Why make changes?

[Kenny Coyote]

The IRS would look at the value of the known oil underneath. You hit on the very issue many small businesses have - sell or their kids have to finance the business to pay the tax. I don’t know when she inherited it but there have been times when it was different, like in 2010 it was zero. And there are trusts which could be used. Plus maybe less was known about how much was down there way back then. As far as I know inheritance and gift are the same, but maybe not always. I’m going based on second hand info. Just over all it’s unrealistic to think she’d give that much to one kid. Even if he was to protect the land would his grandchildren forgo billions to do so? In such a case Bobby’s grandchildren get billions in oil and JR and Gary’s don’t. To top it off it’s not like she built the place. She got it from her had who got it from his. And she was so willing to give it to her brother but cut out her 2 sons and not for a charitable cause but to benefit Bobby? JR would have tied that up in court for years. That’s the kind of change I get that just didn’t need to happen. Poor writing left behind the very foundation of the story which shouldn’t have changed.

Thanks Steve!

I think those types of taxes are downright criminal! The tax should be based on what profit Bobby is making off the ranch - not what the IRS thinks it's worth. Just think of what income taxes would look like if the IRS applied the same mentality. They tell you your yearly income tax is one million dollars. You tell them, how can that be when I only made $500,000??? They reply: "We looked at the value of your company's assets and we believe you should have profited far more than you did, so based in what we think your income should have been, your tax is one million dollars. You're not efficiently utilizing your assets - that's your problem!"

 

[Herofan]

One show that I thought maintained its foundation while subtly changing for a successful 20 years was Gunsmoke. Matt and Kitty had the same relationship, and everybody had the basic same roles throughout. Although people came and went, the vibe of the show was the same throughout. I certainly wish Dallas could have progressed in that manner.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Worse yet, I think the writers suffered from fear Dynasty would replace them and so they tried to make themselves something they weren’t. Like someone said “The Walton’s with notions” (and they didn’t mean the Sam Walton’s).

That's a mistake I've seen people make. When you're the innovator, which Dallas was, it's important to remain the innovator. Why copy people who are copying you?

Competition is good; it keeps people from getting complacent. Why run if there's nobody chasing you? But to try to outdo your competition at their own style, at what they do best, is a mistake. Concentrate on doing what you do best - on what took you to being the most watched TV drama in the world.

 

[stevew]

Thanks Steve!

I think those types of taxes are downright criminal! The tax should be based on what profit Bobby is making off the ranch - not what the IRS thinks it's worth. Just think of what income taxes would look like if the IRS applied the same mentality. They tell you your yearly income tax is one million dollars. You tell them, how can that be when I only made $500,000??? They reply: "We looked at the value of your company's assets and we believe you should have profited far more than you did, so based in what we think your income should have been, your tax is one million dollars. You're not efficiently utilizing your assets - that's your problem!"

It does work that way with the IRS, especially if you own your own business. They tell you what you own based on what they say you made not on what you say. You might get down to 500,000 after deductions. They say nope. It’s a million. The issue is you pay inheritance tax on what you inherit. If you don’t use it they don’t care. They get their cut regardless. It’s not criminal because a law has been passed making it lawful. My point is I felt Dallas wouldn’t have don’t that in the first 5-7 years. Then they got sloppy.

 

[stevew]

That's a mistake I've seen people make. When you're the innovator, which Dallas was, it's important to remain the innovator. Why copy people who are copying you?

Competition is good; it keeps people from getting complacent. Why run if there's nobody chasing you? But to try to outdo your competition at their own style, at what they do best, is a mistake. Concentrate on doing what you do best - on what took you to being the most watched TV drama in the world.

I agree. And I could be wrong. It just felt that way to me at one point.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Just over all it’s unrealistic to think she’d give that much to one kid. Even if he was to protect the land would his grandchildren forgo billions to do so? In such a case Bobby’s grandchildren get billions in oil and JR and Gary’s don’t. To top it off it’s not like she built the place. She got it from her had who got it from his. And she was so willing to give it to her brother but cut out her 2 sons and not for a charitable cause but to benefit Bobby? JR would have tied that up in court for years.

That certainly didn't put Ellie in a sympathetic light, did it? For a woman who treated even one of her adult sons moving into his own home as "losing a son", she certainly didn't seem to be taking very good care of her sons did she. That's such blatant favoritism to give everything to one son. She should have been bright enough to realize the resentment that could create among her sons too.

Isn't it interesting that this is the same woman who, regarding Jock's will, basically tried to rewrite Jock's will so that his will, literally his last request, became her will? Somehow I don't think she'd have liked for Jock to be able to rewrite her will, yet she felt entitled to try to rewrite his will, just because she didn't agree with it. Then she does something as destructive as giving Bobby everything! How was she somehow the authority on the fair way to distribute things to their sons?

Jock's will was controversial, but at least he didn't give everything to one son and leave the rest out in the cold. Jock believed that outright leaving control of Ewing Oil to one son without even giving the other a chance at it was unfair, so he created the idea of leaving it to the son who could prove he was the man most capable of running it. That gave both Bobby and JR an opportunity to show what he could do. Wow, deciding who should run a company based on merit - what a novel idea! Even then, at the end he said he really didn't care which son won, that the purpose of the contest was to get JR and Bobby to respect each other's abilities and to realize they had far more potential working together than apart. That was brilliant. It's really stunning to me that as much as Ellie whined and bellyached over how unfair she thought Jock's will was, that she'd do something so much worse when it came do distributing her own assets.

I also agree with bringing in outside help, as long as that help appreciated the brand. If it’s someone doing their own thing, why bother.

I agree that's vital. One option he had besides hiring new people to help him run Dallas or hire new writers was to at least bring a couple guys in temporarily as consultants - people who could look at his situation with "new eyes" and give him an objective perspective on what he was doing wrong with Dallas and what types of changes would best benefit the show.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

It does work that way with the IRS, especially if you own your own business. They tell you what you own based on what they say you made not on what you say. You might get down to 500,000 after deductions. They say nope. It’s a million. The issue is you pay inheritance tax on what you inherit. If you don’t use it they don’t care. They get their cut regardless. It’s not criminal because a law has been passed making it lawful. My point is I felt Dallas wouldn’t have don’t that in the first 5-7 years. Then they got sloppy.

OK, I should have said "unethical" instead of "criminal." I don't think I'm alone in believing that a ranching family should have the ability to pass down a ranch from one generation to the next without each generation suffering a crippling gift tax or inheritance tax that makes it impossible for a son or daughter of a ranching couple to become the new owner of the ranch when their parents die. If they do that, then there's no such thing as a second or third generation rancher owning his ranch. How can the government justify that? It's blatantly anti-ranching. I think it's disgraceful.

 

[stevew]

OK, I should have said "unethical" instead of "criminal." I don't think I'm alone in believing that a ranching family should have the ability to pass down a ranch from one generation to the next without each generation suffering a crippling gift tax or inheritance tax that makes it impossible for a son or daughter of a ranching couple to become the new owner of the ranch when their parents die. If they do that, then there's no such thing as a second or third generation rancher owning his ranch. How can the government justify that? It's blatantly anti-ranching. I think it's disgraceful.

I get your point but it’s not an issue. No family would leave all that oil under there. That’s just not realistic.

 

[stevew]

I get your point but it’s not an issue. No family would leave all that oil under there. That’s just not realistic.

Also the bigger issue for most is development rights. If your property as a ranch is worth 1 million and divided up into a subduction 5 million you get tax on the higher value because again it’s what the property is worth. Not what you use it for. Those families really get hit. Some communities to limit urban sprawl have paid the difference. The community pays the family 4 million in the above example and they put it in the deed that it can never be developed.

 

[stevew]

I get your point but it’s not an issue. No family would leave all that oil under there. That’s just not realistic.

To me the worst part was the house. All JR wanted was the house and the oil. She could have at least left him the house if she was leaving Bobby the business. And she could have protected the land. Leaving it to Bobby might protect it with him but that would have been it. There are ways to protect it. Strip it of development rights. Strip it of mineral rights. All of that could have protected it. She looked like an idiot and so did Clayton. And just as greedy as JR. That money oil could have helped a lot of people if she didn’t want it. It certainly is better for the environment to drill there then the countless other places they end up.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

If your property as a ranch is worth 1 million and divided up into a subduction 5 million you get tax on the higher value because again it’s what the property is worth. Not what you use it for.

It ought to be based on what you use it for. If they're telling a rancher that his tax is s high because he could make more money by getting out of the ranching business and into the construction or real estate business, then what does that say about the government respecting a man's right to be able to try to make a living as a rancher? It says the government doesn't value the ranching business, and they don't value or respect individual rights. The government taxes the individual in a way to where if they see more profit in forcing him out of the ranching business and into the real estate business or construction business, then they make it impossible for him to remain a rancher. That sounds unconstitutional to me but maybe it either that particular law hasn't been challenged, or hasn't been challenged by the right people.

 

[stevew]

It ought to be based on what you use it for. If they're telling a rancher that his tax is s high because he could make more money by getting out of the ranching business and into the construction or real estate business, then what does that say about the government respecting a man's right to be able to try to make a living as a rancher? It says the government doesn't value the ranching business, and they don't value or respect individual rights. The government taxes the individual in a way to where if they see more profit in forcing him out of the ranching business and into the real estate business or construction business, then they make it impossible for him to remain a rancher. That sounds unconstitutional to me but maybe it either that particular law hasn't been challenged, or hasn't been challenged by the right people.

Oh it’s been challenged over and over again. And it’s been up held as both constitutional and legal. Estate planning takes a great deal of planning to work your way around such things.

That’s why TNT missed a great opportunity with JR’s Death. Even though it was 2013, I’d have put 2010 on the grave. I’d have made a big deal over what we’d been watching was a few years earlier, not in the present. Why, the year without federal inheritance tax - and I’d infer JR got such passed and signed in choosing the exact moment of his death. JR’s death was a forced change, one they could have made a lot out of.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Oh it’s been challenged over and over again. And it’s been up held as both constitutional and legal.

Thanks for the information, Steve. Do you think the inheritance tax is ethical?

 

[stevew]

Thanks for the information, Steve. Do you think the inheritance tax is ethical?

Personally I don’t think it’s a matter of ethics. I think it’s unethical to run a massive government deficit and leave it to our children to pay off. How they tax to acquire that money to pay for the running of our government is debatable but not a matter ethics.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Personally I don’t think it’s a matter of ethics. I think it’s unethical to run a massive government deficit and leave it to our children to pay off. How they tax to acquire that money to pay for the running of our government is debatable but not a matter ethics.

Fair enough, Steve.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

One show that I thought maintained its foundation while subtly changing for a successful 20 years was Gunsmoke. Matt and Kitty had the same relationship, and everybody had the basic same roles throughout. Although people came and went, the vibe of the show was the same throughout. I certainly wish Dallas could have progressed in that manner.

Of course, GUNSMOKE was a four-character series, which is different from a soap with a continuing storyline. But even GUNSMOKE shifted in the mid-'60s to more of a semi-anthology in order to extend the series. And at least Leonard Katzman did a better job producing the last four or five seasons of GUNSMOKE than he did the last few years of DALLAS.

As others have said before, the last half of DALLAS saw the show cease to grow creatively. Yes, the show changed but the latter stories saw the show trying to wing it, as opposed to those changes being an expression of growth.

Some people want to see JR "win" 24/7, which becomes boring and doesn't ring true. Yet while I was fine with JR getting a little demoralized around the edges, it didn't work because the series around him had become increasingly pantomimed.

It's all in the execution.

In the closing seasons, the show should have become dustier, darker and more ominous. Instead, they turned it into a sitcom on a ranch... That's why I liked the autumnal tone of 2012's nuDALLAS, but not the script details, of course.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Estate planning takes a great deal of planning to work your way around such things.

@stevew, if Miss Ellie had decided to leave Southfork to Bobby in a trust, is there a way that Bobby could have willed Southfork to Christopher, or would having it in a trust make it impossible for him to leave Southfork to Christopher?

 

[stevew]

@stevew, if Miss Ellie had decided to leave Southfork to Bobby in a trust, is there a way that Bobby could have willed Southfork to Christopher, or would having it in a trust make it impossible for him to leave Southfork to Christopher?

Now things get complicated and I’m not a lawyer. There are ways to leave it to Christopher but of course taxes have to be paid. For instance Sam Walton left his family what to say is close to 200 billion dollars. Of course their assets, Walmart stock, continues to generate income capable of paying any tax. South Fork without drilling wouldn’t be able to and it seemed they had no other assets.

Miss Ellie wasn’t perfect but she was smart. She’d have left the land to a foundation with lots of money. Stripped it of its development rights so it would forever be open, undeveloped land and tied up the mineral rights with it if she was so inclined, though I think a better option would be limited drilling. Then the house would be a separate piece, as would the cattle business (with a perpetual lease of the land for something like $1). She could leave the house to JR and the business to Bobby and Gary and her personal jewelry and things to Lucy and Betsy and then some things to her grandsons and be done with it.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Now things get complicated and I’m not a lawyer. There are ways to leave it to Christopher but of course taxes have to be paid. For instance Sam Walton left his family what to say is close to 200 billion dollars. Of course their assets, Walmart stock, continues to generate income capable of paying any tax. South Fork without drilling wouldn’t be able to and it seemed they had no other assets.

Miss Ellie wasn’t perfect but she was smart. She’d have left the land to a foundation with lots of money. Stripped it of its development rights so it would forever be open, undeveloped land and tied up the mineral rights with it if she was so inclined, though I think a better option would be limited drilling. Then the house would be a separate piece, as would the cattle business (with a perpetual lease of the land for something like $1). She could leave the house to JR and the business to Bobby and Gary and her personal jewelry and things to Lucy and Betsy and then some things to her grandsons and be done with it.

Well, you know a lot about this subject for someone who isn't a lawyer! If I'm understanding your reply, then as far as you know, if Ellie left Southfork to Bobby in a trust, he couldn't will it to Christopher. She'd have to do it more like you just described for Bobby to be able to will it to Christopher. Is that right?

Just one more thing: If it's left to Bobby in a trust, then who would get Southfork when Bobby dies? The government?

 

[stevew]

Well, you know a lot about this subject for someone who isn't a lawyer! If I'm understanding your reply, then as far as you know, if Ellie left Southfork to Bobby in a trust, he couldn't will it to Christopher. She'd have to do it more like you just described for Bobby to be able to will it to Christopher. Is that right?

Just one more thing: If it's left to Bobby in a trust, then who would get Southfork when Bobby dies? The government?

Not exactly and this is where not being a lawyer shows. There are ways she could have left it to Bobby who could have left it to Christopher with out being killed by taxes (though honestly I find that morally apprehensible of a grandmother to do). The easiest thing would be to remove the mineral rights, which she did and leave them to a foundation which Bobby controls (preventing the drilling) and then I’m sure Bobby could pay the inheritance tax and so could Christopher. I think if she’d left it in trust to Bobby, I’m 2010 he found have moved it out of the trust and over to Christopher (maybe even with the mineral rights as 2010 was the year without estate tax and lots of money moved that year).

The trust would spell that out. Maybe Bobby dies and the trust is dissolved and he leaves it Chris who has to pay the inheritance tax. Or maybe it dies on to his legal heirs, cutting out Lucas and leaving it all to Chris.