Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance) book. Happy reading Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance) Pocket Guide.
Product details

Established seller since Seller Inventory FW Book Description Wiley , Hoboken, N. Marco Gantenbein; Mario A. Marco Gantenbein ; Mario A. Publisher: Wiley , This specific ISBN edition is currently not available. View all copies of this ISBN edition:. Synopsis About this title Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance examines the key characteristics of Swiss annuities and life insurance, and explains how the use of these products can help you achieve asset protection, growth, and, in some cases, significant tax planning opportunities.

Edgar Gunther, New York, United States, former executive vice president of an international investment management company and former research director of Fortune magazine "This compendium represents the first in-depth and comprehensive analysis of the unique advantages offered by Swiss annuities and insurance for those seeking wealth preservation and tax minimization. For more information on Swiss annuities, please visit: www. Buy New Learn more about this copy. Customers who bought this item also bought. Stock Image. Published by Wiley New Hardcover Quantity Available: 2.

Seller Rating:. New Quantity Available: 2. Published by John Wiley and Sons. New Hardcover Quantity Available: New Hardcover Quantity Available: 1. Book Depository hard to find London, United Kingdom. The two basic forms of life insurance have developed into an array of life insurance products. Policies are now available with the combined characteristics of both term and permanent life insurance. Accidental Death Insurance — Term coverage which pays out upon the death of the insured, if the death results from an accident. Travel and flight insurance are examples of this type of policy.

Universal Life Insurance — Lifetime coverage that allows broader investment of cash value. Although the policy does not expire, insurance costs are typically deducted from the value of investments held within the policy. Successful investment will cover annual insurance premiums and provide a return on investment. However, insufficient investment returns could necessitate further contribution, to cover insurance costs. Similar to universal life, investment losses can create exposure to premium deficiencies if investments fail to cover insurance costs.

Several states and the U. The debtor may act as one or all of the three basic policy participants i. Typically, the protected interest is the beneficial interest supporting family income and liquidity. Any applicable state exemption should be utilized in bankruptcy to protect cash values and proceeds from policies implemented for tax and estate planning purposes.

See also 11 U. Asset Protection Cash Value Although most states do not protect the cash surrender value of whole life insurance, states like New York exempt cash values from creditors of the policy owner. Florida exempts the entire cash surrender value, but only from creditors of the insured. Cash values held by a Florida owner other than the insured are exposed.

For example, in Florida, the cash value of a policy owned by the spouse or business associate of the insured is not protected from creditors of the policy owner. Hawaii exempts the entire cash value, provided that the policy is payable at maturity to the family or dependent of the insured. In re White, F.

Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy

Florida68, New York69, Hawaii70 and Louisiana71 exempt the entire amount of life insurance proceeds. Florida excludes only creditors of the insured not creditors of the beneficiary or owner, if different from the insured. For example, a child beneficiary in Florida exposes life insurance proceeds to creditors of the child. Children beneficiaries living in Florida should typically benefit from life insurance proceeds only through a spendthrift trust. This may be accomplished by creating a trust to own and act as beneficiary of the policy. New York excludes only creditors of policy owners from insurance proceeds, depending on a myriad of circumstances.

See L. Asset Protection policy owner, with the restriction that proceeds be payable to family or dependents of the insured. Louisiana exempts all proceeds, provided that the policy was not issued within nine months of filing bankruptcy. Such creditor protections do not, however, typically apply to dependent and spousal support obligations or alimony claims.

In light of the variations in state law, thorough planning must include consideration of the state of residence and all possible exposures of the insured, owner and beneficiary. Several foreign nations shelter unlimited insurance cash values and death benefits underwritten within their borders.

Such jurisdictions include Switzerland and Lichtenstein. Foreign insurance policies are governed by foreign law which generally inhibits U. Pursuant to such policies, foreign law applies to all collection and fraudulent transfer claims associated with the policy. Also, cash values and securities held in a Asset Protection foreign policy are often located in the debtor haven, making attachment by U. In any case, if you live in a state that does not adequately shelter life insurance, several offshore jurisdictions offer a more protective alternative. Almost all states protect annuities and annuity proceeds to varying degrees.

The price of lifetime annuity payments is based on factors similar to those used to underwrite the cost of life insurance. If payments end upon a premature death unlike life insurance , the issuer gains a windfall. If, however, the annuitant lives longer than expected, he or she will receive payments exceeding the underwritten cost of the annuity. The risk analysis of underwriting an annuity is the opposite of life insurance.

The annuitant pays a one time lump sum as opposed to periodic lifetime insurance premiums. The longer the annuitant lives, the more payments the annuitant receives. With life insurance, the longer the insured pays premiums, the more the insurer earns on the policy. Annuities purchased from an insurance company are known as commercial annuities.

An annuity may also be established between family members. The annuity retained reduces the value of the taxable gift. Asset Protection estate. The grantor gives assets to a trust benefitting a charity, but retains lifetime income somewhat like an annuity from the assets donated. The irrevocable trust provides asset protection insulating the source of the income.

Ideally, the value of the tax deduction and the avoidance of capital gains and estate tax on the assets donated will be greater than the value of the gift. Annuities may be structured to pay a fixed periodic amount or a variable payment. As with variable life insurance, the amount of each periodic disbursement to the owner depends on the fluctuating market price of the investments held in the annuity.

When payments fluctuate based on investment values, the owner of the annuity assumes the risk and reaps the benefits of the fluctuating payment. Conversely, when the classic fixed payment annuity is elected, the insurer assumes the investment risk. Asset Protection Typically, states that protect life insurance also exempt annuities from creditors.

Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance)

Florida, for example, exempts annuity proceeds without a dollar limitation. The court ruled that the retained payment stream was exempt from creditors, in spite of the debtor having filed bankruptcy thirteen months after establishing the annuity contract. State, Dept. Great Northern Insured Annuity Corp. In re Gefen, 35 B. Asset Protection the parties create an annuity contract. Several states, such as Delaware82 and Pennsylvania83 only partially exempt annuity payments from creditors.

Some of the more substantial state creditor exemptions are described in Chart 4. The federal rule therefore protects only payments triggered by an immediate need. Missouri employs the federal bankruptcy standard86 and New York protects only the reasonable requirements of the debtor and dependent family. In re Solomon, 95 F. Code Ann. Cod Ann. Asset Protection and dependents are obviously difficult to anticipate as part of a creditor protection plan. Many foreign countries protect the value of annuities and annuity payments from creditors.

A Swiss annuity may under the governing Swiss law be reached only by means of a fraudulent conveyance action if i the policy owner filed for Swiss bankruptcy within a year of making or changing the beneficiary designation on the annuity or ii the beneficiary designation was made within five years of a creditor action, with the intent to defraud creditors and the beneficiaries knew of such intent. Moreover, Swiss courts cannot recognize foreign judgments filed in Switzerland to collect from Swiss annuities. Such wording prohibits the forced return of annuity assets to the jurisdiction of the annuity owner for attachment by the local creditor.

A few other countries, such as the Isle of Man, similarly protect annuities. The federal government excludes certain additional miscellaneous assets from attachment in bankruptcy. As the protections only cover the basics, they are not generally useful to protect wealth. Available only to married couples, TBE provides legal protections not available to tenants in common or joint tenants the other two forms of joint ownership. Lebanese, So. The tenancy is formed by two or more people who jointly purchase property.

Each owner enjoys a separate fractional yet undivided right to possess the entire property. Each fractional interest may be freely sold or given away during life or via testamentary devise. Co-tenancy interests are unprotected from creditors. If property is so titled, the interest held by a deceased tenant passes by law to the surviving tenant s. The interest of only one spouse in TBE property cannot be transferred, given or willed to a third party. Only a joint creditor of both husband and wife may reach TBE property.

TBE created a means of safely transferring wealth to daughters, who under the common law could not hold legal title to property. The dowry could neither be i sold by the husband without the consent of his bride or ii attached by creditors of either husband or wife. This remains the case in states which have adopted the TBE common law format. The various states differ dramatically regarding both the type of property eligible, the formalities required and the protections attributed to TBE status. Most states that allow TBE titling limit its use to real estate.

Florida, however, allows both personal property and real property to be held TBE. Florida law also presumes that real estate, stock certificates and bank accounts held by a married couple are owned TBE even if not so titled. Cacciatore v. Partnership ex rel. Emalfario Investment Corp. Unity of time.

The title taken to the property by the spouses must be established simultaneously in the same instrument. Clients and professionals such as accountants, financial planners and even attorneys frequently attempt to protect existing property and accounts titled individually by re-titling the property TBE. This is usually ineffective. New TBE accounts should be funded with cash and securities held in existing individual accounts. Business equity held individually should be redeemed and reissued or replaced with equity in a new successor entity held TBE. Unity of title.

Most frequently terms

Both spouses must hold ownership, as reflected in the title to the property originating from the same instrument. The surviving spouse is transferred sole ownership of the property upon the death of a spouse. Unity of marriage. The owners must be legally married under the law of the applicable state of residence.

Interestingly, accounts held jointly before marriage have been found not to qualify as property held TBE after the wedding. The couple must actually transfer their joint interests to themselves as TBE after the marriage. The main disadvantage of TBE ownership is joint liability. Joint liabilities in turn expose other assets held TBE if not otherwise exempt or sheltered in a protective entity. To avoid joint liability, any dangerous or active assets should be held in an independent entity, such as an LLC or trust.

The entity itself may often be held TBE without exposure to joint liability. The rules governing community property Asset Protection vary from state to state. In a community property state, the debts of either spouse depending on the state may be considered owed by both spouses. Although creditors of a single spouse cannot reach TBE property, they may often reach property located in a community property state, without regard to which spouse holds title.

In other words, titling property as husband and wife in a community property state generally provides no asset protection benefits. Creditors of one spouse in a separate property state have no claim to assets titled in the name of the other spouse. Some states impose exceptions for debt arising from necessary items such as food, but the exceptions are very limited.

The division of marital property in divorce is a related creditor protection issue. Community property is typically split evenly between divorcing spouses. Prenuptial or postnuptial agreements may, however, be implemented to alter the division of assets. The agreement Asset Protection is generally respected by all states, provided that the applicable execution formalities, legal representation and disclosure of assets are properly established. Obviously, prenuptial and postnuptial agreements should be handled by a seasoned attorney familiar with the laws applicable to the couple and their particular assets.

It is a common misconception that an individual may legally transfer valuable assets to a friend or relative to avoid attachment by a creditor. Understanding why people seek to avoid collection requires no imagination. Reactionary transfers, however, serve no legal purpose. If a debtor could avoid collection by transferring valuable assets when convenient, how could any creditor ever satisfy a judgment?

Creditors may reach assets transferred by a debtor to avoid paying a debt.

  • Defining the Atlantic Community: Culture, Intellectuals, and Policies in the Mid-Twentieth Century (Routledge Research in Atlantic Studies).
  • Dynamic Spectrum Access and Management in Cognitive Radio Networks.
  • The Plant Family Brassicaceae: Contribution Towards Phytoremediation.

The various fraudulent transfer statutes reflect a clear intent: to invalidate transfers intended to place assets beyond the reach of any existing or reasonably anticipated creditor. The more obvious the abuse associated with a transfer, the more likely the court is to apply the applicable fraudulent transfer law. Even the most established asset protection structures may be undermined if improperly funded.

Interestingly, the law typically creates only a remedy to recover assets, not an action against the debtor for money damages. All U. Until the creditor wins a Asset Protection money judgment, the creditor has no legal right to assets of the debtor. The debtor may therefore freely transfer assets before a judgment is entered. Interestingly, although U.


The trust in question cannot move assets, change jurisdictions or otherwise alter its holdings pending the outcome of litigation. Arguably, payment of one unsecured debt before another cannot give rise to a claim of fraudulent transfer. However, paying a home mortgage or a debt to a sibling, before paying an unrelated creditor, may be viewed with judicial scrutiny.

Mareva Compania Naviera SA v.

Xomis Videos - Dailymotion

A freezing order is a court order preventing a defendant from transferring assets until the outcome of the associated lawsuit is decided. If the creditor can prove that the debtor transferred title to avoid a debt, the asset may be recovered from the recipient. Creditors unknown to the debtor at the time of the transfer cannot be the subject of intentional avoidance and have no claim to the assets transferred. Planning remains the key to successful protective transfers.

The key is to plan unforeseen potential creditors out of a remedy. The timing of transfers in relation to medical malpractice makes clear the intentions of a surgeon. Before surgery, any asset protection is pure planning and therefore outside the realm of intentional fraudulent conveyance.

Consider whether a court would find fraudulent intent regarding a protective transfer made immediately after the surgery based only on an indication of potential malpractice, like excessive bleeding. Intentions become clearer if exposed assets are transferred upon discovery of troubling symptoms. Any protective transfer made after a malpractice claim is obviously intended to avoid the claim.

A review of the historical development of English common law may be helpful in understanding the subtleties of fraudulent transfer law. During the sixteenth century, the Statute of Elizabeth codified the English common law governing fraudulent transfers. As a result, creditors were not compelled to start collection proceedings within any fixed period after the transfer. Early fraudulent transfer cases required proof that the debtor intended to evade the creditor. The courts developed certain objective standards suggesting malicious intent.

Asset Protection The English colonies and former colonies adopted the Statute of Elizabeth with varying periods of limitation for creditor claims. Short filing periods are not unique to foreign jurisdictions. Fraudulent transfer remedies were first enacted into statute in the U. The two Acts are generally similar. The Asset Protection determination of which fraudulent transfer law will apply is influenced by the residence of the transferor, transferee and creditor as well as the location of the property.

Under UFTA, a creditor must bring a fraudulent transfer action no later than i four years after the transfer was made or ii within one year after the transfer was or could reasonably have been discovered whenever that may be. Compare the UFTA limitations period with Nevada, where the creditor must bring suit no later than i two years after transfer or ii six months after discovery. Protective transfers otherwise remain exposed until the creditor becomes or should become aware that assets have been sheltered.

Several foreign debtor havens have eliminated the tolling of the limitations period pending discovery of the transfer. Creditor remedies include i injunction judicial prohibition against further transfers and ii the imposition of a receivership appointing an outside party to control the assets. However, not all future creditors are protected. In other words, even though the claimant was not legally a creditor when exposed assets were transferred, something had occurred making an anticipated debt likely. Planning for unforeseen claims is the basis for asset protection.

In Leopold v. Leopold v. Tuttle, A. See also Stauffer A. Stauffer, A. In the case of Stauffer v. Stauffer, Mr. Stauffer did so after admitting to his wife and brother-in-law that he was having an extramarital affair with Mrs. To protect the family home from any lawsuit arising from the affair later initiated by his brother-in-law , Mr. Stauffer fraudulently conveyed his interest in the home to Mrs.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found the transfer to be based on Mr. If the creditor was not foreseeable, neither Act applies. Consider the Florida case of Hurlburt v. Shackleton, a Florida physician, transferred assets, titled in his name alone, to himself and his wife, TBE.

Shackleton retitled the assets to eliminate exposure to future malpractice claims, in light of rising malpractice insurance costs. Subsequent to the transfers, Dr. Shackleton was found liable for malpractice damages. The trial court Stauffer v. Hurlburt v. Shackleton, So. Segall, So. In other words, creditors whether existing or only foreseeable at the time of the transfer may invalidate a transfer by proving that the debtor i made the transfer without receiving assets of similar value; and ii either transferred an inordinate amount of assets to a business or became unable to pay his debts.

The first hurdle to prove constructive fraudulent transfer is to show that the debtor received less than the value given up. Gifts obviously fail to establish the receipt of equivalent value. At first blush, the transfer of exposed assets to a protective entity, such as an LLC, in exchange for equity in the entity, arguably constitutes receipt of equal value. Several courts have, however, ruled that the receipt of equity in a protective entity funded with transferred assets may not constitute reasonably equivalent value. Because Asset Protection the protected asset received i.

Transfers for equity in a protected entity may therefore create insolvency and result in a constructive fraudulent transfer. Interestingly, even if the debtor harbored no intent to avoid a debt, a creditor may invalidate a transfer by proving constructive fraudulent intent. On the other hand, if the debtor either i received adequate consideration or ii even if consideration was inadequate did not overcapitalize a business and continued to pay his debts and remained solvent , constructive fraudulent intent cannot be proven. In such cases, even a present creditor must prove that the debtor intentionally made the transfer to avoid payment.

Therefore, a common asset protection strategy is to remain solvent and liquid. Another strategy is to utilize protective foreign trust law which excludes the remedy of constructive fraudulent transfer. If constructive fraudulent transfer is not available, the creditor must prove that the debtor actually intended to John E.

Asset Protection evade the creditor. The badges are circumstances the court may consider as indications of intent. No single badge is necessarily given more weight than another. The judge or jury may freely consider the various factors in determining the intent of the debtor. Combining asset protection planning with other non-creditor related planning such as estate planning or business structuring may also help establish intentions unrelated to debt avoidance.

The badges indicators of fraud are not available to future creditors in the UFCA or Statute of Elizabeth jurisdictions. None of the States nor the U. Fraud is distinct and involves misleading someone to take financial advantage. Fraud may constitute a crime or the basis of a civil action for damages. Asset Protection An interesting aspect of fraudulent transfer law is the general absence of repercussions to the transferor. In other words, if an event of liability has occurred, there is typically no legal detriment to causing a fraudulent transfer or converting an exposed asset to a protected asset.

Apart from limited sanctions imposed by a few states and potential liability for costs and attorney fees incurred by the creditor, a fraudulent transfer allows only for the recovery of the asset transferred. Whether the transfer is the right thing to do is another question. Obligations owed to the Federal government are subject to onerous fraudulent transfer rules.

The government has broad powers to reverse and punish the avoidance of Asset Protection its claims. For example, the U. The six year statute of limitations affords the Federal government ample time to attack a transfer as fraudulent. Examples of statutes which empower the U. Acts to Evade or Defeat Collection: It is a felony to willfully attempt in any manner to evade or defeat the collection of a Federal tax.

Obstruction or Impeding: It is a felony to obstruct or impede the due administration of the Federal Internal Revenue Code including impeding the collection of tax owed. Money Laundering: It is a crime to commit money laundering, which is the concealment of the nature or origin of funds through criminal or fraudulent acts. Fraud on the United States: This statute makes it a felony to conspire to commit any offense against the United States or to defraud the United States, or any of its agencies.

The government must prove i an agreement between two people, ii a scheme to defraud the U. Convictions have been based on fraudulent transfers including the depletion of corporate assets prior to bankruptcy.

Annuity vs Life Insurance - Annuities vs Life Insurance

Switzer, F. California Criminal Statutes: California state criminal laws may apply to acts that hinder the collection of state debts.

  1. Global Catastrophic Risks.
  2. Cupcake Cakes.
  3. Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy!
  4. Shop with confidence;
  5. Gantenbein, Marco.
  6. Barack Obama.
  7. Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy.
  8. A general discussion of fraudulent transfers made prior to bankruptcy may be helpful in understanding how to shelter assets even as part of an attempt to discharge indebtedness. The Federal Bankruptcy Code allows the courts to disregard any transfer made within two years of bankruptcy, if made with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud any present or future creditor. In addition to traditional fraudulent transfer remedies, the Bankruptcy Act also imposes a broad ten year look back period on transfers made for asset protection purposes.

    If the debtor received less than reasonable value for property transferred and was Asset Protection at the time of transfer i insolvent, ii overcapitalized a business or transaction, or iii intended to incur unaffordable debts, then the trustee may reach the assets transferred without further inquiry. Although the number of bankruptcy filings constitutes only a fraction of the suits filed each year, bankruptcy courts hear only collection matters. Consequently, bankruptcy is viewed as a window into how state courts will rule on collection issues.

    One exposure regarding the development of bankruptcy case law is the tendency of bankruptcy judges to ignore applicable statutory or contractual protections otherwise governing the fraudulent transfer issue. For example, the bankruptcy court has ignored applicable foreign law and applied local law, to eliminate the effectiveness of several offshore trusts.

    In , Larry Portnoy established an offshore trust in Jersey Channel Islands , naming himself as primary beneficiary. Portnoy transferred his assets to the trust, in light of the impending failure of his business and associated default on guaranteed debt. The court Asset Protection applied New York law to the offshore trust, to expose trust assets despite the trust requiring the application of Jersey law. Lawrence fraudulently transferred his liquid assets to an asset protection trust in Jersey.

    Lawrence soon moved the Jersey trust to Mauritius, an island nation in the Indian Ocean, and filed bankruptcy. Aside from the obvious mistake of failing to do any planning, Mr. Lawrence made two tactical missteps. First, he failed to consider purchasing a home in Florida. The Florida homestead exemption shelters even funds otherwise subject to the Florida Fraudulent Transfer Act.

    Second, Mr. Lawrence filed for bankruptcy in Lawrence or his attorneys underestimated the power of the bankruptcy court and was evasive during bankruptcy proceedings. Bankruptcy courts have broad federal collection powers to apply substance over form. While state courts are generally bound by limited In re Portnoy, B. In re Lawrence, B. Asset Protection creditor rights, federal bankruptcy courts often successfully ignore state and offshore laws to satisfy creditor claims. The court found Mr. Lawrence dishonest and his inability to turn over trust assets self induced. The court denied discharge of Mr.

    Lawrence refused to comply with the court order to turn over trust assets. The court actually sent Mr. Lawrence to jail pending payment of the debt. The court incarcerated Mr. In , after Mr. Without a fraudulent transfer, courts are reluctant to ignore domestic and foreign asset protection planning. In fact, successful breach of an asset protection plan almost always involves some permutation of fraudulent transfer. First, the state of residence of the defendant determines which assets are statutorily exempt from creditors.

    Second, the law of the state or nation of. Asset Protection organization generally protects equity and assets in business entities and trusts. Although availing oneself of a specific exemption statute to protect a particular asset requires residency in the applicable state, formation of an entity is not limited to residents of the organizing state or foreign country.

    Entities are available to anyone, provided that certain organizational and maintenance requirements are satisfied. Once the entity is organized in the desired jurisdiction, the residency of the owner or beneficiary should become irrelevant to the protections offered by the entity. Constitution supports the premise that contracting parties may choose the law governing their agreement. The Contracts Clause prohibits states from enacting laws infringing the ability of parties to contract. The general rule is that the choice of law reflected in entity organizational documents applies.

    Asset Protection establishing the applicable law should eliminate the choice of law issue except arising from real estate. A few creditors have successfully argued to the contrary, leaving the judge to determine which state or foreign law governs the collection action.

    • The Executioners Song.
    • The River Devil!
    • Sojourning for Freedom: Black Women, American Communism, and the Making of Black Left Feminism.
    • Similar titles.
    • Aspiring Adults Adrift: Tentative Transitions of College Graduates!
    • Ayesha Abed Library catalog › Results of search for '(su:{Commercial law.})';

    Failure of a trial court to respect the applicable choice of law contained in organizational documents is uncommon outside bankruptcy. Corporations formed in Florida, for instance, require that the initial board of directors be listed in the Articles of Incorporation. No such requirement is imposed on corporations formed in Delaware or Nevada. Also, some organizational statutes are substantially more protective of shareholders, LLC members, partners and trust beneficiaries than others.

    Pursuant to the internal affairs doctrine, the laws governing the internal operations and structure of an entity are those of the state of organization. See Engel, Barry S. Asset Protection Allowing courts to randomly apply local law to an entity formed in a different state would create uncertainty.

    States adopting the internal affairs doctrine respect the governance laws of the state where the entity in question was organized. The various states have adopted varying degrees of the internal affairs doctrine. For example, Delaware does not recognize any exceptions to the internal affairs doctrine.

    California law, however, includes substantial exceptions. Amazingly, relatively few business people, investors or even attorneys, ever consider the issue. Friese v. Superior Ct. Examen, Inc. Asset Protection A related matter involves the enforcement of judgments among the states. The text of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is as follows: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

    The Constitution requires all U. Courts may, under certain circumstances, apply the law of their home state in determining the validity of outof-state and foreign creditor protections. A poorly prepared asset protection plan could become subject to the substantive law of a different creditor friendly state. An additional issue raised by the choice of law question is: Which state court will interpret the law? Jurisdiction of the particular court to hear the case may be established in the contract between the parties. Without a contract, the court considers the relationships or contacts of the parties to a particular state.

    Jurisdiction often falls Asset Protection clearly in one state if, for example, all parties, the debt, the entity, etc. If, however, the litigants, contracts, trustees, etc. If a creditor has the opportunity based on the contacts of the parties to file suit in a creditor friendly state, the judgment obtained will likely become enforceable in every state. Depending on the facts of the case, a debtor facing collection in a state favoring creditors may become subject to a liberal interpretation of his asset protection plan. This could occur even though the law written into the asset protection plan was established in a different debtor friendly state.

    In organizing a legal entity, whether a trust or a business, the documents should clearly establish the choice of law applicable to the entity, its owners, managers, beneficiaries and trustees. The jurisdiction of the court to hear any dispute involving the protective aspects of an entity may also be chosen in the trust, LLC operating agreement, partnership agreement, etc. As the law chosen in a governing document is almost always respected, the drafter should implement the most protective law.

    The documents should, under certain circumstances, also allow for transfer of jurisdiction and governing law in the event that a more protective option becomes available. If properly integrated, foreign protections bolster almost any asset protection structure. Although usually more expensive than domestic planning, foreign planning should be considered for several reasons.

    First, foreign planning contemplates protecting assets offshore. Assets held in an offshore debtor haven are very difficult to reach. Courts govern only people and property within their respective jurisdictions. Placing assets offshore also tends to discourage creditors from spending the time and money required to win a U. Foreign trustees and managers ignore U. Less than three percent of creditors attempt to satisfy their judgments with offshore.

    Asset Protection assets.

    See a Problem?

    Conversely, the advantages of offshore planning are weakened by funding a foreign entity with U. If assets are held in the U. Although the legality of disregarding applicable law is questionable especially in the absence of a fraudulent transfer the issue should be considered. Chapter 4. Chapter 5. Chapter 6. Chapter 7. Chapter 8. Chapter 9. Alexander T. Chapter Joe Gasser and Markus Schwingshackl, Dr. Gasser, Vaduz. Swiss Annuities vs. Asset Protection Trusts Maehala R. Survey of Basic U. Paul A. Undetected location. NO YES.

    Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance) Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance)
    Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance) Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance)
    Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance) Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance)
    Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance) Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance)
    Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance) Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance)
    Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance) Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance)

Related Swiss Annuities and Life Insurance: Secure Returns, Asset Protection, and Privacy (Wiley Finance)

Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved