Leona Helmsley's Dog Gets $12 Million in Will - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-29-2007, 11:33 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
MsMofoGone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Where is not important...
Posts: 26,717
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by tpsreports2424
Agreed, but thats ridiculous, give the maltese to the person who has cared for the dog when she wasnt there and give the 12 mil to that guy..
Exactly ... her brother, Alvin, should get it.

Athough it would have been nice if she would have left some money to her other 2 grandchildren, Craig and Meegan.

No matter what happened in the past, she shouldn't have deprived them from her fortune.

That's really pathetic, she should have just forgave them and forgot about whatever rubbed her the wrong way with them.

Indeed, she really did live up to her name ... The Queen Of Mean !!
__________________

__________________
MsMofoGone is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 12:41 AM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MsMofoGone


No matter what happened in the past, she shouldn't have deprived them from her fortune.
Why not??

It's not their fortune, not like they're entitled to it or being deprived of anything.

The ultra-rich leaving fortunes to spoiled grandkids is usually anti-thetical to their hardworking nature and has plagued us with the likes of Paris Hilton.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 08-30-2007, 01:56 AM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
MsMofoGone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Where is not important...
Posts: 26,717
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
The ultra-rich leaving fortunes to spoiled grandkids is usually anti-thetical to their hardworking nature and has plagued us with the likes of Paris Hilton.
Yes, I suppose that's a truly interesting point.

But, I don't mean the grandchildren should get a huge fortune. I just mentioned before that it would be nice if Leona would have left SOME MONEY to them. You know, just because they were her grandchildren ... or consider it, they were part of her family. Afterall, she left her chauffer $100 grand ... and that was her chauffer for goodness sake. He was in no way ... considered family. So again, I think it is rather pathetic still ... that she left them nothing.
__________________
MsMofoGone is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 02:39 AM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 09:39 PM
I think those who complain that the $12 million she left to her dog should have gone to charity instead should re-read this bit:

Quote:
She ordered that cash from sales of the Helmsley's residences and belongings, reported to be worth billions, be sold and that the money be given to the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.
Billions to a charitable trust. I think that's pretty damned good. How many of you that think she should have given more to charity defend a certain short Irish singer dude when he spends extravagantly? I mean, that could all go to treat poor AIDS infected Africans too.

Take a look at this snippet from Philanthropy.com Apparently she also donated quite generously to various charities and causes during her lifetime also.

Quote:
Hotel Mogul Leaves Billions to Charitable Trust

By Maria DiMento

In what could well be one of the most-generous bequests of the decade, Leona M. Helmsley has left much of her estate — worth billions of dollars — to a charitable trust.

Ms. Helmsley, head of the Helmsley Hotel Chain, died this month of heart failure. Her estate has been estimated to be worth between $4-billion and $8-billion.

While she had a reputation among her hotel employees for having a terrifying temper, Ms. Helmsley apparently had a charitable side: Through her will, she directed that all of her assets, including cash from the sale of her homes and other property, be given to the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.

Ms. Helmsley created the trust in 1999, according to the will. She does not name any nonprofit groups or specific causes as beneficiaries.

Gifts that Ms. Helmsley made during her lifetime included a total of $70-million to New York-Presbyterian Hospital, and $5-million to the American Red Cross to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.

In her will, Ms. Helmsley also left approximately $35-million to family members, including $3-million for the upkeep of the mausoleum where she and her late husband, Harry B. Helmsley, are buried, and $12-million to a trust for her dog, Trouble.

A copy of the will, which was signed in July 2005, is posted on the Web site of the New York Daily News.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 02:55 AM   #20
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Lila64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ♥Set List Lane♥
Posts: 52,710
Local Time: 06:39 PM
just be thankful she didn't take it with her
__________________
Lila64 is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 03:46 AM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
MsMofoGone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Where is not important...
Posts: 26,717
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lila64
just be thankful she didn't take it with her
True.

But as for the dog's amount of 12 million ... maybe she should have.

I mean really ... leaving that in 'a trust' for her dog ??

How would that dog spend any of that money ?? Like he could ??

Of course, it's her brother, Alvin who will spend it.

But, every single penny to spend on that dog ?? I highly doubt it will happen.
__________________
MsMofoGone is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 11:33 AM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 09:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MsMofoGone


How would that dog spend any of that money ?? Like he could ??

12 million could buy a lot of snausages.
__________________
kellyahern is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 11:49 AM   #23
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 07:39 PM
This isn't that uncommon. It's usually a means to get the money to someone else(the person taking care of the dog) without dealing with certain tax issues. The dog doesn't have to file taxes.

But I love how everyone automatically labels her bitch and evil.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 12:04 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
AngelofHarlem01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Feeling the sunlight on my face.
Posts: 3,214
Local Time: 07:39 PM
I don't know. You have to think that people were probably after her money for years. Her dog was probably her one true companion that didn't care how much money she had or judge her. So it's a rather sweet gesture but also incredibly sad at the same time, not for other people or family that could have used the money, but for Leona Helmsley herself.
__________________
AngelofHarlem01 is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 12:10 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
This isn't that uncommon. It's usually a means to get the money to someone else(the person taking care of the dog) without dealing with certain tax issues. The dog doesn't have to file taxes.
But that doesn't really make sense. A trust is a trust, regardless of whether it is for a human or a dog. The executor acts on behalf of the person benefitting from the trust. It is NOT a roundabout way for the executor to benefit financially. So if she wanted the person taking care of the dog to benefit, she would have named him, not the dog, and the executor of that trust would funnel funds to him, again avoiding certain taxation.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 08-30-2007, 12:47 PM   #26
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


But that doesn't really make sense. A trust is a trust, regardless of whether it is for a human or a dog. The executor acts on behalf of the person benefitting from the trust. It is NOT a roundabout way for the executor to benefit financially. So if she wanted the person taking care of the dog to benefit, she would have named him, not the dog, and the executor of that trust would funnel funds to him, again avoiding certain taxation.
I'm by no means an expert. I do know some states won't even allow such things, because pets are considered property and property can't own property. But some states have poorly defined laws that allow for such loopholes. All I know is that I've heard of this before and the reasoning was to avoid such taxation. The caretaker can then buy a new car in order to take the dog to the vet, etc... Then when the dog passes they get the money and the interest it's accrued and then have to pay taxes on that. At least that's how the story went...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 01:58 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 5,901
Local Time: 06:39 PM
12 mil for a dog. good god.
__________________
cell is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 02:05 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I'm by no means an expert. I do know some states won't even allow such things, because pets are considered property and property can't own property. But some states have poorly defined laws that allow for such loopholes. All I know is that I've heard of this before and the reasoning was to avoid such taxation. The caretaker can then buy a new car in order to take the dog to the vet, etc... Then when the dog passes they get the money and the interest it's accrued and then have to pay taxes on that. At least that's how the story went...
No, I understand that, but there is no need to do such a thing. If she really wanted to build a trust for the person taking care of the dog, she could have named him in that trust. The ENTIRE point of trusts is to avoid taxation (for a determined period of time, varying by jurisdiction). In other words, she left that $ to the dog because she wanted to, not because it was a means of tax avoidance.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 08-30-2007, 03:18 PM   #29
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


The ENTIRE point of trusts is to avoid taxation (for a determined period of time, varying by jurisdiction). In other words, she left that $ to the dog because she wanted to, not because it was a means of tax avoidance.
So is a trust set up differently from a regular inheritance? Like I said, I know very little about this stuff.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 08:22 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
MsMofoGone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Where is not important...
Posts: 26,717
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by kellyahern
12 million could buy a lot of snausages.


Seriously though ... didn't Trouble eat nothing but 'Gourmet' dog food ??
I think that pooch can 'afford' to eat human food now ... and say 'so-ooo long' to that dog stuff.
__________________

__________________
MsMofoGone is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com