Volume XXIII • Number 3 • November - December 2015 © 2015 Donlevy-Rosen & Rosen, P.A. INTRODUCTION. U.S. tax law imposes varied reporting requirements on trusts. The nature of these requirements depends upon whether the trust is a foreign trust or a U.S. trust for U.S. income tax purposes.... Read more »
This newsletter discusses litigation risks associated with the sale of a business and what a smart seller should do to protect the sale proceeds.
This newsletter discusses some loopholes to the protection of your homestead, and what you can do to close those loopholes and ensure that protection.
This newsletter discusses protecting an inherited IRA and your own IRA from creditors, particularly in view of the 2014 Supreme Court case of Clark v. Rameker.
This newsletter discusses contempt of court, and a new case that reaffirms the right to establish offshore trusts without fear of incarceration.
Volume XXII • Number 1 • March/April 2014 © Donlevy-Rosen & Rosen, P.A. INTRODUCTION. Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) is a drilling process that was first commercially used in 1949, and one whose use has exploded in recent years. Fracking involves forcing fluid at high pressure into a geologic formation containing oil... Read more »
We are often asked by potential clients, “Can’t I just transfer my assets to my spouse to protect them?” We have always recommended against that “strategy” for a number of reasons, not the least of which, we tell our clients: “What if she/he decides to divorce you? You could lose it all forever.” Another significant reason is that the transfer could be easily “undone” by a court if a fraudulent transfer is found to have occurred. Thus, no asset protection.
Ohio has joined the growing list of states which have enacted asset protection trust legislation. Chapter 5816, Revised Code of Ohio, enacts the Ohio Legacy Trust Act, which, on and after March 27, 2013, permits the creation of self-settled spendthrift trusts called “Legacy Trusts”.
A 2012 Illinois Supreme Court case, Rush University Medical Center v. Sessions, has been touted as proof that asset protection trusts, especially offshore trusts, do not work. In this issue we will clarify and enlighten our readers as to why that particular offshore trust failed to protect assets, and we will point out what could and should have been done differently so that the protective planning would have worked as intended.
It is often said that once a person has been sued nothing can be done to protect assets. This is usually true. The knowledgeable asset protection professional will, however, be able to recognize the few exceptions to that rule. The ability to recognize and utilize the exceptions will depend upon a thorough understanding of the relevant fraudulent transfer law.