As I have documented previously, there are several cases where courts have ruled against the grantors of a foreign asset protection trust, thereby nullifying the asset protection benefit. In this post, I want to briefly sum up the judicial reasoning used by the courts to thwart these trusts.
Archive for Tax Law
High net worth individuals are loathe to transfer assets to any entity over which they have no control. This fact creates an unresolvable problem when forming an offshore asset protection trust: so long as a U.S. person can exert even a modicum of control over a foreign entity, a U.S. court has sufficient grounds to rule that a U.S. based debtor can repatriate assets. More importantly, failure to comply with a repatriation order could lead to contempt citation against the U.S. debtor. The facts of Federal Trade Commission v. Affordable Media typify this problem. Read more
In re Portnoy, 201 B.R. 685 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., 1996) — a 1996 Bankruptcy case – was the first in a series of decisions with a foreign asset protection trust. As with most foreign trust cases, the fact pattern alludes to several areas of law – asset protection, bankruptcy, conflict of laws and trusts. Here are the relevant events in chronological order.
3/87: Portnoy guarantees all loans and debt of his company Mary Drawers (MD) Read more
101 Ways to Save Money on Your Tax – Legally! is the Australian taxpayer’s essential guide to maximising returns. Comprehensively updated for 2017-2018, this indispensable resource explains all of the changes to the May 2017 budget to help you pay what you owe and not a penny more.
You’ll find answers to common questions, tax traps to avoid and plenty of tips from Mr. Taxman himself that can save you hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Leverage your business, education, family, property, medical expenses, levies, shares and superannuation to get the tax return you deserve – and are fully entitled to under Australian law. Read more
This is the second article in TaxConnections series of developing a better understanding of the how our Federal tax laws are initiated and implemented, and the various participants in Congress, including Members of Congress, their qualified technical and administrative staffs involved in that process. It also highlights the techniques utilized by the private sector (individuals, businesses large and small, plus associations) in that effort. (To read the first article, click here)
TaxConnections invites each of you to participate in an important journey! A journey that will engage you in the making of new tax laws in the United States Committee on Ways and Means! The Committee on Ways And Means is the chief tax-writing committee of the United States House of Representatives and all bills regarding taxation must go through this committee.
As a forward to this Special Article, I want to tell you it has been written by our new TaxConnections Member Tom Kerester. Tom has extensive experience on Capitol Hill in the United States Congress as a Legislative Attorney on the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (that served five committees of the Congress) and on the House Committee on Ways and Means. As a Former Executive Director of Tax Executives Institute (1985-1992) in Washington, D.C., Tom then went on to a Presidential Appointment with Senate Confirmation under the Administration of George H.W. Bush as Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the United States Small Business Administration and in the Congressional Office of Congressman Bill Thomas (CA). Tom also was the 1st President of the Capitol Hill Chapter of the Federal Bar Association whose members included over 300 Attorneys working on the Hill, and now has over 13,000 lawyer members worldwide.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2016
CERTIORARI DENIED on two related Direct Marketing Association(DMA) and Colorado Department of Revenue cases.
16-267 DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION V. BROHL, BARBARA
16-458 BROHL, BARBARA V. DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION
Rejecting tax court precedent, the Seventh Circuit ruled Friday that delinquent taxpayers who weren’t properly notified of Internal Revenue Service levies still have to pursue an administrative appeal before they can petition the tax court to invalidate the levy.
A loss from a legitimate business activity is fully deductible against other income. If the loss exceeds income, it can be carried forward to offset business income in future years. If an activity is deemed a hobby by the IRS, a loss cannot be deducted. The IRS has many criteria for determining whether an activity is a hobby or a business [See the author’s article on hobby losses for details].
In 2006, the German secret service (Bundesnachrichtendienst) bought a data carrier from a certain K. for a considerable amount of money. The data carrier contained financial data from the Liechtenstein L. Bank relating to 800 people. K., who had formerly been an employee of the L. Bank, had illegally copied the data. The data carrier was submitted to the German tax investigation authorities, which subsequently instigated proceedings against, inter alia, the applicants, in relation to tax evasion crimes.
We get used to certain rules in the tax system and then think they HAVE to be there. But, often, that is not the case. I think the rules related to divorce are good examples.
Alimony is deductible by the payer and taxable to the recipient. This violates the “fruit of the tree” doctrine from the famous 1930 US Supreme Court case, Lucas v Earl.