Posted on 03/03/2008 9:27:00 PM PST by Trajan88
The New York Times is always for higher taxes. But publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. doesn't relish paying Uncle Sam any more than he has to. The Post's Braden Keil reports "Pinch" just sold his duplex Central Park-fronting apartment at 1 W. 64th St. to his wife, Gail Gregg, for the relatively low price of $3.25 million, according to city transfers. When quizzed about the odd transaction, a Times spokeswoman said: "The sale was done for estate-planning purposes." Neighbors in the building include Madonna, who briefly put her like-sized duplex on the market for $6.75 million in 1997.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
There is no more. That's the entire article.
President Bush gives $250,000 Dollars to charity (One quarter of his total income), while President Clinton gives his used underwear to charity.
The Democrat Party, making the phrase “Other People’s Money” a way of life.
I missed clicking off that “except” check box... long day reading/watching the Lone Star State press in advance of tomorrow’s primary ;-)
Is this legal if the selling price is drastically undervalued????? I’ll be that place is worth at least $10 million on the open market if Madonna’s place sold for so much ten years ago......
Typical democrat. While clinton bemoans the tax cut for the wealthy and talks about how he is not taxed enough, he has or had offshore accounts.
ooops, I guess Madonna’s place was merely listed, not sold..... still, inquiring minds would like to know if Pinch slithered out of any large tax obligations by ‘selling’ his place to his wife for a drastically understated price.
This actually sounds like a classic tax evasion scheme. He sold his property to his wife for a way below market value in order to avoid estate taxes.
Estate planning purposes? Pinch is only 56 years old.
I suspect the article has it half right. The apartment is worth $6.5 mill..it was probably jointly owned..He “sold”..actually..transferred..the title to his wife...technically it’s a sale...all perfectly legal..this way you can direct ownership at death into a trust..as oposed to automatically loading up the surviving spouse’s estate..The transaction is perfectly legal and makes a lot of sense..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.