Okay, I see your point

來源: CyberCat 2012-09-25 14:35:59 [] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (1441 bytes)
回答: 回複:That's why I said you may be confusedapt2012-09-25 14:06:39

But I still don't see how you define an estate. Are you defining it for CA family law purpose or for estate tax purpose? Either way, I don't see how you can include any property in a simple none-grantor irrevocable trust in the grantor's estate, unless it was established while the divorce action was looming or undergoing, or when the grantor was preparing for his death. Of course, it is also possible that there is a statutory period defined by CA law to pull the assets back from the trust, just like IRS could pull back the life insurance proceeds from a special irrvocable trust (ILIT) if the life insurance becomes trusts assets within 3 years of the grantor's death. However, I don't see any from your post.

We all know case laws are very specific. It may apply to one particular of trust with soe specific language, but it does not mean it would apply to all the trusts. I've seen IRS ruling that subjected a trust for millions of dollars simply because the trustee's dicretion is too aboard. A almost identical trust with additional limitation on the trustee's discretion as "...for support and maintenance" was okay, however.

That's why I insist that trust document and background are very important in this case. I am also very puzzled by your claim that there is no trust document yet it was settled before the deceased's death. Who drafted the trust document or is it a constructive trust?

所有跟帖: 

回複:Okay, I see your point -apt- 給 apt 發送悄悄話 apt 的博客首頁 (1187 bytes) () 09/25/2012 postreply 16:06:06

Then your definition only applies to probate -CyberCat- 給 CyberCat 發送悄悄話 (1207 bytes) () 09/26/2012 postreply 07:28:19

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”