Re: Fwd: taxes - 2
It's hard to express my feelings about your unwillingness to permit the marital account to contribute to the taxes, or the demand for inspection and review of our financial affairs.
Hardly the pattern for many years, but we will manage on our own.
D
Dear Doddoy,
It sounds like you are very angry about my decision yesterday, and I'm deeply sorry that it has come to this. I still hope that we can sit down at a meeting someday and resolve this. I'd like to use the f=nds from the marital trust to support you, but I can't do that without some understanding of your overall financial picture. If we were to meet with any professional advisor of your choosing, I'm confident we could work out a plan that ensures your long-term solvency and comfort, helps Valeria after your death, and uses the marital trust in a way that we both agree is reasonable and sustainable. It would be up to you how much detail to share with me at this meeting and how much to keep private. The more I understand your circumstances, the better I can fill my role as trustee.
You are sending me mixed signals about whether you want me involved in your financial affairs or not. Several times you've declared that your own IRA is plenty, you are managing fine without using the marital trust, and you don't want to discuss it with me anymore. But yest=rday you came to me out of the blue, demanded a six-figure sum on three hours L; notice, and reacted angrily when I insisted on taking time to discuss it first. You can't have it both ways. I am the trustee for pa=t of your assets, like it or not, and you have to decide whether to include me in a genuine ongoing conversation (with professional advice) about your finances, or forgo your access to this money. I'd like to know wh=ch it is going to be. Please don't ask for further trust distributio=s until we have begun a conversation. I will be ready for the conversat=on anytime you like.
I'm sorry that I have not made myself clear.
You are the trustee for the marital trust, not for my assets. We are in charge of our assets. There are no mixed signals.
Just back from a couple of days in E=gland, packed with talks, interviews and the rest. Valeria and I had thought of staying on for a few days for ourselves, but we can't manage that th=se days, due to very intense commitments.
Turning to your letter, about the fa=ily relationship, we can put that aside. That's stable, enduring, permanent.=font size="3">
The rest of the letter, however, I f=nd puzzling. I'll explain. And these are matters we ought to clear up.
You say that there is "some major disagreement about what the basic facts are" and that there is a difference of perspectives. That&=39;s what I find puzzling. I don't know of any disagreement about the basic facts, and I know of only one perspective: the one I outlined in my letters. I reported what the facts are -• will review the matter briefly again below -- and outlined my perspective, based on the only relev=nt facts I know of, which to my knowledge are complete. I'm not awa=e of any other relevant facts, hence see no basis for any other perspective (whatever that perspective may be).
If I'm missing some facts, basic or not, I'd of course like to be a=are of them, and also of the source for them so that I can check and discover on what the picture is based. But since I haven't heard of any ot=er facts beyond those I outlined (and more that simply fill out the same pictu=e), I don't understand the disagreement and don't see any alternative p=rspective. And I don't understand the suggestion about an outside "expert."=C24kIn fact, find the suggestion very strange, and would even if there were some factual basis for it. Even stranger when there is no factual basis, as far as I am aware -- and if there is, again, I'd like to know what i= is and, crucially, what is the source. So far I haven't seen anyt=ing.
To review the basic facts briefly, M=mmoy and I worked out the estate planning a long time ago, with Eric Menoyo and (later) Palmer Dodge when he moved there. Our general plan at that time, about 20 years ago, was for everything to go to you after the two of us died. We took for granted that M would survive me. Therefore, putting aside the trusts designated specifically for you, the rest (apart from IRAs) was put in trusts in M's name for her to acc=ss for the rest of her life. The intention, of course, was that these would be accessible to the survivor — and we took for granted that = would survive me.
Things didn't turn out as we=expected. It turned out, contrary to our assumptions, that I was the survivor, not M. And when I remarried, things changed again. Because the pension went almost entirely into M's trust, what remains of the pe=sion is very small, actually less than Social Security. And, importantly, it doesn't go to Valeria after my death. And I have no access to the tr=sts, only to one IRA (and another small one).
It was great to =ee you yesterday. It was really hard for me to tell from your conversation, and from your message, how the different factors are playing into your decision to move to Tucson. As I said—if it's what you want to do, the= of course we support it.
But we do indeed think the facts about the Marital Trust and the conditions of the loan from the Marital Trust and the way the interest works are different from what you understand. We are still worried that you are making the decision based on, for example, your understanding of the Marital Trust loan and the way you understand the interest payments on this loan. We do indeed have different facts about how that loan was set up so that the interest would not be a burden on you. We are working on a memo that lays out those facts. We don't know if these facts are r=levant to your decision to move, but we do think it's important for you to=have them. We should be able to get you this in a document in a few days.<=font>
Love,
Avi, Diane, and =arry
We're in the process of arranging our finances with the impending sale of the apartment and the move to Tucson, and would like to clear up some unsettled questions.
In my letter to you I outlined what I have determined about the matter.Q=A0 In your letter you said that you think the facts about the Marital Trust and the conditions on the loan from the Marital Trust and the way the inter=st works are different from what I understand, and that you have different facts.
You said you were working on a memo to lay out the facts as you see them.=C24, Any progress on this? I'd like to clarify this so that we can set=le just what the facts are.
D
As promised, please find attached a memo with information about the Marital Trust, and in particular the conditions on the loan from the Trust, which are somewhat different from what you indicated to us in your previous email=
We have thought for a long time that you have misunderstood key aspects of the financial situation. This is why we have been asking you to meet with us and with Max and Bainco. The issues discussed in this memo are only one part of the picture. We still think that the meetin= we have been urging is important and could clear up other issues.
Love, Avi, Diane and Harry
Glad to see the memo. I compared the memo with the original document, the promissory note that is the official signed agreement. The memo is in error about the promissory note. The facts are as I already described them. A few comments interspersed into the memo you sent, attached.
I don't see any point in discussions with Max and Bainco. The fac=s seem completely clear.
If there are other issues, I'd of course be glad to know about them. I hope we can settle all of this quickly.
D
I should make it clear to start with that none of this bears on our decisio= to move to Tucson. That has quite different motives.
We do of course have to face our financial situation: reliance on a diminis=ing IRA (and another very small one) with no access to other funds, and the burden of paying for an apartment that I agreed to buy only on the mistaken assumption that the cost would be paid by the Lexington house.
What we're discussing is something else: the nature of the loan from th= Trust.
The final version of the Promissory Note that was provided to me reads as follows:
"Interest on the balance out=tanding shall be payable at a rate equal to the highest rate in effect from time to time on any one or more loans outstanding <=font>
between-Lender and (insert full name of Pershing entity], or if no such loans are in existence, then the rate shall be fixed at the so-called Mid Term Applicable Federal Rate in effect at the time, recalculated monthly in accordance with Section 1274(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, or an= successor thereto. Interest due on each Loan shall be calculated based on a 360-day year and the actual number of days elapsed."<=ont size="3">
There is nothing here, or elsewhe=e in the document, that restricts it to the brief period before the sale of the Lexington house.
I have no information at all abou= having received any DNI. If there is such information, it should be sent to me so that I can use it for our own plans.
I don't see much point in a m=eting. It seems to me that all of this can be cleared up in writing.
D
Hi,
What worries us about continuing to try to clear it all up in writing us that it isn't efficient or effective. There's lots of time-consumin=, expensive back-and-forth with Max in order for us to give you responses which are obviously middle-man/woman not clear because (us) would they only almost lead have to further to be more questions. effective. What's At your the very objection worst, to it can't a meeting? hurt, and Cutting it could out help. the We don't understand why you have repeatedly refused to c=nsider this, unless of course there's some issue there on your side that we L=;re not aware of.
However, we'll give this one another try in writing anyway, since we do have more detailed information now.
The paragraph you quoted from the Promissory Note specifies interest rates under two different conditions: 1) when there is a loan outstanding between the Marital Trust and Pershing; 2) when there is no such loan outstanding. At the moment there is no such loan outstanding. Therefore, the interest rate that applies is the Mid Term Applicable Federal Rate. A quick web search shows that this has hovered between about 1.5% and 2% during the past couple of years.
The language you are disturbed by -- "the highest rate in effect" -- does not apply in the current circumstances. It did apply when the loan was new, because the Marital Trust borrowed money from Pershing in order to raise money to lend to you. However, that secondary loan was paid off once the Lexington house was sold. Since that time, there has been no outstanding loan between the Trust and Pershing, and your interest rate has been governed by the Mid Term Applicable Federal Rate.
As we all know, legal language can be abstract and thus difficult or imposs=ble to interpret correctly without having the context.
Example: Without knowing about the second loan, it is not possible to under=tand what the promissory note means. Another example: Without having the terms and conditions of the trust at hand, it is not possible to glean from the promissory note that the interests - in effect - are returned to you.
These are just two examples of many, as we've said before.
In general, we are finding this discussion extremely painful. We feel like you are immersed in an alternative world-view which is distorting your interpretation of what is going on. You may very well feel the same about us. Can't we try a different approach?
Love, Avi, Diane and Harry
Thanks for your message. I guess it's not productive to continue this c=nversation by this medium at this point. If you have questions about anything we'v= brought up we suggest that you speak directly to the people administering those affairs.
It sounds like you're all having a good time at the Cape and the we=ther has been lovely. Those of us who couldn't make it this time are sorry t= have missed it! and hope to be able to catch up soon.
Love, Avi, Diane and Harry
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
On the DNI payments to me, I have nothing to ask, beca=se I never heard of it before your letter and have no idea what it is.
There are no further distributions. That was arr=nged with Bainco when it became clear to them and us that distributions to the family were almost exhausting the obligatory IRA withdrawals.
On the promissory note, it's up to you what intere=t you want to charge on the loan. The Trust is basically yours. If you want to leave it this way, that's your choice. We have nothin= to talk to Max about it.
We tried to rouse up David, but he never answered our phone calls or other messages, so we never got back in. We'll pro=ably spend a couple of days there later in August. Now we're off to Tu=son, then Uruguay for talks and various events with Mujica, then Brazil, back at the end of the month.
D
Ok, hope=the trips go well, and looking forward to hearing from you when you are back.
Love, Avi, Diane and Harry
This is where we stand right now (e-mails below). They didn=#39;t acknowledge his request.
Until recently Noam was absolutely convinced that his children wo=ld disregard and forgive the loan completely. This and some other th=ngs have been a blow on him. He was very sad. But, fortunately= we came to Tucson and we have been enjoying our new house and somehow dis=racting ourselves from the pressure and stress.
I don't want to bring the subject back now, but, when we can meet,=l would like to explain some aspects of the relationship between the famil= lawyer and our new lawyer. There were some e-mail exchanges where t=e family lawyer proposed our new lawyer that they have to work as a "=eam".
if noam allows , i think i can clear this up f=irly quickly, in addition he did not get the=second payment from the foundation. so that could go directly =o interest if he so chooses. . the children can be told =he name of rich kahn from the firm of HRBK. =C240 my name nevr has to enter