Investors are focusing on Facebook‘s

offering price as the company prepares to go public as soon as next week.

Tax specialists are paying attention to something else: how half a dozen of the firm’s luminaries, including founder Mark Zuckerberg, appear to be using a perfectly legal maneuver called a grantor-retained annuity trust, or GRAT, to avoid at least $200 million of estate and gift taxes on their own Facebook shares.

“I’m not surprised the Facebook insiders have chosen to use GRATs,” says John Bergner, a gift-and-estate tax expert at the Winstead law firm in Dallas. He calls the strategy “an excellent way to shift wealth to others at little or no tax cost and with minimal legal and economic risk.”

Facebook’s prospectus cites eight separate “annuity trusts” set up by insiders Dustin Moskovitz, Sean Parker, Sheryl Sandberg, Reid Hoffman, Michelle Yee (Mr. Hoffman’s wife) and Mr. Zuckerberg over the past four years. All told, these trusts hold about 22 million shares that will be worth more than $690 million if Facebook goes public at $31.50 a share, the middle of its projected range.

Spokesmen or representatives for the six shareholders declined to comment on these trusts, or were unavailable. But Mr. Bergner and others—including Howard Zaritsky, a lawyer and estate expert in Rapidan, Va.—say they feel safe assuming the “annuity trusts” are GRATs, based on their knowledge of the territory and the language in Facebook’s prospectus.

“GRATs offer a perfect vehicle for wealthy investors who put money in start-ups, while other trusts don’t,” Mr. Zaritsky says.

And Facebook offers a good vehicle for explaining GRATs, one of several legal but arcane techniques the truly wealthy can use to sidestep estate and gift taxes.

In essence, these trusts transfer asset appreciation from one taxpayer to others, virtually tax-free.

The benefit can be huge. If the Facebook insiders didn’t use GRATs for those shares, but held them until they died or gave them away to friends or relatives after the offering, then the gift or estate tax owed on the shares would be more than $200 million. (This calculation assumes a $31.50 share price and the current top gift- and estate-tax rate of 35%; rates are scheduled to rise to 55% next year.)

A successful GRAT requires several ingredients: a person worth millions—or potential millions—who wants to avoid gift or estate tax and is willing to part with assets to do so; an asset that will rise in value while in the trust; and, if possible, low interest rates.

With these elements in place, the taxpayer sets up a GRAT with a set term of two years or longer and gives the asset to it before its value surges. Set-up costs include appraisal and legal fees.

Over the life of the trust, the person who set it up gets annual payments adding up to the asset’s original value plus a return based on a fixed interest rate determined by the Internal Revenue Service. That is currently 1.6%, near a record low.

Meanwhile, ideally, the asset soars in value, and that growth is outside of the grantor’s estate. When the GRAT’s term ends, the asset goes to the beneficiaries—usually into another trust set up for their benefit.

The result: no gift or estate tax on the appreciation, even though it has been transferred.

Here is an example, using figures from the Facebook offering document: Messrs. Zuckerberg and Moskovitz each disclosed “annuity trusts” holding 3.4 million and 14.4 million Facebook shares, respectively. The value of each share when the trusts were set up was less than $1.85, according to the prospectus.

After contributing their stock to the GRATs, the two founders would, over time, take payments equal to the original value of the gift plus a small return, Mr. Bergner says. Without knowing information that’s unavailable—such has how long the trusts will run or exactly how they are structured—it’s impossible to say what payments have already been or will be made.

But it is possible make an educated guess as to the appreciation that’s being shifted from the two founders’ estates. Mr. Bergner says that given a $31.50 share price, a conservative estimate of it is $29 per share, or about $100 million for Mr. Zuckerberg and more than $415 million for Mr. Moskovitz.

At current top rates of 35%, that means estate-and gift-tax savings of about $35 million for Mr. Zuckerberg and $150 million for Mr. Moskovitz. Other Facebook insiders and investors appear to be saving $20 million or more with their GRATs.

What if by some chance Facebook stock tanks? The stock would then be returned to the original owner.

“The person who sets up the GRAT is not really worse off, because he paid little or no tax in the first place,” Mr. Zaritsky says. “Either he wins or it’s a tie—except for the lawyer’s fees.” The principal risk with a GRAT is that the owner will die before the term is up, which isn’t likely in this case.

That, in a nutshell, is why the Facebook insiders would find it useful to put some of their shares in grantor-retained annuity trusts.

One question remains: Neither Mr. Zuckerberg nor Mr. Moskovitz appears to have children. So who are these trusts’ beneficiaries? Mr. Bergner says it is possible to name unborn children—as well as future spouses and current friends or relatives—as beneficiaries of a GRAT.

“There’s a window of opportunity here,” Mr. Bergner says, “and it’s good to use it.”

—Email: taxreport@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared May 12, 2012, on page B9 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: How Facebook’s Elite Skirt Estate Tax.

There’s a wonderful line in “E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial” when Elliott and his older brother Michael head off to their classes, leaving E.T. behind at home. “Did you explain school to him?” Michael asks. “How do you explain school to higher intelligence?” Elliott replies. He has a point. Secondary classrooms are what most of us dreamed of escaping from, and the longer we’re out of high school the less receptive we become to high school comedies. Why, then, am I so pleased with “Easy A”? Because the movie, despite a few flaws, seems to have been made by higher intelligence, and because it catapults Emma Stone into a higher place reserved for American actors who can handle elevated language with casually dazzling aplomb.

She plays Olive Penderghast, an Ojai, Calif., high-school student who goes to class in a bustier emblazoned with the scarlet A of an adulteress. How she reaches this point is a convoluted story, and a long way from the 1980s comedies of John Hughes; suffice it to say that Olive identifies intensely with Hester Prynne, the outcast heroine of “The Scarlet Letter.” A more immediate question is how Ms. Stone, barely out of her own teens, reached that higher place so quickly; the answer involves the twin mysteries of talent and growth. Three years ago she made a splashlet as Jules, the alluring party girl in “Superbad.” In last year’s stylish “Zombieland” she was sexy and confident as the larcenous Wichita. Neither of those performances, though, could have predicted her emergence as a full-fledged movie star. With her agile features, Cognac voice and Spritely spirit, she makes Olive an embodiment of young sophistication.

“Easy A” was directed, with fearless exuberance, by Will Gluck from an elated and elating screenplay by Bert V. Royal. Like Amy Heckerling’s “Clueless,” which drew its inspiration from Jane Austen’s “Emma,” this new film is an unrestrained riff on the Nathaniel Hawthorne novel. And like Ms. Heckerling’s update, the enterprise revels in quasiliterary language. In a preteen flashback, Olive tries to reassure an anxious boy: “Don’t worry, I’m not as smart as I think I am.” In fact, she’s delightfully smart, and so is the movie; its bon mots are consistently bon. One of my favorites predates Olive’s notoriety: “Google Earth couldn’t find me if I was dressed up as a 10-story building.” The other follows her emergence as a harlot—a faux-harlot, more precisely: “I always thought pretending to lose my virginity would be a little more special. Judy Blume should have prepared me for that.”

Olive’s pretense is the mainspring—or hair-trigger—of the plot. From the moment she tells a girlfriend about an imagined liaison with a nonexistent college student, there’s no calling back the instant messages or quelling the scandal. Among the things “Easy A” manages to be smart about is the madcap virulence of social networks, and witty snippets of a webcast provide the narrative structure—they’re Olive’s effort to explain what she did, as opposed to what she kept saying she did, and why she did it.

One interesting issue the production raises is whether kids will want to see it. I hope they do, but it remains to be seen if the “I’m like and she’s like” and “I go then he goes” generation can handle the rich dialogue. Another is whether the movie’s look will militate against its success: I accepted the indifferent cinematography as an almost certain sign of a low budget that didn’t allow for careful setups or meticulous lighting.

According to the story, most high-school boys are either virgins or gay; that might prompt some challenges on empirical grounds. So might the unconditional support that Olive enjoys from her blissed-out parents. (They’re played by Patricia Clarkson and Stanley Tucci, and I cherished every preposterous moment they were on screen.) Still another issue flows from the unfortunate tradition of comedy, let alone high-school comedy, not always getting the respect it deserves. This one, largely thanks to Ms. Stone’s role in it, deserves more than respect: “Easy A” earns adulation for originality, hilarity and verve.

‘Never Let Me Go’

For its delicate tone, provocative themes, impeccable craftsmanship and superb performances—by Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley—”Never Let Me Go” earned my great admiration. I wish I’d been affected in equal measure, but I wasn’t, and it’s not the sort of film you can will yourself to enjoy, even though you know that many others will be moved by its tale of romance, class oppression and harsh destiny.

This adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel was directed by Mark Romanek from a screenplay by Alex Garland. The book was an exceedingly slow reveal. Ever so gradually did it let the reader know that a key setting, an English boarding school called Hailsham in the 1970s, was part of an alternate sci-fi universe not unrelated to such classic dystopias as “Soylent Green.” Ever so gradually did the school’s ostensible students discover that they were carefully nurtured clones who would die after donating their organs to long-lived residents of an England they were barely aware of.

I’m revealing these plot points here only because, in recent interviews, both the director and the novelist have approved of doing so. As they see it, the potential for surprise has dwindled to nil since the book was published five years ago, while a knowledge of the premise will enhance our appreciation of the characters’ plight, and deepen our involvement in the intertwined subjects—what it means to be human, and what inhumanities may be committed in the name of science.

They’re right on both counts. It’s fascinating—or haunting, if your mind can defer to your heart—to watch the trio at the center of the story work their way through love, betrayal and reconciliation to a poignant peace with their fate. Ms. Mulligan’s performance, in particular, is a quiet triumph, thanks to the dissonance between her character’s dire circumstances and her gift for expressing wordless expectancy. Charlotte Rampling is chillingly effective as Hailsham’s stern headmistress, and Sally Hawkins distinguishes herself in the small but pivotal role of a teacher who teaches kids the truth. If only the film had offered some relief from all that poignancy and resignation. Not comedy, certainly, nor even rebelliousness, since that’s ruled out by fidelity to the literary source, but brighter sparks of life than the emotional spectrum contained. “Never Let Me Go” hardly allowed me a scintilla of hope.

‘The Town’

Ben Affleck works both sides of the camera to impressive effect in “The Town,” a dramatic thriller that fulfills its considerable ambitions. As the director, he showcases fine performances without indulging in showboating, and illuminates character without losing a beat of the throbbing pace; this movie represents a big step forward from his solid directorial debut in “Gone Baby Gone.” (The shrewd, taut script was adapted by Peter Craig, Mr. Affleck and Aaron Stockard from a novel by Chuck Hogan.) As the star, he gives one of those fine performances, though it’s an artistic toss-up between his intensity and Rebecca Hall’s lovely simplicity.

The town of the title is Charlestown, a blue-collar Boston neighborhood that’s described by a wry opening title as having spawned more robbers of banks and armored trucks than any other place in the nation. Mr. Affleck’s Doug MacRay robs banks. He and his crew usually rob them before business hours, while their doors are open to receive money from armored trucks. When one robbery goes wrong, they take the branch manager hostage—Ms. Hall’s Claire Keesey—and an unlikely yet engrossing relationship develops between her and Doug. Claire doesn’t know who he is, since he and the others wore masks, and Doug doesn’t know how to keep from falling in love with her.

You can’t blame him. Sweeping away the clichés of her character—the naiveté, the vulnerability, the neediness—Ms. Hall creates a woman whose keen intelligence is exceeded only by her yearning for a new life with the man she has just met. (The intelligence of the writing is best exemplified by a pair of lines that turn on the phrase “sunny day.”) Doug wants a new life too, but escaping his family history is more easily yearned for than achieved. That registers most powerfully during a brief prison visit with his father, Stephen (Chris Cooper) who’s not only behind bars but beyond reach in a permanent state of rage.

As a thriller, “The Town” has what it takes and then some: an electrifying performance by Jeremy Renner (“The Hurt Locker”) as Doug’s lethally volatile partner in crime; riveting work by Jon Hamm as a remorseless FBI agent; strong acting in supporting roles by Blake Lively and Pete Postlethwaite; percussive car chases through central Boston’s narrow streets. And the romantic element, though subordinate to the action, rings equally true. When Doug says “I’ll see you in Florida, kid,” you won’t mistake him for a violent dreamer played by James Cagney, but you’ll still root for him with, as well as against, your better judgment.

‘Heartbreaker’

“Heartbreaker,” in French with English subtitles, is total fluff, though its totality is reasonably agreeable, and Pascal Chaumeil’s comedy cum scenery—mainly Monte Carlo—gives the mercurial Romain Duris a chance to show his chops as an homme fatal. He plays Alex, a professional seducer who, with two other members of a team that’s supposed to parody Mission Impossible, gets paid to break up bad relationships. (At least the people who pay him think they’re bad.) Vanessa Paradis is Juliette, a headstrong playgirl in a relationship that doesn’t seem to need breaking up. The movie can be arch and awfully strenuous, especially when an obnoxious nymphomaniac named Sophie invades the premises. But here’s a chance to measure its arch before the inevitable advent of an American remake.

DVD FOCUS

‘Juno’ (2007)

If you’ve seen Ellen Page in this word feast written by Diablo Cody, it’s impossible not to think of her when you’re watching Emma Stone in “Easy A.” Which movie is better? Which actress is quicker-lipped? That’s a moot point, and an irrelevant one. The important thing is that these splendid comedies and their gifted stars deserve one another’s company. “I’m a legend,” says the pregnant Juno MacGuff wryly when her condition grows all too visible. But the film, directed by Jason Reitman, is not a cautionary tale. It’s a comedy of crisp, mordant wit and quietly radiating warmth.

‘An Education’ (2009)

Was it only last year that this tale of an English schoolgirl’s hard-won wisdom made Carey Mulligan an international star? She plays the precocious and perilously tender Jenny, who, at 16, finds the London of 1961—one year before Beatlemania—sedate if not downright sedative. Peter Sarsgaard is David, a man of the world who offers her the prospect of an education that isn’t covered by the syllabus of her private school. Alfred Molina is her father, Jack, as craven a social climber as John Cleese’s Basil in “Fawlty Towers.” Lone Scherfig directed from Nick Hornby’s script.

‘The Departed’ (2006)

Martin Scorsese’s crime drama takes place within Boston’s city limits, but it seems to have been made in a state of exultation, and holds you captive in a state of dark delight. The basic idea was inspired by “Infernal Affairs,” a 2002 action thriller from Hong Kong, and a classic of sorts. But “The Departed” has become a classic in its own right, thanks in no small measure to William Monahan’s script and to a cast that includes Leonardo DiCaprio, Jack Nicholson, Matt Damon, Vera Farmiga, Mark Wahlberg, Ray Winstone, Martin Sheen and Alec Baldwin. Michael Ballhaus did the cinematography.

Write to Joe Morgenstern at joe.morgenstern@wsj.com

By Elizabeth Garone

Q: As a LinkedIn user, I am seeing many people stating, “looking for a job opportunity” and other similar statements in their profile or status. If you are unemployed, is it good to announce that you are looking for a job this way, or does it potentially damage your image?

A: In the past, it was common to try to hide the fact that you’d lost your job. But that has changed in the current economy. “The stigma of being unemployed in this economy is almost non-existent,” says Terry Karp, career counselor and co-founder of the Bay Area Career Center in San Francisco. “It is commonly understood that many talented people have been laid off completely due to a business decision by the company, not their performance.”

While it’s acceptable to let people know that you are looking for a position, it’s important to approach it professionally and to be specific about your needs. One way to do this is to use LinkedIn’s “professional headline” to establish your identity. Ms. Karp recommends adding the words “in transition” or “seeking a new challenge” to your title. LinkedIn also gives you the opportunity to fill in a status box. “Use this area to describe contract or consulting gigs you have as well as any volunteer work you are doing,” suggests Ms. Karp. “This approach enables you to reinforce your brand through the headline as well as highlight current relevant projects.”

Dan Schawbel, author of “Me 2.0: Build a Powerful Brand to Achieve Career Success,” also believes in getting the word out. “If your network is unaware that you’re job searching, then how are they supposed to support your search?” he asks. “Visibility creates opportunities, both in marketing products and with people.”

When crafting your profile, you need to be honest, says LinkedIn spokeswoman Krista Canfield. “Don’t list on your profile or résumé that you’re doing free-lance work if you really aren’t,” she says. “Hiring managers may ask you about that free-lance work or consulting gig during the interview and if you don’t have the references to back that work up, it could count against you.”

If you aren’t doing any contract or other work, then you’ll want to at least list a position that reflects the type of role you’re seeking. For example, you could include something along the lines of: “open to free-lance and consulting work in the graphic design industry” or “seeking a challenging sales position in the real-estate sector,” suggests Ms. Canfield.

You’ll also want to update your status regularly. “Status updates remind your network that you’re looking for a position and what types of jobs you’re looking for,” she says. “Plus, you never know. Someone in your network might know someone that works at the company you’re researching.”

Andrew Ravens, assistant vice president for corporate communications at Eastern Bank in Boston, credits LinkedIn status updates for helping two friends land jobs. One friend mentioned in her update that she was moving back to the Washington, D.C., area. Mr. Ravens saw the update and immediately put her in touch with an old college roommate who works in the same field. Through the connection, the friend eventually landed a job. In the other case, a friend posted an update that she was looking for broadcast journalism work. Again, Mr. Ravens was able to connect her with someone in the field. “It made me feel really good to help them out, especially with things so tough out there,” says Mr. Ravens. “If it weren’t for their status updates, I wouldn’t have even known they were looking.”

In order to have your status updates seen, you’ll need to grow your network, say the experts. “The larger your LinkedIn network is, both in volume and in real relationships, the better your chances are at finding a job,” says Mr. Schawbel. “Most jobs come from second- and third-degree contacts anyway, so it’s not just who you know but who they know and who knows you.”

Write to ELIZABETH GARONE at cjeditor@dowjones.com