Heritage Rosen Mantle - Greatest Card Ever Auctioned?

[here2havefun]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

If any of you are suggesting SGC just gave this card a 9.5 on a whim or because they wanted the notoriety, I think you're crazy. I guarantee that toning isn't very noticeable or significant in person. Of course when you zoom in on it at 500% actual size it's going to look worse.

I saw the super-zoomed in scans of the top edge before the National. I went to the National and took a good look at the card in-person. That top edge looks so much better in-person.

[MattyC]

Folks often forget to parse the difference between the experience of holding a card in hand, and scrutinizing it via scans and enlargements on a screen. The former is the litmus test to me, of a card's beauty. Even in person, if someone likes to look at their cards from say a foot or two away in a wall display, or on desk stands, it is amazing how certain flaws are not bothersome to the eye at all.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

If any of you are suggesting SGC just gave this card a 9.5 on a whim or because they wanted the notoriety, I think you're crazy. I guarantee that toning isn't very noticeable or significant in person. Of course when you zoom in on it at 500% actual size it's going to look worse.

I am suggesting, stating directly actually, that the card does not meet SGC’s published standards for a 9.5. For over twenty years the grading advocates have been touting grading because it is not based on subjective eye appeal, but revealing the true flaws in a card, which is why many mint looking cards can get a 4, for that funky wrinkle you can’t even see normally. The stain does not seem to be in accord with SGC’s published standards for a 9.5. Even if we pretend the stain does not exist, the centering does not meet the published standard either. It is not my opinion that these defects should keep a card from being called a 9.5, it is SGC’s published opinion that these defects are not Mint+. And yet they gave it this grade anyway, ignoring their own standards, along with a marketing quote from that bastion of honesty (as I have learned from this thread), Mr. Mint. I do not know why they chose to do so.

We all know a Dale Coogan I submit with no backstory, marketing, or spin and the exact same damage would not get a 9.5.

[Exhibitman]

Bob, it is called a "bailment": an act of delivering goods to a person for a particular purpose, without transfer of ownership to that person. The difference between a bailment and an apartment lease is that the lease gives the renter rights to the space. It is the literal opposite of a bailment: the space is delivered to the tenant. Anything in the space is presumed to be the tenant's property. A safe deposit box is the same idea: the bank gives you the space and whatever is in there is presumed yours. In the case of a bailment, unless there is a public record of the item, it is presumed to belong to the debtor and as such it goes into the general asset pot.

The vault agreements are meaningless in bankruptcy; the bankruptcy law breaks all private agreements...except perfected security interests.

The system for notifying the world that someone is holding your possessions (perfecting the interest) is the UCC filing system. It takes a minute and costs like five bucks. No reason not to do it when you are handing some ass-clown a five or six figure item.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am suggesting, stating directly actually, that the card does not meet SGC’s published standards for a 9.5. For over twenty years the grading advocates have been touting grading because it is not based on subjective eye appeal, but revealing the true flaws in a card, which is why many mint looking cards can get a 4, for that funky wrinkle you can’t even see normally. The stain does not seem to be in accord with SGC’s published standards for a 9.5. Even if we pretend the stain does not exist, the centering does not meet the published standard either. It is not my opinion that these defects should keep a card from being called a 9.5, it is SGC’s published opinion that these defects are not Mint+. And yet they gave it this grade anyway, ignoring their own standards, along with a marketing quote from that bastion of honesty (as I have learned from this thread), Mr. Mint. I do not know why they chose to do so.

We all know a Dale Coogan I submit with no backstory, marketing, or spin and the exact same damage would not get a 9.5.

Regardless what we think it does have the 9.5 and if it sells (depending if there is a reserve) then it will set the new Record for Highest Card Sold.

In person it is a beautiful card and in person at the National Show the card looked really good and presented better than the picture of it. In my uneducated humble opinion

[G1911]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Regardless what we think it does have the 9.5 and if it sells (depending if there is a reserve) then it will set the new Record for Highest Card Sold.

In person it is a beautiful card and in person at the National Show the card looked really good and presented better than the picture of it. In my uneducated humble opinion

Not a single person has disputed that it resides in a 9.5 slab, that it will set a record, or that is a beautiful example.

None of it changes that SGC has clearly ignored their own standards.

[Schlesinj]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

LOL. There are hundreds of cards I'd rather have than that, including every single 1914 Baltimore News Babe Ruth that exists. But the best card in the hobby is one specific example of Oscar Charleston from the 1923-24 Billiken set that is not only the highest graded, but it also has the best image quality, which is critical to a photographic card like Billikens. Plus, I know we've all been familiar with the Rosen find for the last 40 years, but shouldn't anything that went through Mr. Mint's hands be worth considerably less than it otherwise would, due to the scumbag factor? I'll await your kind and gentle comments agreeing with me.

Do you have a pick of that Charleston?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by G1911

Not a single person has disputed that it resides in a 9.5 slab, that it will set a record, or that is a beautiful example.

None of it changes that SGC has clearly ignored their own standards.

Theyve also authenticated the "Zuckerberg " signed rookie, when they state they dont authenticate autographs anymore. The inmates are running the asylum, and nobody cares!

[robertsmithnocure]

Bob, Isn’t capital gains on collectibles 28%?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Theyve also authenticated the "Zuckerberg " signed rookie, when they state they dont authenticate autographs anymore. The inmates are running the asylum, and nobody cares!

I don't think people like to discuss them shutting down their autograph authenticating because they accepted a bunch of fakes, in the first place. Got to push the narratives, no matter how obviously problematic or untrue they are.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't think people like to discuss them shutting down their autograph authenticating because they accepted a bunch of fakes, in the first place. Got to push the narratives, no matter how obviously problematic or untrue they are.

Right! Around the same time they also removed their "guarantee" on their graded cards. Well hobbyists, as usual, showed them how wrong these things were by sending them more cards than ever. Take that SGC!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Bob, it is called a "bailment": an act of delivering goods to a person for a particular purpose, without transfer of ownership to that person. The difference between a bailment and an apartment lease is that the lease gives the renter rights to the space. It is the literal opposite of a bailment: the space is delivered to the tenant. Anything in the space is presumed to be the tenant's property. A safe deposit box is the same idea: the bank gives you the space and whatever is in there is presumed yours. In the case of a bailment, unless there is a public record of the item, it is presumed to belong to the debtor and as such it goes into the general asset pot.

The vault agreements are meaningless in bankruptcy; the bankruptcy law breaks all private agreements...except perfected security interests.

The system for notifying the world that someone is holding your possessions (perfecting the interest) is the UCC filing system. It takes a minute and costs like five bucks. No reason not to do it when you are handing some ass-clown a five or six figure item.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. That is exactly what I wanted to hear, and hopefully have it come from you or one of your attorney colleagues here on the forum, as I myself am not an attorney. So as I surmised and was originally saying, there is definitely a difference between an apartment lease/safe deposit box rental and just sending your items to someone like a TPG or auction House to do some work/service for you.

So, my question/point is to everyone, why don't these "vault" providers actually set there service up so that in fact you are actually renting some specific space in their facility, like with a safe deposit box at your local bank? The "vault" providers charge you for keeping your items with them, why not actually call it rent, actually create specific and separate rooms/spaces/whatever for people to actually lease to then store just their items in, and set/write the "vault" agreements up that way to afford their customers further protection from potential "bailment" issues should they ever go bankrupt?

I fully understand the ease and relative nominal cost to file a UCC-1, but first off, don't you have to actually list all the items that are your property on the UCC-1 filing so the courts know exactly what is and isn't yours then, and therefore protected from a potential "bailment' issue or claim? And if so, doesn't that mean that if you set up a "vault" account and use it in on ongoing basis for continuing purchases and activity, you literally need to be constantly updating and refiling UCC-1s as you buy more items to hold in your "vault", or remove/sell things out of it, so the inventory of your actual assets is always up to date and accurate? To most people, I think they would consider having to do that nothing more than a great big PITA!!! Adam, for you with your knowledge and legal background, filing a UCC-1 is simple and quick. For the vast majority of the rest of us, it is something we've likely never done in our lives, and probably never will. We've had people on here talking about sending cards in to TPGs for grading for decades now. Want to guess an over/under number on how many of them also made sure to file a UCC-1 to protect themselves should the TPG suddenly file bankruptcy? (My suggestion would be that whatever it is, to take lower.)

So again, thank you for helping me to explain to others how they could have an issue and potentially put their property kept in a "vault" at risk if they use one of these "vault" services. And as I've said before, I've never used any "vault' service, nor seen or read any "vault" provider's user contract/operating agreement to know exactly what it says to determine if in fact what they are doing for people would be considered as a valid rental/lease, or as you stated, a "bailment".

Would also be nice to find out if one or more of the "vault" operators set their service up to be able to offer their users this extra protection, and which ones don't. That would say a lot about how much these providers really care about and look out for their customers/users. If these "vault' providers were really smart, they should be sure to intentionally set up their service as a true rental/lease, and let their users know it. And if someone is using a "vault" provider that doesn't provide the proper rental/leasing service to protect them from "bailment" issues, it may behoove them to start putting pressure on their "vault" provider to quickly change things so it does protect them and their assets, or maybe they should start looking for a new "vault" provider that does?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Right! Around the same time they also removed their "guarantee" on their graded cards. Well hobbyists, as usual, showed them how wrong these things were by sending them more cards than ever. Take that SGC!

The guarantee doesn’t matter, since SGC’s verdict must be correct, thus the guarantee is pointless, you see.

Anyways, it’s a good thing we trust SGC so much that we must ignore the evidence of our eyes and ears, never address that the card undeniably does not meet their own standards, keep the pump pumping, and insist that the people who can read SGC’s own grading standards are “crazy”. After all it’s not just SGC, Mr. Mint said it’s the best which means it’s a SGC 9.5! You trust Mr. Mint, right? Never admit a load of bunk is a load of bunk if that bunk is being used to pump a card you want to see pumped. Even if it requires a nonsensical argument that relies on Mr. Mint being an honest arbiter and ignoring the actual wear and the entire back. #invest

It’s a great card, a fortune would be made simply selling it honestly.

[AndrewJerome]

Two points here

1) I am not affiliated with PWCC or the PWCC vault in any way. I like to drool over my actual cards. But it has been presented to the public that PWCC auction operations and PWCC vault operations are separate legal entities. Hence it has been presented that bankruptcy by the auction side would have no impact on cards in the vault.

2) Card company guarantees certainly can be used in a self serving manner. A company can obviously bless trimmed cards as ok and not pay out on the guarantee. But a guarantee is better than no guarantee. At least it gives you a chance. Long ago when SGC had the guarantee, I bought a D380 Clement Bros card off eBay. Turned out the card had pencil all over it and should be in an A holder. I was paid out what I thought was fair amount on the guarantee, the card was removed from the holder, and I kept the raw card. Today if this happened with SGC I would just be out of luck.

[Exhibitman]

Bob:

You are right: a new UCC-1 has to be filed when items are added to a vault and the record is public. I can say for sure that the vault is not renting real estate or a safe deposit box. It is simply providing a bailment service to dodge state sales taxes. Which are deferred: if you ever take delivery of the card, you owe the tax for your state.

[ElCabron]

Originally Posted by Schlesinj

Do you have a pick of that Charleston?

Yes. I pick the exact example I described.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Bob:

You are right: a new UCC-1 has to be filed when items are added to a vault and the record is public. I can say for sure that the vault is not renting real estate or a safe deposit box. It is simply providing a bailment service to dodge state sales taxes. Which are deferred: if you ever take delivery of the card, you owe the tax for your state.

And that is why I'm posing the thought/question, why don't they change what/how they do their vaults so that they are considered as renting/leasing something that does afford their users protection from potential bailment issues? Virtually no one is going to waste their time and money continually sending in and updating UCC-1 filings, at least not until one of the vault providers may end up having themselves, or a parent or related company go into bankruptcy and potentially creating a bailment issue for their customers. Or are you saying there is no realistic, legal way a vault could be set up that would be considered as a real rental/leasing type arrangement that could afford users protection from potential bailment issues?

In the early 2000's before he passed away in 2011, I had the opportunity and pleasure to meet Dan McCarthy, and listen to stories he told to a then colleague and myself about how he was the one, on behalf of the New York Yankees, that was able to convince the IRS to accept the concept of depreciating player contracts for income tax purposes. So it doesn't seem impossible to me that when there is a legal will to get something done, there can be a legal way to do so.

McCarthy also told us how ironically at one time, the New York Yankees were owned by an Ohio limited partnership.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Bob:

You are right: a new UCC-1 has to be filed when items are added to a vault and the record is public. I can say for sure that the vault is not renting real estate or a safe deposit box. It is simply providing a bailment service to dodge state sales taxes. Which are deferred: if you ever take delivery of the card, you owe the tax for your state.

The beautiful thing about UCC-1's is that they do not need to be filed in the jurisdiction in which the 'vault' is located or that states Secretary of States office. The District of Columbia Recorder of Deeds is the default filing jurisdiction for all UCC-1's. There is no Secretary of State's office to file them. They all go to the ROD and they can be filed electronically.

[clamendo]

Originally Posted by BobC

Short answer is......maybe.

Under current estate tax law, when a person passes, all of the items they leave to their heirs get what is called a stepped-up basis to the then current fair market value of the assets as of the day the person passes, or potentially at an alternative valuation date six months later. Initially on the surface, leaving the Mantle to his kids when he passes so they get a basis step-up and can then sell the card right away for virtually no gain would seem like a slam dunk way to save his kids the most taxes. But that only saves them the Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) tax on the sale of the card, which for federal income tax purposes is currently capped at 20%.

However, in doing so you are forgetting about the potential federal estate taxes that may be due on the card being left as part of the kid's inheritance. In return for getting the basis-step, it also means that same current fair market value the inherited assets are given is included as part of the deceased person's taxable estate. And current federal estate tax rates go as high as 40% once the taxable part of an estate reaches $1M, and higher. Every person has a lifetime estate and gift tax exemption that they get to offset against potential taxes due on gifts they make during their lifetime, or against the value of the estate they leave their heirs. This exemption amount under current law is at $12.06M, per person, for 2022. The vast majority of people in the U.S. don't leave estates worth that much, so they end up having no federal estate tax due, and their heirs get everything at a stepped-up basis so there is also virtually no tax due if they sell things right away after the person passed.

What we don't know is what else the person may have in their estate. If some, or even all, of that lifetime gift and estate tax exemption amount is used up by other thing's in the person's estate, or from gifts they had given away during their lifetime, that means some, or even all, of the then current fair market value of the Rosen Mantle card left to the deceased's children can be subject to the up to 40% federal estate tax rate. So in that case, the kids get a stepped-up basis and no 20% LTCG tax on selling the card, but the estate can get hit with a 40% estate tax on the card's fair market value. See the potential issue. And so you know, the current administration talked about reducing that lifetime estate and gift tax exemption amount down to around $3.5M to help fund the Build Back Better program, but it didn't go through. But still, unless something else is changed, the current estate/gift exemption amount is set to expire in 2025 as part of the tax law that passed when Trump was in office, and the lifetime exemption amount will likely go down by at least $5M-$6M. The adjustment is based on inflation, so the exact amount won't be known till 2025. In that case, knowing that lifetime exemption is scheduled to drop in 2025, unless the current owner expects to pass away before 2025, it may actually make more sense for him to gift the card to his kids before the exemption amount drops so that he at least takes advantage of passing on as much of his estate to the kids with no gift or estate tax as possible. Once that exemption amount drops, the potential tax savings from the lost exemption is gone. Plus, assuming the card will continue to increase in value over time, moving it on to his kids today can get all the future appreciation (and the potential resulting estate taxes) out of his estate. Yet he can still hold on to and enjoy the card since it is still in his family.

And I'm not even going to get into the additional implications of if he's married or not. For now, I really know nothing about the person selling the Rosen Mantle card, and would need to have virtually done an entire estate planning review and calculation before seriously trying, and being able to realistically answer, your question.

Someone else told me the same thing, but what about state taxes? I know it varies by state, but let’s say he lives in a wonderful democratically run state like NY or California?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Republicaninmass]

Cant wait for the PWCC "storage wars" style vault auction!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by clamendo

Someone else told me the same thing, but what about state taxes? I know it varies by state, but let’s say he lives in a wonderful democratically run state like NY or California?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

California currently has no estate or inheritance tax.

However, New York state does have an estate tax, but no inheritance tax. For 2022, the minimum threshold to be subject to New York's estate tax is $6.11M. As long as your taxable estate is worth less than this amount, there is no estate tax due New York. This exemption threshold amount is subject to change and goes up each year based on same inflation factor. However, New York also has a quirky twist to their estate tax law. As long as your estate value does not go up any higher than 105% of that estate tax exemption threshold, which for 2022 is $6,415,500 ($6.11M X 105%), you only pay New York estate tax on the value of the estate in excess of the 2022 exemption threshold amount of $6.11M.

But, go just $1 over the 105% amount of $6,415,500 to $6,415,501, and the entire value of the estate, including the previously exempt $6.11M, is now all subject to New York estate tax. And kind of like income taxes, New York estate taxes are calculated on a graduated tax rate schedule that starts at 3.06% on the first taxable dollars of the estate, and goes all the way up to 16.0% that starts once the taxable value of the estate goes over $10.1M. Here's New York state's current estate tax table for 2022 shown below.

So based on this, if someone passed away in 2022 and left the heirs a card valued for estate purposes at say $10M, and there was nothing else in the estate, that entire $10M would be subject to New York estate tax based on the table below, which would end up being $1,067,600 in estate tax due.


NEW YORK ESTATE TAX RATES
Taxable Estate* Base Taxes Paid Marginal Rate Rate Threshold**
$1 – $500,000 $0 3.06% $1
$500,000 – $1 million $15,300 5.0% $500,000
$1 million – $1.5 million $40,300 5.5% $1 million
$1.5 million – $2.1 million $67,800 6.5% $1.5 million
$2.1 million – $2.6 million $106,800 8.0% $2.1 million
$2.6 million – $3.1 million $146,800 8.8% $2.6 million
$3.1 million – $3.6 million $190,800 9.6% $3.1 million
$3.6 million – $4.1 million $238,800 10.4% $3.6 million
$4.1 million – $5.1 million $290,800 11.2% $4.1 million
$5.1 million – $6.1 million $402,800 12.0% $5.1 million
$6.1 million – $7.1 million $522,800 12.8% $6.1 million
$7.1 million – $8.1 million $650,800 13.6% $7.1 million
$8.1 million – $9.1 million $786,800 14.4% $8.1 million
$9.1 million – $10.1 million $930,800 15.2% $9.1 million
Over $10.1 million $1.082 million 16% $10.1 million

That help?

[clamendo]

Originally Posted by BobC

California currently has no estate or inheritance tax.

However, New York state does have an estate tax, but no inheritance tax. For 2022, the minimum threshold to be subject to New York's estate tax is $6.11M. As long as your taxable estate is worth less than this amount, there is no estate tax due New York. This exemption threshold amount is subject to change and goes up each year based on same inflation factor. However, New York also has a quirky twist to their estate tax law. As long as your estate value does not go up any higher than 105% of that estate tax exemption threshold, which for 2022 is $6,415,500 ($6.11M X 105%), you only pay New York estate tax on the value of the estate in excess of the 2022 exemption threshold amount of $6.11M.

But, go just $1 over the 105% amount of $6,415,500 to $6,415,501, and the entire value of the estate, including the previously exempt $6.11M, is now all subject to New York estate tax. And kind of like income taxes, New York estate taxes are calculated on a graduated tax rate schedule that starts at 3.06% on the first taxable dollars of the estate, and goes all the way up to 16.0% that starts once the taxable value of the estate goes over $10.1M. Here's New York state's current estate tax table for 2022 shown below.

So based on this, if someone passed away in 2022 and left the heirs a card valued for estate purposes at say $10M, and there was nothing else in the estate, that entire $10M would be subject to New York estate tax based on the table below, which would end up being $1,067,600 in estate tax due.


NEW YORK ESTATE TAX RATES
Taxable Estate*Base Taxes PaidMarginal RateRate Threshold**
$1 – $500,000$03.06%$1
$500,000 – $1 million$15,3005.0%$500,000
$1 million – $1.5 million$40,3005.5%$1 million
$1.5 million – $2.1 million$67,8006.5%$1.5 million
$2.1 million – $2.6 million$106,8008.0%$2.1 million
$2.6 million – $3.1 million$146,8008.8%$2.6 million
$3.1 million – $3.6 million$190,8009.6%$3.1 million
$3.6 million – $4.1 million$238,80010.4%$3.6 million
$4.1 million – $5.1 million$290,80011.2%$4.1 million
$5.1 million – $6.1 million$402,80012.0%$5.1 million
$6.1 million – $7.1 million$522,80012.8%$6.1 million
$7.1 million – $8.1 million$650,80013.6%$7.1 million
$8.1 million – $9.1 million$786,80014.4%$8.1 million
$9.1 million – $10.1 million$930,80015.2%$9.1 million
Over $10.1 million$1.082 million16%$10.1 million

That help?

Yes. But as I read this thread there is one scenario that has not been brought up but is very realistic. Medicaid! I wonder if you can put a card collection in an irrevocable trust? If you are unfortunate to have you or your spouse end up in a nursing home for any length of time, Medicaid will force the remaining spouse to spend down all your assets to about $80k. If your by yourself and you try to pass it down in a will you would be subject to Medicaid recovery. At $14k/month … you get the picture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by BobC

California currently has no estate or inheritance tax.

However, New York state does have an estate tax, but no inheritance tax. For 2022, the minimum threshold to be subject to New York's estate tax is $6.11M. As long as your taxable estate is worth less than this amount, there is no estate tax due New York. This exemption threshold amount is subject to change and goes up each year based on same inflation factor. However, New York also has a quirky twist to their estate tax law. As long as your estate value does not go up any higher than 105% of that estate tax exemption threshold, which for 2022 is $6,415,500 ($6.11M X 105%), you only pay New York estate tax on the value of the estate in excess of the 2022 exemption threshold amount of $6.11M.

But, go just $1 over the 105% amount of $6,415,500 to $6,415,501, and the entire value of the estate, including the previously exempt $6.11M, is now all subject to New York estate tax. And kind of like income taxes, New York estate taxes are calculated on a graduated tax rate schedule that starts at 3.06% on the first taxable dollars of the estate, and goes all the way up to 16.0% that starts once the taxable value of the estate goes over $10.1M. Here's New York state's current estate tax table for 2022 shown below.

So based on this, if someone passed away in 2022 and left the heirs a card valued for estate purposes at say $10M, and there was nothing else in the estate, that entire $10M would be subject to New York estate tax based on the table below, which would end up being $1,067,600 in estate tax due.


NEW YORK ESTATE TAX RATES
Taxable Estate* Base Taxes Paid Marginal Rate Rate Threshold**
$1 – $500,000 $0 3.06% $1
$500,000 – $1 million $15,300 5.0% $500,000
$1 million – $1.5 million $40,300 5.5% $1 million
$1.5 million – $2.1 million $67,800 6.5% $1.5 million
$2.1 million – $2.6 million $106,800 8.0% $2.1 million
$2.6 million – $3.1 million $146,800 8.8% $2.6 million
$3.1 million – $3.6 million $190,800 9.6% $3.1 million
$3.6 million – $4.1 million $238,800 10.4% $3.6 million
$4.1 million – $5.1 million $290,800 11.2% $4.1 million
$5.1 million – $6.1 million $402,800 12.0% $5.1 million
$6.1 million – $7.1 million $522,800 12.8% $6.1 million
$7.1 million – $8.1 million $650,800 13.6% $7.1 million
$8.1 million – $9.1 million $786,800 14.4% $8.1 million
$9.1 million – $10.1 million $930,800 15.2% $9.1 million
Over $10.1 million $1.082 million 16% $10.1 million

That help?

I know all this is good information and helpful

But for me let's get back to the Card and which is better the 9.5 or the 10. Let's see what people think the over under on the 9.5 will be. Let's continue to have members show off their cards. Lets talk about Mantle and share stories

To much Tax talk for me

[chriskim]

I actually enjoy so much BobC's tax talk. I have been learning so much from his posts. I would hire BobC to handle my money if I ever won lottery!

Thank you BobC for sharing your knowledge as always!!!

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by chriskim

I actually enjoy so much BobC's tax talk. I have been learning so much from his posts. I would hire BobC to handle my money if I ever won lottery!

Thank you BobC for sharing your knowledge as always!!!

I agree it is great information and he has a good way of making it simple to understand.

I just want to have fun with the rest of the stuff

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

I agree it is great information and he has a good way of making it simple to understand.

I just want to have fun with the rest of the stuff

What's not fun about a tax liability? I appreciate Bob's input greatly. It is awesome that he takes the time to thoroughly explain things to those of us who are clueless about tax law. It is just too bad we do not have all of his info in one place. If I have not written this before...I am now. Thank you Bob for taking the time out of your day to educate us. I am sure you have more than enough to do during your day.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by chriskim

I actually enjoy so much BobC's tax talk. I have been learning so much from his posts. I would hire BobC to handle my money if I ever won lottery!

Thank you BobC for sharing your knowledge as always!!!

LOL

Chris, you are probably in the minority!

[Johnny630]

I enjoy it too. Many Thanks Bob :-). You’re a highly valued member to many, including me.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

I agree it is great information and he has a good way of making it simple to understand.

I just want to have fun with the rest of the stuff

Sorry Jeff,

I was specifically asked a question, and did not mean to hijack your thread. Will try to limit the tax answers.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by BobC

Sorry Jeff,

I was specifically asked a question, and did not mean to hijack your thread. Will try to limit the tax answers.

Do not stop and you did not Hijack it. As I said you are good at giving the information and making it simple for many of us to better understand it.

I appreciate you and the time you put into answering it.

Just wanted to keep it going with the other stuff also.

All good and thanks but again

Do not stop and we all appreciate you

[BobC]

Originally Posted by clamendo

Yes. But as I read this thread there is one scenario that has not been brought up but is very realistic. Medicaid! I wonder if you can put a card collection in an irrevocable trust? If you are unfortunate to have you or your spouse end up in a nursing home for any length of time, Medicaid will force the remaining spouse to spend down all your assets to about $80k. If your by yourself and you try to pass it down in a will you would be subject to Medicaid recovery. At $14k/month … you get the picture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow Carl, that is a whole different topic, and not actually tax related. If you really want, start a new thread in the watercooler section so we don't keep hijacking Jeff's thread. Quick answer though is there is a definite look back period, 5 years I believe. So if you made the transfer/gift more than 5 years before needing to apply for Medicaid to take over paying the bills, they can't touch you and come after the gift/transfer. That is why a lot of people with significant assets, and some dubious medical history or prognosis, often plan ahead and as they are getting older and proactively put all their assets into an irrevocable trust to get the clock ticking on that Medicaid lookback period.

Doing so though is considered a potential gift to the ultimate beneficiaries of the irrevocable trust. So depending on what you gift and how much it is currently valued at, and how many beneficiaries there are, you may have to file a federal gift tax return, and could end up having some gift tax implications and liability as well.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by BobC

Wow Carl, that is a whole different topic, and not actually tax related. If you really want, start a new thread in the watercooler section so we don't keep hijacking Jeff's thread. Quick answer though is there is a definite look back period, 5 years I believe. So if you made the transfer/gift more than 5 years before needing to apply for Medicaid to take over paying the bills, they can't touch you and come after the gift/transfer. That is why a lot of people with significant assets, and some dubious medical history or prognosis, often plan ahead and as they are getting older and proactively put all their assets into an irrevocable trust to get the clock ticking on that Medicaid lookback period.

Doing so though is considered a potential gift to the ultimate beneficiaries of the irrevocable trust. So depending on what you gift and how much it is currently valued at, and how many beneficiaries there are, you may have to file a federal gift tax return, and could end up having some gift tax implications and liability as well.

Well Since he is talking about an 80K Mantle Card All Good

[BobC]

Actually need to correct some of what I said in post #181 a little bit. No one actually comes after you to get the money/property back if it has been improperly spent or you gifted some of it away during the five year period before you file for Medicaid. Instead, what the Medicaid people normally do is figure out how much you spent/gifted and divide that total amount by the average daily/monthly amount it would cost to have someone cared for in a nursing home or like facility. That way they then figure out how many days/months of care what you gave/gifted away would cover, and delay the start of your Medicaid coverage by that same period of time. So you and your family basically have to somehow cover your nursing and all other costs till that time is made up. And then Medicaid will take over and start to pay for things.

Sorry for not explaining it as clearly before.