In apparent service to a political agenda, the author has buried the lead. Deeply. Four paragraphs down he points out that, "..the Romneys’ gift-tax avoidance strategy is perfectly legal." And suggesting that it is a preference available only to the wealthy is a bit disingenuous. An X% tax break is always more valuable (in absolute dollar terms, at least)to a taxpayer who is applying the benefit to a larger sum than it is to a taxpayer who is applying it to a smaller sum. But it isn't just big investment fund managers to whom the law applies. It's everyone. If you and I form a partnership to which you contribute $9,000 and I contribute $1,000, and I agree to manage the investment of our $10,000 in exchange for 10% of the profits, and then we split the remaining profits 90-10, I can give that partnership interest away before any profits are realized with the same low valuation applicable to hedge fund managers of any political stripe.
Whether this is a good idea as a matter of tax policy is both debatable and, I submit, complicated by the application of the underlying principles in other contexts. Perhaps the rule needs to be changed. But to suggest that it is a benefit only for the mega-wealthy managers of multi-billion dollar investment funds just isn't right. And to imply tacitly that Romney is somehow a less desirable candidate because he is well-advised on how to avoid paying more than the maximum amount of taxes the law requires him to pay is misguided. There are plenty of real issues on which a Presidential campaign ought to be focused.
