Domestic Partnership Marriage – HB1745/1735

January 30, 2009

I have just read the bills for HB 1745 and the domestic partnership bill.  I also have just read HB 1735 minimum wage bill.
 
The minimum wage bill is a bill to the people to vote on.  A greater topic of social questioning in the domestic partnership bills are not being sent to the people.  I believe the people would now cut out all of these referendums if presented to them.  Scared little cats yes they are.
 
IN HB 1745 there is no restriction for domestic partners to not be closely related.  The exclusion only refers to those who are man and woman.  The wording is very precise and clearly defined.  An adopted or fosterchild or step child is not included although I believe it should be because of the closeness of the relationship.
 
The domestic partnership bill which is over 106 pages in length is continually addressing the need to this to be in compliance with the internal revenue service.  The use of domestic partnership is indeed not in compliance with the internal revenue service and thus would not take affect until the U.S. Congress recognizes domestic partnerships or the internal revenue service recognizes domestic partnerships.  But your same argument or additional legislation would apply for an argument here.  The courts or a small slip of a bill could make this into law.  The objective is to numb the citizens into complacency.
 
Also, from the farmers standpoint the IRS codes as relating to inheribted farms from an estate and assessing a state estate tax seems to be different than the federal laws.  I have not reviewed those laws in a few years but if correct then two books would have to be kept for the passing of an estate farm to the next generation.

END


Domestic Partnership – HB 1727/1735

January 30, 2009

House Bill 1727 – Domestic Partnership marriage.

I found a few things which “might” be incorrect in the House Bill 1727. This is the ACT relating to further expanding the rights and responsibilites of state registered domestic partners.

Also, when Representative Scott White brought this subject up before The Stranger in the Editor’s room he said the domestic bill would pass in this legislative year. My response was to let it go before the People via Initiative so this could be struck down once and for all.

It is now looking like an initiative might be needed. How far are they going to get on this legislation. Maybe this with the Illegal Immigrant Initiative could be a dual purpose. Get the fourth leg of Government working – the Initiative leg of Government.

Thanks

Keith Ljughammar, EA

Concerning HB 1735

Page 70, line 23, 24, 25.

No indication is givin g to a company here. I do not know of any real representation for the word “firm”. Also, no inclusion of non-profit organizations are indicated. Non-profits are excluded by reason of the word business entity. These would be non-entities.

Page 89, line 5 and 6.

In this is a reference to $10 balance as defining an indigent. This should be a referal of an equivalent of 5 days of outside the institution of an amount equivalent to lodging and food expenses for a five day period of time. If one cannot get a job in a five day period of time they indeed will be indigent. A $10 test for being an indigent would almost guarantee all inmates to be indigent under this dollar amount. The five day rule would also show all inmates to be indigent but without reading your HB 1735, An Act relating to achieving economic security through income sufficient to meet basic needs… I would think the two should be related to each other for this particular question.

Page 99, line 23, 24, and 25.

Immediate family member. For the definition of immediate family would you not also include a fosterchild or adopted child. In determining a child under the dependency rules for a dependent a step-child would also be included as a child or a substitute for the other as well.

Got this from the IRS Form 1040, instruction booklet for a qualifying child:

Son, daughter, stepchild, foster child, brother, sister, dependent on someone else’s 2008 tax return? See Steps 1,
stepbrother, stepsister, or a descendant of any of them (for 2, and 4.
example, your grandchild, niece, or nephew)
It seems to me the circle of comfort for an immediate family may be larger than what is being defined here.
Let’s go back.
Page 27, line 29 – 38.
In these lines I do not see where a restriction would be made for owning a gun. Actually that would be having a concealed weapons permit.

page 102, line 12.

I would think this line should read

citizen or legal resident of the United States.

One could be a resident such as an embasssador and not be subject to the rules of the United States. Also, one could be within the 180 day rule and be a resident but not considered as part of the United States. If one is from Canada and a resident here in the United States but a citizen of Canada then a Canadian citizen who is a resident of the United States does not pay estate taxes to the United States and does not pay estate taxes to Canada.

See also, page 102, line 27 and 28.

Page 103, line 9-15.

So here you are addressing that if property is passed on by a domestic partner then the state will consider the surviving spouse to have active participation or are you saying material participation. Since by operation the characteristics established by the decedent carry via the gifting or estate mechanism to the surviving spouse. Here I think however you are mixing up active management and material participation. Two different and separate considerations for different purposes. If you will recall one is for passive real estate considerations and the other is for active business considerations or passive business activity considerations.

page 103, line 16 – 20.

Again, here should you not be considering “company”. A couple can own property together yet not file a partnership.

page 103, line 27-36.

Don’t forget that social security itself starts and SSI ends at the normal retirement age. How would this affect the changes, meaning or substance in this paragraph or would it change it at all.

page 104, line 9-14.

In one part here you use qualified use and in another section you just use “use”. Are these two compatible and is the meaning the same. Here I am guessing but by qualified use are you meaning this as being a “domicile. Again, material participation I will have to relook this up as to if qualifying rental property or if from a business enterprise for the common usage.

page 104, line 16 – 17. Here is the usae of fair market value do you really mean modified fair market value or adjusted fair market value. Previously you had been talking about family ownership of real estate and the valuation adjustment from a Family Trust arrangement.

page 104, line 26.

Again, here qualified replacement property as associated with a a section 1031 exchange. I do know that a new depreciation schedule is created but also the old depreciation schedule continues for the replaced property. I do not believe however that the tests for material participation or active participation continue to the new property. This is also something which I would have to look up. In previousl paragraphs you were mentioning material participation continuing on.

page 104, line 36 – 37. For your definition of active management hours worked and comparisons of how others worked on the project would have been needed to be evaluated for the active management. Are you mixing up terms here again. Active participation is not the same as active management then as this is being written down. Here active management should be including the daily operating decisions. This is part of a farm. Decisions. Decisions. Decisions. Perhaps you meant another word for this such as “daily operation functions”. These would be two different venues of thought. An eleven year old child could do daily operating functions but an eleven year old could not do daily operating decisions.

page 106, line 10 – 12.

I do not believe the IRS could uses an eight-year period with an aggregating five years or more. I will have to look this up but I thought the restriction was for a ten year continuous period of time. The federal law could have changed for a less restrictive qualification.

page 106, line 17 – 20.

Again here I believe you are mixing up the definitions which are needed to be used for this section. Active participation and material participation are extremely different. One is for real estate and the other is for business applications.

page 106, line 23 – 26.

Without any special valuation under section 2032A. This wording without looking up the section 2032A would seem to change what the meaning is for the IRS and how or what they are trying to achieve. This wording if I am guessing right would be extremely punitive to a decedent’s surviving spouse.

page 106, line 33 – 38.

Residential buildings. This could be a broader encompassing area than what the IRS would be allowing. It is for the domicile and an area over one acre in maximum. I would again need to look this part up first.

END
 
 
 
 
 
 

 


Initiative 1000 Assisted Suicide – NO

August 19, 2008

Perhaps this initiative on the NO side should be renamed –

I don’t want my Mother to Die!!!!

This sounds like a better interpretation of what the actual process would be.

This initiative smacks right in the gut with the I-97 which is the Seattle initiative for not allowing investments in the ISRAEL government for pension plans in the City of Seattle. HATE-HATE-HATE. The only party which seems nowadays to be trying to eradicate hatred is the Republican Party.

Thomas Jefferson was for “Love and Peace” and it seems that all his current party is about is HATE-HATE and more HATE!!! This is all in the name of progress?? and progressivism?? Forget-about-it. Give me conservative compassionism everyday in that case. (Two of my cousins are direct descendants of Thomas Jefferson)

If there is anything which will instill another TEA PARTY Samuel Adams style these initiatives will. (Childhood friend’s husband and daughter are related to Samuel Adams.) Dump the Initiates Overboard.


Initiative 97

August 4, 2008
Letter to:
JT News
2141 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98121
Phone:  206-441-4553
FAX:  206-441-2736
Reply to August 1, 2008 article concerning I-97 and initiatives objective of defunding Seattle Employee Pension Fund of Israel based securities.
     Your newspaper looks very interesting but the article from the last publication was disheartening. I do not see why any true American can say “no” to supporting Israel.  I-97 and the City of Seattle pension fund not including Israel company securities on a broad blanket scale is un-American and does not solve the problem which the initiative is attempting to address. Israel has a right to defend herself and has always taken a defensive posture.  An initiative such as this will only hurt trade with the United States and with Seattle.
     I do not know of any long-time Republicans nor Christian-Republicans who would consciencely sign or even vote for this initiative.
     I would encourage your newspaper to continue to address the false impressions which the initiative takers signature gathering approach have been. Only open and true communication will reveal the hidden agenda of the managers of the Initiative.
     Again, I applaud your true presentation of I-97 and the full disclosure of its meaning of how the initiative is written.

     Knowing decendents of Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson this violates the nature of the founding of this country and the reverance for the establishment of a “free society”. This initiative disembowels “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” in every aspect and every meaning and every connotation. The fight for freedom is what is the “Rock” of America. This Initiative is not the “Rock of America” but rather the “Tea” which needs to be thrown overboard.