"P.Schuman" <pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME[at]interserv.com> writes:

- quote -

You might consider giving each of the adult children equal
amounts - and setting up 529 plans for each of the grandchildren.
That may temper the perceived unfairness, inasmuch as the
money given to the grandchildren that way is specifically
earmarked for education. (not guaranteed, but if you can't
trust them that far, you have bigger problems)


--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

Elle wrote:
- quote -

I just took another look at this. Form 709 addresses this, my only
caveat on it; the form is still dated 2005, I don't know if there was a
change in the figures or GST in generat since then. Your first link
above is to a page that's © 1993, 1995. That can't be good.

The OP, FWIW, never mentioned the total amount but I'm suspecting the
$12K/person/yr was enough to cover the intent, and I believe the 529
multiple can cover a great deal above that if desired.
JOE

"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9u%6h.66283$Fi1.29590[at]bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

not always true. People working in a family business often work for
peanuts, because they "know" they will get properly compensated "in the
end".


- quote -

I totally agree. Except when there has been the understanding, express or
implied, that one working all their life for less than their fair worth will
be justly compensated later on.

"P.Schuman" <pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME[at]interserv.com> wrote in message
news:6uK6h.15695$B31.14985[at]newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...

- quote -

I have never seen anything so despicable as people fighting over the will.
Whoever inherits what has done nothing to actually deserve a remembrance.
People who earn and save (or who have inherited wealth) have the right to do
whatever they so please with their estate. I realize the government
designates who shall inherit if a person dies intestate, which is why one
should have a will, but leaving monies in a disproportionate manner is the
right of the dead (or soon to be).

Elizabeth Richardson

"Will Trice" <wwtrice[at]paragondynamics.com> wrote
- quote -

ISTM that people aspiring towards honor rejoice in the ease
of handling such cases, because little-to-no choice has to
be made. It is as simple as, "Just say 'No.' "

Practically speaking, one solution for the son-in-law here
may be to urge the in-laws to hire an experienced attorney
for advice early on in this process, explaining the
importance of his not biasing the discussions and causing
resentment within the family, and even (or definitely)
asking his wife to tell other family members. The attorney
is tasked with giving unbiased advice (insofar as heirs are
concerned), since s/he has no particular interest in the
estate, apart from minor fees, assuming a person of repute
is chosen. Second opinions may always be had at a small
charge, too. Said attorney may irritate family members, but
s/he is accountable on a few levels to 'do the right (and
legal!) thing,' so s/he is some serious insurance to
minimize ruffled feathers.

Second practical suggestion: Gift to grandchildren the same
amounts in the coming years, but write any trust per
stirpes. ISTM this is one of the more common approaches,
achieving (1) something approximating equal love for all
grandchildren in the grandparents' lifetimes; but (2)
recognizing that the parents who had more kids made that
choice and will enjoy growing older with more family, etc.

No perfect fairness exists. The goal is to be reasonable. A
number of approaches will fill this bill.

Elle wrote:
- quote -

Well said. Difficult to do in some cases, maybe especially in cases
like this, but good advice anyway.

-Will

"joetaxpayer" <joetaxpayer[at]nospam.com> wrote
Regarding minimizing taxes through generation skipping
transfers of wealth at death:
- quote -

See for example http://www.pmstax.com/estate/gst.html. OTOH,
I see other sites like
http://www.wiseradvisor.com/universi...ping-trust.asp
and http://www.wiggin.com/practices/group.asp?groupid=23
that indicate you are right, and I was originally right. So
I am back to my original suggestion: The OP or his in-laws
should investigate this further.

"Elle" <honda.lioness[at]nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:VOF6h.7622$ig4.5877[at]newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
- quote -

might address this (probable) common situation,
and the (probable) associated discussions...if any.
There is already the usual bias's based on 1st born, male vs female, etc.
Now, with some cash tossed on top of that - it's interesting to stand back
and as an outsider.... observe.

Elle wrote:

- quote -

That right? Do you have a good, current reference? I thought GST was
still an issue, although not for the annual $12K/$24K gift, nor for
paying of medical or college. But for final inheritance, it was still
there.
JOE

"Elle" <honda.lioness[at]nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
- quote -

Scratch the above. Googling indicates it is outdated and
appears to be invalid under current tax law.

"Mark Bole" <makbo[at]pacbell.net> wrote
- quote -

I do not see how a reasonable person could conclude that the
OP intends to circulate any of this discussion with other
family members. It is not guaranteed that there will be bad
feelings. For one thing, mature individuals will reflect on
the "per stirpes" rule and see the sound reasoning (going
back centuries) behind it. Of course there are also
arguments for per capita; for alloting more to needier
individuals, as Joe mentions; and for gifting more money
annually to one's descendants per federal taxation rules, as
at least a partial solution. The OP's in-laws (and maybe all
concerned here, ultimately) need to be aware of "generation
skipping" estate planning that may help minimize taxes on
the estate when the grandparents die. This argues for
leaving more to one's grandkids than one's children. The OP
should google on it and, if his in-laws are actually
requesting his help, he can offer some places to read on it
before they go into see an estate and wills attorney. Then I
hope he steps out, because ISTM the threat of legal action
against his or his kids' share of an inheritance, whatever
it may be, and bad feelings increases with the more undue
influence he excercises on the in-laws. It does not matter
that the legal action is groundless; it's still going to
cost money and emotion to battle. In these matters, ya gotta
do the right thing and avoid even giving an appearance of
biasing others' decisions towards one's own interests. It's
the only way to stand tall, AFAIC.

There are cases of course where the grandparents have
actually done a great deal for their children by way of an
advantaged childhood and now want to do as much, roughly,
for their grandchildren, either now or in their wills.
That's also sound reasoning for skipping over a generation,
IMO.

Lastly, ISTM a presumption that one is entitled to anything
from one's parents or grandparents, upon their demise, is
the sign of someone who is going to fail no matter what they
do or do not inherit. These people are going to squabble no
matter what. They should be informed of the law and
respecting others' wishes but from there, all one can do is
let them stew in their own juices. The oft-mentioned book
_The Millionaire Next Door_ has some good commentary on
this.

[quote 1]
- quote -

[quote 2]
- quote -

[quote 3]
- quote -

I knew where this was headed the moment the OP included a break-down by
family size along with the initials of each of the potential recipients.
I imagine print-outs of this thread will be circulated around a few
Thanksgiving dinner tables next week...

It is *_guaranteed_* there will be bad feelings in this situation,
simply by the fact that the question even has to be asked.

Then, there is the effect of "age goggles" (reference: beer goggles
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/4468884.stm). By that I
mean, in the ninth decade of their lives, there is a real likelihood
that the parents' views and recollections of where all the kids are in
their own lives are going to be skewed a little.

To the OP's question, "what SHOULD the parents have done", the answer
is: they should have spent or given away (equivalently, designated for
future distribution) more money when they were younger, so that they
would have had time to reap the rewards and accept the consequences of
their actions.

-Mark Bole

- quote -

taxes are all about "feel good" actions resulting in bad feelings.

HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:
- quote -

OK that's not an estate planning question either. Not in the sense of
tax laws etc. Yes I know estate planning attorneys actually have
psychologists on staff to deal with that kind of question. But
ultimately it's something you write to Dear Abby about.


- quote -

P.Schuman wrote:
- quote -

As my objective is to offer a different spin, let me suggest this;
First, you said parents, plural, the 80 yr olds are both alive. This ups
the gift potential to $24k per recipient per year.
80 tells me the grandkids are probably adults, are there any great
grandkids? The gift limit for a 529 college account is up to 5 years
worth of gifting, or $120K, if the goal is to maximize current gifting
dollars to empty the estate.

They could have and perhaps should, set up a trust to simplify the
distribution on their passing and avoid probate, but that advice depends
partially on the size of the total estate. If the size is high enough to
hit estate tax issues, there's all the more reason to take advantage of
gifting sooner than later.

I can't comment on the 'feelings' except to say that often, money is
given based on need. The successful child seeing little, and the needy
one getting taken care of. (if the needy one is irresponsible, an
irrevocable trust set up with rigid distribution rules can make sense,
as can the purchase of an immediate annuity for that beneficiary. So
s/he will receive an income stream vs a lump sum).

JOE

One plan I'm aware of set up two pools (50% each) for each generation.
Then they subdivided each generation equally.

"> So - I think it will go something like this....
- quote -

you, like me, prefer per stirpes vs. per capita. However, your plan will
invoke gift tax (or partial consuption of the unified credit). Which is ok,
but needs to be considered as part of a well thought out estate plan. I
would hate to use up some of that preciaous unified credit with cash gifts,
if it could be put to better us in conjuncition with an estate plan (such as
putting assets into a trust, at a reduced future value or reduced value as
part of a family partnership, etc).



- quote -

"Gil Faver" <rowdy'sboss[at]xxyz.com> wrote in message
news:6K66h.54649$Fi1.48869[at]bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

that things need to be distributed evenly across all
and not "award" the larger family with more,
and the single person with less....

So - I think it will go something like this....
16 total people x $12,000 = $192,000 in gift money
Then - maybe re-distribute it evenly from each family
so that it's more like $192 / 5 family units...
and that would make it about $38k per family.


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please trim the post to which you are responding. "Trim" means that except for a FEW lines to add context, the previous post is deleted.

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 04:03:03 -0600, po.ning[at]gmail.com wrote:


- quote -

Sure it is. "Estate planning" is also expressly mentioned as an
acceptable subject in this newsgroup's charter.


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

P.Schuman wrote:
- quote -

How much is "some money"?

- quote -

They have not screwed up yet. They can still do it as long as they are
alive. If they have a substantial estate they should talk to a couple
of estate planning attorneys asap.

- quote -

Well, that's not a financial planning question.

Bottom line, it's their money and they can do with it however they
want. Anyone don't like it? Off the will!!!!