<p>Hunt, I am no expert, but I just read after googling and various web page stated that transferring the asset is very effective against judgment creditors against the other half. Plus they recommend that you must do it before any of the liability or judgment is born.</p>
<p>I, for one, am not ready to go so far as to say that Paterno considered liability with regard to Sandusky and transferred assets. I think it is much more likely that it had to do with estate and tax consequences.</p>
<p>Have at it:</p>
<p>[Penn</a> State’s Other Cover-Up: Death Threats To Black Students | News One](<a href=“http://newsone.com/nation/theloop21/penn-state-scandal-threats-black-students/]Penn”>Penn State's Other Cover-Up: Death Threats To Black Students)</p>
<p>I don’t care either. The story came out so I just googled to see what is the actual rules and law. I also have no problem with Paterno doing what he needs to do to protect himself and his family if that was what he was doing.</p>
<p>^ ttparent,</p>
<p>Well, I understand about the marital deduction, but might there still not be legitimate estate planning reasons to put the house in the wife’s name? I’d start with the assumption that JoePa and his wife have plenty saved up (plus apparently a fat pension on its way) to live comfortably for a good long time, and for the survivor of them to do so, too. Then, if they’re like most of us, they’ll want to ensure that they pass down as much as possible to their kids and grandkids. As our lawyer explained it, you can do that by making sure both H and W are below the level of assets where estate taxes kick in; or, if you’re over that level, by keeping both H and W’s estates at the lowest estate tax bracket possible. If H owns most of the assets and is first to die, he could leave everything to W without estate taxes being owed, because the marital deduction is unlimited. But then when W dies, her estate is going to get socked with a big estate tax bill, so the kids end up with less. But if H owns most of the assets and W is the first to die, she’ll have relatively little to pass on to the kids, and the big estate tax bill will be due when H dies. Either way, the kids could get less and the IRS could get more if the assets aren’t roughly equal between H and W. If their assets are more-or-less equally divided and both under the $5 million threshold where estate taxes kick in, whoever dies first can leave their share to the kids (or in trust for the benefit of the survivor for life, remainder to the kids). So under that circumstance, it might make sense to shift some assets from JoePa (or from joint ownership) to Mrs. JoePa.</p>
<p>I guess bottom line I’m just not buying the argument that the only reason to deed the house over to Mrs. JoePa is to avoid losing it to judgment creditors. I just think that’s too big a leap.</p>
<p>Igloo,</p>
<p>That is as it should be. Most of the press and public did not wait for criminal convictions to believe that the Watergate break-in occurred, and most importantly, was covered up. The members of the Administration viogorously denied a cover-up, and their supporters raised all manner of possible, but highly improbable, and ultimatley inaccurate, alternative scenarios.</p>
<p>Those who suggest a wide-spread cover-up may be right, or they may be wrong. But as it relates to Paterno and Spanier such speculation is valid and appropriate. Highly compensated, powerful government officials are required, by the public, to maintain the public trust. They are entitled to a complete airing of the facts and a presumption of innoncence in a court of law, not so in the court of public opinion. Even if those officials are people that we respected, admired, and lionized (see what I did there) for generations; actually more so.</p>
<p>Also, I recognize that this disaster is particularly painful for students, parents of students, and alumni of PSU. But the public interest in this case is legitimate, and it will not go away until all of the questions have been answered. Until that happens, and likely or a long time afterward, the revelations, speculation, and misery will unfortunately continue.</p>
<p>If the article above is correct, when it comes to protecting students and children, JoePa’s record leaves something to be desired.</p>
<p>^ Like I said, I don’t really care. I just googled and try to understand a few things. It is all interesting actually because we are all getting old or at least I am. So I don’t know, but your original scenario does not apply. His wife will not save on any tax by doing what you said if Paterno dies. His decendants could potentially save some, I guess, but I don’t see how the house will go on to the decendants after Paterno dies. It should go to the wife and it should be tax free. I don’t think you need to be 50/50, because when Joe dies, he just needs to leave 5 millions to his kids and give the rest to his wife, then when she dies, the estate pays the rest. Like I said, I am no expert, I could be very wrong here.</p>
<p>Spend a little time on the web. The “unconfirmed” and “speculative” reports are that Sandusky had a particular penchant for skinny little Black boys…</p>
<p>Okay, like jackals to smelly meat, have at it!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It will depend on the public, their wisdom, how responsible they are, how they would steer their society, destructively or less so. Do they want to vent their anger immediately at all cost or do they want to sit back think first. It is not a case of right or wrong. Rather a case of who we are. There is no “it has to be.”</p>
<p>Does that matter?</p>
<p>Edit -that was in response to the rumors about the racial make up of the victimes</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, but that’s the whole point: if they’re like everyone else, they want their kids to get more and the IRS to get less, and to do that they need to make sure their assets are distributed between them so they can each pass on as much as possible tax-free to the kids, and if any of it is subject to estate taxation that it’s taxed at the lowest possible rate. That’s much easier to do if both estates are roughly the same size than if one is very large and the other much smaller. They don’t know which of them will die first, so they need to plan for either scenario. And in their case, I wouldn’t be surprised if more of the assets are presently in his name (or held jointly, which if he dies first the IRS would count as half his upon his death in calculating the size of his taxable estate). And that might easily require moving some assets around between them as part of a sound estate plan. It doesn’t need to be the house; but it could easily be the house, and perhaps some other assets that we don’t know about because those transactions aren’t public records. </p>
<p>I don’t find JoePa a particularly sympathetic or credible figure in all this, but his stated reason for transferring the house to his wife makes some sense to me, because our tax lawyer suggested we consider doing the very same thing, for just the reasons I describe. As it turns out, though, our assets aren’t anywhere near the level that would trigger an estate tax, so we didn’t do it. But once I hit that big Lotto jackpot, we might need to reconsider.</p>
<p>It matters A TON. Did you read the article about the death threats to Black students and Paterno’s response to them? Is there a general pattern among the white coaches and assistant coaches, white administrators, and white college president that goes back more than a decade? Or that Black students ended up feeling it necessary to wear bullet-proof vests to their own graduation? If it were a Black assistant coach allegedly raping little white boys, you think no one would have mentioned race?</p>
<p>Have at it.</p>
<p>Igloo,</p>
<p>We should be outraged, but certainly not destructive. If there are lynch mobs roaming the streets of State College they should be arrested.</p>
<p>If by destructive you mean reaching highly critical pre-trial conclusions about public officials, that goes with the territory, as it should. Even if we really used to like the public official, even if he built a football team, a reputation, and a library. No exemptions. It goes with the territory.</p>
<p>Asked otherwise, who tells us when we have enough information to form an opinion about violations of public trust? The violators? Their supporters? That’s not how it works.</p>
<p>mini, I did not read it, but that would matter. If this fits into a pattern of racial discrimination, and I have no idea whether it does or not, it would certainly matter.</p>
<p>I don’t believe decent people would be more or less revolted if the racial roles were reversed. I offer no view on the reactions of indecent people.</p>
<p>Stats - whoever said I disagree with this-I respect your view. But I also respect the view of those who ask questions, demand answers, and form views and opinions based on currently available information. The questions asked relate to public malfeasance of the absolute highest order. In my view, a skeptical public is a good thing.</p>
<p>Well I do disagree on forming an opinion on one sided information.</p>
<p>Mini, that was a very creepy story…and eerily similar in that university authorities didn’t contact police and a man was actually murdered. How could Paterno be so concerned about Penn’s “image” in the face of death threats against it’s students, one of whom was his own QB?! The story on Loop 21 was particularly disturbing:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[The</a> Other Penn State Cover-Up: Death Threats Against Black Students | Loop21](<a href=“http://loop21.com/content/other-penn-state-cover-death-threats-against-black-students]The”>http://loop21.com/content/other-penn-state-cover-death-threats-against-black-students)</p>
<p>bclintonk, the way I see it, it does not have to be about equal in asset for a married couple. Each of them just needs to have at least 5 millions to leave for their beneficiaries. Again, the house does not make any sense to me because if either of them dies and it has to be the wife for it to make sense in this case assuming Joe is the asset rich half, she has to leave the house as part of the estate for inheritance. But the other half still needs a place to live when the other one passes.</p>
<p>I see houses transferred for $1 all the time when I review tax records. There are so many reasons for it I believe it would be impossible to determine why it was done here.</p>
<p>Even if there was a judgment against Joe Paterno they are not going to force the sale of the home anyway and they never get the spouses half of the equity so I am not sure it is that big a deal.</p>
<p>Someone earlier in the thread mentioned Pennsylvania’s open records laws, and I really didn’t understand the reference. Perhaps it had been explained earlier and I had missed it. </p>
<p>I may be the only one on the thread who was ignorant about this, but on the off chance this is not commonly known, here is an article explaining it.</p>
<p><a href=“Penn State Has Exemption From Disclosure Law - The New York Times”>Penn State Has Exemption From Disclosure Law - The New York Times;
<p>Anderson Cooper discussed the issue on his show:</p>
<p>[Video</a> - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com](<a href=“Video News - CNN”>Video News - CNN)</p>