The Samsung family in South Korea will also donate billions of dollars’ worth of art, including Picasso and Monet.
Picasso, Monet and Dalí are among the assets South Korea’s richest family is parting with as it prepares to pay one of the largest inheritance tax bills in history.
The Samsung family announced on Wednesday that it would pay $10.8 billion in inheritance taxes after the death of Lee Kun-hee, Samsung’s chairman, last year. South Korea has one of the highest inheritance taxes in the world. The family is required to inform the tax authorities of how it plans to pay the bill by Friday.
The answer will have deep implications for the family’s control of the company, the biggest and most profitable family-run conglomerate in South Korea.
Mr. Lee was credited with turning Samsung into a global tech giant known for its semiconductors and smartphones. But the reclusive chairman kept many secrets, including how he wanted to split his wealth among his wife and three children after he died.
Mr. Lee’s only son, Lee Jae-yong, is the de facto leader of Samsung. If he inherits his father’s shares in Samsung subsidiaries, it will tighten his control of the company. But it remains unclear how much he will inherit or how he will raise the billions of dollars needed to pay the inheritance tax.
Analysts expected Mr. Lee to sell some nonessential Samsung shares and secure bank loans, hoping to pay them back with dividend payouts from his Samsung holdings.
“How to split Chairman Lee’s fortune is at the heart of the question of who controls Samsung,” said Chung Sun-sup, editor of chaebul.com, which monitors South Korea’s family conglomerates, also known as chaebol. “It appears that the family has not yet reached a complete agreement.”
The Lees are South Korea’s richest family. The $10.8 billion is more than half the value of the father’s total estate, and more than three times the total inheritance taxes the government collected last year, according to Samsung.
The court first decided this issue in Obergefell, and then again in 2017 in the case, Pavan v. Smith. In Pavan, the court held that states must issue birth certificates to same-sex couples in the same manner they issue them to opposite-sex couples. This means that the presumption of parentage (once referred to as the presumption of paternity) would make the father of a child born to his wife, even if that child was conceived with donor sperm, the legal parent of that child. The 8 plaintiff couples in the Box case are asking the court to have the presumption apply to their marriages the same way it applies to heterosexual married couples, even when there is not a biological connection between the spouse of the mother and the child. 
How do these remote sessions allow for estate planning and COVID-19? Each state will have a different set of requirements, but In NY, all parties must be on a Zoom or Skype call simultaneously and in the State of New York, the signers must show their IDs to the notary or witnesses, the signatures must take place in sight of the notary or witnesses. The signers must fax or scan the documents to the attorney supervising the Will signing, or the notary public, who will then have the witnesses sign, or the notary will notarize the documents. IMPORTANT: this must happen on the same day as the signing.
If democrats win just one chamber of the legislature in November’s midterm elections, we will finally see a much needed check on the unfettered power of the current executive. We may finally be able to investigate the long laundry list of outright violations of the law perpetrated by our President, his cabinet and our new Supreme Court Justice. But none of this happens if we do not activate and stay engaged. None of this will happen if we fail to reach out to others in a demonstration of true democratic partnership. As a community, we must consolidate our political power with immigrants, women, African Americans, health care advocates, sensible gun regulation proponents. In short, we must vote!
If no guardianship for children has been properly executed, then the closest living blood relatives must petition the court to be named legal guardian, creating an often time consuming and emotional journey for all involved, especially the children.
What is most troubling about Anthony Kennedy’s legacy is what he did not do. Kennedy was a wordsmith, much to the chagrin of many in the legal community. He never clearly defined what level of legal scrutiny gay people deserved in equal protection cases. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution provides for different levels of protection depending on which category the discriminated class falls into. The legal scrutiny that a class receives often determines whether the discrimination is permissible or not. The key indicators of whether a case deserves heightened scrutiny were, perhaps purposefully, left out of Kennedy’s written decisions regarding LGBT litigants. He shied away from describing gay people as a “subject classification.” 
Don’t get me wrong, I have great respect for most religious belief. My family holds hands and says what we are thankful for before every meal. We acknowledge the need for divine intervention with friends and family who are dealing with health issues. We have ingrained just such a respect in our son to be tolerant of others, even those who would mock and deride our family just because it has two dads.
Justice Kennedy held that, “When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered the case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires. In other words, because of the Commission’s original treatment of the baker’s claim, no matter whether the result of their analysis was correct, the process was tainted from the start and therefore the holdings of all subsequent courts agreeing that the baker violated the rights of the petitioning gay couple, who, as Justice Ginsburg stated in her dissent, “simply requested a wedding cake: They mentioned no message or anything else distinguishing the cake they wanted to buy from any other wedding cake Phillips (the Respondent) would have sold.” But because the process was tainted with anti-religious bias, the underlying discrimination was no longer relevant.