Cryptocurrency And Asset Protection Trusts

With more investors diversifying their investment portfolios, cryptocurrencies and other kinds of digital assets (i.e., non-fungible tokens “NFTs”) have become a more popular option in recent years. With the Internal Revenue Service declaring that digital assets are property, they can be accessed by creditors, however, so certain kinds of trusts may be established to help protect these assets as well as enabling access to online accounts, especially for cryptocurrency assets. A state-based Domestic Asset Protection Trust (DAPT) enables a trust creator (“trustor”) to protect their exiting digital assets through a legal instrument that shields them from creditors. Previously, these types of trusts were only available offshore. Fortunately, many states across the U.S. have adopted DAPT statutes to allow this type of trust to be legally-established within their jurisdictions.

What is a Domestic Asset Protection Trust?

Before DAPTs were enacted, a trustor/settlor would have to establish an irrevocable trust created by a third party in order for asset protection. A DAPT is a self-settled trust that allows the trustor/settlor protection to be the beneficiary, transfer a portion of estate assets to the trust, and provide for certain protections from future creditors, legal complaints, malpractice claims, and other financially-consequential events. Formally known as a qualified spendthrift trust, it is a trust that enables the trustor to transfer assets into a trust of which the trustor/settlor is also a beneficiary to protect themselves from creditors. This type of irrevocable trust may assure that wealth can be safeguarded for future generations and protects wealth from liability risk.

Read More

TaxConnections Picture - Tax BriefcaseThis is a continuation from yesterday’s post of the interview with Bill Yates:

Yates: Everyone in the room who knew me turned and looked at me. I’ve been involved in horses since I was five. Believe me, no one makes $50 million raising bucking horses. That is patently ridiculous. What it shows is that LGT would accept any explanation regarding the source of a prospective client’s funds or assets. Then, the UBS scandal broke. That’s when things really got ridiculous.

La Torre Jeker: How?

Yates: Well, we started seeing how European governments were shocked, I mean shocked, really, to find out that any of their banks could be involved in promoting and facilitating tax evasion. Give me a break. How could you live in the EU and not know about what was going on in Switzerland, Lichtenstein and the Caribbean tax havens, many of which by the way are British protectorates?

La Torre Jeker: So, are you saying that foreign banks had it coming to them? I mean FATCA. Read More