View Full Version : Starting a TRUST
Member #3320
08-02-08, 17:13
Dear Friends,
For quite some time, I have been thinking of my eligibility for "rentista" category. Unfortunately, I am not receiving any pension NOR I have any rents coming from any property, nor do I have any annuities!
However, I have money in capital. So, I have been advised by a immigration lawyer to start a "trust" being a beneficiary myself. Of course, I do understand, what is a "Trust". But what I would like to know if anyone here has experience of starting a "Trust" for any purpose & also if anyone has experience of starting a "trust" specifically for purpose of qualifying for "rentista" category for Argentine Residency?
Thank you for your answers in advance.
The words "trust" and "Argentina" combine about as well as bleach and ammonia. You don't need any of that stuff if all you want to do is live here. Just take the boat every three months. Or stand in line every six months and take the boat every six months.
Captain,
A "plazo fijo" only requires 30 days and you can do it in either pesos or dollars.
USA social security benefits can qualify. Why not a living trust set up in the USA or Cayman or Panama? Does anyone have a real answer? A living trust is a useful tool for estate planning purposes regardless of whether one stays in the usa or wants to use the trust's income to qualify for Argentine residence.
Dear Friends,
For quite some time, I have been thinking of my eligibility for "rentista" category. Unfortunately, I am not receiving any pension NOR I have any rents coming from any property, nor do I have any annuities!
However, I have money in capital. So, I have been advised by a immigration lawyer to start a "trust" being a beneficiary myself. Of course, I do understand, what is a "Trust". But what I would like to know if anyone here has experience of starting a "Trust" for any purpose & also if anyone has experience of starting a "trust" specifically for purpose of qualifying for "rentista" category for Argentine Residency?
Thank you for your answers in advance.You don't need a trust.
The primary purpose of a Trust is to avoid probate and keep the lawyers & judges from pilfering your estate after you die. Without a trust your estate would go into probate which would take upwards of a year before the assets could be dispenced. In the mean time your probate attorney will be stealing with both hands out of the estate.
But since you don't own anything but cash why go to the expense. A good "Living Trust" or "Revokeable Trust" is going to cost you 4 to 5 thousand dollars to set up right but you've got nothing to put into it.
And for "God Sakes" if you must set up a living trust don't do it in Argentina. Use a creditable US financial institution such as a big bank or brokerage house to hold your cash.
Exon
Trusts can be used to avoid probate, it's true, but there are far more creative uses. One of my favorite uses is to fuck over creditors. You can put all your assets in a trust. Your house, your car, your clothes, your dog. Then you can be the trustee and can distribute assets at your discretion. What this means is that if you, John Q. Monger, set up The John Q. Monger Trust, and put all your assets in it, anyone who has money coming from John Q. Monger has to talk to John Q. Monger, Trustee. They can't attach the assets directly. All they can get is a "charging order" entitling them to a claim on the distribution of assets, if any assets are distributed. So, when they call you up, you put on your trusty trustee hat and say, "I'm sorry, but no assets from this trust will be distributed in the near future."
So, what do you live on if all your assets are in the trust? Well, you can still use and enjoy your house, car, clothes, and dog. So what you don't put in the trust are the things creditors can't attach anyway, such as IRAs, 401(k) s and the like. Or move to Texas and get a job there; ordinary creditors can't garnish wages in that state. Trust laws vary from state to state and I am not an attorney. The smartest guy I ever ran across in this area was a guy named Keith Davis, a CPA and attorney out of Evergreen, Colorado, whose practice is limited to asset protection. Anybody wants to financially bullet-proof themselves, talk to him.
But the OP needs to establish an income producing vehicle to establish residency here, or so he thinks. I think he probably doesn't need to establish residency at all, but if he does for some reason that is not apparent, a US trust is probably not the answer because the income would not be guaranteed. An annuity could be the answer and Vanguard has good ones.
However, establishing a trust in Argentina using Argentinean banks and Argentinean attorneys is hardly preferable to just throwing all your money into your handy municipal sewer system, which would be much simpler and less time-consuming.
An attorney is just a prostitute who doesn't stop fucking you after you're dead.
Wrong again DickHead,
Any good attorney can take apart a revokeable trust with not much difficulty if your a creditor going after assets. An irrevokeable trust is a little harder to invade but still very doable if a creditor has justifiable cause.
No, the best way to protect assets is off shore corporations, not Trust's.
Example:
You form a corporation, say in the Grand Cayman's, (there are many other places with friendly laws) The Cayman corporation will own all the stock in another corporation, say in Liechtenstein. The Liechtenstien open's up an account at your neighbor hood branch of Bank of America and your off to the races.
I've known CockSuckers that have done just that, but added a little flare to their conduct by having the Liechtenstien corporation buy a bank in Panama. Then the MotherFucker make's loans to himself from his Panama bank, (he's the only stockholder) and never pay's them back. I've seen this work particulary well in fraudulent stock transaction's and no tax's to boot.
Exon
You're full of shit. Where did I say I was talking about a revocable trust? Nowhere. You set up an irrevocable living trust in the right state (as opposed to a state of your imagination) and it's bullet proof. Your reading comprehension is very poor. Where did I say that a trust was the best way to protect assets? It's one way to protect them. Go back to the elk food. Keith Davis is a good attorney and he will set up a trust that will shove everything right up the creditors' asses.
It is true, and I should have said, that you have to set up the trust before you get a judgement against you. I thought that was obvious but maybe it wasn't.
Wrong again Senior DickHead,
The key to your arguement is the "State" you live in. Yes some states such as Florida & Texas have laws that protect Exons, O. J. Simpsom comes to mind moving to Florida. But the majority of states have laws that protect creditors such as the state I live in.
Trust me cause I'm chasing an Exon that owes me 150 grand and I'm becoming an expert on this sort of thing.
Example: Heres the law in the state I live in.
Exon.
44-1004. Transfers fraudulent as to present and future creditors.
A. A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation under any of the following:
1. With actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debtor.
2. Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor either:
(a) Was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction.
(be) Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due.
Be. In determining actual intent under subsection A, paragraph 1, consideration may be given, among other factors, to whether:
1. The transfer or obligation was to an insider.
2. The debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer.
3. The transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed.
4. Before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit.
5. The transfer was of substantially all of the debtor's assets.
6. The debtor absconded.
7. The debtor removed or concealed assets.
8. The value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred.
9. The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.
10. The transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred.
11. The debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.
©2007 Arizona State Legislature.
You don't have to set up the trust in the state where you live and I made it very clear that the choice of state is very important. If I recall correctly, and I might not be, South Dakota was the state that Keith was using. It's the laws of the state you set the trust up in that are going to determine a creditor's ability to access them. He said specifically that this particular state allowed the transfer of all your assets without considering that as factor in determining fraud.
And, yeah, you can't make fraudulent transfers. If you put all your assets in the trust before you get in trouble they're not going to able to prove fraudulent transfers.
A transfer to a trust never involves consideration so the concept of sufficient consideration would not apply. You don't need to abscond, and you're not hiding assets. A trust isn't an insider either.
OJ moved to Florida to take advantage of the bankruptcy laws (the unlimited homestead exemption)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.