Latest news with #inheritance
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
CZ Urges Crypto Exchanges to Add Inheritance Tools – 'Every Platform Should Have a Will Function'
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. Binance founder and former CEO Changpeng 'CZ' Zhao has urged the cryptocurrency industry to take a more conscious approach to tackling inheritance issues. Zhao said last week that cryptocurrency exchanges should have tools to ensure proper asset distribution in the event of unexpected death. 'This is a topic people avoid, but the fact is, humans cannot live forever yet,' he said. 'Every platform should have a 'will function'—so that when someone is no longer around, their assets can be distributed to designated accounts according to specified proportions. It's a feature everyone (who have assets on a platform) will need once.' Don't Miss: Trade crypto futures on Plus500 with up to $200 in bonuses — no wallets, just price speculation and free paper trading to practice different strategies. Grow your IRA or 401(k) with Crypto – unlock the power of alternative investments including a Crypto IRA within your retirement account. Zhao also said it would help if regulators allowed minors to own accounts on cryptocurrency exchanges, albeit with trading restrictions. Zhao said that inheritance is more complicated for assets in self-custody. In February, he recommended that cryptocurrency users transfer a USB stick used to sign transactions offline to their loved ones with instructions on how to use it. He said this USB stick should be password secured, adding that the password should be in a PGP encrypted automated email sent by a dead man's switch service. Zhao's recent effort to draw attention to the issue of cryptocurrency inheritance follows a June 12 Binance update that introduced an 'emergency contact' feature, allowing users to designate persons that can claim their assets if they die. Trending: New to crypto? Get up to $400 in rewards for successfully completing short educational courses and making your first qualifying trade on Coinbase. Unlike traditional finance institutions, most cryptocurrency platforms do not require users to complete procedures for transferring assets in the event of death. Existing inheritance procedures are often stressful and unreliable, typically requiring the submission of multiple documents. How cryptocurrency assets that are considered to be abandoned are handled varies across regions. In some states, unclaimed property law may require the liquidation of these assets and their transfer to the state office. There have also been instances where exchanges charge exorbitant fees on the unclaimed account until it is emptied. 'Crypto-Fearless,' a prominent cryptocurrency influencer, claimed in April that centralized exchanges 'inherited' $1 billion worth of cryptocurrency assets every year from the unexpected death of update represents a step in the right direction for the cryptocurrency industry as the asset class becomes more widely accepted as a means of wealth storage. Crypto-Fearless described the update as 'really thoughtful,' adding, 'I hope other exchanges will also speed up the introduction of this function.' The issue of cryptocurrency inheritance is also likely to improve as more legacy financial institutions offer services in the space. These firms can leverage their already existing inheritance systems. Read Next: Peter Thiel turned $1,700 into $5 billion—now accredited investors are eyeing this software company with similar breakout potential. Learn how you can invest with $1,000 at just $0.30/share. This article CZ Urges Crypto Exchanges to Add Inheritance Tools – 'Every Platform Should Have a Will Function' originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Labour rejects own MP's calls for council tax exemption on retirement homes
Labour has rejected calls from its own MP to grant council tax exemptions for families struggling to sell inherited retirement homes. Anna Dixon, MP for Shipley, urged the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government – the government department headed by Angela Rayner – to give grieving relatives more time to sell up retirement properties before being hit with the second home council tax premium. It comes after The Telegraph drew attention to the double taxes being charged on 'impossible to sell' inherited retirement homes. These properties are designed for people aged 55 and over, and can only be sold to people in that age bracket, meaning they can take years to sell. They also come with hefty service charges, and typically depreciate in value, making them unattractive to buyers. From April 1, all local authorities in England were given the powers to charge 100pc council tax premiums on second homes in their region. However, if an owner puts their home on the market, they can escape the charge for 12 months. If they are not sold in this time period, the charge is reapplied. In a parliamentary question, Ms Dixon asked Ms Rayner if she will 'extend the time limit on exceptions to council tax premiums to cover the full period for which a property is being actively marketed for sale for (a) long-term empty homes, (b) second homes and (c) leasehold retirement properties'. Jim McMahon, housing minister, said the Government had 'no plans to change the exceptions to the council tax premiums'. 'Inflexibility and obstinacy' Retirement properties boomed in popularity during the 1980s, and remained attractive well into the early 2000s. As of 2019, there were 730,000 retirement housing units in the UK, according to the Elderly Accommodation Counsel. However, in recent years, their appeal has dramatically waned as complaints mounted among those early buyers. This is due to their hefty service charges, which are payable whether or not the property is lived in. According to Hamptons, one in 10 retirement flats takes more than a year to sell. The Telegraph has heard from dozens of families who have inherited the 'impossible to sell' properties, and are now being hit with double council tax, costing some people thousands of pounds. Kevin Hollinrake, shadow housing minister, said: 'Labour should be actively reviewing how the new regime is working in practice. 'Their refusal to even consider extending the exemption for retirement properties shows a shocking disregard for bereaved families. 'These homes are notoriously hard to sell, and this tax burdens grieving families with unexpected and often unaffordable bills at one of the most difficult times in their lives.' Dennis Reed, of senior citizens charity Silver Voices, said: 'This inflexibility and obstinacy by the Government flies in the face of fairness and equity. A hard to sell flat in a retirement complex is clearly not a second home unless a member of the family is living there. 'All the reasons for second home premiums do not apply in such circumstances, and Labour should be showing some empathy to those who have lost a loved one.' A Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesman said: 'It is for councils to determine whether to apply a premium on the council tax bills of second homes. 'Councils can opt to add up to 100pc extra on the council tax bills of second homes to help local leaders protect their communities.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
My brother stole $100K from my mom to buy bitcoin. Do I convince her to sue him?
I am so glad there is a place to send my thorny question. I am a longtime reader and have learned a lot from you, especially that with good planning you can avoid lots of heartache and family stress. Unfortunately, while I like to look ahead, the rest of my family are not planners. Any advice you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Here is the background. I am the oldest of two children. My brother lives in California, I live in Washington and our parents are in Utah. They are in their early 70s and have not yet made a will. My dad would like an attorney's office to be the estate executor because my brother and I do not live nearby, and for other reasons. Most American weddings are a lot more extravagant than the nuptials of Amazon's Jeff Bezos Israel-Iran clash delivers a fresh shock to investors. History suggests this is the move to make. 'He doesn't seem to care': My secretive father, 81, added my name to a bank account. What about my mom? My job is offering me a payout. Should I take a $61,000 lump sum or $355 a month for life? My friend asked me to chip in $1,600 for her son's prom-night limo. Has the world gone mad? My brother treats my parents like his employees, telling them what to do and how to do it. When my mom inherited money from her family about four years ago, he convinced her to put the money into an account with a high interest rate. He also convinced her to put some in bitcoin. My mother is not an educated woman and just went along with it. A few months later when she logged in to check her balance, the account was empty. My brother had transferred $100,000 into bitcoin BTCUSD without telling her. He had her passwords because he had helped to set up the account originally. She was furious and demanded her money back, but he convinced her to wait a few years. When I told my mom it was a good time to pull her money out of bitcoin, she confessed that my brother had put her money into his own bitcoin account. She acknowledges that he stole from her, but she refuses to do anything about it. She says that in the will, I will get $100,000 more, but I don't care about that. My parents' life revolves around him. Anytime my brother needs 'help' they will drop everything and drive to California to help with his dogs or his daughter, who he has no time to raise. My parents just don't want to fight with him, and so I don't think they'll ever bring up the bitcoin. They say they're almost 'even' now because my brother gave them his old cars. Those cars were worth maybe $60,000 combined, but my parents had perfectly good cars to begin with. I tried to explain to them that a car is not cash; its value depreciates. I wouldn't be so upset except that I worry that my parents don't have enough for retirement. Also, my brother still hasn't signed over the titles for the cars because he's too 'busy and stressed right now.' Because he is so manipulative, I also worry about them getting older. I would like to have a power of attorney for them, but I think my brother could convince them to put him in charge. This is clearly a family issue more than a money issue, but I would still like to avoid any money problems if possible. My mom already doesn't like to talk about it. I would like to suggest to my parents that instead of leaving their money to my brother and me, she could set up a trust for each of her three grandkids for college. Their house, which is paid off, is worth $550,000. They started retirement a year ago with $300,000 in cash (I don't know if that was after my brother took $100,000) and they have Social Security and a 401(k). What should I do now? Daughter/Sister Related: My friend asked me to pay $1,600 for her son's prom-night limo. Has the world gone mad? I agree with both you and your mother, even if your approaches may differ. Your mom knows more than you probably realize. She knows your brother is a ne'er-do-well. But she still loves him. She knows that he stole $100,000 from her and invested it in a bitcoin account in his name only even though he was purporting to do her a favor. But she still loves him. She knows he will continue his shenanigans ad nauseum. But she still loves him. The bar is obviously a lot higher for you, as you also know the cut of your brother's jib, and you've been witnessing it for more years than you care to remember. You don't like your brother and you don't appreciate how he continues to exploit and cheat your parents. He is not your child, so you're not as willing to let things slide. That's also fair enough. But your mother is older than you and she doesn't want to get involved in a protracted legal drama with your brother and publicly humiliate him. I'm sure plenty of people are aware of how he operates, and he suffers the consequences of that. The risk to her mental health and the time it would take from her life is not worth the reward, if there was a reward. The first thing she should do now is make sure all her passwords are changed on her accounts, and alert her bank to the risk of further embezzlement, so they can monitor her account. Banks have, for the most part, gotten wise to phishing scams and financial abuse, and take note when older people move to make large withdrawals from their accounts. You could also suggest that your parents freeze their credit with the three major credit bureaus — Experian, TransUnion and Equifax — in case your brother decides to take out a loan in your parents' names. If he is embarking on a new business venture, it wouldn't do any harm to mark their cards that, given his track record, he may come calling should debtors come knocking on his door. I support your endeavor to have a durable power of attorney for your parents so you can manage their affairs if they become incapacitated, along with a healthcare directive to make medical decisions for them. They can also consider options such as a do-not-resuscitate order, if they don't wish to have life-sustaining measures taken if their heart stops or they stop breathing. These are all good questions to raise. Your challenge, as many children of aging parents well know, is how far, how long and how hard to push for these protections. Your mother and father are already dealing with one willful child, and they may see more pressure — even from a responsible, loving and supportive daughter — as unwelcome. You can plant a seed, but you can't get them to water it. In the meantime, act as an invisible gatekeeper. If your brother plans to visit your parents, organize a trip for yourself at the same time. Make sure your parents' mobile phones are secure and that they don't leave passwords or important documents lying around. Make sure their will (and copies of it) are kept in a safe place, in addition to at their lawyer's office. Stay vigilant. If you suspect that your brother is engaging in elder abuse — emotional, physical, psychological or financial — you can report his actions to adult protective services, or call 911 and local law-enforcement authorities or your district attorney's office. But even if you did report this $100,000 theft, it sounds like your mother would not press charges. Call and visit as often as you can. They will need oversight. Related: My friend, 83, wants to add me to his bank account to pay his bills. What could go wrong? Previous columns by Quentin Fottrell: 'She acted as a mother to me growing up': My stepmother remarried after my father died. How can I claim my inheritance? 'My wife and I are very grateful': Our son wants to pay off our mortgage before we retire. Will this backfire? 'Is this ethical?' I want to leave my home to my children from my first marriage — and not to my second husband. How can I buy my niece a home in her name only — without alienating or upsetting her husband? 20 banks expected to increase their dividends the most following the Fed's stress tests My wife and I have $7,000 in pensions, $140,000 in cash, plus Social Security. Can we afford to retire? The vanishing 'Buffett premium': Has Berkshire Hathaway lost the Oracle of Omaha's aura? There's an important market indicator that suggests investors remain wary. It's good news for stocks.
The Sun
2 days ago
- Business
- The Sun
Millionaire toy maker's son fighting to block half-brother from dad's £14.5m fortune after mum's secret affair revealed
A MILLIONAIRE toy maker's son is fighting to boot his illegitimate half-brother out of his dad's £14.5m family fortune after their mum's secret affair was revealed. Stuart Marcus built a lucrative games empire after he began selling dolls' houses from a room above a small East London toy shop in the 1960s. 3 Shortly before he died, he put £14.5m worth of company shares into trust for his "children," with brothers Edward, 47, and Jonathan, 43, both benefiting. But the family was thrown into turmoil after the revelation that Edward was not Stuart's son, but instead the product of an affair between his mum, Patricia Marcus, and lawyer Sydney Glossop. Last year, a judge ruled that Stuart was not Edward's dad, but said that Edward could still benefit from the £14.5m fortune on the basis that both brothers were intended to share. This week, the case came back to court, with lawyers for Jonathan arguing that it was wrong to let solicitor Edward share the wealth when he was not Stuart's biological son. Barrister Thomas Braithwaite, for Jonathan, insisted that the word "children" in the trust document meant "biological children" and so could not include Edward. Stuart Marcus - dubbed "a modest man with a big dream and a big heart" by business colleagues - founded Kitfix Hobbies in 1962 and carved out a major niche in toys, board games and craft kits, later transferring the company HQ to Swaffham, in Norfolk. The disputed trust he set up holds shares valued at £14.5m in the family companies, in which both brothers worked as the brand grew and diversified into other fields such as property, with Jonathan heading up successful commercial operations in Germany. But since 2016, relations between the two brothers soured, climaxing in the High Court clash, in which Jonathan claimed Edward should be excluded from benefiting under the trust. Jonathan claimed Edward was the product of a one-night stand his mum Patricia Marcus, 82, had with a lawyer named Sydney Glossop while his dad was away on business. That claim was based on Jonathan's discovery in 2023 of the "monumental" news that Patricia had confided in Edward that he wasn't Stuart's son during a confidential chat 14 years ago. Although Edward kept his secret for more than a decade, when Jonathan learned the news it triggered a court fight as he tried to have Edward removed as a beneficiary of the multimillion-pound family trust established before Stuart's death, aged 86, in 2020. Jonathan commissioned DNA evidence to back his claim, while his mum told the court herself that she had no doubt that Edward's real dad was Sydney, with whom she had a brief encounter over 40 years ago. From the witness box, Edward told how his mum suddenly spilled the revelation about her affair and his paternity during a meeting at his home in 2010. He said he then searched online for anything about his mystery dad, finally tracking him down to a retirement home near Birmingham, which he and his mum visited in order to meet Sydney. Once there, he witnessed the pair of them "cuddling," said Edward, telling the court: "I saw her sit on the bed and cuddle him and I was shocked to see her behaving that way because it wasn't the way I saw her behave with my father." However, he said he began to harbour doubts about his mum's news and claimed she went back on her account in 2010 when she told him she was wrong about Sydney being his dad. After three days in court last year judge Master Matthew Marsh, found that the evidence confirmed that Edward is not Stuart's son. But found the family trust does not exclude Edward, as in the context of the trust settlement, the word "children" meant both boys. This week, representing Jonathan in an appeal at the High Court, Mr Braithwaite argued that Master Marsh had got it wrong and that Edward should not benefit. Stuart's trust described the beneficiaries as his "children," which Mr Braithwaite insisted could only be taken in its ordinary meaning, "biological children." But for Edward, barrister Matthew Mills argued that it was obvious that Stuart had intended to benefit Edward and urged the judge to dismiss Jonathan's appeal. "Jonathan is doing this to try to take away from Edward any rights in this multi-million pound family business," he told the High Court judge. "Stuart intended to benefit Edward, who he designated and thought to be his child. Realistically, the reasonable person would think that Edward is a beneficiary of this settlement." Following a half-day in court, Sir Anthony reserved his judgment on Jonathan's bid to exclude his brother from the family fortune until a later date. 3
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Son born from mother's secret affair could lose share of £14.5m family fortune as his half-brother bids to cut him out of late toy tycoon's will
The son of a millionaire toy maker has re-launched his bid to boot his illegitimate half-brother out of the £14.5m family fortune. Stuart Marcus built a multi-million pound games empire after beginning selling dolls' houses from a room above a small east London toy shop in the 1960s. Shortly before he died, he put £14.5m worth of company shares into trust for his 'children': brothers Edward, 47, and Jonathan, 43. But the family was thrown into turmoil amidst the revelation that Edward was not Stuart's son, but instead the product of an affair between his mother, Patricia Marcus, and lawyer Sydney Glossop. Last year, a judge ruled that Stuart was not Edward's father, but said that the older half-sibling could still benefit from the £14.5m fortune on the basis that both brothers were meant to share it. Both sons had worked in the company, even as Edward knew that he was not Stuart's son - a secret he was told by his mother, and that he kept from his half-brother from more than a decade. Stuart - dubbed 'a modest man with a big dream and a big heart' by business colleagues - founded Kitfix Hobbies in 1962 and carved out a major niche in toys, board games and craft kits. The disputed trust he set up holds shares valued at £14.5m in the family companies, in which both brothers worked as the brand grew and diversified into other fields, with Jonathan heading up successful commercial operations in Germany. But since 2016, relations between the two brothers soured, climaxing in the High Court clash, in which Jonathan claimed Edward should be excluded from benefiting under the trust. Jonathan claimed Edward was the product of a one-night stand his mum Patricia Marcus, 82, had with a lawyer named Sydney Glossop while his dad was away on business. That claim was based on Jonathan's discovery in 2023 of the 'monumental' news that Patricia had confided in Edward that he wasn't Stuart's son during a confidential chat 14 years ago. Although Edward kept his secret for more than a decade, when Jonathan learned the news it triggered a court fight as he tried to have Edward removed as a beneficiary of the multimillion-pound family trust established before Stuart's death, aged 86, in 2020. Jonathan commissioned DNA evidence to back his claim, while his mum told the court herself that she had no doubt that Edward's real dad was Sydney, with whom she had a brief encounter over 40 years ago. After three days in court last year, a judge, Master Matthew Marsh, found that the evidence confirmed that Edward is not Stuart's son. 'A reasonable person in knowledge of the relevant facts would readily conclude that, when using 'children,' Stuart intended this word to be understood as meaning Edward and Jonathan; and not Edward and Jonathan provided they are in fact my biological sons,' he concluded. He highlighted the 'cogent and reliable' DNA test evidence, as well as compelling testimony from the two half-siblings' own mother. But he went on to find that the family trust does not exclude Edward, as in the context of the trust settlement, the word 'children' meant both boys. Jonathan has since launched an appeal against the ruling that his half-brother was entitled to a share of the trust, which was heard at court this week with judgement to come at a later date. This week, representing Jonathan in an appeal at the High Court, barrister Thomas Braithwaite argued that Master Marsh had got it wrong and that Edward should not benefit. He insisted that the word 'children' in the trust document meant 'biological children' and so could not include Edward as he was not sired by Stuart. Stuart's trust described the beneficiaries as his 'children,' which Mr Braithwaite insisted could only be taken in its ordinary meaning, 'biological children.' 'The word 'children' simply cannot be a placeholder for two specific people,' he told High Court judge, Sir Anthony Mann. He added that there had been a 'common mistaken assumption' when the document was created that the boys were both Stuart's children. 'Everything else in the background needs to be seen through the prism of that mistaken assumption that Edward was Stuart's biological son,' he said. 'What does children mean? It means biological children, of course. 'Stuart intended to benefit Edward, but he believed Edward was his biological child. 'The fact Edward was brought up in the family and the fact the purpose of this settlement was to benefit the people Stuart thought to be his children simply goes to establish that the interpretation of the word 'children' that should be adopted is the ordinary one. 'A reasonable person with all the background, including the mistaken assumption that Edward was Stuart's biological child, is going to say it refers to biological children.' But barrister Matthew Mills, for Edward, argued that it was obvious that Stuart had intended to benefit Edward and urged the judge to dismiss Jonathan's appeal. 'Jonathan is doing this to try to take away from Edward any rights in this multi-million pound family business,' he told the High Court judge. 'It is entirely appropriate, on the facts of this case, to define the class of beneficiaries as Edward and Jonathan - as the master did. 'Stuart intended to benefit Edward, who he designated and thought to be his child. Realistically, the reasonable person would think that Edward is a beneficiary of this settlement.' Following last year's trial, Edward, now an in-house solicitor for a housing company, was left having to pay £150,000 towards his brother's legal bills after Master Marsh criticised him for bringing the paternity fight to court. He said that, once the DNA evidence was known, it was 'as clear as could be' that he was not going to be able to prove he was Stuart's biological son. Following a half-day in court, Sir Anthony reserved his judgment on Jonathan's bid to exclude his brother from the family fortune until a later date.
