"Dave W."
>> "Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote
>> There's not much more I can do to for you Stu.
>> Maybe I could do more research on court cases or go over the
>> federal tax "tracing rules" but I get the feeling you just
>> don't believe me!
>>
>> But it's absolutely true (and it's discussed in other "mass
>> market" estate books) with the example of a widower who adds
>> a son to the title on a personal residence and the son dies
>> first but didn't contribute anything, with the consequence
>> of the son's federal estate tax valuation being $ - 0-.
> And that is absolutely correct - as long as the son was
> added to the title as a joint tenant. Section 2036
> specifically requires that result.
>
> But if the son is added to the title in any other way, that
> is not the result.
>
> We were specifically talking about the son being added as a
> remainderman after the mother retained a life estate
MY BAD! The example I was quoting in the books was joint tenants and estate tax, I see the "retained" in the title now! (the newsreader I previously used did not have the original post!) sorry, we were talking about different things post officially closed!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>