Subj : Re: Um...no comment?
To   : Deuce
From : Angus McLeod
Date : Tue Sep 13 2005 11:31 am

  Re: Re: Um...no comment?
  By: Deuce to Angus McLeod on Tue Sep 13 2005 01:58:00

 >  >  > Any particular reason the assets couldn't have been jointly held betwe
 >  >  > and his wife?
 >  >
 >  > Any particular reason why they should have?
 > 
 > Because, in this hypothetical world, if they didn't share control of the
 > assets, they would effectively all be confiscated by the government on his
 > death.  Sounds like a good reason to have a wife you trust and children you 
 > along with.

But you are assuming that the man in question has a wife.  Suppose the 
wife had already passed away, leaving small children in the husbands care?  
Suppose he was unmarried and wanted to leave the money to his sisters 
children, but didn't trust the sister herself not to asset-strip the 
company at the first chance?  Suppose he wanted to donate part of the 
estate for cancer research or towards the building of a cricket pavilion 
for a poor local club?

Why should any man be forced into complicated legal manoeverings in order 
to retain control over what is already his?  Ignoring for the moment the 
fact that according to you, to retain control he must *give*up* control by 
assigning it over to someone else?

Thank goodness I live in a NON-hypothetical world which does not have 
death duties.  

---
 þ Synchronet þ Generated automatically on The ANJO BBS

.