Jon and Kate Plus 8, Official Thread--Part 7

[Lisa loves Pooh]

If it's in a revocable trust, I don't see why not. The state of PA has no say over how the money is used. The grantor of the trust does. At any time, the grantor can withdraw any/all of the money and spend it on anything that he/she wants to. Whatever money is in the trust belongs to the grantor. Upon the grantor's death, the money then transfers to the beneficiaries.

In this case J or K is the grantor and the children are the beneficiaries.

Maybe I am not being clear....

My kids have a pre-paid college tuition. Now anytime I could cancel it.

I do not think though it is consider an asset that can be attached for litigation purposes. But I might be wrong.

That's the crux of my question. What Jon and Kate can do it means nothng to me. It is whether or not they can be forced to use their children's asset to meet a financial obligation.

 

[madge]

Much of what gets reported is unoriginal. It doesn't make it invalid though on that fact alone.

no, but it does make it less factual when it's a blogger's speculation of an article... that sort of article is an opinion piece and shouldn't be considered as evidence, IMO. It would be like the courts taking one of my blog entries where I've cited another news source in the blog as evidence.

 

[madge]

Little tidbit of trivia for everyone..

If you glance through your newspaper, you will notice MANY articles reprinted from the AP wire or other syndicated service. (and there will be errors sometimes, so even the AP professionals aren't correct.)

way back in the day, I was a journalism major. The errors in our local paper make me cringe and laugh at the same time. LOL

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

no, but it does make it less factual when it's a blogger's speculation of an article... that sort of article is an opinion piece and shouldn't be considered as evidence, IMO. It would be like the courts taking one of my blog entries where I've cited another news source in the blog as evidence.

Well--the fact that they are helping spread the gossip that is Jon Gosselin is just as valid as anything else.

And since it is unlikely it is the sole source of evidence, I don't think it is a negative in their court case.

You bring all you have to the table. Some things are admissable, some are not.

 

[kidshop]

Maybe I am not being clear....

My kids have a pre-paid college tuition. Now anytime I could cancel it.

I do not think though it is consider an asset that can be attached for litigation purposes. But I might be wrong.

That's the crux of my question. What Jon and Kate can do it means nothng to me. It is whether or not they can be forced to use their children's asset to meet a financial obligation.

I understand what you are saying.... can they be forced to cash in the trusts to pay legal bills. I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem right since prepaids are listed in the kids names, and are earmarked for college. You have purchased the education already so it seems that shouldn't be counted as a parent asset any longer. They can't take kids bank accounts or investments if the parents owe can they?

 

[daughtersrus]

Maybe I am not being clear....

My kids have a pre-paid college tuition. Now anytime I could cancel it.

I do not think though it is consider an asset that can be attached for litigation purposes. But I might be wrong.

That's the crux of my question. What Jon and Kate can do it means nothng to me. It is whether or not they can be forced to use their children's asset to meet a financial obligation.

Thanks for the clarification.

I don't think that I've read anything about them purchasing prepaid plans. From what I understand (and I could be completely wrong) they have set up accounts (revocable trusts) that should have enough money to cover the cost of college. If that's correct, whomever is the grantor of these trusts would then be able to withdraw some/all of the money any time that they want. So in essence, if the trusts are what they are talking about when they say that the kids have money, there is no guarantee that the kids will ever see that money. Of course, I'm sure that the intent is that it will be there for them but you never know what situations may arise or what the future may bring.

 

[MAKmom]

Besides this IRS topic, can you give some examples?



Where did you read that Jon asked to be paid in cash?




The casino is not required to give you a 1099 unless you win over $1,999.99 but that doesn't mean that you're not supposed to be reporting all of you wins under that amount. As the tax law stands, you are entitled to deduct your losses up to the amount of your winnings on your federal return. http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc419.html

Are you reading the links people are providing before you respond? I don't think so. If you did you would know what I was talking about. Your replies are not making sense to this topic. Go back to my first post on this topic that you responded to & read the link about Lohan.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I understand what you are saying.... can they be forced to cash in the trusts to pay legal bills. I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem right since prepaids are listed in the kids names, and are earmarked for college. You have purchased the education already so it seems that shouldn't be counted as a parent asset any longer. They can't take kids bank accounts or investments if the parents owe can they?

Right.

Though legally, and without problems, we can close the accounts should we need to (and we would if it was our only method of putting food no the table). (and the child couldn't later sue me for it...but I don't recall how it is set up. I guess like Jon and Kate's trusts, we have some revocable situation.)

But my concern was over if they could be forced since I do not know how trusts work.

The whole point now of my inquiry--if they cannot be forced, the the kids are not at risk of losing money in the lawsuit. However, they are at risk if the parents opt to use those funds instead of their own to pay the legal fees and damages.

 

[DMRick]

If Jon is in the back area of his house, who is taking these pictures? The kids appear to be posing for the camera..maybe at that point Jon is taking photo's? And then released them?

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...ty-recommendations-regarding-his-atv-his-kids

 

[daughtersrus]

Are you reading the links people are providing before you respond? I don't think so. If you did you would know what I was talking about. Your replies are not making sense to this topic. Go back to my first post on this topic that you resonded to & read the link about Lohan.

If the link that you're talking about is this one http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...ohan-testify-against-jon-gosselin-tlc-lawsuit I did read it and no where in the link did it say that Jon asked to be paid in cash. It says..Lohan told us he didn't know his deals with Jon might be in violation of his TLC contract. "At times he said what we were doing was ok; at times times he said it was a problem. I guess that’s why he got paid cash for so many of the personal appearances so no one would know.

To jump from that statement to OMG...If Jon accepted cash or chips he is going to have an IRS problem and Jon asked to be paid in cash to hide the income from TLC is a bit of a stretch.

Getting back to my example. I paid my daycare provider cash. She did not ask me to, it was just easier for me. She had no intent on hiding the money from the IRS or anyone else but based on what's been written here, she must be guilty of trying to.

Did you read my link about gambling wins/losses as they relate to the IRS? It should answer your question as it relates to all US citizens including Jon.

 

[MAKmom]

Right.

Though legally, and without problems, we can close the accounts should we need to (and we would if it was our only method of putting food no the table). (and the child couldn't later sue me for it...but I don't recall how it is set up. I guess like Jon and Kate's trusts, we have some revocable situation.)

But my concern was over if they could be forced since I do not know how trusts work.

The whole point now of my inquiry--if they cannot be forced, the the kids are not at risk of losing money in the lawsuit. However, they are at risk if the parents opt to use those funds instead of their own to pay the legal fees and damages.

When is the divorce final? If TLC is suing Jon for what he did after Kate filed is she responsible?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

When is the divorce final? If TLC is suing Jon for what he did after Kate filed is she responsible?

The way that I read the papework--it would include the indiscretions prior to filing. The lawsuit was about more than just Jon accepting work for other people. It included anything the sullied his image (i.e. made him look not the part of family man, though I don't recall the specific langauge of the allegations).

As for the divorce--their joint assets, I believe under PA state law, are joint until the divorce is finalized. If I understand it correctly, then their joint assets would be utilized for any penalties.

Which is why when Kate made her statement on her interview with Natalie--that Jon's actions that resulted in the lawsuit would impact the whole family if TLC wins. (again--I don't recall exactly what she said, but that was the impression that I took away--that if Jon loses, Kate does as well.)

 

[MAKmom]

If the link that you're talking about is this one http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...ohan-testify-against-jon-gosselin-tlc-lawsuit I did read it and no where in the link did it say that Jon asked to be paid in cash. It says..Lohan told us he didn't know his deals with Jon might be in violation of his TLC contract. "At times he said what we were doing was ok; at times times he said it was a problem. I guess that’s why he got paid cash for so many of the personal appearances so no one would know.

To jump from that statement to OMG...If Jon accepted cash or chips he is going to have an IRS problem and Jon asked to be paid in cash to hide the income from TLC is a bit of a stretch.

Getting back to my example. I paid my daycare provider cash. She did not ask me to, it was just easier for me. She had no intent on hiding the money from the IRS or anyone else but based on what's been written here, she must be guilty of trying to.

Did you read my link about gambling wins/losses as they relate to the IRS? It should answer your question as it relates to all US citizens including Jon.

If you keep reading it says this

He would get paid between $2,500-$5,000 or even more," Lohan claimed. "Some casinos would give him poker chips. I was negotiating a deal for Nutrisystem but when the negative press came out Nutrisystem ran for the hills. We didn’t get to the numbers with Nutrisystem but it would have been six-figures."

That is what I was talking about with the poker chip comment & the smile rolling. It was a joke ha ha. Your IRS information does not apply to my joke.

I'm sure your right that Jon was planning on reporting his poker chips to the IRS. I'm sure the IRS is going to make sure of it now

 

[daughtersrus]

Right.


But my concern was over if they could be forced since I do not know how trusts work.

The whole point now of my inquiry--if they cannot be forced, the the kids are not at risk of losing money in the lawsuit. However, they are at risk if the parents opt to use those funds instead of their own to pay the legal fees and damages.

I've never been involved in a lawsuit like this so I really have no idea. What I did find is this definition
revocable trust
Definition
A trust that may be altered or terminated during the grantor's lifetime. Since the trust may be altered at any time until the grantor's death, it is considered part of the grantor's estate and is subject to taxation. The property is passed on to the beneficiaries only after the grantor's death, and the revocable trust then becomes irrevocable.

I'm not a lawyer but since it's part of the grantor's estate, it sounds like someone could be forced to liquidate that assets of the trusts (that they are are the grantor on) to pay off debt.

 

[daughtersrus]

If you keep reading it says this

He would get paid between $2,500-$5,000 or even more," Lohan claimed. "Some casinos would give him poker chips. I was negotiating a deal for Nutrisystem but when the negative press came out Nutrisystem ran for the hills. We didn’t get to the numbers with Nutrisystem but it would have been six-figures."

So because Lohan said Some casinos would give him poker chips. you came to the conclusion that Jon asked to be paid in cash and by doing so, he would be in big trouble with the IRS?

You do know that casinos comp players all of the time don't you? You don't need to be famous to get cash/chips from a casino.

When you find the link saying that he did in fact ask and that he was trying to hide from the IRS, please post it.

That is what I was talking about with the poker chip comment & the smile rolling. It was a joke ha ha. Your IRS information does not apply to my joke.


I'm sure your right that Jon was planning on reporting his poker chips to the IRS. I'm sure the IRS is going to make sure of it now

Based on that logic, I'm sure that the IRS is going to make sure that Kate has been claiming all of the cash that she gets from autographs, pictures... as well. Who know, maybe we'll be hearing about audits in the near future.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Based on that logic, I'm sure that the IRS is going to make sure that Kate has been claiming all of the cash that she gets from autographs, pictures... as well. Who know, maybe we'll be hearing about audits in the near future.

I'm surprised we haven't had one yet that we aren't aware of anyway.

Sidenote thought on Kate collecting monies at events...

When I attend homeschool conventions, there are oodles of tables set up with folks selling things. And we get a famous person or two sometimes who has written books, you buy and they autograph it. (But I've not heard of anyone charging for photos or autographs on something else.)

In any case--these people keep track of it just like anyone else would in any kind of business.

So we can't presume that Jon and Kate haven't been honest with their income reportings from these types of events.

Also--I had mentioned on this or the last thread about my family's stint on TOH--the Gosselins would NOT be able to avoid scrutiny with the IRS if there tax filings do not match that of the company's that have gifted items in the name of the show. (now if TLC maintains posession of the items, then their tax filings would reflect that and there would be no discrepancy.)

So the fact that we haven't heard anything, probably means they are likely on the up and up.

Though I'm surprised with all the gossip and rumor and 3rd party agency reportings, that the Gosselins haven't had some inquiries from the IRS that we are aware of.

Does anyone recall how long before Richard Hatch was busted after he cashed his Survivor winnings? It catches up sooner or later, but it seemed that it was within a couple of years.

 

[daughtersrus]

I'm surprised we haven't had one yet that we aren't aware of anyway.

Sidenote thought on Kate collecting monies at events...

When I attend homeschool conventions, there are oodles of tables set up with folks selling things. And we get a famous person or two sometimes who has written books, you buy and they autograph it. (But I've not heard of anyone charging for photos or autographs on something else.)

In any case--these people keep track of it just like anyone else would in any kind of business.

So we can't presume that Jon and Kate haven't been honest with their income reportings from these types of events.

Also--I had mentioned on this or the last thread about my family's stint on TOH--the Gosselins would NOT be able to avoid scrutiny with the IRS if there tax filings do not match that of the company's that have gifted items in the name of the show. (now if TLC maintains posession of the items, then their tax filings would reflect that and there would be no discrepancy.)

So the fact that we haven't heard anything, probably means they are likely on the up and up.

Though I'm surprised with all the gossip and rumor and 3rd party agency reportings, that the Gosselins haven't had some inquiries from the IRS that we are aware of.

Does anyone recall how long before Richard Hatch was busted after he cashed his Survivor winnings? It catches up sooner or later, but it seemed that it was within a couple of years.

I guess that's my point. The J & K have been being paid in cash for years so why are some people (not you) jumping to the conclusion that Jon is somehow trying to pull one over on the IRS but Kate isn't?

As for Hatch, I think that he won in 2000 and was convicted in 2006 but I'm assuming that the IRS was investigating long before the conviction.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I guess that's my point. The J & K have been being paid in cash for years so why are some people (not you) jumping to the conclusion that Jon is somehow trying to pull one over on the IRS but Kate isn't?

As for Hatch, I think that he won in 2000 and was convicted in 2006 but I'm assuming that the IRS was investigating long before the conviction.

I would assume like anything else, you get due process, so yeah--I would guess they started a bit sooner. Maybe even as early as 2001 or 2002.


Just saw the SNL spoof of Kate....

 

[daughtersrus]

Just saw the SNL spoof of Kate....

I haven't seen it. Is it online?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I haven't seen it. Is it online?

It came up on my aol news thing and I clicked...lemme see if I can find it again for you.

Here you go...enjoy!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/08/taylor-swift-spoofs-kanye_n_349896.html