Which statement defines a skip person in a trust context?

Which statement defines a skip person in a trust context?

• A. At least one current beneficiary is a skip person.
• B. Never
• C. All current beneficiaries are skip persons
• D. Always

Answer: (C)

In generation-skipping transfer planning, a skip person is someone who is two or more generations younger than the person transferring the property. In a trust context, you assess the current beneficiaries against the transferor’s generation to see if they fall into the skip category. The statement that all current beneficiaries are skip persons is the best fit because it directly aligns with the idea that every present beneficiary meets the generation gap criterion relative to the transferor. If every current beneficiary is two or more generations younger, they’re all skip persons, which defines the situation clearly for GST purposes. The other options don’t fit as consistently: "never" would incorrectly imply no one could ever be a skip person, which isn’t true; "always" would imply every trust has skip-person beneficiaries, which isn’t accurate; and "at least one" is too weak a condition to define the status of the beneficiaries in this context.

In generation-skipping transfer planning, a skip person is someone who is two or more generations younger than the person transferring the property. In a trust context, you assess the current beneficiaries against the transferor’s generation to see if they fall into the skip category.

The statement that all current beneficiaries are skip persons is the best fit because it directly aligns with the idea that every present beneficiary meets the generation gap criterion relative to the transferor. If every current beneficiary is two or more generations younger, they’re all skip persons, which defines the situation clearly for GST purposes.

The other options don’t fit as consistently: "never" would incorrectly imply no one could ever be a skip person, which isn’t true; "always" would imply every trust has skip-person beneficiaries, which isn’t accurate; and "at least one" is too weak a condition to define the status of the beneficiaries in this context.