All Forum Posts by: Brian Bradley

I say everybody take a very big deep breath and go about life and business as normal. Corinavirus and oil and the economy. A lots going on.

This massive stock market plunge is not because of the coronavirus. The coronavirus is being over hyped by the media way beyond what it is. the vast majority of this has to do with oil and Saudi Arabia. Mohammed bin Salman is flooding the world oil markets with cheap Saudi crude, and his number one target is Russia, and shale oil — which, to an extent, is the United States. . I’m sure that his effort here is not intended to do great damage to us, and I’m sure he’s been telling everybody in Washington, “Stick with me on this. Our common enemy is Russia,” because Russia in the Middle East is Syria, and Saudi Arabia… Look, it’s Mohammed bin Salman that started the war in Yemen, which ended up getting one of their oil depots blown up a few months ago. this is very, very complicated global geopolitics.

And It’s a 33 year old kid solidifying himself to take over as king when the sick 88 year old king dies and is trying to take out Russia knowing that the US is now energy independent. It’s his time to make a global mark.

this drop in the oil price is gonna be good for the consumer. This is good news for everybody except for producers. This always happens every time the production price of oil drops. The crude price, the barrel price, everybody panics; the stock market drops. It has economic trickle effects.

He is lowering the price and trying to run Russia out of the market by making it impossible for them to stay in it. He cannot do damage to us in this regard because we don’t need their oil anymore,

Please Stop panicking over the coronavirus. It’s a virus with a very low death rate. Per every doctor and statistic on this. Below 2%. Below influenza or driving your car. Just treat it like the severity of any other virus and wash your hands and pay attention to sanitation. Don’t fall into the hype and panic.

“A bad flu season is 80,000 dead, we have about 18,000 dead from influenza this year and 100 from corona,” said Pinsky in an interview with CBS Local’s DJ Sixsmith. “Which should you be worried about, influenza or corona. 100 vs. 18,000, it’s not a trick question. Everything going on with everyone using Clorox wipes and get your flu shot” Dr. Drew On Coronavirus: ‘Businesses Destroyed, Lives Upended — Not By Virus, But By Panic’

Stop the unnecessary panic and hysteria!

I think we need to stop the over reaction and stop panicking. Go about life and business as normal.

Corinavirus and oil and the economy.

This massive stock market plunge is not because of the coronavirus. The coronavirus is being media hyped way beyond what it is.

the vast majority of this has to do with oil and Saudi Arabia. Mohammed bin Salman is flooding the world oil markets with cheap Saudi crude, and his number one target is Russia, and shale oil — which, to an extent, is the United States. . I’m sure that his effort here is not intended to do great damage to us, and I’m sure he’s been telling everybody in Washington, “Stick with me on this. Our common enemy is Russia,” because Russia in the Middle East is Syria, and Saudi Arabia… Look, it’s Mohammed bin Salman that started the war in Yemen, which ended up getting one of their oil depots blown up a few months ago. this is very, very complicated global geopolitics.

It’s a 33 year old kid solidifying himself to take over as king when the sick 88 year old king dies and is trying to take out Russia knowing that the US is now energy independent. It’s his time to make a global mark.

this drop in the oil price is gonna be good for the consumer. This is good news for everybody except for producers. This always happens every time the production price of oil drops. The crude price, the barrel price, everybody panics; the stock market drops.

He is lowering the price and trying to run people out of the market by making it impossible for them to stay in it. He cannot do damage to us in this regard because we don’t need their oil anymore,

Stop please listen to the doctors on both political parties and take politics and hysteria out of it. Stop panicking over the coronavirus. It’s a virus with a very low death rate. Below 2%. Below influenza or driving your car. Just treat it like the severity of any other virus and wash your hands and pay attention to sanitation. Just good cleanliness.

“A bad flu season is 80,000 dead, we have about 18,000 dead from influenza this year and 100 from corona,” said Pinsky in an interview with CBS Local’s DJ Sixsmith. “Which should you be worried about, influenza or corona. 100 vs. 18,000, it’s not a trick question. Everything going on with everyone using Clorox wipes and get your flu shot” Dr. Drew On Coronavirus: ‘Businesses Destroyed, Lives Upended — Not By Virus, But By Panic’

Stop the unnecessary panic and hysteria!

@Connor Koehler talk to a securities attorney

@Kat Hughes If your intent is protection, and you have a HNW to protect, $1MM net worth or more, don't mess around with purely DAPT. Stick with the world gold standard in a Cook Islands Asset Protection Trust or the hybrid Domestic Component Bridge Trust if you don't have a reason to go purely offshore by using a connecting "migration" clause. 

This gives you the best of both worlds, the flexibility and ease of a DAPT with the power and strength of the Cook Islands if and when you need it. They are Irrevocable Self Settled Grantor Trusts. 

You are basically creating a FAPT and creating a bridge back domestically. The trust is anchored as both, and classified domestically by maintaining IRS compliance with USC section 7701. 

Anything purely domestically like a NV Asset Protection Trust can never get away from a judges actual authority or the US Constitution Full Faith and Credit Clause. DAPT work for the residents of those States. So for example, if you are a CA resident and you use an out-of-state NV asset protection trust, it really will not do you any good. A recent case Kilker vs Stillman (2012) dropped the hammer on this. This was a case where a CA resident created a NV Asset Protection Trust. 4 years later he was sued. The court discarded the choice of law clause since not a resident of NV and applied a 10 year look back, and also created a new legal standard called "reasonably foreseeable creditors." This is the case docket. https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20121126043 This case was then upheld in the court of appeals. And even those residents of states that have established Self Settled Spendthrift Asset Protection Trust legislation are piercing them. Look at Battley vs Mortensen (2011). Case docket here. http://www.akb.uscourts.gov/op...

Judges can do whatever they want. Its the sad fact of our modern legal system. 

This is an old post, I wish I found it earlier, but figured others can benefit from this reply now. If your intent is protection, and you have a HNW to protect, don't mess around with purely DAPT. Stick with the world gold standard in a Cook Islands Asset Protection Trust or the hybrid Domestic Component if you don't have a reason to go purely offshore with a connecting "migration" clause. This gives you the best of both worlds, the flexibility and ease of a DAPT with the power and strength of the Cook Islands if and when you need it. You are basically creating a FAPT and creating a bridge back domestically. The trust is anchored as both, and classified domestically by maintaining IRS compliance with USC section 7701. Anything purely domestically like a NV Asset Protection Trust can never get away from a judges actual authority or the US Constitution Full Faith and Credit Clause. DAPT work for the residents of those States. So if you are a CA resident and you use an out-of-state NV asset protection trust, it really will not do you any good. A recent case Kilker vs Stillman (2012) dropped the hammer on this. This was a case where a CA resident created a NV Asset Protection Trust. 4 years later he was sued. The court discarded the choice of law clause since not a resident of NV and applied a 10 year look back, and also created a new legal standard called "reasonably foreseeable creditors." This is the case docket. https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20121126043 This case was then upheld in the court of appeals. Judges can do whatever they want. Its the sad fact of our modern legal system.

Any planning you set up needs to have value and work like its intended. If its boiler plate cooky cutter it will never hold up.  If your intent is protection, and you have a HNW to protect, don't mess around with prepared trusts or purely DAPT. Stick with the world gold standard in a Cook Islands Asset Protection Trust or the hybrid Domestic Component if you don't have a reason to go purely offshore with a connecting "migration" clause. This gives you best of both worlds, the flexibility and ease of a DAPT with the power and strength of the Cook Islands if and when you need it. You are basically creating a FAPT and creating a bridge back domestically. The trust is anchored as both, and classified domestically by maintaining IRS compliance with USC section 7701. Anything purely domestically can never get away from a judges actual authority or the US Constitution Full Faith and Credit Clause. DAPT work for the residents of those States. And even then, judges can do whatever they want. Its the sad fact of our modern legal system. 

@Benjamin A Ersing no problem. I sent you a connection request on BP and on LInkedIn. 

@Benjamin A Ersing good question. And @Mike S. I did not mean to forget about the second part of your question regarding foreign owned assets. The quick answer is Yes the Bridge Trust can hold those assets.

To the first part of your question Ben, This system is recommend for people who hit that $1MM net worth mark or are just about to hit it. And net worth is minus liability. That may seem lower then you would expect and surprise you. What we have seen and track over the years is that the threshold at which clients are most interested in protecting their assets is when they have a net worth between $500k - $2.5 MM. And you would expect that number to be more like $5-$10 MM and up. The reason though is that saving between $500k-$2.5 MM is hard to do. It takes most people a lifetime of hard work and commitment. So like anyone interested in asset protection, you are sensitive to risk around that nest egg. And over the years they are becoming more sensitive as lawsuits grow. They realize the shortcoming of LLCs and want the comfort of very strong protection. So the $29k to protect $1MM or more at that point makes financial sense.

Generally you are looking at healthcare professionals (doctors, dentists), business owners, executives with high salaries, and those making a household income of $250k annually + and investing. Or professional investors with cash flow and equity. This is not going to be a system for your new investor of low-income earner. It would not make financial sense. The new investor should start small, with an LLC, then as they grow move into the AMLP, and scale and grow into the Bridge Trust or FAPT.

To the second pat, For the U.S. resident investing in and owning foreign assets I am all for global investing. Even in real estate. Its great diversification, and harder for U.S. creditors to attach. Just pay attention to your tax forms and reporting requirements and bank account disclosures. Talk to your CPA. If the property is held by a foreign corporation with 10% or more U.S. ownership, a foreign partnership or LLC, or a foreign trust or estate, you will need to report that ownership on IRS specific foreign financial asset forms, depending on your reporting threshold. Just understand how the laws and regulations in the OTHER countries also and how it affects your U.S. taxes. Consult your CPA to discuss your situation.

For the Asset Protection side of this question, it is depends. Often it’s best to just leave foreign owned assets as it is and not in the trust. However, the Bridge Trust, itself, has no issue holding foreign assets just like an Revocable Living Trust would not, unless of course there is a restriction on the foreign side. We would usually defer to counsel in the foreign jurisdiction instead of trying to answer because we would need more information on that specific foreign asset. Short answer is basically Yes the Bridge Trust can hold those assets but if it should will be something would need to look at on the analysis.

Now, If you are a foreign investor investing in the US you would create a Domestic LLC in the U.S. which would be owned by a special version of the Bridge Trust for foreign resident investors that would be used as an alternative version with NO U.S. Jurisdiction. And for these foreign investors investing in the U.S., they are going to have to pay attention to tax's of their ownership. The income that these foreign investors make on the asset can be subjected to high US Tax rates. So for the foreign resident investor investing in the U.S. talk to a CPA and US attorney before you invest in the U.S. and get your structure properly set up and ownership set up right.

I wanted to share a question that I got on another thread talking about DAPT vs FAPT and the BT with this forum since it relates. The question is basically, can a judge just freeze domestic assets or bypass the trust?

Its a very good question. Yes, a judge can do anything. It is possible for a court in the U.S. to do almost anything. That is what a judges "practical" authority is and were fighting. The ability to try to do almost anything. This includes invalidating ANY trust. And both a FAPT or a DAPT, and yes, the Bridge Trust. There is simply no way to ensure what a U.S. court is going to do. I do not deny this. Its our legal system.

BUT, the more important question is, what would the impact be if this happened?

If a good strategy triggered the Bridge Trust into a FAPT, then a U.S. court invalidating it would make virtually zero difference to the effectiveness of the trust. This is for all the same reasons that the FULL FAPT is going to, and historically has, withstood a U.S. Court challenge. So will the triggered Bridge Trust. And like I said legal cases take years to unfold. If triggering, the Bridge Trust into a FAPT is the right move to make, the inherent delays in the U.S. legal system provide more than enough time. The idea that the average plaintiff can just run into court and convince a judge to freeze all your assets before a trial begins is unfounded. We have never witnessed any cases in which that has occurred or a request for such has even been made. I advise clients that if this is a real risk, then they may be the very rare case where beginning with a fully FAPT should be considered.

For a deeper dive, One of the only rare and very extreme cases I saw was the U.S. vs. Grant case. The husband stiffed the IRS for $36 million, set up a Cook Islands Trust, and then died. The IRS went after the wife 3 times in the Cook Islands and lost each time. And that’s the IRS, the Government, a super creditor who can print money.

The $36 million is still safe in the Cook Islands and not in the hands of the IRS. Even with their relentless attempts. The IRS was able to get an injunction placed on her. So Mrs. Grant also can’t access the money. So it’s a stalemate. But this was a very rare situation where her trust had a major drafting flaw. She was given the “non-reviewable, sole and complete discretion to remove and replace the Trustee at any time.” Not good! Also, Mrs. Grant made a very big mistake in attempting to transfer a large amount of funds to her son before the case was settled after she just told the court she had no control or power to do this. That opened the flood gates back open to attack her. But even with all these self made problems by Mrs. Grant, she still has possession of the tens of millions of dollars and has a few options to force / negotiate a settlement and to leave her with plenty enough assets to live very comfortably.

But the question begs to be asked. Was Mrs. Grant better off with or without the Trust? Knowing what you know now, would she still have wanted the Trust or not?

@Mike S. 

Stated another way, Yes, a judge can do anything. It is possible for a court in the U.S. to do almost anything. That is what a judges "practical" authority is and were fighting. The ability to try to do almost anything. This includes invalidating ANY trust. And both a FAPT or a DAPT, and yes, the Bridge Trust. There is simply no way to ensure what a U.S. court is going to do. I do not deny this. Its our legal system. 

BUT, the more important question is, what would the impact be if this happened?

If a good strategy triggered the Bridge Trust into a FAPT, then a U.S. court invalidating it would make virtually zero difference to the effectiveness of the trust. This is for all the same reasons that the FULL FAPT is going to, and historically has, withstood a U.S. Court challenge. So will the triggered Bridge Trust. And like I said legal cases take years to unfold. If triggering, the Bridge Trust into a FAPT is the right move to make, the inherent delays in the U.S. legal system provide more than enough time. The idea that the average plaintiff can just run into court and convince a judge to freeze all your assets before a trial begins is unfounded. We have never witnessed any cases in which that has occurred or a request for such has even been made. I advise clients that if this is a real risk, then they may be the very rare case where beginning with a fully FAPT should be considered. 

For a deeper dive, One of the only rare and very extreme cases I saw was the U.S. vs. Grant case. The husband stiffed the IRS for $36 million, set up a Cook Islands Trust, and then died. The IRS went after the wife 3 times in the Cook Islands and lost each time. And that’s the IRS, the Government, a super creditor who can print money. 

The $36 million is still safe in the Cook Islands and not in the hands of the IRS. Even with their relentless attempts. The IRS was able to get an injunction placed on her. So Mrs. Grant also can’t access the money. So it’s a stalemate. But this was a very rare situation where her trust had a major drafting flaw. She was given the “non-reviewable, sole and complete discretion to remove and replace the Trustee at any time.” Not good! Also, Mrs. Grant made a very big mistake in attempting to transfer a large amount of funds to her son before the case was settled after she just told the court she had no control or power to do this. That opened the flood gates back open to attack her. But even with all these self made problems by Mrs. Grant, she still has possession of the tens of millions of dollars and has a few options to force / negotiate a settlement and to leave her with plenty enough assets to live very comfortably.

But the question begs to be asked. Was Mrs. Grant better off with or without the Trust? Knowing what you know now, would she still have wanted the Trust or not?