Leaderboard

I'd reject it out of hand and not waste money on an attorney. It might be actuarially equivalent; we don't know the ages of either party. but unless he can show why it is in her interest to do so, you are under no obligation to consider it. Also consider that your mom would have to have some way to enforce the maintenance of the policy - who would own it, what happens if he doesn't pay premiums, etc. and the hassle and complication of that alone probably makes it not worthwhile.

I've been studying this at great length and depth. I believe CRUTs and CRATs will be an important tool for those who ALSO have a strong charitable desire. I fear that it is going to be oversold to those who don't have a true charitable desire and that will end up being just another problem. This is an area that will be for the estate planning attorney and competent accountant to run numbers and explain to the client how this will all work. There are other tools that will be put into play as well (sequential Roth conversions of smaller amounts that the total accounts, for example).

Here is what Section 4.03(b)(1) of our FTWilliam basic plan document says:

I am a little late to this thread but what on earth could be in this for you? Are you in the habit of doing others peoples billings for them?

The easy way to remember this is that there is no DOUBLE ATTRIBUTION.

No. If Daughter owned shares directly those would be attributed to her spouse but shares she is attributed from her father do not get attributed to her husband.

Can you even imagine ... Facebook already knows everything you look at on the internet, now they know your retirement account too. You look up a medical procedure on the internet, next thing you know you're getting ads that say click here to take a hardship withdrawal from your 401(k).