Jeff...that is all generally true, but do you really think it applies
to someone who spends all his time crowing about his stereo and the
boat his "wife" owns? Bob is hoping to crack the "five figure" net
worth barrier at some point. It is looking more and more apparent
that Bob has a rather checkered credit history. When people want
assets in their spouses names, it is usually because of creditors
lurking about in hopes of getting paid. Bob said "he bought the car
and she bought the boat." Big surprise. A car is usually exempt from
the claims of creditors whereas a boat would not be exempt.

I really don't think "estate planning" was the reason that Suzzy
bought the boat and it is in her name, but in any event, it is nice
that Bob has a boat to sail on, even if it is not his

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 10:27:14 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote:

Each person receives an exemption - it was $600,000 and is now $1,000,000. (It actually
ramps up to 3.5 mil, then drops back to 1 mil in 2011, I think.) If all the assets are
in one person's name, the other effectively waives this exemption. This blunder could cost
your heirs a million bucks or more.

However, I'm sure Suzzy's lawyers are feeding you this nonsense about "tax profiles" to
save her a bundle of money.


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
However, when you get older and (God forbid!) have children, you may start to
think of
estate transfer. In that case the issues are different, and it becomes
important to
balance holdings, and to set up trust funds to maximize the amount that stays
in the
family.

You clearly know very little about estate transfers. By splitting the holdings
you pay far more in taxes if a transfer is made. You also fail to realize that
financial history comes into play. Suzzy's is perfect. Mine is not.

RB