Subj : Re: Um...no comment?
To   : Angus McLeod
From : Deuce
Date : Tue Sep 13 2005 12:13 pm

  Re: Re: Um...no comment?
  By: Angus McLeod to Deuce on Tue Sep 13 2005 11:31:00

 >  > Because, in this hypothetical world, if they didn't share control of the
 >  > assets, they would effectively all be confiscated by the government on hi
 >  > death.  Sounds like a good reason to have a wife you trust and children y
 >  > 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.

If there were small children involved, his life insurance with them as a
beneficiary should do nicely.  Said children aren't going to do much with a
multi-million dollar company.

Again, life insurance takes care of his sisters children... and if she's going
to asset-strip the company, she's not a good person to gain ownership of it
anyways.

As for donations, is there some reason he can't make them while he's alive?

And I'm not saying that to "retain control he must *give*up* control" I'm
saying that after he's dead, he no longer has control.  Once he's dead, he is
no longer capable of making decisions.

---
 þ Synchronet þ ``Penguins make tasty snacks''

.