Dissolving a Trust

[TrustUser]

i am not gonna go hunting for the thread. as far as i know, you had it deleted. i can tell you that curb was on the thread, and stopped posting once you came on.

twice you said i was wrong. you commented how that you were not gonna explain yourself in detail, like we were too lowly for you to stoop to an actual explanation.

and i never said that you were not knowledgeable. there have been several times on the site where i have said that i think you have a good deal of knowledge. i also think you behave like a horse's blank.

and i have several times said that i help out only within a small frame. if i help out on a thread, it is because i have already experienced the situation, and can lend a light on it.

my small area of expertise is creating trusts that wont go to court, and being trustee, and what he has to do.

the job of a trustee is to follow the language of the trust. so if a beneficiary asks him to do something contrary to the trust, then the trustee would be in breach of his fiduciary duties. there is nothing wrong with having the op ASK for trusteeship. either the op can have it, or not.

it would be best if we simply stop posting to one another. you can think my knowledge about trusts is limited, if you want. i have no desire to want you to think otherwise.

 

[tranquility]

i am not gonna go hunting for the thread. as far as i know, you had it deleted. i can tell you that curb was on the thread, and stopped posting once you came on.

You've made a specific factual allegation, twice. I would not have started a thread where I would have asked any 1041 question and, when combined with the fact I am not an administrator, could not delete such a thread. I humbly suggest it is unwise to make written false factual allegations to third parties which of and concern a person's profession when you can't back them up.

Just saying.

I shall continue to post when and where I please. You can stop posting anytime you choose. I've made my legal points clear in this thread and so don't feel the need to clarify your imprecision at this time.

 

[TrustUser]

i know what you said. you know what you said. a few others on this site know what you said.

you have a lot of clout on this site, and it is not at all unlikely that you had the thread deleted, if it is not there.

which may be why you did not comment on it at first. you had to get the thread deleted.

lawyers think they are so clever. but they are so predictable.

i think you have spoken lawyerese so long, you have forgotten how to speak english.

i never said that you started a thread where you would have asked any 1041 questions.

in fact, i would be surprised that your arrogance would allow you to ask any questions at all of us poor lowly simple folk. we then might realize that you actually dont know everything.

as a reminder for you - a beneficiary should always look at his trust document first, and irrevocable trusts file 1041s and k1s.

unlike you, i readily admit that i am not knowledgeable about most things. my brain would have to be the size of our country to hold everything there is to know. and i am always interested to learn. i am even interested to learn from tranquility the almighty, if he can come down from his throne, and still get his head in the door.

 

[tranquility]

i know what you said. you know what you said. a few others on this site know what you said.

Please, tell me what I said. I don't have any recollection of saying an irrevocable trust not having to file a return. While I can't think of a reason offhand, I'm sure there is some set of facts where it's true. Yet, I have no idea what you're talking about. I tried to discover what you're talking about and couldn't. You say others know what you're talking about, please let me know. I stand by what I said and will retract what is wrong and I absolutely, without a doubt, with no intent or desire to evade or confuse, don't have a fricking clue as to what you're talking about.

Based upon your usual responses, I suspect there is a problem in your understanding of basic tax law, but can't be sure without something to guide me on what you mean.

you have a lot of clout on this site, and it is not at all unlikely that you had the thread deleted, if it is not there.

Again, a specific allegation without any support or reality to back it up. Grow up. I promise that in the years on the list I have never wanted a thread or any of my posts to disappear. In fact, I went away from the list for months because a polite thread was closed. Unless you have some specific allegation of some specific event or a general trend, you should keep such fantasy to yourself. I call you out. Please post anything you have of where I had power or ability or EVEN DESIRE to disappear. I think I've been fairly consistent as to my theory as to how the list should be. (Free speech, man. Let the wheat separate from the chaff. [You would be an example of the chaff.]) I love argument. I believe to the core of my soul the incredible value of differing points of view to come together with zealous advocacy to try and come to a result with sure or theoretical facts. While not actionable, because I have no damage, your accusation is incredibly rude and uncalled for. If you have any facts or suppositions to support such, I give permission to supply them. If not, apologize or accept those who have found me useful will think the same of you as I.

which may be why you did not comment on it at first. you had to get the thread deleted.

Again, disingenuous. There is a website called the WayBackMachine which keeps internet history. Look it up. Prove it up. I think you are becoming delusional as I have NO control or influence on any thread of which I did not start. NONE.

lawyers think they are so clever. but they are so predictable.

I've made no such claim. Another lie. Please address the facts and not your fantasy.

i never said that you started a thread where you would have asked any 1041 questions.

I said that because that is the only thread I would have the ability to delete.

in fact, i would be surprised that your arrogance would allow you to ask any questions at all of us poor lowly simple folk. we then might realize that you actually dont know everything.

Funny thing is, I don't claim to know everything, or even a lot of things. All I know is that when you speak in absolutes, you are profoundly wrong. I have a great basic understanding of the concepts, which you seem to lack. I also have the ability to look things up, which, in this age of the internet, you seem to dismiss to the reader's detriment. It is you who make broad pronouncements without support. Many times I say seek out council, which, again, you deride. Who is arrogant?

as a reminder for you - a beneficiary should always look at his trust document first, and irrevocable trusts file 1041s and k1s.

And, water is two hydrogen atoms combined with one oxygen. Is there a point here?

unlike you, i readily admit that i am not knowledgeable about most things. my brain would have to be the size of our country to hold everything there is to know. and i am always interested to learn. i am even interested to learn from tranquility the almighty, if he can come down from his throne, and still get his head in the door.

If you are so interested to learn, why do you fight admitting your obvious errors? Why do you claim you are correct when you are shown you are not? Why do you call it a tie when it is shown why you don't have a legal basis for your belief?

Unless you have some issue here, you are the one who has an unwarranted ego. I give my opinion, the reason why and how I'd argue. You give something which is jello-like in focus and refuse to deal with the legality of you suppositions and then claim lawyers are all alike.

Give a legal theory of anything we differ on. Then we can discuss. Otherwise, you're just a guy saying things.

 

[TrustUser]

i already told you what you said.

i had replied to the op about irrevocable trusts needing to file 1041s and k1s. you basically said i was wrong, and you were not gonna tell me why. that was the gist of it.

i wont belabor the point. surely in a few weeks you will have claimed that the situation with regards to viewing the trust first has changed, as well.

my obvious errors ? that would be when you are the referee. see, i just learned something from you - your little bit of sarcasm that i threw back at you.

truly arrogant people tell others they are arrogant when they get accused.

if you check this site, you will find that i have started threads, asking questions. i ask questions of people privately, if they have demonstrated that they seem knowledgeable.

and believe it or not, i would have no problem asking you a question, if you did not have your attitude. i am in no way trying to compare my knowledge of law with yours. you are a lawyer. i am not. if you dont know a ton more than i do about being in a courtroom, you are in serious trouble.

but i have had quite a bit of experience with trusts, and being a trustee - experience in which i can be helpful to others when the questions involve trusts. believe it or not, i have had several private inquiries from posters wanting questions answered.

i get all sorts of help in my life about things which i am not that familiar. i would like to contribute my help to others in those things which i can be of help.

i pretty much see that as everyone making everyone else's life a little easier in the short time that we have.

i am willing to bury the hatchet, EVEN WITH YOU. i have no problem if you want to disagree with me. just dont do it with arrogance.

i have the utmost respect for anteater. we dont always agree.

but if he says something, i always take it with earnest.

i would enjoy talking about a couple of points that you brought up. if there is something that i dont know about a topic in which i want to know - i try my best to learn about it.

 

[tranquility]

i already told you what you said.

And yet, I have no memory of saying anything like it. Even though you claim it was said here (and could easily be searched for), there is no evidence of anything like it. Not only is there no proof, but also, there SHOULD be proof. Either you are delusional or are making things up. I gave a place you could go to prove your spurious accusations. You have not. Enjoy your fantasy.

i had replied to the op about irrevocable trusts needing to file 1041s and k1s. you basically said i was wrong, and you were not gonna tell me why. that was the gist of it.

Super. Easy to prove. Do so.

my obvious errors ? that would be when you are the referee. see, i just learned something from you - your little bit of sarcasm that i threw back at you.

truly arrogant people tell others they are arrogant when they get accused.

Choose a referee. Give legal citations. Prove a point on where we differ. Heck, logically argue a point on where we differ.

if you check this site, you will find that i have started threads, asking questions. i ask questions of people privately, if they have demonstrated that they seem knowledgeable.

and believe it or not, i would have no problem asking you a question, if you did not have your attitude. i am in no way trying to compare my knowledge of law with yours. you are a lawyer. i am not. if you dont know a ton more than i do about being in a courtroom, you are in serious trouble.

What you are willing to do is irrelevant. What you do, and what you say is. Sorry you have a problem with my specific and described disagreement with you errors. (I've never claimed to be anything but what the disclaimer at the bottom of the page says.) A person who has a superficial knowledge of trust law cannot even begin to claim I am in "trouble", let alone a ton of it.

and believe it or not, i would have no problem asking you a question, if you did not have your attitude. i am in no way trying to compare my knowledge of law with yours. you are a lawyer. i am not. if you dont know a ton more than i do about being in a courtroom, you are in serious trouble.

I avoid such individual questions to make sure I am not committing malpractice or practicing law without a license (Or, the appropriate license.). You should probably be careful about admitting the commission of a crime.

i get all sorts of help in my life about things which i am not that familiar. i would like to contribute my help to others in those things which i can be of help.

One thing which would help that is to stop making categorical pronouncements about things which are more gray.

i pretty much see that as everyone making everyone else's life a little easier in the short time that we have.

i am willing to bury the hatchet, EVEN WITH YOU. i have no problem if you want to disagree with me. just dont do it with arrogance.

My words and my thoughts and my efforts are what they are. I care less your opinion of me. Deal with my words. This is not personal to me at all. The only reason you find it personal is that you have an ego and you have been repeatedly shown to be wrong. That you think I have some hatchet or that I care about your hatchet is quite amusing.

i have the utmost respect for anteater. we dont always agree.

but if he says something, i always take it with earnest.

i would enjoy talking about a couple of points that you brought up. if there is something that i dont know about a topic in which i want to know - i try my best to learn about it.

I agree anteater is knowledgeable.

For you, make a point, state it clearly, give citations. Until then, you're just a guy talking.

 

[TrustUser]

forget it. i knew communicating with you was hopeless.