Thanks!

InJuneau Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Clearly you all missed this part of EyeOnYou’s post:

(I love playing devil’s advocate)
________________________

I am guessing the same thing, but it is no big deal. I am not worried because anyone who has seen my postings regularly knows that I am not a troll nor am I am Palin Fan.

It was fun trying to see the other sides point of view, but hard to come up with honest answers that weren’t just personal attacks and BS like most of them post in response to logical discussions of an issue.

If this language is truly representative of the terms of the trust, boy was the attorney drawing up the trust a dunce!
___________________________________

Here is an exact copy & paste of that wording:

(a) Each of the beneficiaries of this trust, shall, in each calendar year, have an absolute and unrestricted power to withdraw from this Trust up to the lesser of the total additions made to this Trust during each calendar year or an amount in cash or other property (including the cash value of life insurance policies, if no other cash or property is available) equal the lesser
of the total additions made to this Trust during each calendar year, divided equally among such beneficiaries, or an amount in cash or other property (including the cash value of life insurance policies, if no other cash or property is available) equal to the maximum amount which qualifies
for the Federal Gift Tax exclusion allowed by Section 2503(b) of the Code (currently $13,000 per donor, but such amount shall be adjusted to provide the maximum amount excludable) presuming that a donor’s spouse, if any, has consented to treat any such eligible gifts as being made one-half by such donor and one-half by such donor’s spouse. The holder(s) of such power are hereinafter referred to as “Donee”. Except as otherwise provided herein, said power of withdrawal shall not be cumulative from year to year, must be exercised separately for each calendar year in which any such addition or additions are made, and shall be exercisable only bywritten notice to Trustee of the amount Donee wishes to withdraw, but no purpose for said withdrawal need be shown. The exercise or failure to exercise of one Donee hereunder shall not affect the rights of the remaining Donee(s). If any Donee is a minor, such power of withdrawal may be exercised by such minor’s natural guardian. To the extent that a Donee fails to fully
exercise a withdrawal right and the lapsing amount exceeds the greater of $5,000.00 or 5% (or the amounts referred to in Section 2514( e) as amended), of the aggregate market value of all trust estates of all trusts of which the Grantor is the grantor and which contain a power of withdrawal
in favor of such Donee (such amount and percentage increasing or decreasing as the allowable amount or percentage is increased or decreased under Section 2041 without causing the taxable exercise, release or lapse of a power) then the withdrawal right granted in this Section 3.2 shall
not lapse with respect to such excess and such Donee shall (on the terms and conditions, and subject to the limitations, of this Section 3.2, except that such withdrawals shall not be limited to or by gifts made to the trust in succeeding calendar years) have the right to withdraw such excess
in succeeding calendar years.

I still think this is the most problematic part of the trust fund document:

“Each of the beneficiaries of this trust, shall, in each calendar year, have an
absolute and unrestricted power to withdraw from this Trust….”

****
Beneficiaries have ZERO control over any trust. Only the grantor or a trustee can allocate assets in a trust. Beneficiaries may request to receive funds, but they have NO control.

If this language is truly representative of the terms of the trust, boy was the attorney drawing up the trust a dunce!

- – - – - – -
172 the problem child IS MY NAME Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 9:14 AM

The trust company that is running the AFT boasts on its website that Alaska has the “friendliest” trust laws in the country.
PACs, I think, are primarily governed by federal law, and only incidentally by state law.
****
Doesn’t matter – the IRS will be a-knockin’ on this “trust’s” doors I do believe. Taxes are taxes – yes, SP, even GOP’s trusts!

- – - – - – - – - – - -

Ok…I’m now hitting migraine territory…someone PLEASE hand over some hard liquor! I’ll even take some Mexicali tequila – swine flu be danged!

Sorry, but this is completely different from what SP did. First, when O is playing basketball, it is not part of his official responsibilities. SP was at the race in an official capacity as governor. She would be much more in a gray area if she had attended the race wearing those clothes if she also wasn’t the official starter and acting as governor. She has the right to support her husband, but not her husband’s sponsor and certainly not when she is also acting as governor. She should have chosen on that day whether she was going to be governor or wife and private citizen. It’s the mixing of the two that is unethical.

Secondly, as far as I know, O has not received any payment from the companies whose clothes he may wear and didn’t receive the clothes as gifts. SP’s husband is sponsored by AC and if your spouse is being paid for something, according to the law, you are benefitting. It doesn’t matter if it’s you or someone in your immediate family who is actually getting paid or given stuff. So SP was being paid (indirectly) to promote AC and that is what makes her a walking billboard as she was acting as governor and it is clearly unethical.

IMO, wearing the AC outfit again to the Slush Cup was another ethics violation. She was still promoting a company which pays her family to do so while performing official duties as governor. That’s not allowed, end of story.

New state of Alaska employees have to go to a whole day of training on ethics rules. I realize that these laws are complicated and I am not surprised that so many peeps here are a bit confused about them. What I cannot understand though, is why no one has sat down our brilliant airhead guv and _explained_ a few facts to her. Instead, she actually repeats behavior that someone has filed an ethics complaint when she did it the first time. *sigh* She really is a piece of work.
~~~~~~~~~~
Just to add to mudkitten and chaim—–>according to Bill M-GINO is gov 24/7 soooooooooooo she’s not allowed to “take off her gov’s hat” period!

Is it even legal for the trustor and the trustee to be the same individual?

****
I am the successor trustee to my mother’s revocable trust and assumed the position after her death. Down where my mom lived (FL), you could have the trust set up so that the “trustee” controlled the trust…as the grantor, not trustee. The trustee came into effect only after her death. The grantor has sole control of every thing in the trust unless a specific event required that the successor trustee step in. In my case, it was my mom’s death.

Having said that – - -
As for this “trust”, this is not a trust – I don’t think it would pass muster by the IRS. Trusts are set up after assets have been acquired, with changes in trust holdings occurring when/as needed. I don;t think a legal defense fund could be set up as a trust, at least not under the rules I have been dealing with.

***
Ok – now there is the first big problem in store for Cole: she cannot “reimburse” SP or any recipient for taxes they owe on disbursements, since under federal law, tax is the burden of the trust’s beneficiaries. Each time Cole gives anyone money, assuming the trust stands as is, each time Cole allocates money to a beneficiary, MORE tax is owed.

Add in the second big problem, the fact that the trust’s income (all donations) is subject to tax on IRS form 1041, so there is going to be federal tax on that too. Not to mention – capital gains taxes on any investments…. Anyone wanting to figure out the IRS angle, go to IRS.gov, then search for form 1041, as well as the instructions for filing that return.

I have a @_&$^)# headache now…this is bringing back vivid reminders of the past few months, dealing with the IRS for tax year 2008 returns, and the last 16 months ascertaining what the trust assets are and dealing with the FL Probate Court over one asset that I found that was never retitled under the revocable trust name and was never mentioned in any trust document.

Anyone in AK got any Stoli? I figure – ahem, totally TIC here – surely since you can see Russia from AK that someone has a ready supply available!!!

Thanks for reminding us:

Six days before the election last August, someone asked Palin during a press conference for her opinion on Measure 4. She responded: “Let me take my governor’s hat off just for a minute here and tell you, personally Prop 4, I vote no on that.””

That makes sense, now that we’ve learned that she looks to profit from what she wears in public. The State of Alaska evidently hadn’t paid her enough to keep her governor’s hat on.

Other dreams? Kristan Cole’s legal bills from dairygate make her a “covered individual” under the trust documents (that she signed with herself). One day, SP chesses her off, and she withdraws nearly all the funds (say, $175,000) and moves to Guam.

Leaving SP with diddly AND squat AND no fund trustee. But, would serve her right. She didn’t sign the document, and placed an incredible amount of power in the hands of Kristan Cole. If Kristan decides to wield it, that could be a problem for Our Sarah. I am actually hoping for this, only from the point of veiw of the sheer drama of it all. I would feel sorry for those folks donating who thought their money was going elsewhere, but … donator beware.