Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

Refusal of Property distribution

A grand mother has 2 sons and a daughter. Younger son named aequitasjuris01/10/17
let's start with the fact that it's not Mr Y or Mrs. Z's pro dingbat01/10/17
+1 Nobody has a right to inherit (absent some state law f qdllc01/10/17
as an aside, many countries do have laws mandating inheritan dingbat01/10/17
That's why NRAs establish US based trusts to legally circumv mtobeinf01/10/17
that's such a bad reason to establish a US based trust (ther dingbat01/10/17
The U.S. is a tax haven for wealthy foreign individuals; eas jdu1234432101/10/17
Good thing I'm not an expert on anti-money laundering that d mtobeinf01/10/17
Also, DE has the best trust laws in the world. The rule of D mtobeinf01/10/17
ok, you win. I spent a lot of time dealing with people mo dingbat01/10/17
Hahaha no worries. Bermuda did for a while, but they're bec mtobeinf01/10/17
I used to be involved with a tax minimization strategy using dingbat01/10/17
Very smart. Personally, I have no issue with tax minimizati mtobeinf01/10/17
we designed a structure that would not take a tax hit upon r dingbat01/10/17
Dude that's pretty brilliant. I've seen a couple of those s mtobeinf01/10/17
if you get me a throwaway email, I'm happy to discuss in mor dingbat01/10/17
Hells yea. Broadstreetbully67@gmail.com. Much appreciated! mtobeinf01/10/17
Offshore companies and trusts almost never make sense for US alphadog1501/10/17
the trick with offshore companies and trusts isn't to hide a dingbat01/10/17
Precisely. If you still want to commit tax evasion on top of mtobeinf01/10/17
Which the offshore clients with property holdings in LLcs un mtobeinf01/10/17
All that sounds super interesting. Conversations like these thirdtierlaw01/10/17
Taught myself 100 percent of this. But I'm also South Philly mtobeinf01/10/17
Never stop working though. Watch all of American Greed. Book mtobeinf01/10/17
All is definitely fascinating. Maybe I'll check out that sho thirdtierlaw01/11/17
This. If mom only cares about the boys, I would stop talking fettywap01/10/17
Check your state's laws. http://info.legalzoom.com/can-sp jeffm01/10/17
I don't think I'd ever expect a real attorney to ever cite l dingbat01/10/17
Jeffm is a legend and a scholar. Have some respect. mtobeinf01/10/17
Question looks like spam just to get the desired link in. inho2solo01/10/17
That's exactly what it is. guyingorillasuit01/11/17
Thankfully, it resulted in a rousing conversation about trus mtobeinf01/11/17
Then I guess it was good spam. And just how often does inho2solo01/11/17

aequitasjuris (Jan 10, 2017 - 1:19 am)

A grand mother has 2 sons and a daughter. Younger son named Mr.X got married and he has 2 sons Mr.A & Mr.B . Mr.X is passed away. Now, Mr.A & Mr.B are living with this grand mother. Elder Son Mr.Y is still unmarried and resides with this grand mother. Daughter Mrs.Z is married, and she has a son and a daughter. Now, grand mother is refusing to distribute her properties equally to Mr.X, Mr.Y and Mrs.Z. She is planning to give the property only to the 2 sons of Mr.X. Please suggest, whether there is any option for Mr.Y and Mrs.Z to get their properties from their mother.

Source: http://www.lawyersofindia.com/

Reply
dingbat (Jan 10, 2017 - 8:50 am)

let's start with the fact that it's not Mr Y or Mrs. Z's property, the property belongs to grandmother. She can do with it as she wishes.

Reply
qdllc (Jan 10, 2017 - 9:40 am)

+1

Nobody has a right to inherit (absent some state law factor). At best, those who got nothing might be able to argue "undue influence" by the beneficiary on the testator, but a properly drafted and executed will needs a high burden of proof to overturn in court. This is based on American jurisprudence (noting the "India" reference in the OP).

Honestly, if I was effectively being "disinherited" I'd stop contributing to the prospective testator's well being unless I considered such contributions a gift for which I would not be repaid or rewarded.

Reply
dingbat (Jan 10, 2017 - 10:00 am)

as an aside, many countries do have laws mandating inheritance. A spouse may be entitled to a certain minimum percentage, the class "children" may be entitled to a certain minimum percentage, or some other requirement (first-born male?)

Reply
mtobeinf (Jan 10, 2017 - 10:02 am)

That's why NRAs establish US based trusts to legally circumvent the mandatory inheritance laws in their own country

Reply
dingbat (Jan 10, 2017 - 11:01 am)

that's such a bad reason to establish a US based trust (there are other countries which would make much more sense, because of better trust laws, better tax treatment, and better regulatory rules). Unless they happen to invest heavily in the U.S., that just doesn't make sense (and even then, barely)

Reply
jdu12344321 (Jan 10, 2017 - 2:06 pm)

The U.S. is a tax haven for wealthy foreign individuals; easy to hide money from their local governments. The above is irrelevant when hiding money...

Reply
mtobeinf (Jan 10, 2017 - 2:21 pm)

Good thing I'm not an expert on anti-money laundering that deals with trusts every single day.......Oh yea, I am........Disagreeing with Dingbat, jdu is correct.

Reply
mtobeinf (Jan 10, 2017 - 2:24 pm)

Also, DE has the best trust laws in the world. The rule of DE is you can do whatever you want so long as its in the agreement. Want it directed? Sure. Trust Protector or Investment advisor? Sure. APT? Sure. Spendthrifts throughout and Dynasty Trusts? Hells yea. RAP? Tis' a no go. Intentionally defective grantor trust. Why the hell not. And No DE taxes for non-DE residents, especially anything that is passive income. What you're attempting to refer to is bank secrecy or tax havens that refuse to cooperate with the US. I.e. Asset Protection Trusts are best for the Cook Islands bc their response to the US is pound sand. Hence, a lot of doctors and attorneys have asset protection trusts in the Cook Islands. Turks and Caicos has no passive income tax (similar to DE). But now captive insurers and reinsurers in the US are subject to taxes in most jurisdictions as if they repatriated that income today or for this taxable year. But Turks & Caicos is the bees knees, particularly for reinsurance. They can care less and do not report such to the US. Lichtenstein is a washer's paradise though they have new agreements to share info (in the event ML is suspected a la the Swiss and we know how that works out). But if you're offshore you must repatriate on-shore and if you seek to avoid taxes as opposed to evade (to report or not report that is the question) you need your US trust and US shell corps to do such. Can set up a trust and shell corp in what, matter of days? Otherwise, you're too exposed. Class is over for the day.

Reply
dingbat (Jan 10, 2017 - 2:45 pm)

ok, you win.

I spent a lot of time dealing with people moving their assets out of the U.S., hadn't looked at it from the other side. Changed practice a few years ago, so I'm not up-to-date, I always thought Bermuda trumped Turks & Caicos for insurance/reinsurance/captive insurance?

Reply
mtobeinf (Jan 10, 2017 - 2:51 pm)

Hahaha no worries. Bermuda did for a while, but they're becoming more cooperative so the Turks is beginning to take over. Bermuda and BVI are still popular for run of the mill shell corps that serve as part of the layering stage. The law firms probably still have good contacts there and it's nice to visit would be my guess. Shell corps are pretty cheap there too. I was doing some research the other day and you can get a BVI 100 year old shelf corp for like 10k. New shell corp like 2500 with incorporation docs and the like, agents, etc. Following the money offshore can be rather difficult. Once layering begins and shell corps are located in various jurisdictions with nominees as trustees of related trusts, becomes quite the pain in the ass. What's hard for me is at my stage most of the money, assuming its laundered, is already layered and returning to be integrated. Have to vet the Source of Wealth and any red flags. Otherwise, just another millionaire buying some nice assets.

Reply
dingbat (Jan 10, 2017 - 3:08 pm)

I used to be involved with a tax minimization strategy using offshore trusts and private insurance policies. We did our best to avoid layering because the goal was to legally not pay taxes (everything got reported to the IRS - yay private letter ruling) and we wanted to avoid any red flags.

Reply
mtobeinf (Jan 10, 2017 - 3:12 pm)

Very smart. Personally, I have no issue with tax minimization since that's in the best interest of the corp. or the individual. Avoid taxes all one wants so long as its reported. Plus, upon repatriation it'll take the hit anyway. Must have been pretty interesting. Never liked this stuff in law school. Started out as a litigator. Then once I retired from practice, I find all this fascinating. I have a wonderful Subpart F income outline at my desk as we speak lol

Reply
dingbat (Jan 10, 2017 - 3:20 pm)

we designed a structure that would not take a tax hit upon repatriation - no income tax whatsoever. Money went from the U.S. to X island, to Y island, back to the U.S. to be invested tax-free, using loopholes that will probably never be closed (without going into detail, trust me on that).
I learned about some really weird stuff at the time, not just what we were doing, but also what others were doing. some absolute geniuses out there

Reply
mtobeinf (Jan 10, 2017 - 3:30 pm)

Dude that's pretty brilliant. I've seen a couple of those so far, but not many though I suspect it's far more common than meets the eye. Gotta love the tax free investment vehicles or methods to make the income non-taxable through various means.

Reply
dingbat (Jan 10, 2017 - 3:49 pm)

if you get me a throwaway email, I'm happy to discuss in more detail

Reply
mtobeinf (Jan 10, 2017 - 3:56 pm)

Hells yea. Broadstreetbully67@gmail.com. Much appreciated! If for any reason, I don't respond, it's likely because I forget I have a throwaway email. Lol. I will set a reminder though accordingly (once an attorney, always an attorney I suppose lol)

Reply
alphadog15 (Jan 10, 2017 - 4:21 pm)

Offshore companies and trusts almost never make sense for US persons wishing to report, due to the burdensome CFC/PFIC and a laundry list of reporting requirements to the IRS. Unless of course they're not reporting which can result to huge penalties. With FATCA/ CRS automatic exchange of beneficial ownership information coming online, tax evaders are going to have a very hard time keeping things hidden.

Reply
dingbat (Jan 10, 2017 - 5:55 pm)

the trick with offshore companies and trusts isn't to hide assets, but to exempt them from U.S. tax rules. The overall scheme usually involves reporting the assets, and reporting why the IRS can't touch them.

Reply
mtobeinf (Jan 10, 2017 - 9:03 pm)

Precisely. If you still want to commit tax evasion on top of that and launder the proceeds thereof. It's never the main entities alpha dog laundering it's the subs with their consolidated financials or unrelated in any decipherable manner. The structures U encounter will amaze. U can obscure the hub and spoke so badly with nominees and trusts at the top of the structure so no reporting threshold can be met. Also friends and family with you or a close advisor as Trust Protector. Or do captive and reinsurance report the things makes the math so crazy with all the ceding companies auditors won't figure it out. On tight deadlines u kno. Regulators more so. So dog that is alpha 15, as my dear deceased professor of contracts said every day. There is more than one way to skin a cat. The ways to wash and operating co into holding cos and related cos into trusts are endless. Cash businesses for example. Over report the income to subsequent launder. Charitable. Foundations. Escrows. Comp plans. It's all bout creativity. And knowing the law and legal structures. Not rocket science. Simply attention to detail and a criminal mind.

Reply
mtobeinf (Jan 10, 2017 - 9:04 pm)

Which the offshore clients with property holdings in LLcs under the trusts do very well and detailed may I add. To dingbats initial response.

Reply
thirdtierlaw (Jan 10, 2017 - 7:59 pm)

All that sounds super interesting. Conversations like these are one of the reasons I wish I had gone into transactional work.

But instead I'm just a lowly litigator. Sad that this isn't an area you can teach yourself, not that you'd ever attract clients. Maybe one day I'll focus on trust and estate litigation. More accessible.

Reply
mtobeinf (Jan 10, 2017 - 9:08 pm)

Taught myself 100 percent of this. But I'm also South Philly Italian with other blue collar. Background so washing money makes sense. A damn fine and accomplished counselor. An esteemed student of the law. And criminally minded. Should of been a DEA agent. Picked all this up in 2 yrs. started
At the bottom. Now at the top. Definitely doable. Persistence and determination are omnipotent. The slogan press on has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

Reply
mtobeinf (Jan 10, 2017 - 9:15 pm)

Never stop working though. Watch all of American Greed. Books on laundering. Investigations. Cases. Senate reports. Shark tank. Financial news. Trust law. Securities law. Taxation. Corporate law. Mortgages. Loans. Real estate. Regional national and international business operations. Tax havens. Bank scandals. Control breakdowns. Processes. All that jazz. Financial crime and compliance junkie.

Reply
thirdtierlaw (Jan 11, 2017 - 12:33 pm)

All is definitely fascinating. Maybe I'll check out that show American Green on my down time. However, there are areas of law I still need to learn that'll actually earn me money. You made the jump to compliance so that is your life. But other than someone getting picked up on criminal charges for these matters, nobody will ever call my office looking for an attorney to help shelter some money. A criminal and family law shop just doesn't bring in the clients who are having issues with the SEC.

I'll just need to get my fill from the embezzlement cases that come through the door.

Reply
fettywap (Jan 10, 2017 - 1:25 pm)

This. If mom only cares about the boys, I would stop talking to her entirely.

Reply
jeffm (Jan 10, 2017 - 12:35 pm)

Check your state's laws.

http://info.legalzoom.com/can-spouse-excluded-illinois-23916.html

Reply
dingbat (Jan 10, 2017 - 1:28 pm)

I don't think I'd ever expect a real attorney to ever cite legalzoom

Reply
mtobeinf (Jan 10, 2017 - 2:32 pm)

Jeffm is a legend and a scholar. Have some respect.

Reply
inho2solo (Jan 10, 2017 - 1:35 pm)

Question looks like spam just to get the desired link in.

Reply
guyingorillasuit (Jan 11, 2017 - 7:47 am)

That's exactly what it is.

Reply
mtobeinf (Jan 11, 2017 - 8:16 am)

Thankfully, it resulted in a rousing conversation about trusts, shell corps, and international taxation. Huzzah!

Reply
inho2solo (Jan 11, 2017 - 2:15 pm)

Then I guess it was good spam.

And just how often does one get to say that?

Reply
Post a message in this thread