Who Needs Asset Protection?

Posted by McCullough

We are often asked when asset protection is necessary or helpful. Some believe asset protection might only be helpful once you accumulate millions of dollars in assets–but this isn’t always true. We help many wealthy clients and we also assist clients with only a few hundred thousand dollars in assets who want to protect those assets against outside liabilities.

Liability can arise for anyone. The risk of liability might come from driving a car, operating a business, being sued for professional malpractice, suffering economic downturns, engaging in bad investment deals, being subject to lawsuits, entering bankruptcy, and other similar risks. The key is to assess your specific situation and determine how to protect against those risks.

Here is a quick list of individuals who might benefit from some type of asset protection:

Professions with high liability risk (i.e. physician, dentist, attorney, accountant, engineer, and other similar professions)
Business Owners
Property Owners
Individuals who are close to retirement and want to protect retirement savings while still engaging in business ventures and other activities that might put retirement savings at risk.
Individuals who have accumulated substantial equity in real property, savings, or investments which with individual needs or wants to protect.

There are many ways to protect your assets such as maintaining liability insurance, using business entities for your business (corporations, LLCs, etc.), creating irrevocable trusts, and various other strategies. No two situations are exactly alike and everyone has different goals and risk tolerance. Finding the right solution to reach your goal is important.

To begin protecting your assets, we generally recommend that clients obtain adequate insurance coverage that frequently exceeds the minimum requirements. We can then analyze your situation and the available options to determine a plan that is unique to your situation.

Timing is important. It is essential to consider asset protection before a claim or liability arises. You can greatly reduce your risk exposure by implementing a plan before you are facing a claim or liability.

Hopefully, you will never need to test your asset protection plan. In any case, you will want the peace of mind and comfort of knowing that your plan will work and your assets are protected and can withstand lawsuits and unforeseen circumstances. We provide a free consultation to help you determine the most effective and appropriate asset protection strategy for your situation.

IRS Private Letter Ruling 201310002 – NING Trust

Posted by McCullough

The IRS Private Letter Ruling below approved the intended income tax treatment of a Nevada Incomplete Non-grantor Trust (NING Trust). It confirmed the intent of the grantor that the NING Trust was a Nevada resident for income tax purposes which results in no state income tax to the trust. This provides huge potential for income tax savings.

Date: November 7, 2012

Refer Reply To: CC:PSI:B04 – PLR-120843-12

Re: * * *
LEGEND:

Date 1 = * * *
Grantor = * * *
Trust = * * *
Trustee = * * *
Son 1 = * * *
Son 2 = * * *
Son 3 = * * *
Son 4 = * * *

Dear * * *:

This letter responds to correspondence, dated October 12, 2012, and prior correspondence, requesting rulings under §§ 671, 2501, and 2514 of the Internal Revenue Code.

The facts submitted and representations made are as follows. On Date 1, Grantor created an irrevocable trust (Trust) for the benefit of himself and his issue, Son 1, Son 2, Son 3, and Son 4, and their issue. A corporate trustee (Trustee) is the sole trustee. During Grantor’s lifetime, Trustee must distribute such amounts of net income and principal to Grantor and his issue as directed by the Distribution Committee and/or Grantor, as follows: (1) At any time, Trustee, pursuant to the direction of a majority of the Distribution Committee members, with the written consent of Grantor, shall distribute to Grantor or Grantor’s issue such amounts of the net income or principal as directed by the Distribution Committee (Grantor’s Consent Power); (2) At any time, Trustee, pursuant to the direction of all of the Distribution Committee members, other than Grantor, shall distribute to Grantor or Grantor’s issue such amounts of the net income or principal as directed by the Distribution Committee (Unanimous Member Power); and (3) At any time, Grantor, in a nonfiduciary capacity, may, but shall not be required to, distribute to any one or more of Grantor’s issue, such amounts of the principal (including the whole thereof) as Grantor deems advisable to provide for the health, maintenance, support and education of Grantor’s issue (Grantor’s Sole Power). The Distribution Committee may direct that distributions be made equally or unequally and to or for the benefit of any one or more of the beneficiaries of Trust to the exclusion of others. Any net income not distributed by Trustee will be accumulated and added to principal. The Distribution Committee is initially composed of Grantor and Sons 1 through 4. The Distribution Committee will cease to exist upon Grantor’s death.

Trust provides that at all times at least two “Eligible Individuals” must be members of the Distribution Committee. An “Eligible Individual” means a member of the class consisting of the adult issue of Grantor, the parent of a minor issue of Grantor, and the legal guardian of a minor issue of Grantor. A vacancy on the Distribution Committee must be filled by the eldest of Grantor’s adult issue other than any issue already serving as a member of the Distribution Committee, or if none of Grantor’s issue not already serving as a member of the Distribution Committee is an adult, then the legal guardian of the eldest minor issue shall serve, or if such minor issue does not have a legal guardian, then the parent of such minor issue. If at any time fewer than two Eligible Individuals are members of the committee, the Distribution Committee shall be deemed not to exist.

Trustee, pursuant to the direction of the Distribution Committee, shall, at any time or times prior to or upon the distribution date, distribute to the trustee or trustees of any one or more qualified trusts such amounts of the net income and/or principal of Trust (including the whole thereof) as the Distribution Committee determines. Any such distribution shall be added to the principal of such qualified trust and disposed of in accordance with the terms of such qualified trust. No distribution or transfer may be made to a qualified trust unless made pursuant to the direction of the Distribution Committee.

Upon Grantor’s death, the remaining balance of Trust shall be distributed to or for the benefit of any person or persons or entity or entities, other than Grantor’s estate, Grantor’s creditors, or the creditors of Grantor’s estate, as Grantor may appoint by will. In default of the exercise of this limited power to appoint (Grantor’s Testamentary Power), the balance of Trust will be distributed, per stirpes, to Grantor’s then living issue in further trust. If none of Grantor’s issue is then living, such balance shall be distributed, per stirpes, to the then living issue of Grantor’s deceased father.

You have requested the following rulings:

During the period the Distribution Committee is serving, no portion of the items of income, deductions, and credits against tax of Trust shall be included in computing the taxable income, deductions, and credits of Grantor under § 671.
The contribution of property to Trust by Grantor is not a completed gift subject to federal gift tax.
Any distribution of property by the Distribution Committee from Trust to Grantor will not be a completed gift subject to federal gift tax, by any member of the Distribution Committee.
Any distribution of property by the Distribution Committee from Trust to any beneficiary of Trust, other than Grantor, will not be a completed gift subject to federal gift tax, by any member of the Distribution Committee.

RULING 1
Section 671 provides that where it is specified in subpart E of Part I of subchapter J that the grantor or another person shall be treated as the owner of any portion of a trust, there shall then be included in computing the taxable income and credits of the grantor or the other person those items of income, deductions, and credits against tax of the trust which are attributable to that portion of the trust to the extent that such items would be taken into account under chapter 1 in computing taxable income or credits against the tax of an individual.

Section 672(a) provides that, for purposes of subpart E, the term “adverse party” means any person having a substantial beneficial interest in the trust which would be adversely affected by the exercise or nonexercise of the power which he possesses respecting the trust.

Sections 673 through 677 specify the circumstances under which the grantor is treated as the owner of a portion of a trust.

Section 673(a) provides that the grantor shall be treated as the owner of any portion of a trust in which the grantor has a reversionary interest in either the corpus or the income therefrom, if, as of the inception of that portion of the trust, the value of such interest exceeds 5 percent of the value of such portion.

Section 674(a) provides, in general, that the grantor shall be treated as the owner of any portion of a trust in respect of which the beneficial enjoyment of the corpus or the income therefrom is subject to a power of disposition, exercisable by the grantor or a nonadverse party, or both, without the approval or consent of any adverse party.

Section 674(b) provides that § 674(a) shall not apply to the power in § 674(b)(5) regardless of by whom held. Section 674(b)(5)(A) describes a power to distribute corpus to or for a beneficiary provided that the power is limited by a reasonably definite standard which is set forth in the trust instrument.

Section 674(b)(3) provides that § 674(a) shall not apply to a power exercisable only by will, other than a power in the grantor to appoint by will the income of the trust where the income is accumulated for such disposition by the grantor or may be so accumulated in the discretion of the grantor or a nonadverse party, or both, without the approval or consent of any adverse party.

Under § 675 and applicable regulations, the grantor is treated as the owner of any portion of a trust if, under the terms of the trust agreement or circumstances attendant to its operation, administrative control is exercisable primarily for the benefit of the grantor rather than the beneficiary of the trust.

Section 676(a) provides that the grantor shall be treated as the owner of any portion of a trust, whether or not he is treated as such owner under any other provision of part I, subchapter J, chapter 1, where at any time the power to revest in the grantor title to such portion is exercisable by the grantor or a nonadverse party, or both.

Section 677(a) provides, in general, that the grantor shall be treated as the owner of any portion of a trust, whether or not he is treated as such owner under § 674, whose income without the approval or consent of any adverse party is, or, in the discretion of the grantor or a nonadverse party, or both, may be (1) distributed to the grantor or the grantor’s spouse; (2) held or accumulated for future distribution to the grantor or the grantor’s spouse; or (3) applied to the payment of premiums on policies of insurance on the life of the grantor or the grantor’s spouse.

Section 678(a) provides that a person other than the grantor shall be treated as the owner of any portion of a trust with respect to which: (1) such person has a power exercisable solely by himself to vest the corpus or the income therefrom in himself, or (2) such person has previously partially released or otherwise modified such a power and after the release or modification retains such control as would, within the principles of §§ 671-677, inclusive, subject a grantor of a trust to treatment as the owner thereof.

Based solely on the facts submitted and representations made, we conclude an examination of Trust reveals none of the circumstances that would cause Grantor to be treated as the owner of any portion of Trust under §§ 673, 674, 676, or 677. Because none of the other Distribution Committee members has a power exercisable solely by himself to vest Trust income or corpus in himself, none shall be treated as the owner of any portion of the Trust under § 678(a).

We further conclude that an examination of Trust reveals none of the circumstances that would cause administrative controls to be considered exercisable primarily for the benefit of Grantor under § 675. Thus, the circumstances attendant on the operation of Trust will determine whether Grantor will be treated as the owner of any portion of Trust under § 675. This is a question of fact, the determination of which must be deferred until the federal income tax returns of the parties involved have been examined by the office with responsibility for such examination.
RULINGS 2 AND 3
Section 2501(a)(1) provides that a tax is imposed for each calendar year on the transfer of property by gift during such calendar year by any individual, resident or nonresident. Section 2511(a) provides that the tax imposed by § 2501 applies whether the transfer is in trust or otherwise, whether the gift is direct or indirect, and whether the property is real or personal, tangible or intangible.

Section 25.2511-2(b) of the Gift Tax Regulations provides that a gift is complete as to any property, or part thereof or interest therein, of which the donor has so parted with dominion and control as to leave in the donor no power to change its disposition, whether for the donor’s own benefit or for the benefit of another. But if upon a transfer of property (whether in trust or otherwise) the donor reserves any power over its disposition, the gift may be wholly incomplete, or may be partially complete and partially incomplete, depending upon all the facts in the particular case. Accordingly, in every case of a transfer of property subject to a reserved power, the terms of the power must be examined and its scope determined.

Section 25.2511-2(b) also provides an example where the donor transfers property to another in trust to pay the income to the donor or accumulate it in the discretion of the trustee, and the donor retains a testamentary power to appoint the remainder among the donor’s descendants. The regulation concludes that no portion of the transfer is a completed gift. However, if the donor had not retained a testamentary power of appointment, but instead provided that the remainder should go to X or his heirs, the entire transfer would be a completed gift.

Section 25.2511-2(c) provides that a gift is incomplete in every instance in which a donor reserves the power to revest the beneficial title in himself or herself. A gift is also incomplete if and to the extent that a reserved power gives the donor the power to name new beneficiaries or to change the interests of the beneficiaries as between themselves unless the power is a fiduciary power limited by a fixed or ascertainable standard.

Section 25.2511-2(e) provides that a donor is considered as himself having a power if it is exercisable by him in conjunction with any person not having a substantial adverse interest in the disposition of the transferred property or the income therefrom.

Section 25.2511-2(f) provides that the relinquishment or termination of a power to change the beneficiaries of transferred property, occurring otherwise than by death of the donor, is regarded as the event which completes the gift and causes the gift tax to apply.

Section 25.2511-2(g) provides that if a donor transfers property to himself as trustee (or to himself and some other person, not possessing a substantial adverse interest, as trustees), and retains no beneficial interest in the trust property and no power over it except fiduciary powers, the exercise or nonexercise of which is limited by a fixed or ascertainable standard, to change the beneficiaries of the transferred property, the donor has made a completed gift and the entire value of the transferred property is subject to the gift tax.

Section 25.2511-2(e) does not define “substantial adverse interest.” Section 25.2514-3(b)(2) provides, in part, that a taker in default of appointment under a power has an interest that is adverse to an exercise of the power. Section 25.2514-3(b)(2) also provides that a coholder of a power is considered as having an adverse interest where he may possess the power after the possessor’s death and may exercise it at that time in favor of himself, his estate, his creditors, or the creditors of his estate.

In Estate of Sanford v. Commissioner, 308 U.S. 39 (1939), the taxpayer created a trust for the benefit of named beneficiaries and reserved the power to revoke the trust in whole or in part, and to designate new beneficiaries other than himself. Six years later, in 1919, the taxpayer relinquished the power to revoke the trust, but retained the right to change the beneficiaries. In 1924, the taxpayer relinquished the right to change the beneficiaries. The court stated that the taxpayer’s gift is not complete, for purposes of the gift tax, when the donor has reserved the power to determine those others who would ultimately receive the property. Accordingly, the court held that the taxpayer’s gift was complete in 1924, when he relinquished his right to change the beneficiaries of the trust. A grantor’s retention of a power to change the beneficial interests in a trust causes the transfer to the trust to be incomplete for gift tax purposes, even though the power may be defeated by the actions of third parties.Goldstein v. Commisisoner, 37 T.C. 897 (1962). See also Estate of Goelet v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. 352 (1968).

In this case, Grantor retained the Grantor’s Consent Power over the income and principal of Trust. Under § 25.2511-2(e), a donor is considered as himself having a power if it is exercisable by him in conjunction with any person not having a substantial adverse interest in the disposition of the transferred property or the income therefrom. The Distribution Committee members are not takers in default for purposes of § 25.2514-3(b)(2). They are merely coholders of the power. The Distribution Committee ceases to exist upon the death of Grantor. Under § 25.2514-3(b)(2), a coholder of a power is only considered as having an adverse interest where he may possess the power after the possessor’s death and may exercise it at that time in favor of himself, his estate, his creditors, or the creditors of his estate. In this case, the Distribution Committee ceases to exist upon Grantor’s death. Accordingly, the Distribution Committee members do not have interests adverse to Grantor under § 25.2514-3(b)(2) and for purposes of § 25.2511-2(e). Therefore, Grantor is considered as possessing the power to distribute income and principal to any beneficiary himself because he retained the Grantor’s Consent Power. The retention of this power causes the transfer of property to Trust to be wholly incomplete for federal gift tax purposes.

Grantor also retained the Grantor’s Sole Power over the principal of Trust. Under § 25.2511-2(c), a gift is incomplete if and to the extent that a reserved power gives the donor the power to name new beneficiaries or to change the interests of the beneficiaries. In this case, Grantor’s Sole Power gives Grantor the power to change the interests of the beneficiaries. Accordingly, the retention of the Grantor’s Sole Power causes the transfer of property to Trust to be wholly incomplete for federal gift tax purposes.

Further, Grantor retained Grantor’s Testamentary Power to appoint the property in Trust to any person or persons or entity or entities, other than Grantor’s estate, Grantor’s creditors, or the creditors of Grantor’s estate. Under § 25.2511-2(b) the retention of a testamentary power to appoint the remainder of a trust is considered a retention of dominion and control over the remainder. Accordingly, the retention of this power causes the transfer of property to Trust to be incomplete with respect to the remainder in Trust for federal gift tax purposes.

Finally, the Distribution Committee possesses the Unanimous Member Power over income and principal. This power is not a condition precedent to Grantor’s powers. Grantor’s powers over the income and principal are presently exercisable and not subject to a condition precedent. Grantor retains dominion and control over the income and principal of Trust until the Distribution Committee members exercise their Unanimous Member Power. Accordingly, this power does not cause the transfer of property to be complete for federal gift tax purposes. See Goldstein v. Commissioner, 37 T.C. 897 (1962); Estate of Goelet v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. 352 (1968).

Accordingly, based on the facts submitted and the representations made, we conclude that the contribution of property to Trust by Grantor is not a completed gift subject to federal gift tax. Any distribution from Trust to Grantor is merely a return of Grantor’s property. Therefore, we conclude that any distribution of property by the Distribution Committee from Trust to Grantor will not be a completed gift subject to federal gift tax, by any member of the Distribution Committee. Further, upon Grantor’s death, the fair market value of the property in Trust is includible in Grantor’s gross estate for federal estate tax purposes.
RULING 4
Section 2514(b) provides that the exercise or release of a general power of appointment created after October 21, 1942, shall be deemed a transfer of property by the individual possessing such power.

Section 2514(c) provides that the term “general power of appointment” means a power which is exercisable in favor of the individual possessing the power (possessor), the possessor’s estate, the possessor’s creditors, or the creditors of the individual’s estate.

Section 25.2514-1(c)(1) provides, in part, that a power of appointment is not a general power if by its terms it is exercisable only in favor of one or more designated persons or classes other than the possessor or his creditors, or the possessor’s estate or the creditors of the estate.

Section 2514(c)(3)(A) provides, that in the case of a power of appointment created after October 21, 1942, if the power is exercisable by the possessor only in conjunction with the creator of the power, such power is not deemed a general power of appointment.

Section 2514(c)(3)(B) provides, that in the case of a power of appointment created after October 21, 1942, if the power is not exercisable by the possessor except in conjunction with a person having a substantial interest in the property subject to the power, which is adverse to the exercise of the power in favor of the possessor, such power shall not be deemed a general power of appointment. For purposes of § 2514(c)(3)(b), a person who, after the death of the possessor, may be possessed of a power of appointment (with respect to the property subject to the possessor’s power) which he may exercise in his own favor shall be deemed as having an interest in the property and such interest shall be deemed adverse to such exercise of the possessor’s power.

Section 25.2514-3(b)(2) provides, in part, that a coholder of a power has no adverse interest merely because of his joint possession of the power nor merely because he is a permissible appointee under a power. However, a coholder of a power is considered as having an adverse interest where he may possess the power after the possessor’s death and may exercise it at that time in favor of himself, his estate, his creditors, or the creditors of his estate. Thus, for example, if X, Y, and Z held a power jointly to appoint among a group of persons which includes themselves and if on the death of X the power will pass to Y and Z jointly, then Y and Z are considered to have interests adverse to the exercise of the power in favor of X. Similarly, if on Y’s death the power will pass to Z, Z is considered to have an interest adverse to the exercise of the power in favor of Y.

The powers held by the Distribution Committee members under the Grantor’s Consent Power are powers that are exercisable only in conjunction with the creator, Grantor. Accordingly, under § 2514(c)(3)(A), the Distribution Committee members do not possess general powers of appointment by virtue of possessing this power. Further, the powers held by the Distribution Committee members under the Unanimous Member Powers are not general powers of appointment. As in the example in § 25.2514-3(b)(2), the Distribution Committee members have substantial adverse interests in the property subject to this power. Accordingly, any distribution made from Trust to a beneficiary, other than Grantor, pursuant to the exercise of these powers, the Grantor’s Consent Power and the Unanimous Member Powers, are not gifts by the Distribution Committee members. Instead, such distributions are gifts by Grantor.

Based upon the facts submitted and representations made, we conclude that any distribution of property by the Distribution Committee from Trust to any beneficiary of Trust, other than Grantor, will not be a completed gift subject to federal gift tax, by any member of the Distribution Committee. Further, we conclude that any distribution of property from Trust to a beneficiary, other than Grantor, will be a completed gift by Grantor.

Except as specifically ruled herein, we express no opinion on the federal tax consequences of the transaction under the cited provisions or under any other provisions of the Code. Specifically, we express no opinion on the trust provisions permitting Trustee to distribute income or principal to trustees of other qualified trusts (decanting).

In accordance with the Power of Attorney on file with this office, a copy of this letter is being sent to your authorized representative.

The rulings contained in this letter are based upon information and representations submitted by the taxpayer and accompanied by a penalty of perjury statement executed by an appropriate party. While this office has not verified any of the material submitted in support of the request for rulings, it is subject to verification on examination.

This ruling is directed only to the taxpayer who requested it. Section 6110(k)(3) provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent.

Sincerely yours,

Lorraine E. Gardner
Senior Counsel, Branch 4
Office of Associate Chief Counsel
(Passthroughs and Special
Industries)

Transferable Offshore Trust Fails

Posted by McCullough

Some asset protection promoters tout a transferable offshore trust strategy which begins onshore in the U.S. and shifts offshore at the first sign of duress. Such strategies initially hold assets in a U.S. entity or domestic asset protection trust (DAPT) and then shift or transfer to an offshore jurisdiction when the client is under duress.

An Ohio judge recently froze the assets of a limited partnership that was owned by a Cook Islands Trust. The asset protection promoter had told the client they could shift the partnership interests offshore at the first sign of duress. This is the same asset protection strategy and the same failing result as in the Indiana Investors case. (See Indiana Investors, LLC v. Hammon-Whiting Medical Center, LLC No. 45D02-0807-CT-201 (Lake Superior Court, Lake County, Indiana); Indiana Investors v. Victor Fink, No. 12-CH-02253 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division), Victor Fink transferred assets to a Cook Islands trust provided by one of the popular asset protection providers found on the internet who claimed that the control could be shifted offshore in the event of duress. The plaintiffs were able to obtain temporary restraining orders which prevented the trustees and protectors from shifting the control to the offshore trustee (South Pac Trust International, Inc.) and the bank accounts were all frozen.)

The weakness of this strategy is not only proven by court cases, but it is emphasized by experts in the field of asset protection. In fact, some are calling the this strategy legal malpractice.

Jay Adkisson had this to say about the asset protection strategy of shifting assets from a domestic entity to an offshore trust (FAPT) when under duress: “It is, quite arguably, malpractice for a planner to leave unencumbered U.S. assets owned by [a] FAPT, directly or indirectly, in the U.S. and within reach of creditors.”

Gideon Rothschild said, ” This seems to be the typical structure employed by many lawyers. They tell the clients they can keep the assets in the US in an FLP that you control and then upon an event such as a lawsuit the trustee is informed that he should take necessary steps to cause the FLP to be liquidated. In fact many of these structures will also have a US co-trustee so they don’t even have to file Form 3520 until US trustee resigns. I’ve told such settlors that this is a recipe for disaster. Not only will it expose the assets to what is happening in this case – the US court’s jurisdiction and attachment orders – but could also put the settlor in jail for contempt since he, as the GP, will have to take the steps needed to move the account offshore at a time when the clouds have already formed. That is why I will only settle foreign trusts where the client has liquid assets that he is willing to place offshore from day one. Otherwise, one needs to use other (domestic) strategies.”

TrustCo case shows importance of timing in asset protection.

Posted by McCullough

The most important factor in almost every asset protection case is the timing between the time the assets were transferred and the time of the creditor’s claim. In TrustCo Bank v. Mathews, the court held that a plaintiff was barred from bringing a fraudulent transfer claim because the statute of limitations had run. Susan Mathews signed a personal guaranty in 2006. A few months later she transferred stock to a couple of Delaware asset protection trusts. The plaintiffs brought a fraudulent transfer claim against the trusts on March 1, 2013 and the court ruled that the claim was barred because the statute of limitations on fraudulent transfers had run. This case is interesting because the transfer actually occurred after Susan had incurred an obligation. Because the transfer occurred after the obligation, the transfer probably would have been voidable as a fraudulent transfer if not for the statute of limitations. In other words, the planning worked only because of the timing between the date of the transfer and the date of the fraudulent transfer action.

The Early Bird Keeps the High Value Assets

Posted by McCullough

The ability to safeguard what you have is something indispensable in business, especially when a company runs into adversity. Asset protection is much more complex than simply deciding which things are untouchable. Most people are not ready for everything they will need to do to get it done. Fortunately, there are a few rules that can help guide business owners on how to cover their losses when the need arises.

Planning Ahead

The first rule is to start making plans to put assets out of harm’s way as soon as they get them. This is because liability claims can spring up faster than most think. There are many methods that owners can use to protect their effects before someone else lays claim to it, but there are precious few that can help them after the fact.

Failing to plan sooner than later often results in the loss of assets. Attempting to conduct asset protection after a claim arises would likely make things worse instead of better. This is because it makes the owner look like they are hastily shoving assets down, rather than securing something that is rightfully theirs.

Fallout of Tardiness

If a liability does not end up in an owner’s favor, a judge can do much more than undo the transfer of the asset so that an owner ends up with roughly what they had at the start. A decision can make the owner liable for the attorney’s fees of whoever raised the claims. This effectively removes filing for bankruptcy as a relief to keep the lawyers and the banks from taking absolutely everything.

Being proactive, and making the first move is the first thing business owners needs to learn when it comes to keeping as much of their effects intact. Still, there’s more to asset protection that being an early bird. Contact us today for all the information you need to know, from asset protection to estate planning. At McCullough & Sparks, we offer free consultation, as well.

What is a 541 Trust®?

Posted by McCullough

We use the 541 Trust® name to refer to an irrevocable asset protection trust built upon a foundation of generations of proven legal precedent. A 541 Trust® is a domestic, irrevocable, non-self-settled trust carefully designed to provide the best asset protection while at the same time affording maximum flexibility. The 541 Trust® is not a new school of thought nor is it based on foreign laws. We have carefully researched generations of legal precedent right here in the U.S. to find strategies that have always worked and design our trusts in compliance.

Assets owned by you are within reach of your creditors. Likewise, absent a fraudulent transfer, assets not owned by you cannot be reached by your creditors. If asset protection is a key goal in your estate planning, you must somehow remove the assets from your personal ownership. The best way to remove assets from your ownership is through the use of a properly crafted irrevocable trust. Because our trusts are drafted in compliance with U.S. laws, and are supported by generations of legal precedent, they provide the best possible protection.

Public policy and generations of legal precedent are clear: you cannot settle a trust for your own benefit and at the same time shield the trust assets from your potential creditors. Offshore Trusts and Domestic Self-Settled Asset Protection trusts (DAPTs) are self-settled, which is a fatal chink in the supposed armor of these types of trusts. Even though some states and offshore jurisdictions purport to allow self-settled asset protection trusts, it is important to see what the courts have made clear–the only court cases dealing with Offshore Trusts or DAPTs have shown that they fail to protect the assets.[i] Despite an abundance of promotion and marketing, self-settled trusts (DAPTs and Offshore Trusts) have zero wins when challenged in court. The Uniform Trust Code states that a creditor of a settlor may reach the maximum amount that can be distributed to or for the settlor’s benefit.[ii] In other words, if a settlor who is also a beneficiary has access to trust cash, property, vehicles, etc., so does a creditor. It is hard to argue that an Offshore Trust or a DAPT is the best solution based on their dismal record when challenged in court.

Generations of legal precedent have made clear that the only type of trust which has withstood the test of time as a proven method of asset protection is a non-self-settled trust (a.k.a. a third party trust or our 541 Trust®). This means that the settlor of the trust creates the trust for beneficiaries other than him/herself.[iii]

Our 541 Trust® protects assets from a person’s potential future liabilities by removing the assets from the person’s legal and personal ownership. Rather than employing new strategies which have not been tested or strategies which rely on the laws of foreign jurisdictions, the 541 Trust® is designed using methods which have been successfully tested in lawsuits, bankruptcy, and IRS audits in the U.S. legal system. The 541 Trust® has been proven to work better than offshore trusts and other asset protection strategies. Frankly, the name of the trust is of little importance. The important part of the 541 Trust® is its craftsmanship. Our years of experience and dedication to building trusts upon a tried and tested legal foundation is the key value to our asset protection trusts. After all, what good is a trust if it fails when challenged? The legal precedent speaks for itself.

[i] In re Mortensen, Battley v. Mortensen, (Adv. D.Alaska, No. A09-90036-DMD, May 26, 2011), Waldron v. Huber (In re Huber), 2013 WL 2154218 (Bk.W.D.Wa., Slip Copy, May 17, 2013), Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan 624 F. Supp 2d 970 (N.D.Ill. 2009), 11 U.S.C. 548(e), More offshore self-settled trust cases HERE.

[ii] Uniform Trust Code Section 505, Restatement (Second) of Trusts Section 156(2), and Restatement (Third) of Trusts Section 58(2).

[iii] “By establishing an irrevocable trust in favor of another, a settlor, in effect, gives her assets to the third party as a gift. Once conveyed, the assets no longer belong to the settlor and are no more subject to the claims of her creditors than if the settlor had directly transferred title to the third party.” In re Jane McLean Brown, D. C. Docket No. 01-14026-CV-DLG (11th Cir. 2002).

IRS Approved NING Trust provides Substantial Tax Savings

Posted by McCullough

For many years, we have helped clients reduce income taxes by using a Nevada trust often referred to as a “NING Trust” (Nevada Incomplete Gift Non-Grantor Trust). In PLR 20131002, the IRS approved this concept by ruling that the trust qualified as a complex trust for income tax purposes and that gifts to the trust were incomplete for federal gift tax purposes. In other words, a person can transfer assets of unlimited value to a NING Trust without gift tax consequences. The income of the NING Trust is taxed at the trust level and does not flow through to the grantor. Because Nevada has no state income tax there is huge potential for income tax savings. Here are three examples of how a NING trust can save taxes:

A California resident can avoid the 13.3% California tax on investment assets or capital gains. For example, assume a California resident establishes a properly structured [NING] trust and contributes a $20 million stock portfolio that produces 8% taxable income per year. Over a period of 10 years, the California income tax saved could be $2,500,000. Over 20 years, the compounded savings from not paying California income tax could be $8,500,000. (See Gordon Schaller & The 13.3% Solution: of DINGs, NINGs, WINGs and Other ThINGs, LISI Estate Planning Newsletter #2191 (February 5, 2014)).

As another example, we have a client who placed his stock into a NING trust prior to a sale of his company. When the stock was sold by the NING trust, the client saved over $5,000,000 in state capital gains taxes. Later, when the trustee terminated the trust and distributed the assets back to the client, the client was not required to pay state capital gains tax on the distribution because the state does not tax capital gains distributed from a nonresident trust.

As a third example, a professional athlete transferred the majority of his investment portfolio to a NING trust. The athlete pays federal and state tax on his W-2 earnings and on the investments he holds outside of the NING trust. The athlete is not required to pay state tax on the investment income earned by the trust, and this allows the trust to grow free of state income tax.

Call 801-765-0279 for more information or click HERE to email us.

The information and examples above are provided as general information and may not be used as tax advice for any particular situation. Each person should seek individualized tax advice for their own situation.

Why Self-Settled Asset Protection Trusts Don’t Protect Assets

Posted by McCullough

Don’t Self-Settle for Inadequate Asset Protection

Why Self-Settled Asset Protection Trusts Don’t Protect Assets

By: Randall Sparks, JD LL.M. and Lee S. McCullough, III, JD MAcc

Click HERE for pdf verison

Self-Settled Asset Protection Trusts are all the rage. They come in two main flavors: (1) The Domestic Asset Protection Trust (“DAPT”) and (2) the Offshore Trust, aka Foreign Asset Protection Trust (“FAPT”). To boost in-state trust business, about a dozen states have passed or are actively improving their self-settled asset protection trust statutes … and that number is growing. Although self-settled trusts are heavily promoted by asset protection attorneys across the county, all of the relevant court cases indicate that if asset protection is your goal, you should find a more viable option.

If self-settled trusts are inadequate for asset protection, why do attorneys go to such lengths to sell them? The answer is simple: Money. Asset protection promoters market them heavily promising maximum protection and make big profits in the process. They do this despite zero court authority in existence that upholds self-settled asset protection trusts. Promoters also ignore the many court cases showing that self-settled trusts simply don’t afford the promised asset protection benefits.

What is a Self-Settled Asset Protection Trust?

There are three parties to any trust agreement: (1) a Settlor, who creates the trust and funds it with assets, (2) a Trustee, who holds legal title to the assets in trust for the beneficiaries, and (3) the Beneficiaries, who are eligible to receive benefits from the trust. In most trusts, the Settlor and Beneficiary are different people. In a self-settled trust, the Settlor is also a Beneficiary. In concept, the idea is incredible: contribute any amount of property to the trust and while creditors can’t touch it, you can enjoy it as much as you want. The reality is that these arrangements just don’t work as advertised.

Public policy has long been clear that you cannot settle a trust for your own benefit and at the same time shield the trust assets from your potential creditors. The Uniform Trust Code states that a creditor of a settlor may reach the maximum amount that can be distributed to or for the settlor’s benefit.[1] In other words, if a Settlor/Beneficiary has access to trust cash, property, vehicles, etc., so does a creditor.

Offshore jurisdictions were the first to market self-settled trusts by promising protections in a foreign jurisdiction that is not bound by the laws of the United States. In 1997, Alaska was the first state to enact a DAPT statute. Since then, over a dozen United States jurisdictions have enacted DAPT statutes. However, creditor attorneys have developed successful techniques to pierce these trusts. By frequently siding with creditors in these cases, courts have rebuffed the zeal of offshore and domestic jurisdictions to establish and promote self-settled trusts as superior asset protection tools.

Court Cases Defeating Domestic Asset Protection Trusts (DAPTs)

When it comes to self-settled trusts, there is an elephant in the room and that elephant has a name: Bankruptcy. In states that don’t recognize self-settled trusts, a debtor’s interest in a self-settled trust is subject to bankruptcy.[2] The Mortensen case made clear that Federal Bankruptcy Law can even defeat a self-settled trust in states that recognize, protect, and advocate self-settled trusts.[3] In Mortensen, an Alaska resident created a self-settled trust under Alaska’s DAPT statute under ideal circumstances: he was solvent and there were no judgments against him. Several years later he ended up in a bankruptcy court sitting in Alaska. The court applied Federal Bankruptcy Law instead of Alaska law ruling that the trust assets were reachable by the creditors in the bankruptcy under Section 548(e) of the Federal Bankruptcy Code.[4]

Another problem with a DAPT is a potential lawsuit arising in a state that does not recognize or protect self-settled trusts. In Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan, the Seventh Circuit Court ruled that despite the debtor’s trust having been created in a DAPT state, Illinois law applied instead.[5] Another huge blow to DAPTs came on May 17, 2013 in Waldron v. Huber where, among other things, Washington State law applied rather than Alaska law where the DAPT was formed.[6] The result was that the trust assets were not protected. Based on the Dexia Credit and Huber cases, one shouldn’t expect that a self-settled trust will be upheld in a state that does not allow them. Numerous other cases indicate that a court can apply the law of the state where the court is located and not recognize the laws of the state where an entity was formed.[7]

If self-settled trusts don’t work in bankruptcy and don’t protect against laws of DAPT unfriendly states, then you can just avoid declaring bankruptcy and avoid contacts outside of your DAPT friendly state, right? Not so fast. Unfortunately, even if you are careful not to get sued in the wrong state and manage to avoid voluntary bankruptcy, your creditors could file an involuntary bankruptcy petition against you. The court cases and the bankruptcy code have shown that even though a self-settled trust is created pursuant to a DAPT statute, the trust is still vulnerable.

Court Cases Defeating Offshore Trusts, aka Foreign Asset Protection Trusts (FAPTs)

Many asset protection promoters claim that offshore trusts are impermeable, in contrast to the absence of a single court case to support their claims. Why do they sell a product that has such an abominable record? It’s a calculated risk that the resulting liability of a few failed trusts that are actually challenged will be vastly overshadowed by those that are never tested. In other words, they know that the majority of their clients will never get sued or go bankrupt. For those who are sued or face bankruptcy however, if the trust is self-settled, its assets are not protected.

Although promoters of FAPTs claim foreign laws protect you because the trust is not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. Courts, there are many court cases showing how offshore trusts fail. For example, it is well established that an offshore trust cannot protect onshore assets.[8] Numerous other cases show that even though a court in the United States may not have jurisdiction over the FAPT, they have jurisdiction over the debtor and can order the debtor to repatriate the trust assets or face incarceration for contempt. In In re Lawrence the debtor was jailed for over six years for refusing to repatriate assets, in Bank of America v. Weese the debtors paid settlement of over $12,000,000 in order to avoid incarceration, and in U.S. v. Plath the debtor was held in contempt for refusing to obey the court order to disclose details about offshore accounts despite the fact that there was no fraudulent transfer.[9] These are just a few lowlights of the long list of failed FAPT strategies.

For a time, offshore trust peddlers used US v. Grant as the one court case that supported their strategy, because it was the single case where a court did not hold the debtor in contempt. The purported steel bulwark of the Grant opinion came crashing down when, in the Spring of 2013, a Florida court ruled against the very strategy FAPT promoters touted, dealing a huge blow to the offshore asset protection industry.[10] In Grant, Raymond Grant created two self-settled trusts offshore (FAPTs), one for his own benefit and one for the benefit of his wife. Raymond funded both FAPTs at a time when he was solvent and had no known claims against him, once again ideal circumstances. Years later, Raymond died and the IRS obtained a $36 million dollar judgment against Raymond’s wife Arline. The U.S. moved to hold Arline in contempt of court for failing to repatriate the assets in the offshore trusts to pay the tax liability. Initially, the court refused to do so because Arline had never exerted control or received benefits from these trusts. But later when it was proven that Arline had received funds from the trust through her children’s accounts, the court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Arline and her children from ever receiving any benefits from the trusts. Ultimately a very expensive “asset protection” strategy kept the assets protected from creditors, but also out of reach of those the trust was created to benefit. If your goal is to protect assets from both creditors and yourself, an offshore trust may be a great fit. If, however, you seek any self-settled benefits at all, look elsewhere.

Solution – Non-Self-Settled Trust

The alternative to the self-settled trust is simple, remove the one aspect of the trust that creates all of its vulnerability; make the trust non-self-settled. A non-self-settled trust, aka third party trust, has the support of state and federal statutes, the federal bankruptcy code, and an overwhelming number of court cases. Since the Settlor is not a beneficiary, the creditors of the Settlor cannot reach the trust assets, even in bankruptcy.[11] A properly drafted third party trust can still benefit the settlor without disrupting the asset protection. The settlor could potentially benefit from the trust through a spouse who is a beneficiary. For example, the settlor could live in a trust owned residence free from rent so long as the spouse is a beneficiary.[12] The settlor could be an income only beneficiary and still protect the trust principal.[13] The settlor could also maintain flexibility by appointing a trust protector or through the use of a special power of appointment.

If the trust has discretionary spendthrift language, the assets are also shielded from the creditors of the beneficiaries. If Raymond Grant had created a non-self-settled discretionary spendthrift trust for his wife Arline, instead of creating the two FAPTs that failed, the assets would have been protected from the IRS judgment and Arline and other trust beneficiaries could still have benefitted from the trusts. For example, the trust could have purchased a home for Arline to live in and paid Arline’s credit card bills.[14]

If true asset protection is the goal, consumers and especially promoters should remember the old adage that pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. The court cases make it clear that a non-self-settled trust provides proven asset protection, whereas a self-settled trust lays out the welcome mat, flips on the light, and leaves the front door wide open to creditors. If you self-settle, you settle for an inferior trust.

[1] Uniform Trust Code Section 505, Restatement (Second) of Trusts Section 156(2), and Restatement (Third) of Trusts Section 58(2).

[2] Federal Bankruptcy Code 11 U.S.C. 541. See also In re Simmonds, 240 B.R. 897 (8th Cir. BAP (Minn.) 1999).

[3] In re Mortensen, Battley v. Mortensen, (Adv. D.Alaska, No. A09-90036-DMD, May 26, 2011).

[4] 11 U.S.C. 548(e).

[5] Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan 624 F. Supp 2d 970 (N.D.Ill. 2009).

[6] Waldron v. Huber (In re Huber), 2013 WL 2154218 (Bk.W.D.Wa., Slip Copy, May 17, 2013).

[7] American Institutional Partners, LLC v. Fairstar Resources, Ltd. (where Utah law applied against a Delaware-formed LLC), 2011 WL 1230074 (D.Del., Mar. 31, 2011), Malone v. Corrections Corp. Of Am., 553 F.3d 540, 543 (7th Cir. 2009) (a district court in diversity applies the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it sits).

[8] In re Brooks, 217 B.R. 98 (D. Conn. Bkrpt. 1998) (where the offshore trust was disregarded because it was self-settled and the onshore assets were seized).

[9] In re Lawrence, 279 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2002), Bank of America v. Weese, 277 B.R. 241 (D.Md. 2002), and U.S. v. Plath, 2003-1 USTC 50,729 (U.S. District Court, So. Dist. Fla. 2003).

[10] US v. Grant, 2013 WL 1729380 (S.D.Fla., April 22, 2013).

[11] Uniform Trust Code Section 505, Restatement (Second) of Trusts Section 156(2) and Restatement (Third) of Trusts Section 58(2), In re Jane McLean Brown, D. C. Docket No. 01-14026-CV-DLG (11th Cir. 2002), Shurley v. Texas Commerce Bank, 115 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1997).

[12] Revenue Ruling 70-155, Estate of Allen D. Gutchess, 46 T.C. 554 (1966), PLR 9735035.

[13] In re Jane McLean Brown, D. C. Docket No. 01-14026-CV-DLG (11th Cir. 2002).

[14] United States v. Baldwin, 391 A.2d 844 (1978) or U.S. v. O’Shaughnessy, 517 N.W.2d 574 (1994) (where the trust assets were not subject to tax lien because the trust was not self-settled).

California Court Throws Out Case Against Our Trust – Client Very Satisfied

Posted by McCullough

On June 19, 2012, the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles sustained our motion to dismiss a lawsuit by Wilmington Capital LLC against The Big Whale Trust (an irrevocable trust created by McCullough).

The grantor had funded the trust with cash and real estate prior to the time the liability was incurrred. The grantor’s spouse and children were the trustees and beneficiaries of the trust. The trustees had made several distributions to the grantor’s spouse, but the grantor was not a beneficiary and the grantor had personally received no benefits from the trust.

Wilmington Capital LLC sued the trust because it had been unable to collect against the grantor and the grantor’s spouse. Wilmington Capital LLC had no evidence to claim that the trust was invalid, that the transfers to the trust were fraudulent, or that the grantor was the alter ego of the trust. Wilmington Capital LLC argued that they should have access to the trust because the grantor had retained a special power of appointment over the trust.

Because California law protects the assets of an irrevocable non self-settled discretionary trust (even when the grantor retains a special power of appointment), our client was able to have the case summarily dismissed without incurring significant legal fees.

The Big Whale Trust is a perfect illustration of the best way to create, fund and operate an asset protection trust. Copies of the court pleadings (including our Memorandum of Points and Authorities) are available upon request.

Bankruptcy Court – Our Trust Protects Client’s Home and Trust Assets

Posted by McCullough

In 2009, our client, Todd H., transferred his home and some cash to one of our carefully drafted irrevocable trusts at a time when they were solvent and had no foreseeable liability problems. Todd’s wife was the trustee, and his wife and children were the beneficiaries. In 2010, Todd’s business went downhill along with the rest of the US economy. In 2011, Todd’s small business went bankrupt and he was also forced into personal bankruptcy. The transfer of the home to the trust was fully disclosed to the bankruptcy court, but the bankruptcy court excluded the trust and its assets pursuant to the federal bankruptcy code which provides that this type of trust is excluded from the bankruptcy estate. After losing everything else they owned in the bankruptcy, Todd’s family continues to live in the paid-off home that is owned by the trust.