(MONEY Magazine) – Q. I contribute to UGMA (Uniform Gifts to Minors Act) accounts in each of my children's names. Presumably they will use the money for college. When and under what circumstances may I or they withdraw these funds? A certified financial planner tells me that my control is nearly absolute until they turn 18. My accountant says that once I give the gift, it is gone. Terry Hoffer Danville, Vt.

A. They're both right. The money belongs to your children, and the income on it is taxed at their rate. As custodian, however, you are in charge until they turn 18 and you can make withdrawals for their benefit. The one catch is that if you use the money for expenses you are legally obligated to meet (such as food and clothing), the income for that year will be taxed at your rate. And under no circumstances can you use it for purposes not related to the kids, such as flying to Las Vegas with the Mrs. Once your children come of age, they can spend the money as they want. If that loss of control bugs you, buy U.S. Series EE savings bonds in your name instead. When you use EEs to pay for higher education and your taxable income is below $60,000 (for a couple filing jointly), the bonds' income is completely tax-free (the federal tax break phases out and disappears at a joint $90,000). Then, if the ingrates don't behave and skip college too, you can redeem the bonds, pay the taxes and spend the money yourself.

Q. Recently I became the heir to a colossal collection of National Geographic magazines, many in mint condition and dating from the last century. Is there any market for my 500-pound stack? Klaus D. Schmidt North Brooklin, Maine

A. Explore your stack as thoroughly as Henry Stanley searched for Dr. Livingstone, and you may find treasure. If, for example, you have Volume 1, No. 1, published in October 1888 and featuring such heady stuff as ''The Classification of Geographic Forms by Genesis'' instead of the photo stories of bare-breasted females that later drew so many teenage boys to read it, you could be $5,000 ahead. Other early issues may also sell for hundreds of dollars, but values fall as steeply as the slopes of Popocatepetl for those published in the 20th century. Because everybody and his uncle now saves National Geographic, issues dated after 1940 or so are no rarer than Styrofoam cups and may bring as little as a quarter each. Still, that's better than a kick in the head from an ibex. Your best bet is to offer the most valuable copies to a dealer who specializes in the magazine; the National Geographic Society (17th & M Sts. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036) can give you a list. Then trek the rest to a local back-issue dealer and haggle harder than a Chichicastenango pottery vendor.

Q. My wife and I purchased a Ginnie Mae certificate in 1987. For 1988, we received Schedule K-1, Form 1041 from the mortgage company reporting how much interest we earned. Included in the interest, right on line 1, was an additional service charge of $445.37, falsely inflating our earnings for the year. We're worried that we paid an unnecessary amount on our taxes. Woodrow Wilson Payton Vista, Calif.

A. You did pay too much. The firm that issues your mortgage company's K-1s likes to combine income and service fees on one line. That's not illegal, but it is pretty confusing -- and an official at your mortgage company, who has listened to many such complaints, says the form has now been changed. You don't have to pay taxes on the fees; instead, call the IRS (800-424-3676), request Form 1040X and amend your 1988 return.

Q. Our new baby, who arrived on Christmas Day, wasn't supposed to be born until just after the first of the year. If our son had arrived on schedule, would we still have been able to claim him as a dependent on our 1989 tax return now that the Supreme Court has declared that life begins at conception? Timothy N. Dalton Shawnee, Kans.

A. Good question, but the answer is no. According to federal law, birth -- not conception -- determines dependent status and deductibility. And the Supreme Court, in Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, did not declare that life begins at conception. That was a statement made in the preamble to the Missouri law restricting abortion, and the court chose not to rule on it. That's understandable, since most people don't know exactly when they conceived their kids (was it the weekend in the Bahamas or the Tuesday night after bingo?). Then too, just think of all the other changes that would have to be made if legislators decide that life begins at conception: voting eligibility, the draft, drinking age and retirement, just to mention a few. Some peculiar cases have already cropped up in Missouri. One suit charged the state with wrongfully imprisoning the fetus of a pregnant inmate (she has since given birth but the case is still pending). And a young man who was 20 when stripped of his driver's license for drinking under the legal age now claims that, judging by his date of conception, he was really 21. Count yourselves lucky to have avoided this legal morass, and congratulations on the new tot.

Q. In 1981, our broker suggested that we invest $10,000 in four units of one of Integrated Resources' American Property Investors real estate limited partnerships. Just before the crash of 1987, the company went public and we received 454 shares at about $17 each. Since then, they have sagged under $12. Our broker says to sell when the price hits $20 (we should be so lucky). What do you recommend? Mr. and Mrs. M. Steere Dyer, Ind.

A. At first glance, the situation looks grim -- especially since Integrated Resources filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Feb. 13, the same unlucky day that Drexel Burnham Lambert Group did. But take heart: Integrated Resources served as general partner (in effect, manager) of your investment but owned only 10.6% of the shares. And Kenneth Campbell, president of Audit Investments, a Montvale, N.J. company that specializes in such securities, says your company probably can ride out the storm. Here's why: your partnership started life as a tax shelter but, after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 made such deals look pretty stupid, it and others were rolled into master limited partnerships whose units trade like stock. Yours, American Real Estate Partners, invests primarily in commercial properties with triple-net leases (meaning the renter has to pay for maintenance and other expenses). It's listed on the New York Stock Exchange, which gives you more liquidity. Of course, with Integrated Resources selling its general partner interest and 10.6% stake, as it will likely do, don't expect that $20 price any time soon. But so what? You're still earning around $2 annually per share -- a respectable 9% return on your original $10,000. And Campbell says the share price could rebound in a few years if a sounder company takes over as general partner. So hang on if you can.