Blog

0

Building Wealth The Swiss Way

The bad news is: You can’t avoid taxation. I know of only two ways to avoid taxes, both of them too drastic for us to consider: You can renounce your citizenship, or cheat on your taxes. I’m not in favor of either method of avoiding taxes. We have a voluntary system in the U.S. If you cheat, you open yourself up to a lifelong fear of getting caught. There is no statute of limitations on tax fraud.

You can renounce your citizenship, but count the cost first … Legislation has recently been proposed in the House to tax expatriates at the same rate as estate tax – an asset tax starting at estates valued at $600,000 – but it has been shot down. John Templeton’s move to the Bahamas was not tax-motivated. The cost of living is higher there, and there are many local taxes and tariffs there. The United States is still one of the lowest-taxing major nations on earth.

You may be aware that the Money Laundering Act requires you to report any cash transaction over $10,000. If you don’t file a Cash Transaction form, there are hefty fines and even prison sentences. What you may not know is that if you structure three separate $3,500 transactions instead, you could still be in trouble. If the “purpose” for doing that is to evade taxes, that, too, has been deemed a crime. READ MORE

Did the U.S. Supreme Court Really Protect IRAs from Creditors?

Bankruptcy is a two-way street.  When a debtor files for bankruptcy, many (if not all) of his outstanding debts are discharged, but in return for this protection the debtor must give up many of his assets to repay (if at least partially) those debts.  However, the debtor isn’t expected to give up all of his assets.  Federal law “exempts” certain assets from creditors’ claims in a bankruptcy, including pensions and profit-sharing plans.  Lower federal courts have split on the issue of whether IRAs are “similar” to pensions and therefore exempted from creditors’ claims under federal bankruptcy laws.  In Rousey, the U.S. Supreme Court decided this issue once and for all and held that IRAs—just like pensions and profit-sharing plans—are protected in bankruptcy proceedings.

First and foremost, it is important to understand that Rousey is a bankruptcy case.  If a debtor is not in bankruptcy, then state laws dictate whether IRAs are exempt.  Some states like Florida and Texas will exempt from creditors 100% of the value of the IRA.  Other states, such as California, have a limited state exemption, generally for the reasonable necessaries of the debtor and his dependents.

Of course, filing for bankruptcy is a decision that should always be made with due deliberation since the consequences of such decision will be far reaching.  Whether or not a debtor’s IRA will be protected may be one factor, but should not be the only factor, in determining whether filing for bankruptcy is appropriate.

Assuming that a debtor decides to file bankruptcy, the protection afforded IRAs by the federal bankruptcy laws may not be absolute.  Moreover,  the impact of the Rousey decision will vary from state to state, depending on each state’s laws.  Finally, it is not at all clear whether Rousey applies to Roth IRAs.

Limitations on the Creditor Protection of IRAs

For a number of reasons, despite the WSJ’s reporting of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rousey, there is no absolute protection for IRAs from one’s creditors.

The federal bankruptcy exemption of IRAs is limited.  The Bankruptcy Code provides that pension plans and the like, which now includes IRAs, are exempt from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate “to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor.”  This language was not at issue in the Rousey case, but lower courts have generally interpreted “support” in this context as subsistence or close to it.  Thus, if the debtor has other means of support, such as wages, it is possible that the debtor’s IRA will not be exempt from his creditors.  Likewise, if the debtor has a multi-million dollar IRA, even if the IRA is the debtor’s only source of income, federal bankruptcy laws will protect only so much of the IRA as is necessary for the debtor’s support.

State laws may dictate whether federal bankruptcy exemptions are applicable.  Federal bankruptcy laws permit each state to decide which set of bankruptcy exemptions are available to a debtor residing in that state.  Generally, a bankruptcy debtor may be able choose between a federal or state list of assets exempted from creditors (but not both) or may be required to use one list over the other.  Clearly, for bankruptcy debtors using state law exemptions (either by choice or as required), the Rousey decision is of little consequence since such debtors’ IRAs will be protected from creditors (if at all) based on state law exemptions.

Roth IRAs may not be protected under Rousey.  At issue in Rousey were “traditional” IRAs (including traditional rollover IRAs).  In finding these types of IRAs to be “similar” to other exempted retirement plans, the Supreme Court relied heavily on certain features of traditional IRAs that do not exist for Roth IRAs.   Thus, it is not clear at all that Roth IRAs will be exempt under the rationale of Rousey.  One should therefore proceed with caution before automatically assuming that all types of IRAs are protected under Rousey.

Therefore, don’t believe everything you read, especially when it come to some “pinhead” financial reporter attempting to explain complex legal decisions that are important and can influence how you structure your financial and legal affairs.  As you can see, whether a debtor’s IRA is protected from his creditors depends on a myriad of factors—including whether the debtor has filed bankruptcy, the debtor’s state of residence, and the debtor’s means of support.

0

Contempt of Court: Will I Go To Jail if I Establish An Offshore Trust?

© 2007Donlevy-Rosen & Rosen, P.A.

INTRODUCTION. The short answer is “no”. However, because of two cases, Anderson and Lawrence, a “chicken little – sky is falling” mentality has emerged among misguided planners and those with an agenda to pursue. Civil contempt incarceration in the context of asset protection planning has been the subject of a tremendous amount of commentary. Some writers seem to have “an axe to grind” in this regard, as they present half-truths and innuendos as if they were the law. Most of the information is cursory and paints the contempt issue with a broad brush to the effect that if you establish an offshore asset protection trust, you will inevitably be incarcerated. Nothing could be further from the truth. This issue examines the actual law on the subject.

BACKGROUND. What is “contempt”? The law of contempt emanates from circumstances where a court orders a party to either do something or refrain from doing something, and the party disobeys. The party is then said to be “in contempt of court”. Contempt can be of a criminal or civil nature, and this issue will only address coercive (as opposed to remedial) civil contempt as it relates to asset protection planning. The typical coercive civil contempt sanctions are per diem fines and/or open-ended incarceration. The sole purpose of those sanctions is to force compliance with a court order. The theory being that the offending party can terminate the sanction by compliance with the order. READ MORE

0

Overseas Asset Protection Trusts

A Review of “Forbes” article

MEMORANDUM


To: Valued Clients and Colleagues
From: Jeffrey M. Verdon, Esq.
Date: June 16, 1998
Subject: Overseas Asset Protection Trusts

____________________________________________________

The June 15, 1998, issue of Forbes magazine (p. 240) included an article entitled “Your trust has a hole.” In that article, the author wrote what appeared to be an unflattering expose of the efficacy of using an offshore trust to protect assets from creditors. In the piece, the author is asserting that asset protection trusts are not as effective at protecting assets as advertised by the asset protection industry. READ MORE

0

The Anderson Decision

BAD FACTS MAKE BAD LAW… A great deal of press coverage has been given to a recent Ninth Circuit appellate decision, known as the Anderson case. We have been waiting for the outcome of the court decision in the Cook Islands, attacking the validity of the asset protection trust (APT) before writing to you with our comments and position concerning this most bizarre case. Now that the Cook Islands court has issued its decision, we offer the following summary and commentary concerning the case.FACTS: The facts of the case are straightforward. Mr. and Mrs. Anderson established a Cook Islands trust and funded it, in part, with commissions paid by Affordable Media, who sold interests to unsuspecting investors who later discovered the investment appeared to be a Ponzi scheme. READ MORE