X-Message-Number: 9873
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 18:38:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ben Best <>
Subject: CANADIAN CRYONICS NEWS

On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, CryoNet (Dave & Trudy Pizer) wrote:

> Message #9862
> Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 09:18:28 -0700 (MST)
> From:  (Dave & Trudy Pizer)
> Subject: Re: CryoNet #9855 - #9859

> >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

      Dave,

             One-year subscriptions to CANADIAN CRYONICS NEWS are US$10 to
the United States, Cdn$10 to Canada and US$14 elsewhere. Send cheque or
money order payable to the CRYONICS SOCIETY OF CANADA to:

                                   CRYONICS SOCIETY OF CANADA
                                   Box 788 Station "A"
                                   Toronto, Ontario
                                   M5W 1G3 CANADA 

    ( website is www.benbest.com/cryocdn.html )

     On the basis of an exchange agreement with the VENTURIST MONTHLY NEWS
every quarterly issue of CANADIAN CRYONICS NEWS has been being sent to the
Wrightwood, California address. These issues have not been returned, so
someone in the Venturists may be receiving them. There may be some
confusion here, because I don't think I have been receiving the exchanged
issue from the Venturists lately.

> >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.

   Thanks for the offer, but I am still researching a number of strategies
to optimize trust funding. 501(c)3 status is low on the list of
priorities, partially for reasons given by Charles Platt and me on the
last CryoNet digest posting. 

         --------------------------------------------
            Ben Best ()
            http://www.benbest.com/

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9873