From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
To: stanton@acm.org
Message Hash: c89b329d864751cdf6cd5fa97f0695b9ff3f578f2d83d82ef1425a3845f3f388
Message ID: <Pine.3.87.9407211019.A11779-0100000@crl2.crl.com>
Reply To: <9407211404.AA24126@sten.lehman.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-21 17:44:15 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 10:44:15 PDT
From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 10:44:15 PDT
To: stanton@acm.org
Subject: Re: Leaving the Country
In-Reply-To: <9407211404.AA24126@sten.lehman.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9407211019.A11779-0100000@crl2.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
C'punks,
The Seminar will cover this in much greater detail, I'm sure but...
On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, Linn Stanton wrote:
> . . .
> This is a problem. The capital gains / alternative minimum tax hit is
> gruesome.
There are alternatives available. Are you familiar with "selling short
against the box"? What about tax-free "contributions of capital" to
corporations or trusts?
> . . .
> The only stock markets that I know well enough to be comfortable
> investing in are in the US. That will not magically change just because
> I get citizenship somewhere else, and that still leaves me liable for US
> tracking and taxes.
You are too smart to believe this. Why not try to see the obvious
solution rather than lament the "fact" that you are trapped? For those
of you who haven't followed Duncan's argument in favor of "attitude
adjustment," the explanation is implicit in the defeatest attitude
demonstrated above.
> . . . [in re: Heinlein] The forfeiture laws were weaker then.
Stuff and nonsense. The tactic Heinlein used, for the reasons he used
it, would work just as well today. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what
he actually did and why. (Remind me to cover it in the Seminar.)
S a n d y
Return to July 1994
Return to “Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>”