During 2013, the IRS and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) continued to successfully attack offshore banking “secrecy”. The IRS’ success against UBS and other banks eroded Swiss banking secrecy, effectively ending “going offshore” to hide money from the IRS. Going offshore for asset protection from civil creditors, however, is still viable and effective, but must be tax-compliant.Continue Reading
Everything You Wanted to Know about Antigua Private Foundations
Our senior partner Kenneth Rubinstein was the author of the International Foundations Act of 2007, passed by the Parliament of Antigua and Barbuda and enacted into law. Kenneth also wrote Antigua’s International Trust Act and International LLC Act.
Kenneth has now authored the chapter on Antigua and Barbuda private foundations which is part of Private Foundations World Survey, edited by Johanna Niegel and Richard Pease, Oxford University Press, 2013. The chapter contains detailed information on Antigua as an Offshore jurisdiction, Antigua’s foundation law, foundation governance, asset protection issues, taxation issues, as well as discussion on issues of forced heirship and divorce.
For additional information, please see:
Kenneth Rubinstein and Asher Rubinstein Will Be Speakers at Asset Protection Conference in Vaduz, Liechtenstein, June 9 and 10, 2011: “Asset Protection In Civil Matters”.
Kenneth Rubinstein and Asher Rubinstein Will Be Speakers at Asset Protection Conference in Vaduz, Liechtenstein, June 9 and 10, 2011: “Asset Protection In Civil Matters”.
Asher Rubinstein will be speaking on June 9 on the topic of “Asset Protection and Tax Compliance: Are they Compatible or Mutually Exclusive?”
Asher will address the following issues:
- Can asset protection rely on secrecy?
- Issues of control of assets, ownership and tax disclosure;
- The need for tax compliance: recent government attacks against offshore structures;
- Can one protect assets vis-a-vis creditors and still be tax compliant?
Kenneth Rubinstein will be speaking on June 10 on the topic of “Civil Contempt – The Next Threat to Asset Protection”.
Ken’s talk will include the following issues:
- “Bad facts make bad law”, but do “good facts” make good law?
- A discussion of the relevant case law, including Anderson, Lawrence, Grant, etc.
- The issue of control over the assets
- The defense of “impossibility” and self-created impossibility
- The solution to self-created impossibility – the Antigua statute
Additional details and a program for the conference, “Asset Protection in Civil Matters” can be found here.
Please contact us with any questions.
2010 End of Year Memo to Clients
2010 End of Year Memo to Clients
To: Clients, colleagues and interested parties
From: Rubinstein & Rubinstein, LLP
Date: December 2010
Year-End Notes
As the year comes to a close, we take this opportunity to remind clients of several important issues that might impact upon their estate, tax and asset protection planning, to reflect upon a few significant accomplishments in 2010, and to offer suggestions for effective year-end tax planning.
I. Year-End 2010 Tax Planning & Anticipating the 2011 Tax Increases
A. Reduce Your Estate Taxes Via 2010 Gifting
Every year, we begin this memo by reminding clients that year-end gifting is an easy, tax-efficient way to reduce their taxable estate. This year, the message is all the more significant because legislation that is still pending in Congress would limit the tax benefit of such gifting.
The amount that an individual may gift to another individual, without tax consequences, is now $13,000. Gifting is an effective strategy to utilize in reducing estate tax liability. For example, if a husband and wife each gift $13,000 to three children, the value of the couple’s estate is decreased by $78,000.
Additionally, you may utilize your unified lifetime credit to avoid gift taxes and make one or more gifts of limited partnership interests equal in value to $1,000,000 (total value for all gifts). You will be required to file a gift tax return, but the gift taxes will be offset by your $1,000,000 unified lifetime credit. A husband and wife, together, may make joint gifts equal in total value to $2,000,000 in this manner.
Clients with Family Limited Partnerships should consider gifting an equivalent amount of limited partnership interests, so as to decrease the value of their estate. Clients have until December 31, 2010 to effectuate a gift for calendar year 2010. Clients should, in fact, make annual gifts of limited partnership interests, so that the value of their estates, over time, will decrease for estate tax purposes. As long as clients retain their general partner interests, however, clients will continue to control all assets within their partnership.
Gifting of partnership interests works hand-in-hand with the principal of discounting of those interests. Once discounted, more FLP interests can be gifted tax-free to the next generation, which results in more assets passing out of an individual’s taxable estate and thus decreased estate taxes. One short example may clarify how discounting and annual gifting work together to lower estate tax liability. If a client owns real property valued at $130,000, the client might gift the property to his or her child over a ten year period ($13,000 annual gift tax exclusion, over ten years). However, if the same property is owned by an FLP, the client may claim a 50% discount in the value of the limited partnership interests (for lack of marketability and lack of control). Now, with a discounted value of limited partnership interests of $65,000 (50% discount on $130,000), via annual gifts of $13,000 worth of partnership interests, it would take the client only five years to gift away her partnership interests and eliminate estate taxes due on that property. This is because a $13,000 gift equals 10% of the non-discounted FLP value ($13,000 = 10% of $130,000), but $13,000 equals 20% of the discounted FLP value ($13,000 = 20% of $65,000).
Further, in the current recessionary economy, now is the time to consider gifting assets that are presently at abnormally low values. The severe decline in the stock and real estate markets have created further built-in discounts for many assets. When the economy rebounds, these assets will begin to increase in value, and that future appreciation will occur outside your estate.
Furthermore, it is likely that the federal government will make unfavorable changes to the estate and gift tax laws in order to compensate for government deficits. If passed by Congress, pending legislation will eliminate the ability to discount the value of FLP gifts. Clients should consider taking advantage of current favorable laws while they still exist.
We realize that these are not simple concepts, and we welcome your questions. We can advise you as to appropriate FLP discounts, prepare memoranda of gift for you, as well as the partnership valuation and gift valuation calculation letters (necessary for the IRS).
B. Looking Ahead to 2011: Tax Increases and What To Do Now
We can expect higher income and capital gains taxes in 2011. Congress may also amend the tax laws to eliminate some favorable tax planning strategies. Clients are therefore advised to engage in tax planning now, in order to have the benefit of “grandfathering” current beneficial tax strategies before changes in the tax law. Further, with the estate tax revival in 2011, the time to lower your taxable estate, thus leaving more for your family and heirs and less to the IRS, is now. We can help explain tax changes, how they may effect your specific situation, and how to legally minimize your taxes.
There are various steps that taxpayers should consider now for effective tax minimization:
1. Sell appreciated property before loss of capital gains treatment and avoid tax via Charitable Remainder Trusts and international tax planning strategies (e.g. tax advantaged foreign annuities and foreign private placement life insurance).
2. Convert 401(k)s to Charitable Remainder Unitrust IRAs before the government taxes 401(k)s.
3. Clients should also consider taking income in 2010, rather than deferring income to 2011 with its likely higher tax rates. As a corollary, clients may wish to defer losses to 2011 to offset expected 2011 income at higher tax rates.
4. Engage in income tax planning via tax-complaint strategies that take advantage of favorable reciprocal tax treaties, before the new tax increases.
5. Consider a Dynasty Trust. Such a trust allows the preservation of assets for one’s immediate and remote descendants, along with offering asset protection from creditors, as well as delay of the estate tax bite for many generations. The trust can distribute income to beneficiaries (who will pay income tax on these distributions of income), but principal is preserved, asset-protected and grows tax-free. The estate tax would potentially apply at the eventual distribution of principal, many generations down the line, but your descendants would have many years to plan around the estate tax.
6. Consider a Charitable Remainder Trust. One of the uncertainties facing taxation is how much will capital gains tax increase? Contributing appreciated assets, such as stock, family businesses and real estate to a Charitable Remainder Trust during 2010 is a good way to avoid capital gains tax. You and your beneficiaries can enjoy distributions from the trust, and at the end of the trust term, a remainder equal to ten percent of the original contribution to the trust may go to a qualified charity. You will receive an additional tax benefit: a deduction equal to the present value of the remainder that may be left to charity. The benefits: a low-tax income stream for you and your beneficiaries, philanthropy of your choice, a charitable deduction and significant capital gains tax minimization.
7. It is also possible to minimize the tax on appreciated assets by exchanging such assets for a foreign annuity policy. The exchange of assets for an annuity policy is not taxable nor reportable (at least until 2012). Further, capital gains within the annuity policy would not be taxable. Annuity payments can be deferred until retirement or advanced age, at which point tax would be due on the income component of the annuity payments. Moreover, the annuity policy and the assets within the policy would be completely asset-protected from future creditors. For complete tax elimination, a foreign life insurance policy can be incorporated, which would allow one to borrow against the cash value of the policy, completely free of taxation (the amounts borrowed, rather than having to be repaid, would be deducted from the ultimate death benefit). Such tax strategies involving foreign annuities and foreign life insurance offer the most advanced asset protection from civil creditors, as well as significant tax minimization or even tax elimination.
Please call our office to discuss any of these tax minimization strategies.
II. Offshore Considerations
This year was dramatic in the offshore world. The IRS’ success against UBS eroded Swiss banking secrecy, effectively ending “going offshore” to hide money from the IRS. Going offshore for asset protection from civil creditors, however, is still viable and effective, but must be tax complaint.
A. Erosion of Offshore Tax Secrecy and Encouraging Tax Compliance
Facing a criminal indictment for encouraging and facilitating tax fraud, in 2010 UBS revealed the names of some 4,500 Americans with accounts they were assured were “secret”.
- Switzerland’s Parliament in 2010 changed long-standing Swiss banking secrecy laws to allow for cooperation and exchange of information with the IRS for both criminal and civil tax investigations.
- The IRS is also investigating HSBC, Credit Suisse, Bank Julius Baer, Bank Leumi, Liechtensteinsche Landesbank and others. Banks in other countries will also be targeted. The IRS is establishing field offices in Panama, Australia and China.
- Domestically, Congress passed the HIRE Act (P.L.111-147) which included various provisions designed to combat offshore tax avoidance by targeting foreign accounts and Americans who own them. New legislation seeks increases to the IRS budget and manpower to pursue undeclared money offshore, including hiring 800 IRS special agents to investigate foreign accounts. While having an offshore account is still legal, the account is subject to increased reporting requirements.
- In light of the above events, many clients have retained us to make their foreign accounts tax-compliant. We represent dozens of clients in the IRS Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP). Although the VDP officially ended in 2009, the IRS still maintains a general voluntary disclosure policy. Throughout 2010, we continued to represent taxpayers with foreign accounts before the IRS, making their accounts compliant, repatriating the foreign funds and avoiding criminal prosecution.
- Clients in the IRS Voluntary Disclosure Program should bring their accounts into tax compliance on the state level as well. Some states, such as Connecticut and New Jersey, had formal programs in 2010 for offshore accounts. Other states, such as New York, encourage compliance via a general voluntary disclosure. The IRS shares information with state governments, including that a federal tax return was amended to report foreign income. Please contact us regarding tax compliance on the state and federal levels.
B. Offshore Asset Protection and Tax-Complaint Planning Is Still Legal and Effective
We have long counseled that non-reporting of foreign assets to the IRS and relying on supposed offshore “secrecy” in order to avoid taxation is unlawful, unwise and would negate effective asset protection. Indeed, we have always emphasized that effective asset protection does not rely on secrecy; it is based on the careful use of domestic and foreign asset protection laws.
Although “secret tax havens” no longer exist for non-compliant accounts, politically, socially and economically stable and secure jurisdictions do exist for tax-compliant asset protection planning and for tax-compliant strategies to minimize US taxation on foreign income. Foreign annuities, international insurance, offshore non-grantor trusts and other international vehicles still serve as the centerpieces of effective tax minimization plans that comply with US and foreign tax laws.
We have various tax-compliant offshore strategies to accomplish both asset protection and tax minimization benefits. These strategies do not rely upon secrecy. Rather, the strategies involve complete disclosure, compliance and safety in utilizing well-credentialed offshore institutions. In a 2008 ruling, U.S. v. Boulware, 128 S. Ct. 1168, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the position that it is the legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of his taxes by means which the law permits. Clients can be assured that their offshore assets, and the tax-favorable profits that they earn, may be absolutely legally protected. We will be pleased to answer your questions regarding tax compliant offshore planning.
A 2010 decision by the highest court in Liechtenstein, in favor of one of our clients’ Liechtenstein trust, reaffirmed that offshore asset protection is still sound, legal and totally effective. The trust funds were administered and controlled by a licensed, bonded, qualified and reputable trustee in Liechtenstein. The trustee and the trust assets were outside the reach of US court jurisdiction. The client’s creditor was forced to commence a new lawsuit in Liechtenstein, at great effort and expense. That creditor ultimately lost. Our client’s assets remain absolutely safe and secure in her Liechtenstein trust.
C. What If You Still Have a Non-Disclosed Foreign Account?
The deadline for the IRS Voluntary Disclosure Program for foreign accounts expired on October 15, 2009. If you are the owner of a foreign account, and you did not come forward under the Voluntary Disclosure Program, what are your options now?
Option One: come forward now. The IRS will still welcome your voluntary disclosure, even after October 15, 2009. In fact, the IRS has welcomed voluntary disclosures long before this most recent, widely publicized program for foreign accounts. The difference is that after October 15, 2009, the penalties are higher. Still, criminal prosecution is usually avoided if you come forward before you are caught. Thus, if you have not entered the Voluntary Disclosure Program, you may still come forward; you will pay penalties higher than those who came forward in 2009, but they will still be significantly lower than if you don’t come forward and the IRS catches you. In that case, jail time for criminal tax fraud is also a frightening possibility.
But some people will not voluntarily come forward. They do not want to disclose their offshore accounts, and they do not want to give any portion of their foreign assets to the IRS. What can they do?
Option Two: convert your account to a tax-compliant structure. We have long counseled the use of tax-compliant strategies to minimize U.S. taxation of foreign accounts. We also advise clients on the legitimization of non-compliant offshore assets. We counsel clients regarding the proper steps to transform a non-compliant offshore account into one that complies with current US laws. Although we cannot erase a non-compliant past, we can ensure full compliance going forward. Such steps may significantly reduce the risk of prosecution for previous violations.
Option Three: do nothing and hope that the IRS does not discover your account. You would be relying on past banking secrecy as a means of future protection. However, as the events of 2010 have proven (see II.A. above), foreign banking secrecy no longer exists. We need only look to UBS’ disclosure of thousands of names of Americans with accounts they thought were protected under so-called Swiss banking secrecy, or the proliferation of tax exchange agreements between the US and numerous foreign tax havens. In light of this new world order, sooner or later the IRS will likely find your foreign account and then it will be too late. This “do nothing” strategy is not recommended.
Failing to remedy a non-compliant offshore account by voluntary disclosure (even now) or by converting to a tax-compliant structure puts you at serious risk of harsh penalties in the event of discovery, including IRS criminal prosecution. As recent events have proven, discovery is very likely. Contact us before the IRS finds you.
D. Antigua Asset Protection Laws Drafted by Rubinstein & Rubinstein
In 2007 and 2008, we advised the Government of Antigua on Antigua’s asset protection, trust and LLC legislation.
In February 2009, the Antigua International Trust Act, International Foundations Act and International LLC act, all of which were drafted by Rubinstein & Rubinstein, became law.
In 2010, we utilized the new Antigua laws on behalf of numerous clients, whose assets are protected in Antigua.
The new laws offer the world’s most secure and confidential environment for offshore asset protection, wealth preservation and tax minimization. The new laws make it nearly impossible for foreign creditors to reach assets protected by Antigua trusts or foundations. The statutes include a very short statute of limitations for creditor claims and limit a creditor’s ability to prove fraudulent conveyance claims. In addition, the legislation contains strong protections against asset repatriation, which prevent foreign courts and creditors from reaching assets protected in Antigua. As a result, Antigua is a premier jurisdiction for offshore asset protection.
E. 2010 Asset Protection Victories: Foreign Trust Survives Creditor Challenge
Our clients have enjoyed more than a few significant victories in the areas of domestic and offshore asset protection. Here is one noteworthy example.
In 2004, our client established an irrevocable asset protection trust in Liechtenstein with funds totaling $1.2 million. The client filed all required IRS forms relating to the funding of the trust and paid US tax annually on all trust income. In 2006, a US creditor obtained a judgment against the client. However, the client had minimal attachable assets in the U.S.
In 2008, the creditor commenced a legal action in Liechtenstein, hoping to get to the assets in the trust. Every Liechtenstein court, from the trial court all the way up to the highest court of Liechtenstein in 2010, ruled against the creditor and determined that the Liechtenstein courts lacked jurisdiction over our client. Thus, the trust assets could not be taken to satisfy the creditor’s judgment. Our client’s assets will remain safe in Liechtenstein.
This case proves that offshore asset protection, when done properly and lawfully and with complete disclosure to the IRS, is completely legal and 100% effective.
III. Asset Protection for Physicians, Property Owners, Financial Professionals/Investment Advisors and Others
A. Doctors: Protect Your Assets Because Insurance Fees Will Soon Go Higher
Medical practitioners should be aware of recent developments which mandate having a proper asset protection plan in place.
In March of 2009, former New York State Governor Patterson and the NY legislature agreed to remove the limitations on legal fees for medical malpractice attorneys. This will result in larger legal fee awards for plaintiff lawyers who target doctors, hospitals and other medical professionals. Insurance companies will soon be paying bigger legal fee awards, which will cause medical malpractice insurance rates to rise, yet again.
Plaintiffs already have an incentive to sue a doctor: doctors are perceived as wealthy deep pockets. Moreover, plaintiffs often believe that a doctor’s insurance company will offer some money in settlement to make the case go away. Now, after the legislative change removing the maximum legal fee awards, plaintiffs’ attorneys have even greater incentives to sue doctors.
Doctors must take steps to protect themselves from lawsuits.
Domestic asset protection (for example, a family limited partnership) will, if done properly, be 100% effective against all future claims, and should serve to discourage future lawsuits. Tax compliant offshore asset protection will absolutely protect assets against all claims.
Asset protection is designed to give defendants (including doctors and any other professional in a high-liability industry) leverage to force a favorable settlement within the parameters of their malpractice coverage. One caveat: it is imperative that physicians protect themselves before the commencement of a lawsuit.
B. Asset Protection for Landlords, Property Owners and Real Estate Investors
Landlords continue to face substantial increases in liability exposure as a result of a 2008 New York Court of Appeals decision, Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Co., which expanded the scope of the “scaffold law”. Now, property owners are absolutely liable for elevation-related injuries (those involving the use of ladders, scaffolding, hoists, etc.) on their property. The case held that a property owner was liable even when the contractor was hired by a tenant in direct violation of a lease provision prohibiting the tenant from altering the premises without the property owner’s permission. Most importantly, this liability is absolute; i.e., the owner is liable even if, as in this case, he did nothing wrong!
With the new broad and absolute interpretation of the “scaffold law”, owners of real property can expect more lawsuits resulting from elevation-related injuries. This expansion of property owner liability comes at a time when property owners are already facing significant legal challenges from slips and falls, lead paint, mold, asbestos, fiberglass, Chinese drywall and other lawsuits. In addition, the current recession, the decline in property values and the increase in vacancy rates create an increased risk of lawsuits from lenders, regulators and unhappy investors. Considering the litigation risks and changes in the interpretations of the law, it is clear that property owners must take proactive steps to protect their assets.
Effective asset protection will discourage lawsuits and offer security against future creditors. It will also allow landlords, doctors and other professionals to reduce the amount of liability insurance they must carry to normal, affordable levels.
C. Asset Protection for Financial Professionals, Hedge Fund Managers and Investment Advisors
During 2010, we’ve seen the emergence of a new group of clients interested in asset protection: investment advisors, hedge fund managers and other financial professionals. This group is faced with an increase in lawsuits brought by litigious investors against their financial advisors and those charged with making investment decisions. As investors seek to blame others for investment losses, plaintiffs are now suing fund managers personally, in addition to suing the fund itself. In the past, it was routine to sue the fund or financial institution; naming the fund manager or investment advisor personally is relatively new, but something that we are seeing in increasing numbers.
In addition, government investigation and prosecution of financial firms, including the 2010 charges against previously-untouchable Goldman Sachs, add a further challenge for investment advisors and financial professionals. Individual professionals can be investigated and charged, in addition to the firm or fund itself. A finding of wrongdoing, or criminal charges, could form from the basis of a civil suit by investors against the investment advisor or money manager.
While in the past, hedge fund managers and investment advisors could take comfort in the indemnification offered by their funds or investment houses, these days, adequate indemnification is far from certain. For one thing, indemnification would not occur in case of negligence or activity determined to run afoul of law, or even activity deemed to be contrary to internal fund or investment house policy. Of greater importance, indemnification is “after-the-fact”; it seeks fund reimbursement after you have already lost your assets. Proper asset protection is pre-emptive; it is designed to discourage lawsuits in the first place and to protect your assets from future claimants. It eliminates the need for indemnification or, at the least, significantly reduces the amount of indemnification needed.
Proper asset protection strategies offer financial professionals piece of mind and provide the protection their hard-earned assets need to withstand the inevitable attacks by investors looking to blame someone else for their investment losses.
IV. Protecting Assets From Divorce: New Law Requires Anticipatory Planning
In New York, under a 2009 court rule and a parallel new state law, a couple’s assets are automatically frozen upon the filing or receipt of a summons in a matrimonial action. In 2010, New York State passed “no fault” divorce law. This new regime necessitates advance asset protection planning if divorce is contemplated.
In the past, if one spouse wanted to protect assets from impending divorce, she could do so, provided she had not already received a Restraining Order from a court. Under the new law, as soon as a spouse files an action for divorce, marital assets are automatically frozen. The new rule restraining asset transfers is binding on a plaintiff immediately when the summons is filed, and on a defendant upon receipt of service of the summons. Thus, persons facing the threat of divorce must plan ahead. The bottom line: Don’t wait for a divorce; if the marriage is shaky, protect your assets well in advance.
V. Rubinstein & Rubinstein Star Exemption Court Victory Now Codified as Law
Rubinstein & Rubinstein’s 2003 court victory against a New York State municipality that had denied the STAR exemption for personal residences owned by Family Limited Partnerships has been codified as law in New York. In 2009, the New York State Legislature amended section 425 of the Real Property Tax Law to include dwellings owned by qualified limited partnerships, including FLPs, as eligible for the STAR exemption.
There is an opportunity here for clients interested in pursuing refunds based upon an improper denial of the STAR exemption in past years. If you are interested in pursuing the opportunity of refunds for past denials, please contact our office.
VI. What’s on the Horizon for 2011?
The current state of the economy, the election of a new Congress, new offshore reporting requirements, as well as other recent changes will make 2011 a pivotal year for taxpayers.
A. More Tax Audits and More IRS Scrutiny
In addition to raising taxes, the government is also more aggressively enforcing tax laws, tightening or closing loopholes and pursuing tax evaders. The IRS is stepping up its investigations of possible tax abuse and tax evasion, pursuing improper “tax shelters” and other abusive transactions, and increasing audits and tax investigations.
What should you do?
First, work with competent, experienced tax counsel, who utilize proven, tax-complaint strategies.
Second, have tax counsel conduct a “friendly audit” – review your financial activities, bookkeeping and record keeping procedures, and accounting practices to uncover and correct sensitive areas before they are discovered in an IRS audit. Become essentially “audit proof”.
We have earned a reputation for experience, expertise and creativity in the development of sophisticated tax-complaint domestic and offshore tax strategies, designed to maximize asset preservation and to minimize taxes. We have been instrumental in the development of creative, tax compliant domestic and offshore strategies for the elimination, deferral or minimization of capital gains tax, income tax and estate tax.
If you are being audited or investigated by the IRS or a state tax authority, hire legal counsel with a proven track record of success against the government.
Rubinstein & Rubinstein, LLP has been advocating on behalf of taxpayers for close to twenty years. Our attorneys have extensive experience in representing clients before the IRS and before state tax departments.
B. New Disclosure Requirements for Offshore Entities, Investments and Financial Accounts
The HIRE (Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment) Act was signed into law in March 2010 and imposes strict reporting and disclosure requirements for foreign financial accounts, trusts and other entities. In addition, in 2010 the Treasury Department proposed new rules which bring foreign annuities and foreign life insurance (which previously were not subject to government reporting) within the scope of disclosure requirements. The new reporting rules will begin to take effect in 2011 and 2012. The new rules are complex. Please contact us to discuss offshore tax compliance and reporting issues.
C. Continued IRS Offensive Against Non-Compliant Foreign Accounts
Following its success against UBS (see II.A., above), we expect the IRS to pursue offshore tax fraud investigations at other banks and in other countries. If you have a non-compliant or undeclared foreign account, we can help you bring it into compliance. If you are being investigated by the IRS, we can represent you, defend you and negotiate for lower fines and penalties and for civil, rather than criminal, prosecution.
VII. Website/Media Attention
We continue to update our website (www.assetlawyer.com) and blog regularly, alerting clients to legal developments in the asset protection and tax worlds. We encourage you to check in regularly and we welcome your questions, comments and suggestions.
Finally, we take a moment to alert you that our performance and expertise have been recognized by media around the world. In 2010, Ken and Asher Rubinstein were interviewed, appeared and were published in:
- Bloomberg TV and radio
- CNBC (US, Europe and Asia)
- Yahoo! Finance
- CNN.Money
- Dow Jones
- Wall Street Journal
- Swiss TV (Schweizer Fernsehen)
- Reuters
- The Times of London
- Forbes.com
- National Public Radio (NPR)
- Wealth Briefing
- Tax Notes International
- Financial Times
- Hedge Fund Alert
- Entrepreneur Magazine
- The Atlanta Post
- WebCPA
- Family Wealth Report
- MyLegal.com
- Indus Business Journal
- Physician’s Money Digest
- National Post (Canada)
- Fox Business
- The New York Times Deal Book
- Tribune de Geneve (Switzerland)
- Cash (Switzerland)
- Valori (Italy)
- ACA (American Citizens Abroad), and others.
We are very proud and humbled by this favorable recognition, and hope that you, our clients, see it as an endorsement of the quality of our legal services on your behalf.
We at Rubinstein & Rubinstein, LLP wish you a happy and healthy holiday season and a happy, prosperous and well-protected new year.
Asher Rubinstein on "Squawk Box" – CNBC Asia, discussing foreign investments and offshore asset protection
Asher Rubinstein on “Squawk Box” – CNBC Asia, discussing foreign investments and offshore asset protection.
2009 Year-End Memo
2009 Year-End Memo
As the year comes to a close, we take this opportunity to remind clients of several important issues that might impact upon their estate, tax and asset protection planning and to reflect upon a few of our significant accomplishments in 2009.
I. Reduce Your Estate Taxes Via 2009 Gifting
Every year, we begin this memo by reminding clients that year-end gifting is an easy, tax-efficient way to reduce their taxable estate. This year, the message is all the more significant because legislation that is currently pending in Congress would limit the tax benefit of such gifting.
The amount that an individual may gift to another individual, without tax consequences, is now $13,000. Gifting is an effective strategy to utilize in reducing estate tax liability. For example, if a husband and wife each gift $13,000 to three children, the value of the couple’s estate is decreased by $78,000.
Additionally, you may utilize your unified lifetime credit to avoid gift taxes and make one or more gifts of limited partnership interests equal in value to $1,000,000 (total value for all gifts). You will be required to file a gift tax return, but the gift taxes will be offset by your $1,000,000 unified lifetime credit. A husband and wife, together, may make joint gifts equal in total value to $2,000,000 in this manner.
Clients with Family Limited Partnerships should consider gifting an equivalent amount of limited partnership interests, so as to decrease the value of their estate. Clients have until December 31, 2009 to effectuate a gift for calendar year 2009. Clients should, in fact, make annual gifts of limited partnership interests, so that the value of their estates, over time, will decrease for estate tax purposes. As general partner, however, clients will continue to control all assets within their partnership.
Gifting of partnership interests works hand-in-hand with the principal of discounting of those interests. Once discounted, more FLP interests can be gifted tax-free to the next generation, which results in more assets passing out of an individual’s taxable estate and thus decreased estate taxes.
One short example may clarify how discounting and annual gifting work together to lower estate tax liability. If a client owns real property valued at $130,000, the client might gift the property to his or her child over a ten year period ($13,000 annual gift tax exclusion, over ten years). However, if the same property is owned by an FLP, the client may claim a 50% discount in the value of the limited partnership interests (for lack of marketability and lack of control). Now, with a discounted value of limited partnership interests of $65,000 (50% discount on $130,000), via annual gifts of $13,000 worth of partnership interests, it would take the client only five years to gift away her partnership interests and eliminate estate taxes due on that property. This is because a $13,000 gift equals 10% of the non-discounted FLP value ($13,000 = 10% of $130,000), but $13,000 equals 20% of the discounted FLP value ($13,000 = 20% of $65,000).
Further, in the current recessionary economy, now is the time to consider gifting assets that are presently at abnormally low values. The severe decline in the stock and real estate markets have created further built-in discounts for many assets. When the economy rebounds, these assets will begin to increase in value, and that future appreciation will occur outside your estate.
Furthermore, it is likely that the federal government will initiate unfavorable changes to the estate and gift tax laws in order to compensate for government deficits. If passed by Congress, pending legislation will eliminate the ability to discount the value of FLP gifts. Clients should consider taking advantage of current favorable laws while they still exist.
We realize that these are not simple concepts, and we welcome your questions. We can advise you as to appropriate FLP discounts, prepare memoranda of gift for you, as well as the partnership valuation and gift valuation calculation letters (necessary for the IRS).
II. Offshore Considerations
This year was dramatic in the offshore world. The IRS’ success against UBS eroded Swiss banking secrecy, effectively ending “going offshore” to hide money from the IRS. Going offshore for asset protection from civil creditors, however, is still viable and effective, but must be tax complaint.
A. Erosion of Offshore Tax Secrecy
- Facing a criminal indictment for encouraging and facilitating tax fraud, UBS settled with the US Government and paid a $780 million fine in 2009. The US then served a “John Doe” summons in a parallel civil case, and UBS settled again, revealing the names of some 4,500 Americans with accounts they were assured were “secret”.
- The IRS is also investigating HSBC, Credit Suisse, Bank Julius Baer and others. Banks in other countries will also be targeted. The IRS announced that it is establishing field offices in Panama, Australia and China.
- The OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development), a multi-governmental organization based in Europe, is pursuing its own campaign against “tax havens”. In March, 2009, virtually all of the formerly “secret” tax haven jurisdictions, including Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Monaco, agreed to the exchange of banking information with foreign governments, including the US. This ends decades and in some cases centuries of banking secrecy.
- Domestically, President Obama and prominent Senators have introduced proposed legislation targeting foreign accounts and Americans who own them. President Obama’s legislation seeks to increase the IRS budget and manpower to pursue undeclared money offshore, including hiring 800 IRS special agents to investigate foreign accounts.
- Government officials of Caribbean and Central American jurisdictions have advised us that the Obama administration has already indicated to them that Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEs) are on the way and are non-negotiable. Under these TIEs, the US Treasury Department can request assistance directly from foreign banks in cases of IRS civil audits.
B. Offshore Asset Protection And Complaint Tax Planning Is Still Legal And Effective
We have long counseled that non reporting of foreign assets to the IRS and relying on supposed offshore “secrecy” in order to avoid taxation is unlawful, unwise and would negate effective asset protection. Indeed, we have always emphasized that effective asset protection does not rely on secrecy; it is based on the careful use of domestic and foreign asset protection laws.
Although “secret tax havens” no longer exist for non-compliant accounts, politically, socially and economically stable and secure jurisdictions do exist for tax-compliant asset protection planning and for tax-compliant strategies to minimize US taxation on foreign income. Foreign annuities, international insurance, offshore non grantor trusts and other international vehicles still serve as the centerpieces of effective tax minimization plans that comply with US and foreign tax laws.
We have various tax-compliant offshore strategies to accomplish both asset protection and tax minimization benefits. These strategies do not rely upon secrecy. Rather, the strategies involve complete disclosure, compliance and safety in utilizing well-credentialed offshore institutions. In a 2008 ruling, U.S. v. Boulware, 128 S. Ct. 1168, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the position that it is the legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of his taxes by means which the law permits. Clients can be assured that their offshore assets, and the tax-favorable profits that they earn, may be absolutely legally protected. We will be pleased to answer your questions regarding tax compliant offshore planning.
A 2009 decision by the highest court in Liechtenstein, in favor of one of our clients’ Liechtenstein trust, established that offshore asset protection is still sound, legal and totally effective. The trust funds were administered and controlled by a licensed, bonded, qualified and reputable trustee in Liechtenstein. The trustee and the trust assets were outside the reach of US jurisdiction. The client’s creditor was forced to commence a new lawsuit in Liechtenstein, at great effort and expense. That creditor ultimately lost. Our client’s assets remain absolutely safe and secure in her Liechtenstein trust.
C. What If You Still Have A Non-Disclosed Foreign Account?
The deadline for the IRS Voluntary Disclosure Program for foreign accounts expired on October 15, 2009. If you are the owner of a foreign account, and you did not come forward under the Voluntary Disclosure Program, what are your options?
Option One: come forward now. The IRS will still welcome your voluntary disclosure, even after October 15. In fact, the IRS has welcomed voluntary disclosures long before the most recent, widely publicized program for foreign accounts. The difference is that after October 15, the penalties are higher. Still, criminal prosecution is usually avoided if you come forward before you are caught. Thus, if you did not enter the Voluntary Disclosure Program, you may still come forward; you will pay penalties higher than those before October 15, but they will still be significantly lower than if you dont come forward and the IRS catches you. In that case, jail time for criminal tax fraud is also a frightening possibility.
But some people will not voluntarily come forward. They do not want to disclose their offshore accounts, and they do not want to give any portion of their foreign assets to the IRS. What can they do?
Option Two: convert your account to a tax-compliant structure. We have long counseled the use of tax-compliant strategies to minimize U.S. taxation of foreign accounts. We also advise clients on the legitimization of non-compliant offshore assets. We counsel clients regarding the proper steps to transform a non-compliant offshore account into one that complies with current US laws. Although we cannot erase a non-compliant past, we can ensure full compliance going forward. Such steps may significantly reduce the risk of prosecution for previous violations.
Option Three: do nothing and hope that the IRS does not discover your account. You would be relying on past banking secrecy as a means of future protection. However, as the events of 2009 have proven (see II.A. above), foreign banking secrecy no longer exists. We need only look to UBS’ disclosure of thousands of names of Americans with accounts they thought were protected under so-called Swiss banking secrecy, or the proliferation of TIEs between the US and numerous foreign tax havens. In light of this new world order, sooner or later the IRS will likely find your foreign account and then it will be too late. This do nothing strategy is not recommended.
Failing to remedy a non-compliant offshore account by voluntary disclosure (even now) or by converting to a tax-compliant structure, puts you at serious risk of harsh penalties in the event of discovery, including IRS criminal prosecution. As recent events have proven, discovery is very likely. Contact us before the IRS finds you.
D. Antigua Asset Protection Laws Drafted by Rubinstein & Rubinstein Become Law In 2009
In February 2009, the Antigua International Trust Act, International Foundations Act and International LLC act – – all of which were drafted by Rubinstein & Rubinstein – – became law.
The new laws offer the world’s most secure and confidential environment for offshore asset protection, wealth preservation and tax minimization. The new laws make it nearly impossible for foreign creditors to reach assets protected by Antigua trusts or foundations. The statutes include a very short statute of limitations for creditor claims and limit a creditor’s ability to prove fraudulent conveyance claims. In addition, the legislation contains strong protections against asset repatriation, which prevent foreign courts and creditors from reaching assets protected in Antigua. As a result, Antigua has become the world’s premier jurisdiction for offshore asset protection.
While we are proud of our achievement in having drafted legislation that was debated, discussed and ultimately passed by the Government of Antigua, we would be remiss in not discussing the Stanford matter which unfortunately was centered in Antigua and came to light in 2009. Stanford’s alleged Ponzi scheme is unrelated to the laws we drafted, and to the stability and safety of Antigua as an asset protection jurisdiction. None of our clients had an account at Stanford or was invented in a Stanford financial product. Moreover, at last count, some 130 banks have failed in the US during 2009, while the banks in Antigua which hold our client assets continue to operate, unaffected by mortgage backed securities, credit default swaps and other speculative derivatives. In short, Stanford’s rougue criminality is unrelated to the laws we wrote for Antigua, nor to the stability and safety of Antigua as an asset protection jurisdiction.
E. 2009 Asset Protection Victories: Foreign Trust Survives Creditor Challenge
Our clients have enjoyed more than a few significant victories in the areas of domestic and offshore asset protection. Here is one noteworthy example.
In 2004, our client established an irrevocable asset protection trust in Liechtenstein with funds totaling $1.2 million. The client filed all required IRS forms relating to the funding of the trust and paid US tax annually on all trust income. In 2006, a US creditor obtained a judgment against the client. However, the client had minimal attachable assets in the U.S.
In 2008, the creditor commenced a legal action in Liechtenstein, hoping to get to the assets in the trust. Every Liechtenstein court, from the trial court all the way up to the highest court of Liechtenstein, ruled against the creditor and determined that the Liechtenstein courts lacked jurisdiction over our client. Thus, the trust assets could not be taken to satisfy the creditor’s judgment. Our client’s assets will remain safe in Liechtenstein.
This case proves that offshore asset protection, when done properly and lawfully and with complete disclosure to the IRS, is completely legal and 100% effective.
III. Asset Protection For Physicians, Property Owners And Other Professionals
Medical practitioners should be aware of several 2009 developments which mandate having a proper asset protection plan in place.
A. Doctors: Protect Your Assets Because Insurance Fees Will Soon Go Higher
In March of 2009, New York State Governor Patterson and the NY legislature agreed to remove the limitations on legal fees for medical malpractice attorneys. This will result in larger legal fee awards for plaintiff lawyers who target doctors, hospitals and other medical professionals. Insurance companies will soon be paying bigger legal fee awards, which will cause medical malpractice insurance rates to rise, yet again.
Plaintiffs already have an incentive to sue a doctor: doctors are perceived as wealthy deep pockets. Moreover, plaintiffs often believe that a doctor’s insurance company will offer some money in settlement to make the case go away. Now, after the legislative change removing the maximum legal fee awards, plaintiffs attorneys have similar incentives to sue doctors.
Doctors must take steps to protect themselves from lawsuits.
Domestic asset protection (for example, a family limited partnership) will, if done properly, be 100% effective against all future claims, and should serve to discourage future lawsuits. Tax compliant offshore asset protection will absolutely protect assets against all claims.
Asset protection is designed to give defendants (including doctors and any other professional in a high-liability industry) leverage to force a favorable settlement within the parameters of their malpractice coverage. One caveat: it is imperative that physicians protect themselves before the commencement of a lawsuit.
B. Doctors: Not Collecting Co-Payments Could Mean Lawsuits
In 2009, doctors witnessed a new threat to their assets: now, insurers are claiming that a physician’s failure to collect co-payments or deductibles from patients constitutes insurance fraud.
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey recently sent a letter to non-participating physicians, which condemns practitioners “routinely waiving applicable patient liability amounts (i.e., deductibles, co-payment and coinsurance amounts, and the difference between the submitted charges and our plan payment).” Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield further states that it has filed lawsuits, alleging that waiving such member liabilities is fraud. Further, “the Office of Inspector General has already identified the waiver of co-payments and deductibles as a potential violation of the Medicare and Medicaid Anti-Kickback Law.”
Thus, in addition to routine and minor billing errors constituting “fraud”, now a medical service provider who neglects to collect a co-payment of $20 can expect a State and Federal lawsuit.
Doctors have always been “deep pocket” targets. Now, doctors can expect additional threats to their business and personal assets .
Doctors are well advised to protect their business and personal assets from all external threats, whether from patients, patients’ lawyers, insurers or the government.
C. Asset Protection for Landlords and Property Owners
Landlords are facing substantial increases in liability exposure as a result of a 2008 New York Court of Appeals decision, Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Co., which expanded the scope of the “scaffold law”. Now, property owners are absolutely liable for elevation-related injuries (those involving the use of ladders, scaffolding, hoists, etc.) on their property. The case held that a property owner was liable even when the contractor was hired by a tenant in direct violation of a lease provision prohibiting the tenant from altering the premises without the property owner’s permission. Most importantly, this liability is absolute; i.e., the owner is liable even if, as in this case, he did nothing wrong!
With the new broad and absolute interpretation of the “scaffold law”, owners of real property can expect more lawsuits resulting from elevation-related injuries. This expansion of property owner liability comes at a time when property owners are already facing significant legal challenges from slips and falls, lead paint, mold, asbestos, fiberglass, Chinese drywall and other lawsuits. In addition, the current recession, the decline in property values and the increase in vacancy rates create an increased risk of lawsuits from lenders, regulators and unhappy investors. Considering the litigation risks and changes in the interpretations of the law, it is clear that property owners must take proactive steps to protect their assets.
Effective asset protection will discourage lawsuits and offer security against future creditors. It will also allow landlords, doctors and other professionals to reduce the amount of liability insurance they must carry to normal, affordable levels.
IV. Protecting Assets From Divorce: New Law Requires Anticipatory Planning
In New York, under a 2009 court rule and a parallel new state law, a couple’s assets are automatically frozen upon the filing or receipt of a summons in a matrimonial action. This new regime necessitates advance asset protection planning if divorce is contemplated.
In the past, if one spouse wanted to protect assets from impending divorce, she could do so, provided she had not already received a Restraining Order from a court. Under the new law, as soon as a spouse files an action for divorce, marital assets are automatically frozen. The new rule restraining asset transfers is binding on a plaintiff immediately when the summons is filed, and on a defendant upon receipt of service of the summons. Thus, persons facing the threat of divorce must plan ahead. The bottom line: Don’t wait for a divorce; if the marriage is shaky, protect your assets well in advance.
V. Rubinstein & Rubinstein Star Exemption Court Victory Now Codified as Law
Rubinstein & Rubinstein’s 2003 court victory against a New York State municipality that had denied the STAR exemption for personal residences owned by Family Limited Partnerships has been codified as law in New York. Last year, the New York State Legislature amended section 425 of the Real Property Tax Law to include dwellings owned by qualified limited partnerships, including FLPs, as eligible for the STAR exemption.
There is an opportunity here for clients interested in pursuing refunds based upon an improper denial of the STAR exemption in past years. If you are interested in pursuing the opportunity of refunds for past denials, please contact our office.
VI. Looking Ahead to 2010
The current state of the economy, the election of a new government, as well as other recent changes, will make 2010 a pivotal year for taxpayers:
A. Tax Increases
The new administration is raising income and capital gains taxes. It will also amend the tax laws to eliminate some favorable tax planning strategies. Clients are therefore advised to engage in tax planning now, in order to have the benefit of “grandfathering” current beneficial tax strategies before changes in the tax law. Further, with the current estate tax structure set to expire in 2010, changes are inevitably on the horizon. For many taxpayers, the impact may be significant. We can help explain these changes, how they may effect your specific situation, and how to legally minimize your taxes.
There are various steps that taxpayers should consider now for effective tax minimization:
- Sell appreciated property before loss of capital gains treatment and avoid tax via Charitable Remainder Trusts and international tax planning strategies (e.g. tax advantaged foreign annuities and foreign private placement life insurance).
- Convert 401(k)s to Charitable Remainder Unitrust IRAs before the new administration taxes 401(k)s.
- Clients should also consider taking income in 2009, rather than deferring income to 2010 with its likely higher tax rates. As a corollary, clients may wish to defer losses to 2010 to offset expected 2010 income at higher tax rates.
- Engage in income tax planning via tax complaint strategies that take advantage of favorable reciprocal tax treaties before the new administration raises taxes.
Please call our office to discuss any of these tax minimization strategies.
B. More Tax Audits and More IRS Scrutiny
In addition to raising taxes, the government is also more aggressively enforcing tax laws, tightening or closing loopholes and pursuing tax evaders. The IRS is stepping up its investigations of possible tax abuse and tax evasion, pursuing improper “tax shelters” and other abusive transactions, and increasing audits and tax investigations.
The government’s need for cash, and its pursuit of tax dollars, has been well-publicized. See, for example, “IRS Brings New Focus to Auditing the Rich”, The Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2009 (stating that the IRS is not only looking at the 1040 returns filed by wealthy Americans, but “the entire economic picture of the enterprise controlled by the wealthy individual”); “New York, Needing Cash, Pursuing Tax Delinquents”, New York Times, November 10, 2009 (discussing the hundreds of thousands of tax warrants filed, across a diverse spectrum of individuals and businesses, and the millions of open and active tax cases by the New York State Tax Department); “IRS Begins Major Initiative To Audit 6,000 Companies”, Mondaq, November 24, 2009 (“all companies, large and small, as well as for-profit and not-for-profit, are within the potential scope of the IRS’ new initiative”).
What should you do?
First, work with competent, experienced tax counsel, who utilize proven, tax-complaint strategies.
Second, have tax counsel conduct a “friendly audit” – review your financial activities, bookkeeping and record keeping procedures, and accounting practices to uncover and correct sensitive areas before they are discovered in an IRS audit. Become essentially “audit proof”.
We have earned a reputation for experience, expertise and creativity in the development of sophisticated tax-complaint domestic and offshore tax strategies, designed to maximize asset preservation and to minimize taxes. We have been instrumental in the development of creative, tax compliant domestic and offshore strategies for the elimination, deferral or minimization of capital gains tax, income tax and estate tax.
If you being audited or investigated by the IRS or a state tax authority, hire legal counsel with a proven track record of success against the government.
Rubinstein & Rubinstein, LLP has been advocating on behalf of taxpayers for close to twenty years. Our attorneys have extensive experience in representing clients before the IRS and before state tax departments.
C. Continued IRS Offensive Against Non-Compliant Foreign Accounts
Following its success against UBS (see II.A., above), we expect the IRS to pursue offshore tax fraud investigations of other banks and in other countries. If you have a non-compliant or undeclared foreign account, we can help you bring it into compliance. If you are being investigated by the IRS, we can represent you, defend you and negotiate for lower fines and penalties.
VII. Website/Media Attention
In 2009, our new website and blog went “live”. We continue to update both regularly, alerting clients to legal developments in the asset protection and tax worlds. We encourage you to check in regularly and we welcome your questions, comments and suggestions.
Finally, we take a moment to alert you that our performance and expertise has been recognized by media around the world. In 2009, Ken and Asher Rubinstein were both interviewed, appeared and were published in: Bloomberg TV, CNBC (US, Europe and Asia), Yahoo! Finance, CNN.Money, Dow Jones/Wall Street Journal, The Jerusalem Post, Swiss TV (Schweizer Fernsehen), Swedish TV, Reuters, The Times of London, Fortune.com, Forbes, National Public Radio (NPR), Investment News, Wealth Briefing, World Wide Tax Daily, Tax Notes International, Financial Times, The Antigua Sun, The Journal of Taxation and Regulation of Financial Institutions, Hedge Fund Alert, Hedge Fund Law Report, Hedge Co. and others. We are very proud and humbled by this favorable recognition, and hope that you, our clients, see it as an endorsement of the quality of our legal services on your behalf.
We at Rubinstein & Rubinstein, LLP wish you a happy and healthy holiday season and a happy, prosperous and well-protected new year.
Rubinstein, Author of Antigua's asset protection laws, interviewed in Financial Times
Rubinstein, Author of Antigua’s asset protection laws, interviewed in Financial Times
Kenneth Rubinstein, “a tax attorney and the man who wrote Antigua’s trust and financial service regulation laws” was interviewed and quoted in the following article in Financial Times
Search for a way through Stanford labyrinth
By Stacy-Marie Ishmael in New York, Financial Times
Published: March 15 2009 18:44 | Last updated: March 15 2009 18:44
Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, which could be the biggest in history, dwarfs the $8bn fraud of which Sir Allen Stanford stands accused by the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
But only in size. In scope and complexity, the allegations against the Texan billionaire could be in a class of their own.
An update due Monday from Ralph Janvey, the US court-appointed receiver, is expected to shed more light on his struggles to unravel the structure of the Stanford empire.
The SEC has said Sir Allen’s alleged Ponzi scheme operated primarily through his offshore bank in Antigua, but Stanford’s tentacles extended far beyond the shores of a Caribbean island barely twice the size of Washington DC.
The Stanford group of companies comprised, according to a statement issued by the receiver appointed to oversee them, at least 175 entities ranging from banks to restaurants to bullion dealers in more than 100 places including Houston, Montreal, Caracas, Quito and St Croix.
This complex organisation, as well as questions over jurisdiction, have complicated attempts by Mr Janvey to locate and secure the assets of the Stanford Group.
In February, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas authorised Mr Janvey to act as receiver for all the assets and records of Stanford International Bank, the Stanford Group Company and Stanford Capital Management.
Unusually, the court also granted Mr Janvey oversight of three of the top Stanford executives – Sir Allen; James Davis, Sir Allen’s chief financial officer and college roommate; and Laura Pendergest-Holt, the group’s chief investment officer – and of all entities they own or control. Sir Allen is the sole shareholder of both SIB and SGC and a majority of the companies that bear his name.
The sweeping motion was met with derision and disbelief by government and regulatory officials in Antigua, where Stanford International Bank and a host of other companies in the group are domiciled.
Local regulators were quick to point out that in the absence of a memorandum of understanding, they were under no obligation to share information with their cohorts at the SEC and set out to deal with the alleged fraud on their own terms.
Antigua is party to a mutual legal assistance treaty, or MLAT, with the US, but this would only be applicable in the event of a criminal probe, according to Kenneth Rubinstein, a tax attorney and the man who wrote Antigua’s trust and financial service regulation laws.
No criminal charges have been filed against Mr Stanford.
“I don’t believe that a US receiver, especially one appointed in connection with a civil complaint, has any claim to Antiguan assets,” he told the Financial Times.
Moreover, three days after Mr Janvey was appointed in the US, the Financial Services Regulatory Commission on the island announced that it had appointed receivers of its own. Nigel Hamilton-Smith and Peter Wastell of Vantis Business Recovery Services, a UK-based company, were to jointly manage the affairs of SIB and the Stanford Trust Company.
But cross-border cooperation has not just been stymied by a lack of legal agreements and Antigua’s uniquely restrictive finance and trust laws. Local politicians have been galvanised into action by what they see as a disregard for the island’s sovereignty.
This month, the Antiguan parliament voted in favour of a government proposal to seize 250 acres of land and properties belonging to Sir Allen, including SIB.
“We have a responsibility to take the necessary action to protect the people of Antigua and Barbuda,” the island’s attorney-general, Justin Simon, said.
Dr Errol Cort, Antigua’s finance minister, added that neither the SEC nor US government officials had made any attempt to contact him or his colleagues. The SEC declined to comment.
Mr Janvey sent letters to every bank and financial institution in the region with a warning that assets they had at SIB or within the Stanford Financial Group should be considered frozen, Dr Cort said.
“These actions require certain preventative attempts to be taken,” the finance minister told the lower house of parliament, which voted unanimously in favour of the motion.
Additional reporting by Joanna Chung in New York
Author of Antigua Asset Protection Laws Clarifies Antigua's Offshore Position
Kenneth Rubinstein, author of Antigua’s Asset Protection Laws, was interviewed by the Antigua Sun and explains that Antigua is still a strong Asset Protection jurisdiction.
Offshore Financial Sector At Risk As Anti-Tax Haven Laws Get Drafted
Tuesday March 10 2009
by Aarati Jagdeo, Antigua Sun
New York Attorney, Kenneth Rubinstein, stated that Antigua and Barbuda must aggressively pursue ways to repair its image before “the coming storm of anti-tax haven abuse legislation.”
Rubinstein’s firm, Rubinstein & Rubinstein LLP, drafted the Antigua International Trust Act, International Foundations Act and International LLC Act, which became law as of 17 Jan., 2009.
Rubinstein was flown down last week, as an invited expert, for a meeting with members of the Antiguan financial services group, heads of Antigua’s international banks, attorneys, accountants, trust companies, investment managers and advisors.
Speaking exclusively with the Antigua Sun, Rubinstein said the purpose of the meeting was to discuss how best to counteract the negative publicity the country has been subjected to since the onslaught of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC)’s investigation into Antigua’s largest private investor and Chairman of Stanford International Bank Ltd., Sir R. Allen Stanford.
According to Rubinstein, all is not lost for Antigua and Barbuda’s position as a viable and credible offshore financial services centre.
Rubinstein listed his three proposed methods of damage control to the SUN.
“There are three important issues that I believe the financial services sector and the government have to deal with. 1) Counter-acting the damage to Antigua’s image as an offshore centre caused by the Stanford matter, 2) Educating the world with regard to Antigua’s new legislative advantages as an offshore centre and 3) Clarifying Antigua’s position in light of the US and European anti-tax haven initiatives that are taking place.”
In terms of anti-tax haven initiatives, US Senator, Carl Levin, along with other senators, has already drafted the “Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act”, which seeks to “stop tax cheats, who drain our treasury of funds needed to pay for our recovery.
The bill’s target is offshore tax abuses that rob the US Treasury of an estimated US$100 billion each year, reward tax dodgers using offshore secrecy laws to hide money from Uncle Sam and offload the tax burden onto the backs of middle income families who play by the rules.”
Rubinstein stated that with future legislation of this sort expected to come out of the UK, Europe and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), it is important for Antigua and Barbuda to position itself as a legitimate and respectable jurisdiction.
To combat the potential negative repercussions of anti-tax haven legislation, Rubinstein indicated that Antigua and Barduba needs to highlight its existing laws which were drafted to ensure that the offshore financial industry operated on a tax-compliant basis.
“The Swiss confidentiality act and the Antigua confidentiality act are both designed to protect the privacy and confidence of individuals’ assets from private persons or entities, not from those individuals’ governments,” Rubinstein stated.
He further pointed out that Antigua has a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) with the US and a Tax Information Exchange Agreement, both of which pre-empt and take precedence over the domestic confidentiality laws in Antigua and Barbuda.
Antigua and Barbuda is not some “rogue island,” Rubinstein stated, and according to him, it would be a mistake for anyone to think otherwise.
“We are not a country to hide assets illegally, we are a country that will let you protect your assets from civil disputes, private people, companies etc., that may have claims against you, we’re not a country that is going to welcome you to come hide your assets because those assets are somehow related to criminal activity in your home country, including criminal tax fraud in your home country.”
Rubinstein stated to the SUN that offshore banking was “not going to go away.” When asked how he could be so sure, Rubinstein stated, “People will always need a safe place to put their money, to put their assets, that is removed from the jurisdiction of their home country in civil controversies.”
He continued, “In addition, there will always be a certain number of people who feel that it is good financial planning to take a certain amount of assets and keep them in a different country with a different economy.”
Rubinstein cited the increasing troubles in the US, which have caused a giant decrease in consumer confidence in the stability of US markets.
“I know many people today, who are taking assets out of the US not because of any fear of lawsuits but because of their fears of the collapse of the US economic system, collapse of the banking system and they want to have a nest-egg someplace else that is safe.
“Europe is just as bad, Asia is getting there. But you know what? An island with a stable economy that is not exposed to the sub-prime mortgage catastrophe or the credit default swap catastrophe, might be a very good place to put your money,” he continued.
In this connection, Rubinstein noted, “When clients call me and ask ‘Are Antigua banks safe today?’ my response is generally, ‘A helluva lot safer than the banks in New York.’”
New York Attorney Kenneth Rubinstein To Address Antigua Financial Services and International Banking Industry as Invited Expert
New York Attorney Kenneth Rubinstein To Address Antigua Financial Services and International Banking Industry as Invited Expert
NEW YORK, NY – (March 4, 2009) – Kenneth Rubinstein of the New York law firm Rubinstein & Rubinstein, LLP will address the Antigua Financial Services group on March 5, 2009 to discuss the country’s recent financial news reports and future business development goals. Expected attendees at his talk include the heads of all of Antigua’s international banks as well as the country’s financial service providers, including attorneys, accountants, trust companies, corporate service providers, investment managers and advisors.
“Interest in Antigua continues as the country demonstrates its ability to provide safety, stability and legitimacy of Antigua as an international financial center and promotes its banks and service providers as safe depositories and custodians of offshore funds and assets,” said Rubinstein, who wrote Antigua’s trust and financial service regulation laws in 2006.
Other key considerations that Rubinstein will address in his talk relate to the fact that investors seek government reassurance regarding the stability of the economy, banking system, tax situation and exchange treaties. “Statements of reassurance are needed with respect to the safety and security of Antigua’s international and domestic banking systems, regulation of international and domestic banks, the fact that there have been no bank failures, and that all depositors have immediate access to their funds,” he said.
For additional information regarding Rubinstein & Rubinstein, LLP, visit the website at www.assetlawyer.com or call 212.888.6600.
Email: julie@hedgeco.net