X-Message-Number: 9862 Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 09:18:28 -0700 (MST) From: (Dave & Trudy Pizer) Subject: Re: CryoNet #9855 - #9859 At 05:00 AM 6/6/98 -0400, CryoNet wrote: >Message #9859 >From: >Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 21:56:32 EDT >Subject: Ben Best on trusts > >Ben Best has an interesting article on trusts (among other money matters) in >the current issue of Canadian Cryonics News. Anyone contemplating setting up a >trust for funding suspension/reanimation, in whole or in part, if not already >thoroughly conversant in the field, would do well to read it and its >references. Ben, if you are out there, could you please mail me a copy to: 10444 N. Cave Creek Rd., Phx AZ 85020. I have several friends who are in the process of making trusts. Dave At present I am still of the mind-set that leaving my estate to Alcor and other cryonics companies will do me the most benefit. I want the company that stores me to be as strong as possible. In the future, I will probably change that to leaving some of my estate to Alcor and some to myself. In my opinion, the single most important thing that one can do right now to improve one's chances is to fund more research in the area of better preparation for freezing. So leaving money to a cryonics company after one is frozen won't help in that area, but there still will be a need to keep the company strong during the storage years. And, one will also want to bring on research in the area of reanimation of VERY badly damaged (that's what we will be if we get frozen under the best conditions right now) frozen humans. >Some things remain unclear to me. For example, Ben seems to indicate that, >after CryoCare failed to get 501 ( c )3 status (tax exempt as scientific, >educational, or charitable), it tried to get 501 ( c) 13 (cemetery) status and >failed in that also. He says, "But after a long court battle, the IRS ruled >that neither CryoCare Foundation nor the Independent Patient Care Fund (IPCF), >could have cemetery status, because they are in the reanimation business." Perhaps the Venturists, with their 501C3 status, could act as trustee? We have been contemplating doing this for several other cryoncists. If the Ventursits could act as trustee for many frozen patients, the cost of doing this would come down, and the expertise in watching over them (as a back-up organization) would go up. We would be willing to enlarge our board to contain members from all cryonics orgaizations. The advantage would be an on-going board of cryonicists for as long as it takes to reanimation time. I am presently suggesting co-trustees of an organization like to Venturists to watch over the cryonics storage company and make decisions when to spend money above what the storage company does (if more money being spent is neccessary to keep and reanimate the patient sooner) and Smith-Barney to invest the money. Hopefully, the cryonics storage company will handle the reanimation, and the trust managed by the Venturists and Smith Barney could be used to re-introduce the patient into future society or just return the principle to the patient when he/she asked for it. >If there was a court battle, then the court ruled, not the IRS. In any case, >Ben goes on to say that "CryoCare/IPCF is now facing the necessity of >individual trusts for its members." He discusses some problems, including the >fact that an individual trust in Liechtenstein would have a minimum (annual?) >fee of $4,500, plus a tax of $750. Pooled trusts could pay only one minimum >fee, but Ben's comments seem to indicate that IPCF cannot pool the trusts >because of the IRS ruling. Since there are now 5 states that don't seem to have laws against these types of trusts, I would favor putting most of the assets in the USA, and maybe some of them in a separate trust overseas. >Of course, I am already somewhat biased against trusts for funding (except >the revocable living trust that CI lawyers have drawn for those who want to >use certain types of assets without losing control); but it appears to me that >the continuing trust route is not a simple "sign here" proposition with an >assured outcome, but just another complex set of options with their own >special possible advantages and possible drawbacks. > >Robert Ettinger >Cryonics Institute >Immortalist Society >http://www.cryonics.org > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >End of CryoNet Digest >********************* Years ago, Saul Kent make his trust public for other to use and it was a great document - well thought out. I can't remember it now, but I think there was a provision where the board of directors of the cryonics company and/or reanimation company got a bonus upon reanimation of Saul. I thought this was one of the smartest things I have ever seen in a trust for cryoncists. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9862