Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Give vs. Gift "Title to the Gold"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Give vs. Gift "Title to the Gold"

    I'm asking this question from a legal perspective and if there are any lawyers in the house, would appreciate some perspective. Is there any difference in the words Give or Gifting? For example, could Forrest had said "I gift you title to the gold" and would there be any difference in the legal interpretation vs. "I give you title to the gold"? If one gives another property, the IRS views it as a gift. Could Forrest "Give you title to the Gold" in essence be a legal construed gift to the person that finds the chest, and only that person?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Walking Among Lions View Post
    I'm asking this question from a legal perspective and if there are any lawyers in the house, would appreciate some perspective. Is there any difference in the words Give or Gifting? For example, could Forrest had said "I gift you title to the gold" and would there be any difference in the legal interpretation vs. "I give you title to the gold"? If one gives another property, the IRS views it as a gift. Could Forrest "Give you title to the Gold" in essence be a legal construed gift to the person that finds the chest, and only that person?
    In case you've never learned, "give" is a verb; "gift" is a noun. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

    Here's another story to which I'm stickin' : If I find the TC, it'll be mine. And I'm not going to "gift" it to the IRS. Hee hee!

    Comment


    • #3
      Neither. I think he said the finder will have URN'd it.
      I'm not sure if this is another hint towards 'entombed"
      or a cleverly sepulchered death threat ...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Walking Among Lions View Post
        I'm asking this question from a legal perspective and if there are any lawyers in the house, would appreciate some perspective. Is there any difference in the words Give or Gifting? For example, could Forrest had said "I gift you title to the gold" and would there be any difference in the legal interpretation vs. "I give you title to the gold"? If one gives another property, the IRS views it as a gift. Could Forrest "Give you title to the Gold" in essence be a legal construed gift to the person that finds the chest, and only that person?
        Give indicates a transfer only. If Forrest intended it as a gift he would have to pay gift tax. I think he is smarter than that.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Quest View Post

          Give indicates a transfer only. If Forrest intended it as a gift he would have to pay gift tax. I think he is smarter than that.
          Forrest's family estate has a lifetime gift tax exemption of $22.8 million (2019). That means he pays no taxes on anything gifted until he exceeds that amount. Not saying he would count the chest and contents against that exemption, just that he could if he wanted.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Zapster View Post

            Forrest's family estate has a lifetime gift tax exemption of $22.8 million (2019). That means he pays no taxes on anything gifted until he exceeds that amount. Not saying he would count the chest and contents against that exemption, just that he could if he wanted.
            Would you mind sharing where you got your number ?

            Comment


            • #7
              Never mind, I see you just multiplied the 2019 lifetime gift tax exemption times 2.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Quest View Post
                Never mind, I see you just multiplied the 2019 lifetime gift tax exemption times 2.
                Zapster also seemed to fail to take into account the annual exclusion is still only 15k.

                Comment


                • #9
                  My guess is Forrest gifted the treasure to a trust he has in the year he hid it. Deducting the cost of the chest and it's contents as the value of gift. Capital gains tax will apply to either the trust or the finder depending how Forrest set up the distribution. From what Forrest has said it seems the capital gains will be responsibility of the finder.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Quest View Post
                    My guess is Forrest gifted the treasure to a trust he has in the year he hid it. Deducting the cost of the chest and it's contents as the value of gift. Capital gains tax will apply to either the trust or the finder depending how Forrest set up the distribution. From what Forrest has said it seems the capital gains will be responsibility of the finder.
                    I always ask how such a scheme could work long term. I've thought a land trust is possible, but if the chest is in the forest, with some ability to transfer, it works perfectly whether the current government and legal system collapses or not. Burdening the finder with having to sell the chest to pay taxes is something I don't think f would do. It's possibly still a little sticky finding such a thing on public land, but the finder is probably best off never disclosing the solution.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CRM114 View Post

                      I always ask how such a scheme could work long term. I've thought a land trust is possible, but if the chest is in the forest, with some ability to transfer, it works perfectly whether the current government and legal system collapses or not. Burdening the finder with having to sell the chest to pay taxes is something I don't think f would do. It's possibly still a little sticky finding such a thing on public land, but the finder is probably best off never disclosing the solution.
                      We seem to differ on what is a burden. There could be more involved, but hasn't Forrest been generous enough ?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Quest View Post

                        We seem to differ on what is a burden. There could be more involved, but hasn't Forrest been generous enough ?
                        Sure he's been generous. I'm talking about a situation analogous to what existed a few years ago where a kid would inherit a family farm and immediately have to sell it to pay the taxes, which destroyed the whole idea of a family farm. I believe they got rid of that.

                        I'm thinking Forrest may have tried to prevent that here as well - if a redneck with 12 kids wants to keep the treasure intact, and abide by the law, why shouldn't they be able to? I'm not talking capital gains if they decide to sell it - those are most definitely the finder's burden. Forrest has said (paraphrasing) "if you can find it, you can keep it." Maybe that's pretty literal.

                        The trust you described, if I understand it, would allow a finder to postpone tax liability until they sell. I'm sure if that was possible at the time in exchange for a few legal fees, f would have done it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by CRM114 View Post

                          Sure he's been generous. I'm talking about a situation analogous to what existed a few years ago where a kid would inherit a family farm and immediately have to sell it to pay the taxes, which destroyed the whole idea of a family farm. I believe they got rid of that.

                          I'm thinking Forrest may have tried to prevent that here as well - if a redneck with 12 kids wants to keep the treasure intact, and abide by the law, why shouldn't they be able to? I'm not talking capital gains if they decide to sell it - those are most definitely the finder's burden. Forrest has said (paraphrasing) "if you can find it, you can keep it." Maybe that's pretty literal.

                          The trust you described, if I understand it, would allow a finder to postpone tax liability until they sell. I'm sure if that was possible at the time in exchange for a few legal fees, f would have done it.
                          I think this is where Forrest is confident that he or his estate will be notified when the chest is found. There are a few scenarios possible. But the most logical and lucrative one is for finder to come forward or bear the full burden of tax consequences themselves with a devalued chest of goodies.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No one is gonna devalue the ‘goodies’. They’re multiplicative.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Rose Livingstone View Post
                              No one is gonna devalue the ‘goodies’. They’re multiplicative.
                              No one should. But many have claimed to desire to do a secret sell off. They won't get top dollar that way.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X