From: achomsky@sa=emstate.edu>, Har Chomsky <[email protected]=t <mailto > > Cc: =aleria Chomsky <mailto »=font size="3"> Date: 06/07/2017 08:33 Subject: Fwd: taxes No need to find any of this painful, and no point in spending time up and back wirh Max. As I explained, none of what we're now discussing has anything to do with our decision to move or other major decisions, all being taken on entirely different grounds. And no reason for you to be concerned about our financial situation, which is well in hand..<=r> You mention other examples. If there are any, I'd of course like to know about them. All I knew about, until your last letter, had to do with the interest on the loan. You brought up another matter that I didn't know about: DNI payments to me. As I wrote, I would like to know about them, since there is no record in what has been sent by Bainco. But that Hs easily cleared up without our wasting any time. The only other issue has to do with what the promissory note says about the interest on the loan, again, easily resolved. What remains is a passage that we're interpreting somewhat differently, but that too is very easily resolved without any meetings: simply have the promissory note rewritten to state explicitly what interest is to be paid when we pay back the loan. And that's basically up to you. Nothing else has to be mentioned about non-existent loans. And there's no reason f=r any of us to waste precious time simply to resolve matters that are easily settled just by mail. With regard to Max, he and I agreed some time ago that he was in a difficul= position representing both Valeria and me on the one hand, and the rest of the family on the other. There are no difficulties in that, but it's best to resolve the matter cleanly. So we agreed that he wou=d represent the rest of the family while Valeria and I have all of our affair= separately, which is how it has been working since. So there's no reason to bring Max into this apart from rewriting the promissory note to resolve any ambiguities. Again, nothing painful, no reason for concern, what is still unclear has nothing to do with any of our decisions and can easily be resolved without difficulty or delay. 0 Forwarded message From: Diana Chomsky < Date: Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:17 PM Subject: Re: taxes To: Noam Chomsky < Cc: Avi Chomsky < <mailto: Hi, <mailto >=br> =uk <mailto .=k» <mailto /font> <mailto », Valeria Chomsky > > », Harry Chomsky /u> What worries us about continuing to try to clear it all up in writing us that it isn't efficient or effective. There's lots of time-consumin=, expensive back-and-forth with Max in order for us to give you responses which are obviously not clear because they only lead to further questions. What's your objection to a meeting? Cutting out the middle-man/woman (us) would almost have to be more effective. At the very worst, it can't hurt, and it could help. We don't understand why 3 EFTA_R1_01878102 EFTA02643079

you have repeatedly refused to c=nsider this, unless of course there's some issue there on your side that we l-=;re not aware of. However, we'll give this one another try in writing anyway, since we do have more detailed information now. The paragraph you quoted from the Promissory Note specifies interest rates under two different conditions: 1) when there is a loan outstanding between the Marital Trust and Pershing; 2) when there is no such loan outstanding. At the moment there is no such loan outstanding. Therefore, the interest rate that applies is the Mid Term Applicable Federal Rate. A quick web search shows that this has hovered between about 1.5% and 2% during the past couple of years. The language you are disturbed by -- "the highest rate in effect" -- does not apply in the current circumstances. It did apply when the loan was new, because the Marital Trust borrowed money from Pershing in order to raise money to lend to you. However, that secondary loan was paid off once the Lexington house was sold. Since that time, there has been no outstanding loan between the Trust and Pershing, and your interest rate has been governed by the Mid Term Applicable Federal Rate. As we all know, legal language can be abstract and thus difficult or imposs=ble to interpret correctly without having the context. Example: Without knowing about the second loan, it is not possible to under=tand what the promissory note means. Another example: Without having the terms and conditions of the trust at hand, it is not possible to glean from the promissory note that the interests - in effect - are returned to you. These are just two examples of many, as we've said before. In general, we are finding this discussion extremely painful. We feel like you are immersed in an alternative world-view which is distorting your interpretation of what is going on. You may very well feel the same about us. Can't we try a different approach? Love, Avi, Diane and Harry From: dchomsky@ox=am.org.uk>, Harry Chomsky <[email protected]=t <mailto Cc: =aleria Chomsky < <mailto Date: 01/07/2017 23:18 Subject: Re: taxes > > »=font size="3"> I should make it clear to start with that none of this bears on our decisio= to move to Tucson. That has quite different motives. We do of course have to face our financial situation: reliance on a diminis=ing IRA (and another very small one) with no access to other funds, and the burden of paying for an apartment that I agreed to buy only on the mistaken assumption that the cost would be paid by the Lexington house. What we're discussing is something else: the nature of the loan from th= Trust. The final version of the Promissory Note that was provided to me reads as follows: 4 EFTA_R1_01878103 EFTA02643080

"Interest on the balance out=tanding shall be payable at a rate equal to the highest rate in effect from time to time on any one or more loans outstanding <=font> between-Lender and (insert full name of Pershing entity], or if no such loans are in existence, then the rate shall be fixed at the so-called Mid Term Applicable Federal Rate in effect at the time, recalculated monthly in accordance with Section 1274(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, or an= successor thereto. Interest due on each Loan shall be calculated based on a 360-day year and the actual number of days elapsed."<=ont size="3"> There is nothing here, or elsewhe=e in the document, that restricts it to the brief period before the sale of the Lexington house. I have no information at all abou= having received any DNI. If there is such information, it should be sent to me so that I can use it for our own plans. I don't see much point in a m=eting. It seems to me that all of this can be cleared up in writing. On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Diana Chomsky «mailto > wrote: Hi, thanks for your reply. We are very, very concerned that you are not understanding and not getting help in understanding what is happening with your finances. Your responses below only increase our concern. The three of us are not able to serve as financial advisors. We urge you strongly to speak directly with Max so that he can clarify what he says in the Memo and expla=n what the Promissory Note language means. Just to give you one example of our concern: You focus on one phrase: that the interest will be "at the highest rate in effect." =ut you are taking those words out of context. We really don't think we =hould be trying to explain these details to you, but to try to summarize: t=is phrase applied to the double nature of the loan—the Marital Trust h=d to borrow money from Pershing to make the loan to you, until the Lexington house was sold. The phrase you quote applies only to that brief perio=, and has no impact on the interest accruing now or in the future. We can see why focusing on those six words would make you angry. But the six words mean nothing in and of themselves (i.e., what rate is "in=effect"?). But instead of doing the logical thing—getting the full information=E2 you are just so angry that you refuse to find out the truth. =br> Again, this is just one example of where you are stating conclusions based on faulty or incomplete information. There are explanations for your other issues as well (how the DNI is paid to you, how the interest payments can be made, etc) but rather than us trying to summarize the information for you here, we think it would make more sense for you to discuss them with the people who set all of this up, in the context of a broader conversation= Reading your response only redoubles our sense that you are simply misreadi=g important elements of your entire financial situation, and that you are making big decisions based on faulty information. We feel that you have painted yourself into a corner, in which you arrive at the worst possi=le interpretation of complex legal language, and then refuse to speak with the very people who could explain it to you, and just get angry at them based on your misinterpretations. We beg you once again to meet with us and with the people who set up the Trust, the loan, etc., to clarify these issues. Love, Avi, Diane and Harry 5 EFTA_R1_01878104 EFTA02643081