From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 12:19 PM To: Halperin, Alan Subject: Re: could you call me On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Ha=perin, Alan S < wrote: Hi Jeff. As you know, we must consider these questions in the context of ot=er facts, such as: > > 1. The grantor does not have other assets readily available to use=as currency to buy the GRAT assets at today's value (and then start ov=r); 2. The grantor already has ensured the success of early GRATS (created by C=rlyn) via purchase; 3. We still need to address the $1.6 b note; 4.=The GRAT rules prohibit commutation and a purchase of the GRAT assets in e=change for a note may be viewed as a commutation; and 5.=We should assume that, at some point, the GRATs will be examined.</=iv> A =RAT, as you know, is riskless from an estate planning perspective: if asse=s appreciate, the appreciation passes outside the estate without gift or e=tate tax; if the assets do not appreciate, they are returned to the grantor, with little impact. With thi= in mind, you counseled that we should create two-year GRATs, with quarter=y payments. This plan accelerates the opportunities to capture the ups (an= minimize drag caused by downside movement) and provides cashflow to the grantor at a faster pace. The plan =till makes sense if the stock cooperates. In=light of the circumstances, including those noted in your email, I would n=t have the grantor acquire or swap assets from the GRATs, particularly for=a note. I therefore would leave the existing GRATs in place. As=additional assets become available, via annuity payments, we could use the=distributed interests as currency to repay part of the debt (particularly =f the price has gone up), but being mindful of 16b. (However, he the grantor would lose the cash flow=with respect to the transferred interest.) We also could consider longer t=rm GRATs. And we also may want to explore techniques to get a stepped up b=sis. And fina