The proceeds are includable in insured's gross estate if the insured legally possessed and could legally exercise any incidents of ownership at the time of his death. It does not matter that decedent did not have possession of the policy and therefore was unable to exercise his ownership rights at the time of his death (Comm. v. Est. of Noel, 380 U.S. 678 (1965)),
The beneficiary however does NOT pay Income Tax on the proceeds IRC Sec. 101(a)(1).
They most certainly may not! The entire purpose of the trust is to prevent the beneficiary from controlling the trust. The responsibility lies with the trustee to maintain the trust as it was set up. Actually, it depends on what kind of a trust is involved. For example, a Land Trust is beneficiary driven....meaning the beneficiary tells the Trustee what to do by letter of direction. Most all other types of trusts are Trustee driven and decisions are made by the Trustee. Randy Hughes
If the demand is perfectly elastic in prices (that is, demand falls to zero if the price for consumers is raised even the slightest bit), then the entire tax incidence falls on the producer since the producer would rather face the entire tax burden than lose all his consumers. And if the demand is perfectly inelastic (doesn't change with change in commodity price) then the entire burden falls on the consumers. So higher the price elasticity of demand, higher would be the share of taxes borne by the producer. And higher the price elasticity of supply, lower the share borne by the producer, by similar logic.
the entire motto for a company or a firm is earning profits and nothing else. And i dont find any valid reason to increase your overheads, ultimately the principal amount of investment will increase and if u are not experienced, u will fail definitely in expansion.
A company that controls an entire industry is a "monopoly".
entire exam cancel
A sole beneficiary should, in theory, receive the entire estate, minus the fees of the executor.
Under US law: There is NO burden on the accused defendant to prove anything. The entire burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
Yes. It all depends on the circumstances.
Yes. I don't think 'borrow' is the right word, however, as the sole beneficiary will be entitled to the entire estate. An 'advance' would more likely be the correct term.
They most certainly may not! The entire purpose of the trust is to prevent the beneficiary from controlling the trust. The responsibility lies with the trustee to maintain the trust as it was set up. Actually, it depends on what kind of a trust is involved. For example, a Land Trust is beneficiary driven....meaning the beneficiary tells the Trustee what to do by letter of direction. Most all other types of trusts are Trustee driven and decisions are made by the Trustee. Randy Hughes
* the total * in it's entirety * all of it * the entire amount
She is not responsible for the medical bill as long as the didn't sign at the hospital saying she was the responsible party. Was the daughter the beneficiary of the life insurance policy? If the beneficiary of the policy was the estate of the insured then the hospital can file a lien against the estate and life insurance to cover the medical bills. If the beneficiary was a funeral home to pay for a prearranged funeral then the hospital cannot attach the policy proceeds. If the beneficiary was the daughter directly then the hospital cannot claim the life insurance proceeds. However, this leaves the daughter with no obligation to use the entire amount for funeral arrangements.
First, you have to become an entire country.
They shouldered the entire tax burden of the nation and they were the largest group by population and were under represted when voting.
cool
Yes, and they frequently are as in the case of the standard husband and wife will, where each spouse leaves the entire estate to the other spouse and names that spouse the executor.
Yes, Your ex should have the responsible for the half of what was owed.