(MONEY Magazine) – Q My 65-year-old mother, a widow for two years, has met a man and plans to marry him. Before Dad died, he put his estate into a revocable living trust. Mom is living off the interest of part of the trust, while another portion will go to us three kids. Mom claims that if she remarries, the part of the estate held for the kids can never be touched by her new husband. Although she says she wants us to have the money Dad left for us, shouldn't she sign a prenuptial agreement to make sure we get our inheritance? L.C. SAN JOSE A Sounds like Mother knows best in this case. Not only has she landed herself a gentleman caller, but she understands the ins and outs of revocable living trusts. For those of you not as hip, these trusts are meant to defer taxes and ensure that the kids eventually get something. Here's how this monster works: Husband and wife put all their assets in the revocable trust, so called because it can be changed or dissolved by either spouse until one dies. Upon the death of the husband or wife, the estate is divided into two or more separate, though not necessarily equal, components. In this case, there's an "A" part -- the mother's money -- and the "B" portion, for the kids. The B part would typically hold $600,000, because that sum equals the federal estate-tax exemption. Estates larger than six hundred grand suffer a 37% to 55% tax bite. Ouch. In theory, the mother spends almost all the A portion while the assets in B go to the kids upon her death (although your mother has the option to use the ( interest from B and as much as 5% of its principal each year). Let's say, however, that the mother leaves her entire A wad to the kids. Well, they would pay no estate tax on any amount up to $600,000 because her estate, just like the B trust, would qualify for the $600,000 exclusion. Ergo, the family is able to pass $1.2 million to kids without any federal tax. Hooray. Now, according to Marsden Blois, a San Jose estate-planning attorney, the B trust remains separate legal property, even if your mother remarries. Only if she merges the property in the B trust with her new husband's assets -- intentionally, say, or through sloppy management -- should you have cause for concern. Then your only remedy would be a lawsuit -- though I don't think that would make for happy family get-togethers at Thanksgiving and Christmas. Since she wants you to have B anyway, I wouldn't worry. But if she wants the option of leaving any remaining A money to you kids, she should keep it separate from her husband's assets -- and spell out that intention in a prenuptial agreement. A lawyer will charge $500 to $1,500 to draw one up. Still, it's your mother's money, and if she wants to blow it on a Ferrari Testosterone, I mean Testerossa, for her new hubby, I think it's none of your B-I-Bizness.

Q In June 1983 I purchased what I thought were eight $1,000 zero-coupon bonds from Texas Federal Savings & Loan for $312 each. When they matured in March 1994, I received only $6,727. Why didn't I get the full $8,000 face value that I assumed was guaranteed -- and why wasn't I notified I'd be getting less? Trudy A. Konkoly AVON LAKE, OHIO A Your problem is the story of the 1980s' banking and savings and loan crisis in microcosm. First of all, you bought zero-coupon CDs, not bonds, which were supposed to pay $1,000 each when they matured. Along the way, however, Texas Federal merged with Trinity Banc Savings, which later became Bright Banc Savings. In 1990, Bright Banc failed (Dim was more like it), and the Resolution Trust Corporation, a federal agency that manages insolvent S&Ls, took over its assets. The RTC passed along its right to reset interest rates when Bank One, Texas acquired the remnants of Bright that same year. On March 8, 1990, Bank One lowered your zero CD rate from 12.5% to 8%. You weren't informed, Bank One corporate affairs manager Joe Bowles explains, because the bank had only a list of account numbers and amounts to verify ownership rather , than names and addresses. I know you're disappointed, but your dough did earn 9.7% a year, or about a percentage point less than Treasury bonds of comparable maturity. That return is not too shabby, though the performance of the banks in this chain reaction sure was.

Q I recently read a book about two gay men who married each other. Do couples in same-gender marriages receive the same tax advantages as heterosexual married couples do? R.J.A. SCARBOROUGH, MAINE A Yes and no. Neither the states nor the federal government recognizes these unions as legal marriages. From a tax standpoint, that can work both to a gay couple's advantage and disadvantage. Since they haven't legally tied the knot, gay couples can't file joint tax returns. As a result, two-income gay partners can escape the tax code's dreaded marriage penalty -- a provision that can increase the taxes of a married couple each earning $50,000 a year by nearly $1,300, compared with what the couple would pay if they were single people filing separately (which is how gay marrieds file). What's more, one gay spouse can claim the other as a dependent and take the $2,450 exemption this year -- provided he or she pays at least half of the partner's support. The downside: If a gay person is lucky enough to work for employers such as Levi Strauss and the City of New York that provide health insurance to an employee's gay partner, the Internal Revenue Service taxes the worker on the value of those benefits. Heterosexuals pay no tax on their marriage partner's benefits. For advice on how gays can use wills, contracts and trusts to provide financial protection for themselves and their partners, consult A Legal Guide for Lesbian and Gay Couples (Nolo, $21.95; 800-992-6656).