Whos name on appraisal?
- Thread starter HeeBeeGB
- Start date
- Status
Shiny42805
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2005
- Messages
- 161
I just looked at mine for you - the appraisal has my fiance''s name on it, but the insurance policy is in MY name.
He had the ring appraised before he gave it to me, but when we went to insure it, we were told it belongs to the woman, so it should be in the woman''s name. (Funny, fiance took that as "She''s gotta pay for the insurance!")
He had the ring appraised before he gave it to me, but when we went to insure it, we were told it belongs to the woman, so it should be in the woman''s name. (Funny, fiance took that as "She''s gotta pay for the insurance!")
HeeBeeGB
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 68
I guess that makes sense
But I guess the place that selling my ring said that itll be my name on it...ill change that...I guess after the proposal is all over with and she back down to earth...looking at all the certs and the appraisal documents with her name on it will make her happy as well.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,150
This is actually a pretty interesting question. There are quite a few variables.
The most interesting issue has to do with the federal gift tax and there is some debate about how to handle this. The key issue is that a gift of more than $11,000 is a taxable event to the recipient if it comes from someone other than a spouse. A fiancée is not a spouse. As soon as you get married, the rules change and there is no tax. This may seem like splitting hairs but it can be terribly important it it’s a big value ring. Arranging the paperwork so that it’s clear that the ownership doesn’t change until after you are actually married can save a fair amount of money on her taxes. Talk to your accountant if you feel this may apply to your situation.
Other than the above issue, you will probably want to have the appraisal done in her name assuming that she will be in possession of the ring and that she is the name on the insurance policy. If the policy is in your name and she is both listed as the owner and will be in posession of the ring, check with your insurance agent to make sure that it will be covered - Sometimes it won’t. Ask your insurer.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
Many states consider an engagement ring a CONDITIONAL GIFT. The accepted condition is that by presenting the engagement ring, it represents a promise of both parties to complete their marriage. It is best to consult a legal professional to learn the laws of the state you live in.
At the time of marriage the ring become part of the marital estate.
Generally speaking, the ring remain owned by the person who paid for it until the marriage is consumated. However, I believe some judges have ruled that the ring be the property of a jilted fiance(e), where a break up occurs shortly before the marriage ceremony was to take place and the bride''s side is faced with large financial losses.
Possibly the more interesting question is about jurisdiction; particularly where each person live in a different state and the laws are of opposing content. Do the rules of law apply in the state where it is presented? Or in the state where the person who paid for it lives?
Insurance companies like to rate the premium for the posicy based on the zip code that the ring will be kept and/or worn.
Keep in mind the owner of the insurance policy is the person to whom the insurance company will make the check for any loss payable to.
Additional note: It is probably prudent to make clear that a ring presented at Christmas is a ENGAGEMENT agreement. Probably best to make it clear it is not a Christmas present by not wrapping it in Chiristmas paper, and giving other gifts that are specifically "Christmas gifts".
Neil does bring up a very valid point with GIft Tax considerations. But in his post I think the insurance agent was wrong to state the receiver as the owner on the insurance policy.
Those in the legal field here would certainly shed some light on this posting the applicable law in the state where they practice.
Rockdoc
At the time of marriage the ring become part of the marital estate.
Generally speaking, the ring remain owned by the person who paid for it until the marriage is consumated. However, I believe some judges have ruled that the ring be the property of a jilted fiance(e), where a break up occurs shortly before the marriage ceremony was to take place and the bride''s side is faced with large financial losses.
Possibly the more interesting question is about jurisdiction; particularly where each person live in a different state and the laws are of opposing content. Do the rules of law apply in the state where it is presented? Or in the state where the person who paid for it lives?
Insurance companies like to rate the premium for the posicy based on the zip code that the ring will be kept and/or worn.
Keep in mind the owner of the insurance policy is the person to whom the insurance company will make the check for any loss payable to.
Additional note: It is probably prudent to make clear that a ring presented at Christmas is a ENGAGEMENT agreement. Probably best to make it clear it is not a Christmas present by not wrapping it in Chiristmas paper, and giving other gifts that are specifically "Christmas gifts".
Neil does bring up a very valid point with GIft Tax considerations. But in his post I think the insurance agent was wrong to state the receiver as the owner on the insurance policy.
Those in the legal field here would certainly shed some light on this posting the applicable law in the state where they practice.
Rockdoc
Here''s a paste from a legal forum about this.
More as I find them
Appears that New Mexico Law and California Law MAY have diametrically opposed opinion.
The No Fault Divorce doctine seems to have followed suit, and there is advise not to make the engagement presentation confused with a different gift, as some courts could judge it as a regular gift, rather than a conditional one.
Rockdoc
bill s - 09:53am Feb 15, 2001 (161. 241/2104)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hack Wilson - 05:27pm Feb 15, 2001 (161.1 244/2104)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyndy - 10:28pm Feb 16, 2001 (161.2 247/2104)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rahman - 01:55am Feb 17, 2001 (161.3 249/2104)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Schwarz - 01:34am Feb 19, 2001 (161.3.1 254/2104)
More as I find them
Appears that New Mexico Law and California Law MAY have diametrically opposed opinion.
The No Fault Divorce doctine seems to have followed suit, and there is advise not to make the engagement presentation confused with a different gift, as some courts could judge it as a regular gift, rather than a conditional one.
Rockdoc
bill s - 09:53am Feb 15, 2001 (161. 241/2104)
engagement ring
My fiance broke off our engagement and moved out of state. we lived together in New Mexico for four years before she moved. My question: Who gets the engagement ring? Is it not part of the contract that she cancelled?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hack Wilson - 05:27pm Feb 15, 2001 (161.1 244/2104)
Bill
Because she broke the engagement, you are entitled to return of the ring.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyndy - 10:28pm Feb 16, 2001 (161.2 247/2104)
Bill
I defer to the previous respondent and write only to point out that state law differs in this area. In CA a gift given in contemplation of marriage is returnable to the purchasing party regardless who called off the engagement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rahman - 01:55am Feb 17, 2001 (161.3 249/2104)
The ring!
I believe Cindy to have the most accurate accesment of the issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Schwarz - 01:34am Feb 19, 2001 (161.3.1 254/2104)
Cyndy and Rahman
I agree with you about the ring. I could find NO STATE in the union that has gone along with Hack Wilson''s assessment. One of my annotated codes states that such a view went out with no fault divorce. Makes sense. Why have no fault divorce but "fault engagement " law.
Here''s a link that sort of repeats more about who''s ring it really is. Guess the final answer to this it
IT DEPENDS!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/colyrmn/yrmn092.htm
Good advice and guidance in this article which appeared in USA Today.....
Much of it reiterates what I wrote in my first post here on this thread.
Rockdoc
IT DEPENDS!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/colyrmn/yrmn092.htm
Good advice and guidance in this article which appeared in USA Today.....
Much of it reiterates what I wrote in my first post here on this thread.
Rockdoc
HeeBeeGB
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 68
Wow...Im shocked at the legal entagements that may occur. I hope I dont face this road at all in the future. Good thing about mention about the Xmas thing....although, I am proposing a few days after Xmas
. It will be interesting
Thanks for the insight! This forum has been helpful for the weath of info...especially when it came to picking out my e-ring
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,150
Rockdoc,
I think we’re talking about two different things although they both revolve around the ownership of the ring. Who gets it in a breakup is a matter of contract law between the two parties. I was talking about taxes and insurance. If someone insures a piece of property and then lends it to someone else on a long-term arrangement without specifically mentioning this in the insurance policy, I think there is a pretty good chance that this will be violating the terms of the contract, especially if they live in different locations. It seems much more clear from the other side. If someone borrows property from another and wishes to insure it declaring the owner as the beneficiary, they will be the client of the insurance company and therefore the appraisal should be in their name, even though they aren’t claiming to be the owner of the ring. The appraisal should, of course, state the identity of the reported owner, as should the insurance policy. Either way, both the appraiser and the insurance company should identify who their client is and who has been reported to be the owner of the property but it’s not necessary that they be the same individual.
There’s an even more insidious tax possibility in this scenario. If the man buys an expensive ring in the US and goes to some beautiful place overseas where he gives it to his bride, what are the tax implications? The man has exported the ring and the woman has imported it. They’re not related. The man will have no tax implications at all but she acquired a valuable asset overseas and, theoretically, would be obligated to pay import taxes based on the fair market value of the gift!
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,150
I have seen this very issue audited with the result of taxes being applied (along with penalties and interest). It's correct that if the gift and the marriage occur within the same tax year it doesn't apply but it may be an issue iif the engagement occurs in, say, December and the wedding is the following summer because there are two tax returns involved and in the one wherein the gift would need to be reported, they are not elligible for the spousal exemption.
I agree that this is a very unusual issue and not cause for alarm except for people who are giving extremely valuable items. For them, they should speak with a their tax advisor about their own situation.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
I agree that this is a very unusual issue and not cause for alarm except for people who are giving extremely valuable items. For them, they should speak with a their tax advisor about their own situation.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
Hi Neil
RE: Import / Export
I believe this has far more to do with those who do this on a basis for resale or commercial trade.
I would think that some of this is dependent on the laws of the country the item is being taken or shipped to.
Some countries have VAT, such as England, Australia and Canada. In Canada there is GST as well.
Some countries have exemptions for charges for duty... This varies from country to country. A lot of times it depends on if it the item is set or unset. Also exemptions if the item is declared as a sample for educational or examination purposes..
I think that if the item is an engagement ring, that will be taken back to the US, there is probably a good case to get an exemption, depending on the laws in that country.
In a scenario where a ring is purchased in the US, and will later be brought back to the US, you can take the item to US Customs and register it, so it will be exempt from duty when it returns to the US.
This is used a lot for people carrying expensive computers, cameras and such on a business trup, that upon re-entry can avoid duty coming back into the US. If I''m not mistaken you just fill out a form and take it and the item ( while still in the US) to the local customs office. This eliminates a lot of hassle if the customs officer spots an item of jewelry etc. that appears to be new from being taxed when returning.
I think my reply about ownership and insurance implications is more informative and answers the original post in more common scenarios.
Rockdoc
RE: Import / Export
I believe this has far more to do with those who do this on a basis for resale or commercial trade.
I would think that some of this is dependent on the laws of the country the item is being taken or shipped to.
Some countries have VAT, such as England, Australia and Canada. In Canada there is GST as well.
Some countries have exemptions for charges for duty... This varies from country to country. A lot of times it depends on if it the item is set or unset. Also exemptions if the item is declared as a sample for educational or examination purposes..
I think that if the item is an engagement ring, that will be taken back to the US, there is probably a good case to get an exemption, depending on the laws in that country.
In a scenario where a ring is purchased in the US, and will later be brought back to the US, you can take the item to US Customs and register it, so it will be exempt from duty when it returns to the US.
This is used a lot for people carrying expensive computers, cameras and such on a business trup, that upon re-entry can avoid duty coming back into the US. If I''m not mistaken you just fill out a form and take it and the item ( while still in the US) to the local customs office. This eliminates a lot of hassle if the customs officer spots an item of jewelry etc. that appears to be new from being taxed when returning.
I think my reply about ownership and insurance implications is more informative and answers the original post in more common scenarios.
Rockdoc
HeeBeeGB
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 68
Useful Info! Gets me more thinking since Im from Canada and I will be proposing to her this late December in the US, I have to ensure that I have all my documents are with me proving that I purchased the ring in Canada should I be questioned at the border. I dont need to be dinged with a 10% exise tax, a 7% Goods and Services Tax(GST) and duties again. I guess this would make for an interesting story in the proposal forum section. As for the name on the appraisal, I decided it would be her name not only for my her peace of mind(its her ring...i guess on paper...but legally mine? until the marraige is consumated?) but for insurance purposes, as it would be under her homeowners policy that would cover it. It wouldnt make sense to take out a separate policy by me to cover the ring, would it?
IF the ring is to be presented in the US in a few weeks, why don't you buy it from a US vendor, have it shipped to a Fedex or UPS terminal for you to pick up when you arrive? I'm sure one of the PScope vendors will be happy to cooridnate this with you, and you'll probably save a lot on the purchase price as well including the US sales tax if it is to be shipped to a different state than the seller is.
This would save the Canadian taxes, and totally avoid you paying duty to bring it in to the US. However if when you get married or begin living together, it would be dependent on if you were going to live in the US or if you were going to live in Canada. However, I think you may only be responsible for the Canadian taxes if you bring the ring into Canada, as a gift, if she is already wearing it, I don't believe they will expect you to pay a tax on it if you're bringing it to Canada.
I seriously doubt you'd ever be questioned at Canadian customs.
I would suggest you discuss the insurance issues with Bill Castro at www.totaldollar.com He can expain the advantage of a Chubb standalone policy, and he is licensed in every state in the US.
Doesn't cost anything to call...as he has a toll free number.
Rockdoc
HeeBeeGB
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 68
We both are from Canada and Im presenting it to her on a vacation in Vagas. I have already purchased a ring and currently being custom made in Canada. Ive read on other post on others skipping the taxes/not declaring it (buy in states, wear it back across the border, but I cannot risk any chance of getting caught with unpaid goods. It would affect too much...I believe I had a reasonable deal on my stone and setting....
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,150
HeeBeeGB,
Keep your receipt as evidence that it was purchased in Canada and you''ll be fine. The customs people should be no problem. Even in the US, this customs issue is strictly an academic question. I''ve never heard of anyone being hastled on this.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
Keep your receipt as evidence that it was purchased in Canada and you''ll be fine. The customs people should be no problem. Even in the US, this customs issue is strictly an academic question. I''ve never heard of anyone being hastled on this.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
HeeBeeGB
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 68
Funny you should say that...hassled....I have a relative that had her gold necklace/jewelry confiscated because she didnt declare it and was black listed with Canada Customs
Yup, ill be sure to bring all my paperwork...
- Status
300x240.png)