- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 20,027
- Reaction score
- 49,800
- Points
- 148
Sounds like you've connected them all for us.
Who even needs the trial?
It's America, we're required to.
Sounds like you've connected them all for us.
Who even needs the trial?
It's America, we're required to.
We already know Paterno is a pedophile, don't need a trial to prove it.
It's America, we're required to.
please tell me you are being sarcastic with this hmmmmm. are you seriously questioning why a 84 year old guy would sell his 11 year younger wife the house? christ almighty. there are a lot of really shady things joepa may have done, this isnt exactly one of them.
for those of you curious you cant gift a house otherwise you have to pay full taxes on it, so by selling it for a dollar you only have to pay taxes on the dollar. Also if joe were to die while the house was still in his name tried to will it to his wife she would once again have to pay taxes on it. this is a pretty damn common thing.
edit: also read somewhere in a article comment section (i know real high quality information there) that its being reported that there has been no testimony yet from anyone so far that has matched up with what McQueary told police,, specifically what he told others about what he actually saw, and in fact he may have never actually reported anything to the police.
Yea that article is making something out of nothing. It is very common for older, even middle aged people, to transfer ownership of a house to their non-income earning spouse. Especially when that spouse is significantly younger. If the house remained in JoePa's name and he were to die the house would be part of his estate and be subject to probate laws and taxes. If it's in her name when he dies, no taxes are due becaue he did not own it at the time of death. It's a very common financial planning move and one that an 84 year old man should be seriously looking at no matter who they are.
Lawrence A. Frolik, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in elder law, said that he had “never heard” of a husband selling his share of a house for $1 to his spouse for tax or government assistance purposes.
“I can’t see any tax advantages,” Frolik said. “If someone told me that, my reaction would be, ‘Are they hoping to shield assets in case if there’s personal liability?’ ” He added, “It sounds like an attempt to avoid personal liability in having assets in his wife’s name.”
At this point Boobie is either a satisfied 2nd mile participant or Jerry Sandusky.
please tell me you are being sarcastic with this hmmmmm. are you seriously questioning why a 84 year old guy would sell his 11 year younger wife the house? christ almighty. there are a lot of really shady things joepa may have done, this isnt exactly one of them.
for those of you curious you cant gift a house otherwise you have to pay full taxes on it, so by selling it for a dollar you only have to pay taxes on the dollar. Also if joe were to die while the house was still in his name tried to will it to his wife she would once again have to pay taxes on it. this is a pretty damn common thing.
edit: also read somewhere in a article comment section (i know real high quality information there) that its being reported that there has been no testimony yet from anyone so far that has matched up with what McQueary told police,, specifically what he told others about what he actually saw, and in fact he may have never actually reported anything to the police.