Thursday, December 5, 2013

What happens without Asset Protection Planning?

What happens without Asset Protection Planning?


Spouses who anticipate accumulating even modest amounts of wealth need to be aware of the possible consequences awaiting them if they decline to take advantage of asset protection opportunities, and instead allow the marital property laws of their state to determine what property will be available to satisfy the claims of an unforeseen creditor. Assume the following for purposes of illustration.  A man and a woman marry. Shortly thereafter, the wife quits her job because the husband, a physician, earns more than enough for the two to live comfortably and raise a family. After 30 years of marriage, with an ample accumulation of wealth, they begin to plan their retirement. The couple has never engaged the advice of an estate planner, nor have they ever taken any action on their own to protect any of their assets. Unfortunately, shortly before he retires from his practice of medicine, the husband is sued for malpractice.  The resulting judgment far exceeds his liability coverage, and he becomes a judgment debtor; the creditor comes after everything he owns. 


This example raises the following questions: after 30 years of marriage what does he own, what does his wife own, and how much property will the creditor be able to reach? In order to find out, the couple files a suit for declaratory judgment to determine how much of their house, ranch, savings account, life insurance and annuities contracts are subject to the claims of the husband's creditor. In an actual case with substantially similar facts as this example, the court decided that under state law, the husband and wife owned the land as tenants in common and therefore the judgment could be satisfied out of the husband's one-half interest in the real property; a partition by sale was required. As to the savings account, life insurance and annuities contracts, everything was earned by the husband, and because the spouses lived in a common-law jurisdiction, everything was his separate property, and all was available to the creditor. The couple's life savings were virtually eliminated. 
 

The above result could easily have been avoided by implementing simple asset protection strategies by an experienced attorney for marital property. The first step in planning a strategy to protect the assets of a married couple is to find a lawyer that can identify what would happen to the couple if they do no asset protection planning, and a few years in the future they face the claim of a creditor. Will the result be like that of the spouses in the above example?

 
This analysis requires identifying and understanding what property the couple currently owns, and how vulnerable that property is to the claims of a creditor of either spouse or of both spouses. If the married couple lives in a community property state, what property is held as community property and what property is held as either spouse's separate property will need to be determined. If the couple lives in a common law state, it will be necessary to determine in whose name property is held. Also, the planner needs to decide if property acquired in the future will take on similar characteristics as the property currently held.  If the current scheme of property ownership exposes the property to unnecessary risk, a more appropriate scheme must be devised.  For example, if one spouse is the primary wage earner and is also in a high-risk occupation, such as medicine or law, which may expose him or her to large unforeseen judgments in the future, that spouse should not own and control a large proportion of the spouses' assets; however, that may be exactly what happens under the law if no planning is done. 


Once a more appropriate distribution of property is decided upon, the estate planner must determine a means for reaching the desired goals. The spouses may want to make outright gifts, enter into marital property agreements, or establish trusts whereby asset protection may be afforded the donee-spouse as well as the donor.  Laws of the spouses' particular jurisdiction need to be carefully consulted to determine if the proposed action will be upheld if challenged by creditors. For example, some states liberally accept pre- and post marital agreements, while others have strict rules which must be complied with in order for such agreements to be enforceable, while still others may not recognize post marital agreements at all.


Estate planning varies by state and immigration status.  Please speak to an attorney in order to plan carefully depending on the state and country you live in.


For more information of Estate Planning and how to protect your assets, please call (+1) 305-372-0222 to schedule a consultation with Attorney Genilde E. Guerra. or visit www.kravitzlaw.com

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Be Aware of EB-5 Program Scams. Warning by SEC

The Securities and Exchange Commission is warning international investors of potential scams offered through the EB-5 visa program, which presents investors in qualified projects a path to a residency visa.

The program is popular with property developers, who see EB-5 as a way to attract foreign investors. But the SEC and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are prosecuting companies that allegedly abused the system.

The SEC is “aware of investment scams targeting foreign nationals who seek to become permanent lawful U.S. residents through the Immigrant Investor Program (“EB-5″),” the agencies reported. “In close coordination with USCIS, which administers the EB-5 program, the SEC has taken emergency enforcement action to stop allegedly fraudulent securities offerings made through EB-5.”

Under the EB-5 program, which was first developed in 1990, investors can earn a fast-track path to a residency visa if they invest $1 million in a job-creating commercial enterprise, or $500,000 in a “targeted employment area.”

In Chicago, the SEC alleges the promoter of the “world’s first zero carbon emission platinum LEED certified hotel and conference center” used false and misleading information to solicit investors. The complaint charges the developer with a “$156 million investment fraud,” including allegations that the individual falsely claimed that the project had received necessary permits and had received backing from major hotel chains.

The SEC is also prosecuting a case in Texas, where they allege the creators of a regional center falsely promised returns of 5 percent on their investment and started marketing the project before the business was designated as a regional center. The defendants also misused investor funds on personal projects, including the funding for a Cajun-themed restaurant, the complaint alleges.

“The fact that a business is designated as a regional center by USCIS does not mean that USCIS, the SEC, or any other government agency has approved the investments offered by the business, or has otherwise expressed a view on the quality of the investment,” the SEC warns. “The SEC and USCIS are aware of attempts to misuse the EB-5 program as a means to carry out fraudulent securities offerings.”

Source: http://www.worldpropertychannel.com

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Latest in Immigration Reform


Last week was a big one for immigration reform. The House’s Gang of Seven is now the Gang of Five. Texas GOP Reps. Sam Johnson and John Carter left the group, which was long expected to introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill, saying,

“The bottom line is—the American people do not trust the president to enforce laws, and we don’t either.”

Though piecemeal bills still seem the most realistic way to get reform passed through the House, comprehensive reform might not be dead yet. Politico reports

“House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is spearheading a plan to advance comprehensive immigration reform in the chamber…[her] strategy includes introducing legislation combining the comprehensive bill that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in May with a bipartisan border security bill from the House Homeland Security Committee.”

At the same time Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and Filemon Vela (D-TX) have their own comprehensive reform package; the two introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2013 on Friday.
September 15 marked the beginning of Hispanic Heritage Month, and the Republican Party is taking the opportunity to reach out to Hispanics and Latinos. Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus set the tone in an opinion piece for the National Review, telling GOP politicians,

“If you’re not engaging with the Hispanic community, you better get to work.”

House Republicans are also working on a campaign, including an outreach video targeting Latino voters. However, it failed to mention immigration reform.

 

Despite ample reasons for skepticism, there were several developments toward reform last week. For one, House Judiciary Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte remains committed to reform; his committee is formulating four additional immigration-related bills. On the potential for DREAMers, Goodlatte seemed to lighten up, saying

“I wouldn’t give them a special pathway to citizenship; I would give them an earned pathway to citizenship.”

The Kids Act, though, still lacks a sponsor. Texas Democrat Henry Cuellar is reaching across the aisle on reform, scheduling a meeting with Goodlatte

“to discuss the residency/citizenship issue.”

In addition, in a bipartisan effort, Candice Miller (R-MI) and Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) introduced the Biometric Exit Improvement Act of 2013 (H.R. 3141), a key improvement to border security.

In a Tuesday interview with Telemundo, President Obama signaled he is willing to sign a set of piecemeal immigration bills, so long as critical components such as a pathway to citizenship are included. Obama also reiterated the Senate’s comprehensive bill would pass if Speaker John Boehner brought it to vote and that he would not extend the Deferred Action program to all unauthorized immigrants. The latter point remains contentious among advocates and congressional leaders and drew protesters to the White House Wednesday.

Several events kept the focus on the issue of citizenship this week. Tuesday was National Citizenship Day, and

“House Democrats held a special order session… where they took to the floor to speak about the economic and moral benefits of passing immigration reform with a path to citizenship.”

Reps. Tony Cardenas (D-CA) and Matt Cartwright (D-PA) wrote an opinion piece for The Hill on the same topic. This push will continue, with advocates announcing their plans for an October 8 citizenship rally, called the March for Immigrant Dignity and Respect, on the National Mall.

Many state and local leaders continue to back reform. Leaders across the country, from Utah's higher education system, to the Norristown, PA Municipal Council (a town of 35,000), to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, are asking the federal government to pass immigration reform. California and Arizona, two immigration legislation hot spots remain in the news; while Arizona continues efforts to restrict driver’s licenses for DACA youth, California approved a suite of bills expanding the rights of non-citizens.

Source: RealClearPolitics

For more information on Same-Sex Marriage, contact Immigration Attorney Robert Kravitz and Genilde Guerra at (+1) 305-372-0222 or email attorney@kravitzlaw.com

Friday, July 5, 2013

Same-Sex Marriage and Green Cards - YES!

It’s a brave new world for same sex couples who are legally married. For the first time legal same-sex marriages are recognized by the United States Immigration



 

According to Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano:
 
"After last week's decision by the Supreme Court holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, President Obama directed federal departments to ensure the decision and its implication for federal benefits for same-sex legally married couples are implemented swiftly and smoothly. To that end, effective immediately, I have directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to review immigration visa petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: I am a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident in a same-sex marriage to a foreign national. Can I now sponsor my spouse for a family-based immigrant visa?
A1: Yes, you can file the petition. You may file a Form I-130 (and any applicable accompanying application). Your eligibility to petition for your spouse, and your spouse’s admissibility as an immigrant at the immigration visa application or adjustment of status stage, will be determined according to applicable immigration law and will not be automatically denied as a result of the same-sex nature of your marriage.
Q2: My spouse and I were married in a U.S. state that recognizes same-sex marriage, but we live in a state that does not. Can I file an immigrant visa petition for my spouse?
A2: Yes, you can file the petition. In evaluating the petition, as a general matter, USCIS looks to the law of the place where the marriage took place when determining whether it is valid for immigration law purposes. That general rule is subject to some limited exceptions under which federal immigration agencies historically have considered the law of the state of residence in addition to the law of the state of celebration of the marriage. Whether those exceptions apply may depend on individual, fact-specific circumstances. If necessary, we may provide further guidance on this question going forward.
For information on Same-Sex Marriage please consult, Robert A. Kravitz, Esq., an Immigration Attorney of Law Offices of Kravitz & Guerra, Miami, Florida.