g, and the tax rate on the gain is τ, then, to receive L after tax, the owner must sell assets worth approximately:

L / (1 − τ × g).

For example, where the gain represents 80% and the combined rate is 23.8% (the basic federal long-term capital gains rate of 20% plus the 3.8% net investment income tax for high-income taxpayers), obtaining $1 million after tax requires the sale of approximately $1.235 million of assets. The tax gap is approximately $235,000. At an annual cost of debt of 6%, this static saving is equivalent to approximately 3.9 years of simple interest—before fees, volatility, future tax, and forced-sale risk are taken into account.

FINRA warns that the interest rate on a securities-backed line of credit is generally variable and tied to the prime rate or SOFR plus a spread. If the collateral becomes insufficient, a borrower is typically given two or three days to provide additional collateral or repay the loan; the lender may then sell the securities. Moreover, SBLOCs are generally demand loans: the lender may require full repayment at any time, even without a decline in the value of the collateral—a risk more significant than any calculated LTV buffer.

In the context of non-bank securities-backed lending, SEC Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw observed that “much of this market is not subject to meaningful regulation and investors are being put at risk.”

Do All Wealthy People Really Live on Borrowed Money?

No. New empirical evidence indicates that, for the wealthiest 1% of U.S. households, Buy, Save, Die is a more accurate formula than Buy, Borrow, Die. The lending model exists as a matter of law, but borrowing is not, in the aggregate, the dominant source used to finance consumption.

Law professors Edward Fox (University of Michigan) and Zachary Liscow (Yale Law School), in The Role of Unrealized Gains and Borrowing in the Taxation of the Rich (Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 252, Art. 105518), analyzed data for 2004–2022 and reached the following findings:

• new annual borrowing by the top 1% amounted to only 1–2% of economic income;
• unrealized gains were 20–40 times greater than new borrowing;
• the tax base covered approximately 60% of the economic income of the top 1%, and approximately 71% after adjustment for inflation;
• for the top 0.1% in 2022, new borrowing was estimated at approximately 1% of economic income, while new unrealized gains were approximately 50%;
• affluent households had, on average, sufficient taxable liquid income to finance both consumption and substantial savings.

The authors state the conclusion directly: “Buy-borrow-die is a real loophole… but the data say the very wealthy are mostly saving, not borrowing.”

The limitation of the study is also important: the Survey of Consumer Finances does not include the Forbes 400 in its public microdata. The conclusion is therefore robust for the upper end of the wealth distribution as a whole, but it does not rule out extensive borrowing by individual billionaires.

What Is the Value of Tax Deferral Itself?

Even without borrowing, deferring realization can significantly increase final wealth through compounding on the deferred tax amount. The illustrative model below isolates only the effect of tax timing and is not an investment forecast.

Model assumptions:

• initial capital—$1 million;
• nominal return—8% per annum;
• time horizon—30 years;
• tax on gains—20% (the basic federal long-term capital gains rate; for high-income taxpayers, the combined rate including NIIT is 23.8%—see the example above);
• fees, dividends, inflation, and changes in legislation are not taken into account; estate tax is considered separately below.

When tax is imposed only at the end, capital is approximately 28.3% higher than under annual taxation. The step-up scenario adds approximately another 22.0% relative to a sale at the end.

Material qualification: this result cannot be extrapolated to large fortunes. For property above the exclusion amount, the basis adjustment eliminates income tax on the gain but includes the asset in the taxable estate, where the 40% federal estate tax applies to the entire value above $15 million, not only to the appreciation. Death does not “eliminate taxes”—it substitutes one tax for another.

Why the “Die” Stage Is Not Free: An Estate Tax Illustration

A simplified comparison for a large fortune (excluding state taxes, deductions, and planning tools):

* Estate tax will arise later in respect of the remaining property; the table isolates the effect of a single decision. The calculation is illustrative.

Conclusion: above the exclusion amount, the “Die” stage is more expensive than a lifetime sale. The actual leakage from the tax base arises not from death itself, but from combining the step-up with tools that reduce the taxable estate—trusts, GRATs, charitable structures, and valuation discounts for ownership interests. Critics and proponents of the model who ignore estate tax make the same methodological error: isolating one tax from the system.

Can the United States Close the Buy, Borrow, Die Model?

Yes. The mechanism remains contested both legally and politically: the constitutional question of taxing unrealized gains in the United States has expressly been left open, while legislative initiatives to “close” the model regularly return to the agenda.

In Moore v. United States (No. 22-800, decided June 20, 2024), the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly upheld the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax—a tax on an entity’s realized income attributed to its shareholders—and expressly declined to decide whether the Sixteenth Amendment requires realization of income. A tax on unrealized gains in the United States is neither constitutionally prohibited nor constitutionally authorized; the legal uncertainty remains.

Legislative alternatives are being discussed in parallel: a Billionaire Minimum Income Tax, proposals to introduce mark-to-market taxation for extremely large fortunes, and treatment of a loan secured by an appreciated asset as a taxable realization—options systematized, among others, by the Yale Budget Lab.

The practical planning implication is that Buy, Borrow, Die is a mechanism under pressure, not a perpetual structure. Structures whose economics depend exclusively on preservation of the step-up and the current estate tax parameters carry regulatory risk that must be incorporated into the planning horizon.

Why Can the Model Not Be Transferred Between Countries as a Ready-Made Product?

The tax outcome of Buy, Borrow, Die is determined not by the name of the strategy, but by the combination of the owner’s tax residence, the type and location of the asset, the form of ownership, the lending rules, and the realization and inheritance regimes. In the European Union, for example, personal taxation and inheritance do not form a single harmonized system; a cross-border estate may be subject to the requirements of several countries.

The clearest counterexample is Canada: on death, all capital assets are deemed to have been disposed of, the gain is included in the deceased’s final return and taxed, and there is no separate inheritance tax. The same “Die” stage eliminates tax on gains in the United States but compulsorily imposes it in Canada.

The Canadian and French parameters are presented as comparative reference points as of July 14, 2026, and must be verified as of the decision date. Even a similar tax-basis outcome does not imply the same aggregate burden: in France, the value of securities for a future calculation of gains may be based on the value used for tax purposes upon a gratuitous transfer, while the transfer itself may be subject to droits de mutation.

How Does Buy, Borrow, Die Work for a Ukrainian Tax Resident?

The Buy and Borrow stages work in part in Ukraine, but the Die stage does not provide the American step-up for investment assets. The structure must therefore be modeled as an entire life cycle, including the future sale and repayment of liabilities by the heirs.

What Happens at the Buy Stage?

An increase in the market value of an investment asset does not in itself generally generate investment profit until the asset is sold or a transaction treated as equivalent occurs. Upon sale, the taxable amount is the positive difference between the proceeds and the documented acquisition costs.

The following rates apply to typical taxable investment income of an individual (as of July 14, 2026):

• 18% personal income tax;
• 5% military levy—the rate has applied since December 1, 2024 (Law No. 4015-IX), and Law No. 4835-IX dated April 7, 2026 extended it for three years after the end of martial law, making it a stable medium-term provision;
• a total nominal burden of 23% on calculated investment profit, not on the entire sale proceeds.

What Happens at the Borrow Stage?

The principal amount of a genuine loan is not included in total taxable income during the term of the agreement. Subparagraph 165.1.29 of the Tax Code of Ukraine expressly extends this rule to a secured financial loan granted for a specified term at interest; subparagraph 165.1.31 separately regulates repayable financial assistance.

Critical conditions and risks:

• there must be a genuine obligation to repay;
• the agreement, movement of funds, interest, and collateral must have economic substance;
• forgiven debt may become taxable income in the absence of a specific exemption;
• a foreign loan does not eliminate currency, banking, KYC/AML, or documentary requirements.

What Happens at the Die Stage?

An inherited or gifted investment asset is deemed acquired at a cost equal to the amount of state duty and personal income tax paid upon inheritance or gifting. This rule in subparagraph 170.2.2 of the Tax Code of Ukraine differs fundamentally from the American step-up in basis to fair market value.

Inheritance itself is taxed at rates that depend on kinship and residence (as of July 14, 2026):

• 0% personal income tax—heirs in the first and second degrees of kinship (spouse, children, parents, siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren); the military levy likewise does not arise where the personal income tax rate is zero;
• 5% personal income tax + 5% military levy—other resident heirs;
• 18% personal income tax + 5% military levy—if either the decedent or the heir is a non-resident.

This produces the Ukrainian “anti-step-up”: for close relatives inheriting at a zero rate, the acquisition cost under 170.2.2 approaches zero (in practice, the state duty). Consequently, upon a subsequent sale, the 18% + 5% tax applies to almost the entire sale price, not merely the gain. The American logic that “death cleanses the asset’s tax history” is inverted in Ukraine: death preserves the low basis and shifts the tax to the heir.

The debt does not disappear either: under Article 1282 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, heirs satisfy creditors’ claims within the value of the property inherited.

Mechanical replication of the American strategy can therefore leave the heirs with three interrelated problems: a loan obligation, a low tax basis in the asset, and the need to sell part of the property to repay the debt—with tax imposed on almost the entire sale price.

How Much More Heavily Is Labor Taxed Than Capital in Ukraine?

The aggregate burden on salary in Ukraine is approximately one and a half times the nominal rate on investment profit and arises immediately, whereas tax on capital gains arises only upon realization. The popular claim that “your salary tax rate is higher than that of a capital owner” is broadly correct in direction, but requires precise figures (2026, simplified):

The comparison confirms the direction of the claim: labor is taxed more heavily and earlier. However, the gap is created not by “zero tax for the wealthy,” but by the combination of a lower aggregate rate and control over the timing of realization—the very optionality of a taxable event.

When Do CFC, Substance, Beneficial Ownership, and CRS Rules Arise in the Structure?

These regimes are triggered not by the mere existence of a loan, but by the chosen cross-border architecture of ownership, income flows, and control. They should be applied functionally rather than listed as universal conditions for every loan.

CFC. Article 39² of the Tax Code of Ukraine applies where a Ukrainian resident controls a foreign company or arrangement. Depending on the circumstances, part of the adjusted profit may be included in the income of the controlling person; an exemption for the profit does not always eliminate reporting obligations.

Substance. Functional presence is particularly important for foreign holding, financial, investment, and other passive structures. It is not an independent condition for an ordinary loan to an individual who owns the asset directly.

Beneficial ownership. Paragraph 103.3 of the Tax Code of Ukraine primarily restricts the application of treaty benefits to dividends, interest, royalties, and other income; it is not a general test of the legality of a loan secured by one’s own asset.

CRS. The standard increases the transparency of foreign financial accounts: identifying information, the account balance or value, interest, dividends, and gross proceeds from the sale or redemption of financial assets are exchanged. A register of credit obligations is not exchanged, but the origin of the collateral and funds remains subject to AML review.

AML/KYC. A loan agreement may substantiate the source of funds for a particular receipt, but it does not replace evidence of source of wealth, the origin of the collateral, beneficial ownership, or the economic rationale for the structure.

Ukraine’s CRS timeline (as of July 14, 2026): the State Tax Service joined the Multilateral CRS Agreement on August 19, 2022; the first reciprocal automatic exchange was completed by September 30, 2024 (the first reporting period was July 1–December 31, 2023), with information received from approximately 50 jurisdictions and sent to 51; exchanges have since taken place annually—in 2025, Ukraine exchanged data for the 2024 reporting year with 71 jurisdictions in both directions. A foreign account or loan can therefore no longer be structured on the assumption of information isolation.

What Constitutes a Professional Capital Architecture?

Professional capital structuring is an integrated system of ownership, taxation, liquidity, risk, corporate governance, and succession. Its KPI is not the lowest tax in a single period, but the maximum legally sustainable after-tax, risk-adjusted wealth over the full time horizon.

A tax saving that impairs liquidity, creates a risk of losing control, triggers a margin call, or makes the origin of capital impossible to substantiate is not sustainable optimization.

What Questions Should an Owner Ask Before Using an Asset-Backed Loan?

Before taking out a loan, the owner must model not only the interest rate and LTV, but also the entire life cycle of the asset, debt, and taxable events. A minimum diagnostic review should answer the following questions:

• Who is the legal and beneficial owner of the asset?
• Where is the owner currently treated as a tax resident, and where might the owner become resident over the life of the structure?
• Which income arises annually, and which remains an unrealized gain?
• What is the documented tax basis of each asset?
• How will interest and principal be serviced without a forced sale?
• What LTV can withstand a simultaneous decline in collateral value, increase in the interest rate, and change in the exchange rate?
• Does the lender have the right to demand early repayment (demand loan), and what will happen if that right is exercised?
• What will happen to the voting interest, covenants, and control upon enforcement?
• How will the asset and liability pass to the heirs, and what tax will arise upon a subsequent sale?
• What CFC, CRS, AML/KYC, and treaty-benefit requirements are triggered by the chosen structure?
• What predetermined triggers require deleveraging, refinancing, or realization of part of the portfolio?

What Conclusion Matters for a Ukrainian Owner?

The central secret of wealth is not Borrow, but the ability to control when economic gains become taxable income. Credit may sometimes serve that architecture, but it is not its center and does not replace the ownership structure, liquidity, control, or succession plan.

In practice, this means:

• do not replicate the American model without a country-by-country and asset-by-asset analysis: the American Die stage is inverted into an “anti-step-up” in Ukraine;
• calculate the cost of debt together with tax, collateral risk, the lender’s acceleration right, and future realization;
• document the origin of the asset, acquisition cost, movement of funds, and economic purpose of the loan;
• design the inheritance arrangements together with the credit policy;
• allow for regulatory risk: even in the United States, the mechanism is contested legally and politically;
• assess the outcome by after-tax, risk-adjusted wealth, not by the amount of tax deferred in the current year.

LigLex helps owners build a map of ownership, taxable events, liabilities, and succession, and then tests the structure for legal sustainability, liquidity, and KYC/AML substantiation. An initial diagnostic review generally requires only a list of assets and liabilities, the ownership structure, the tax residence of family members, and the events planned over a 3–10-year horizon.

FAQ: What Else Is Important to Know About Buy, Borrow, Die?

Does a Loan Constitute Income for an Individual in Ukraine?

The principal amount of a genuine loan is generally not included in taxable income while the agreement remains in effect. However, debt forgiveness, a sham loan, or the absence of a genuine repayment obligation may change the tax outcome.

• the legal basis is subparagraph 165.1.29 of the Tax Code of Ukraine;
• the agreement and movement of funds must substantiate the economic substance of the transaction.

Can Tax Be Avoided If Shares Appreciate but Are Not Sold?

Unrealized appreciation in an investment asset generally does not generate investment profit until a sale or another equivalent transaction occurs. Dividends, interest, and other current income may nevertheless be taxed independently of a sale.

• appreciation and cash income must be accounted for separately;
• exceptions depend on the type of asset and the applicable legislation.

Does an Heir in Ukraine Receive a Fair-Market-Value Tax Basis in Shares?

No. For an inherited investment asset, the Tax Code of Ukraine does not provide for an American step-up to fair market value. The acquisition cost is determined as the amount of state duty and personal income tax paid upon inheritance.

• where close relatives inherit at a zero rate, the basis is virtually zero, so almost the entire amount is taxed upon sale;
• the calculation requires verification of the asset type and documentation.

Is a Loan Secured by Shares Always More Advantageous Than Selling Them?

No. The advantage depends on the full cost of debt, the proportion of embedded gain, the time horizon, LTV, the lender’s acceleration right, and forced-realization risk. At a high interest rate or with volatile, concentrated collateral, selling part of the asset may be more sustainable.

• the present value of all cash flows must be compared;
• the stress test should include the interest rate, market, currency, and liquidity.

Does the Loan Pass to the Heirs?

Debt does not automatically disappear upon the borrower’s death. In Ukraine, heirs satisfy creditors’ claims within the value of the property inherited, subject to the procedure prescribed by law.

• the legal basis is Article 1282 of the Civil Code of Ukraine;
• the specific outcome depends on the agreement, collateral, and composition of the estate.

Can the Ukrainian Tax Authority See Foreign Investment Accounts?

CRS provides for the automatic exchange of information on reportable financial accounts among participating jurisdictions. Ukraine has exchanged such information since 2024, so a structure must be based on transparency and substantiation rather than an assumption that the account is confidential.

• information on the owner, account value, and certain types of income is exchanged;
• CRS is not a universal register of every loan agreement.

When Can Buy, Borrow, Die Form Part of Lawful Planning?

The model may form part of lawful planning where the asset, loan, and repayment obligation are genuine and the tax outcome has been calculated in all jurisdictions concerned. It should not be used as a universally promised “tax-free life” strategy.

• tax, legal, credit, and inheritance scenarios are required;
• the structure must withstand AML/KYC review and a liquidity stress test.

Sources

1. ProPublica. The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax, June 8, 2021. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
2. ProPublica. How We Calculated the True Tax Rates of the Wealthiest, June 8, 2021. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-calculated-the-true-tax-rates-of-the-wealthiest
3. U.S. Code, Title 26, §1001. Determination of amount of and recognition of gain or loss. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title26-section1001
4. Internal Revenue Service. Topic No. 432, Form 1099-A, Acquisition or Abandonment of Secured Property and Cancellation of Debt, updated May 18, 2026. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc432
5. U.S. Code, Title 26, §1014. Basis of property acquired from a decedent (including §1014(e)); Rev. Rul. 2023-2 (grantor-trust assets outside the estate). https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A26+section%3A1014+edition%3Aprelim%29
6. Internal Revenue Service. Estate tax; One Big Beautiful Bill Act (signed July 4, 2025): basic estate/gift/GST exclusion amount of $15 million per person from January 1, 2026, indexed. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estate-tax
7. FINRA. Securities-Backed Lines of Credit Explained, January 3, 2024. https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/securities-backed-lines-credit
8. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Caroline A. Crenshaw. In-securities: What Happens When Investors in an Important Market are not Protected?, October 11, 2023. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/crenshaw-remarks-center-american-progress-101123
9. Fox, Edward G.; Liscow, Zachary D. The Role of Unrealized Gains and Borrowing in the Taxation of the Rich // Journal of Public Economics. 2025. Vol. 252. Art. 105518. Preprint: SSRN, id 5104644, January 2025. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272725002178
10. Fox, Edward G.; Liscow, Zachary. The Rich’s Real Tax Trick Isn’t “Buy, Borrow, Die”, Tax Policy Center, June 15, 2026. https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/richs-real-tax-trick-isnt-buy-borrow-die
11. University of Michigan Law School Repository. Fox, Edward; Liscow, Zachary. The Role of Unrealized Gains and Borrowing in the Taxation of the Rich, Working Paper No. 286, 2025. https://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_current/286/
12. U.S. Supreme Court. Moore v. United States, No. 22-800, decision dated June 20, 2024. https://www.supremecourt.gov/
13. Yale Budget Lab. “Buy-Borrow-Die”: Options for Reforming the Tax Treatment of Borrowing Against Appreciated Assets.
14. European Commission. EU taxpayers and cross-border tax issues; Recommendation 2011/856/EU on relief for double taxation of inheritances. https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/taxation/personal-taxation/eu-taxpayers-and-cross-border-tax-issues_en ; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011H0856
15. Direction générale des Finances publiques, France. BOFiP BOI-RPPM-PVBMI-20-10-20-30: value of securities acquired by gratuitous transfer. https://bofip.impots.gouv.fr/bofip/3621-PGP.html/identifiant=BOI-RPPM-PVBMI-20-10-20-30-20191220
16. Canada Revenue Agency. Deemed disposition of property for deceased persons (canada.ca)—comparative reference point; parameters must be verified as of the publication date.
17. State Tax Service of Ukraine. On the Taxation of Investment Profit, December 19, 2025. https://vin.tax.gov.ua/media-ark/news-ark/964001.html
18. Tax Code of Ukraine dated December 2, 2010, No. 2755-VI: subparagraphs 165.1.29, 165.1.31, 170.2.2, Article 174, Article 39², and paragraph 103.3. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2755-17#Text
19. Laws of Ukraine No. 4015-IX (5% military levy from December 1, 2024) and No. 4835-IX dated April 7, 2026 (extension of the military levy for three years after the end of martial law; effective from April 15, 2026).
20. State Tax Service of Ukraine. 2026 Filing Campaign: How Much Tax Must Be Paid Upon Receiving an Inheritance, June 16, 2026. https://poltava.tax.gov.ua/deklaratsiyna-kampaniya-2026/informatsiyni-povidomlennya/1020944.html
21. Civil Code of Ukraine dated January 16, 2003, No. 435-IV, Article 1282. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/435-15#Text
22. Materials of the State Tax Service of Ukraine on controlled foreign companies (Article 39² of the Tax Code of Ukraine). https://tax.gov.ua/data/files/319080.pdf
23. State Tax Service of Ukraine. Clarification on paragraph 103.3 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, April 13, 2026. https://if.tax.gov.ua/media-ark/news-ark/999682.html
24. OECD. Consolidated Text of the Common Reporting Standard, 2025. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/04/consolidated-text-of-the-common-reporting-standard-2025_e478bc04/055664b1-en.pdf
25. State Tax Service of Ukraine: accession to the Multilateral CRS Agreement on August 19, 2022; notice of completion of the first reciprocal exchange by September 30, 2024 (received from approximately 50 jurisdictions / sent to 51); State Tax Service Successfully Conducts International Automatic Exchange of Information Under the CRS for the 2024 Reporting Year, October 10, 2025. https://tax.gov.ua/baneryi/crs/povidomlennya/942148.html

Disclaimer. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, or investment advice. The illustrative calculations do not account for state taxes, deductions, planning instruments, volatility, or changes in legislation. Tax consequences depend on the parties’ residence, the type and location of the asset, the ownership structure, financing terms, and the current version of applicable legislation. An individual analysis is required before any decision is made.

The author of the article is Sergey Lipatnikov