|Posted: January 8, 2012, 4:40 am - IP Logged|
Here is an extension of my original theory the asset managers are acting for an anonymous winner. This also explains why they did not use a trust and it took so long to claim the ticket.
Keep in mind the 3 asset managers claimed the money in their names meaning they have to pay the taxes.
They bought the ticket from the original winner.
They may be able to pay the winner more money after taxes than the winner could have gotten from the state. Why? Because the asset managers may be in a tax situation that a lottery win could help with. For example, the 3 asset managers may have suffered some financial losses this year. Not to say for sure they paid the winner more money. It could simply have been a symbiotic relationship. The winner gets to stay anonymous and the 3 asset manager make a couple of bucks. For example, they pay the winner $108 million using the $108 million they got from claiming the lottery ticket and then they get a tax refund next year that more than pays for their effort.
It may have all started when the original winner went to them to help manage his money and set up a trust. The asset managers got their tax adviser involved and came up with an even better plan.
This might qualify as the best lottery deal ever.
I don't see why not. That situation stunk from the beginning. And if the charity exists, it's more likely of the 'Putnam Avenue Family Charity' persuasion, not the established third-party legitimate non-profit with low overhead variety. But folks will forget about this story, unless a Whittaker situation happens, and with the types of precautions these people took, that's not going to happen in the public eye.
The clerk claiming they remember selling the exact winning ticket to the guy is ludicrous, for the reasons stated above. It's a simple thing to cover for someone else. Could be because he was offered a cut, it's more likely because the clerk sees the guy as a 'friend'... kind of like the women's prisoners saw Paris Hilton as a 'friend' when Ms. Hilton went to jail for the blink of an eye. And it wouldn't hurt if the clerk's store manager or store owner gave the clerk back up as good will, because the store gets their own payday for having the winning ticket purchased through them.
But the way the 'real' winner did it is commendable, from a keeping one's anonymity standpoint. That's usually lauded here, so why not laud them.