Review Your Structures When Your Child Gets A Drivers License.

Your risk exposure goes through the roof when your child under 18 years old obtains a drivers license.

Are you surprised? Didn’t you read the fine print?

In most states, the application for an instruction permit or drivers license must be signed by a parent or custodian of the child. And by signing that simple form you agree to be responsible for the negligence or misconduct of the minor while they are driving.

So if your 16 year old son, god forbid, gets in a horrific car accident not only is he responsible for the resultant damages but equally so are you. Are you thinking about protecting your assets yet?

These laws can ensnare all sorts of innocent parties. For example, in Nevada, if neither parent has custody and there is no custodian, an employer may sign the drivers license application form. (N.R.S. 483.300) Of course, having a young employee who can drive may be a benefit to an employer. But what the employer may not realize is that he or she has just become personally responsible for any accident, and the resulting direct and consequential damages, the young driver may cause.

In addition to driving there are other areas where an unruly child can get a parent into trouble. In Arizona, for example, parents and custodians are responsible for their minor’s bad behavior:

“Any act of malicious or willful misconduct of a minor which results in any injury to the person or property of another, to include theft or shoplifting, shall be imputed to the parents or legal guardian having custody or control of the minor whether or not such parents or guardian could have anticipated the misconduct for all purposes of civil damages, and such parents or guardian having custody or control shall be jointly and severally liable with such minor for any actual damages resulting from such malicious or willful misconduct.” (A.R.S. §12-661 A)

While the law limits the parent’s responsibility to $10,000, that amount is for each wrong, which can quickly add up. As well, the law allows insurance companies “to exclude coverage for the acts of a minor imputed to his parent or legal guardian.” (A.R.S. §12-661 C) This means the parent will have to personally pay the $10,000 per infraction. In California the parent’s amount is $25,000 for each tort of the minor, which an insurance company does not have to pay. (Cal. Civ. Code §1714.1) In a sign of the times, the California law specifically holds parents responsible for a minor’s graffiti defacings.

What does all this risk mean for parents?

That asset protection is crucial for those whose children are coming of age. Be sure to work with your asset protection advisor to make sure all assets are protected. (If you need such an advisor feel free to call us at 1-800-700-1430.) Consider holding your brokerage account in a Wyoming or Nevada LLC. Otherwise, if that valuable account is in your name as an individual it will be the first place a judgment creditor will look to satisfy their claim.

So before you sign that form making you personally responsible for your minor child’s driving activities, double check and make sure your assets are protected. Your personal residence, your brokerage account and all of you other valuable assets must be protected before your children start driving, and increasing your risk profile.

Garrett Sutton, Esq. is a corporate attorney and is the author of "Own Your Own Corporation" and other titles in the Rich Dad Advisor series. His firm forms and maintains corporations, LLCs and other entities and may be reached at http://www.corporatedirect.com
To get a FREE copy of Garrett's book, "What to Know Before you Incorporate" log onto http://www.corporatedirect.com

Good standing sounds important. It conveys the sense of ethical and upright activities. It is a place from which you want (or should want) to operate.

When it comes to corporations, LLCs and LPs good standing is a legal requirement. And the consequences of not being in good standing, while unfortunately unappreciated by most, can be devastating.

Almost every state requires each corporation, LLC and LP formed there or qualified to do business there to file an annual report.

The purpose of these periodic filings is two-fold. First, it allows the state to collect their annual fee from the entity for the upcoming year. And make no mistake, these filing fees add up and are a very important and stable source of state revenue. Second, the reports confirm whether the entity is still active in the state.

The entity that fails to file its annual report (and also does not pay its fees to the state) can lose its good standing status.

What does this mean? A case helps explain the consequences.

Matt and Scott owned an auto repair shop. They were both busy and although they had formed a corporation for limited liability purposes they had failed to attend to the follow up paperwork. While the corporation had been formed in 2008, they had not filed any later reports or paid the fees for 2009 and on. As such, they were not in good standing.

Two events drove home the importance of maintaining a good standing.

Matt had signed a very favorable contract with a supplier on behalf of the corporation in the winter of 2009. The supplier soon realized they could not make any money on the contract and asked their attorney to look into how to get out of the deal. Their attorney first went to the Secretary of State’s website to see if the corporation was in good standing and thus had the capacity to enter into the contract.

It was very easy for the supplier to void the contract. The corporation, by not being in good standing, was legally unable to sign the contract. State law was very clear on the matter. If you were not current you couldn’t act as a corporation. As well, in many states you cannot bring or defend a lawsuit if you’re not current. Matt had no leverage against the supplier and lost the contract.

An even more serious consequence arose over a job Matt had performed. A brake job went horribly wrong resulting in significant injuries and damages. The attorney retained to bring an action for recovery against the corporation was quite pleased to learn the entity was not in good standing when the brakes were repaired.

When Scott learned of this he immediately attempted to bring the company current to avoid the personal liability. But it was too late. He had done the work when the corporation was not in good standing. The die was cast. This meant that Scott could be sued personally for the damages. By acting for a corporation not in good standing Scott was not protected by the entity and thus personally liable.

Scott and Matt learned the hard way the importance of keeping your corporation, LLC or LP current and in good standing.

It is very easy to see if someone’s entity is in good standing or not. Competitors, attorneys and even the curious can check the state’s online database for this information.

Don’t be the next victim of an innocent or unintentional failure to follow this important corporate formality. Make sure you are in good standing at all times so that the limited liability entity you set up continues to protect you in all your activities.

Garrett Sutton, Esq. is a corporate attorney and is the author of "Own Your Own Corporation" and other titles in the Rich Dad Advisor series. His firm forms and maintains corporations, LLCs and other entities and may be reached at http://www.corporatedirect.com
To get a FREE copy of Garrett's book, "What to Know Before you Incorporate" log onto http://www.corporatedirect.com

by Garrett Sutton

In times of uncertainty, many owners of corporations and LLCs may consider folding up their operations. CPAs and other advisors may suggest dissolving these entities to save on fees and to be done with it all.

But hold on: The “easy” route of dissolution can have significant negative consequences.

In California, for example, shareholders can be held personally liable for corporate obligations arising before or after a dissolution. The rule is found in California Corporations Code §2011. The same rule exists for LLC members pursuant to California Corporations Code §17355.

The deadline for suing corporate shareholders or LLC members in California is either; 1) the applicable statute of limitations period or, 2) four years after the entity’s dissolution, whichever is earlier. Since many statutes of limitations in a business context can be four to six years in length, you may have four years of worries until you are safe from litigation. And don’t think that because you have a Nevada or Wyoming entity qualified to do business in California you are in the clear. California courts are notorious for applying “their” law to out of state entities doing business in California.

So what is the solution?

Do not dissolve your entity. Keep it alive until the statute of limitations period has run.

Here is an example of why it makes sense to keep your entity alive: 

Joe owns Merced Consulting, Inc., a Nevada corporation qualified to do business in California. With a downturn in the economy Joe’s consulting business has suffered. His CPA suggests dissolving the corporation and eliminating the expense of an extra tax return. The CPA says his other consulting client Mary has just dissolved her entity.

But what happens in a downturn? People start to file claims over old business disputes, whether real or imagined. In good times when the money is coming in, grievances may be overlooked. In tougher times people will sue. And with business contract statutes of limitations typically being six long years, plenty of Joe’s clients may be looking for a new pocket to dip into to help pay for their current troubles.

In fact, Joe had provided Tom with project development help on a condo complex. Joe’s projections were based on the real estate market as it existed in 2006. The picture is quite different today, and Tom is suffering for it. Tom hires an attorney to sue Joe, Mary and two other consultants for their “bad” advice.

What are the consequences?

Mary, who dissolved her entity and received a distribution of corporate assets, is now personally liable for Tom’s claim.

Joe, who listened to his attorney and did not dissolve, is still protected by his corporation. While the entity does not hold a lot of assets, if Tom gets a judgment against Joe’s corporation he only gets what is inside the entity. Not much. And Joe’s personal assets are protected from the claim.

Dissolving gives a plaintiff a hopeful shot at your personal assets. Keeping your entity alive until the statute of limitations periods have run discourages plaintiffs from even filing in the first place.

Be careful in heeding the siren call of reduced filing fees and fewer tax returns by dissolving. In our current environment asset protection is more important than ever, and can only be achieved by keeping and maintaining your protective entities in place.

Garrett Sutton, Esq. is a corporate attorney and is the author of “Own Your Own Corporation” and other titles in the Rich Dad Advisor series. His firm forms and maintains corporations, LLCs and other entities and may be reached at www.corporatedirect.com.

The scene is a lush, tastefully appointed resort right on the bay. Beautiful sand beaches lead to calm, blue green waters. On a patio overlooking the spectacular view a party is going on.

It is the welcoming event for what is claimed will be a powerful, eye opening three day seminar. Cocktails in hand, attendees are getting to know people from all over the United States. They have all flown in to learn secrets that only the rich have access to, secrets that must be communicated confidentially outside of America.

A new friend of mine, whom we’ll call Joe, is in attendance. He makes a decent amount of money and is upset with all of the taxes he pays. So Joe has paid $7,500 to hear what the experts have to say.
As the ice breaks, the sun sets and the liquor does its job, the party starts to click. People are having fun, voices get louder and connections are made. Joe does not drink and is a sober observer to the frivolity.
He notices people taking photos of each other with digital cameras. One man in particular is getting groups of people together and taking photos. The man’s wife (or girlfriend or friend?) is a very attractive blond in her mid 30’s wearing a mildly revealing outfit. She is easily able to chat up the predominately male group of attendees. Joe gets a closer look at parts the others aren’t focusing on. She is wired for sound.

Her male friend brings another group over for photos and shared fun. Joe notices the man’s shoes. They are black, heavy lace ups, almost government issue.

Joe wonders who the couple works for. Are they with the seminar group, a kidnapping ring, or the U.S. government? Whoever they are with, they are good at what they do.

The next morning the seminar begins. Larry, the tanned and well dressed promoter, gets up and gives a stirring speech. The man is seemingly very knowledgeable and is backed up by impressive testimonials and incredible color brochures. In his remarks he says people have made the right choice and that their lives will be positively changed by the information they are about to receive. He notes with great pride that he and his team are not lawyers, because lawyers don’t know/can’t appreciate/won’t give the advice this lucky group will be fortunate enough to take in over the next three days.

During the seminar Joe learns about offshore corporations and asset protection and offshore investing. He has made the very conscious decision not to buy anything or agree to any services while in Panama. As such, he was keenly able to observe both the overt and very subtle pressure being applied by the promoter and his attractive, well spoken minions to buy now. The special pricing was not available once the seminar was over. (Why not? Joe pondered.) Buying right now was the smartest and most important decision you could ever make. (More important than marrying the right person and bringing great kids into the world?) If you didn’t buy now you would regret it for the rest of your life. (I will? Joe wondered.)
Joe became friends with a man named Scott from Spokane. They both liked fishing and white water rafting and thus hit it off. They differed in one big respect: Scott was primed to buy.

Scott bought five of the offshore corporations and trusts they were promoting. The combination of the five entities was structured in such a way to provide maximum asset protection and tax savings. The structure cost $20,000 to set up, but Scott was assured he would save $50,000 a year in taxes for the rest of his life. Who wouldn’t spend that kind of money for the savings? Actually, Joe wouldn’t.

Scott heard Nigel, a distinguished of British gentleman, present a seminar on managed offshore investment accounts where returns over 25% per year were guaranteed. Nigel cogently explained that the U.S. government deliberately limited the amount of money its citizens could make, and that the best returns were made by smart, independent thinkers investing offshore. Scott could not wait to turn over $250,000 to Nigel, his new investment advisor located in Panama. Joe actually could wait, and did.
Joe and Scott met a third attendee at the seminar. Ron was from Cincinnati and made it a point to meet as many people as he could at the Panama Seminar. Ron just happened to be putting together a real estate deal in Belize. He needed asset protection advice, which is why he has spent $7,500 to attend the event (which was the best he’d ever seen). Ron and Scott had an involved conversation about Ron’s Belize project over lunch one day. Joe politely listened but did not rise to the bait, which was a 100% return in 18 months. Scott committed to an investment of $100,000, which Ron indicated had to be wired in the next 24 hours. The investment was almost full and Ron, Scott’s new friend, wanted to make sure he got in this incredible deal.

The Panama Seminar ended with a going away party. Once again, the liquor flowed and did its job. Some attendees talked of how much they learned and benefitted and fanned the fires of value and positive word of mouth. Joe, always the critical thinker, asked himself whether these hugely satisfied customers, who always seemed to be the first to jump up and buy the next product in the seminar, were well placed shills.

The attractive blonde was again dazzling to look at, and she held court with a large number of new friends she had made. They were eating out of her hand and talking freely. More photos were taken and more confidences revealed. Most attendees went to bed satisfied with the whole event and the money they spent.

Joe returned home and decided against buying any offshore structures and investments. It just didn’t feel right. After a while the promoter’s pressuring sales minions stopped calling.

But Joe did keep in touch with Scott. They spoke every month or so. At first, Scott was ecstatic with the results of the seminar. The offshore structures were in place and he was ready for tax saving. The managed offshore account was doing well. And Ron’s Belize project was funded and poised to provide a quick and significant return on investment.

But after three months Scott’s tone began to change. He told Joe his accountant couldn’t condone or wouldn’t deal with the offshore structures. Initially, Scott gave his CPA the party line he learned at the Panama Seminar: USA professionals do not and will not ever understand the complexities of beneficial offshore structures. But over time and into the next year his CPA’s objections took hold and were strengthened by a surprise IRS audit. Scott casually mentioned that two other seminar attendees he kept in touch with were suddenly being audited, but did not initially connect the dots.

Six months later Joe learned from Scott that Nigel, the offshore investment manager, had suddenly gone out of business. There was no forwarding number or address. Nigel was nowhere to be found. The country of Panama did not insure his investment account. Scott’s $250,000 had disappeared.
Then Scott received the news that the Belize project had failed. The story was that Ron from Cincinnati had not made the last $50,000 payment to the developer. The $750,000 non refundable deposit, including Scott’s $100,000 investment, would not be returned and was lost.

As Joe tried to console Scott he saw another side of his new friend. Just as Scott was quick to rise to the bait, he was dogged in fighting someone who took advantage of him.

Scott was on a mission and started digging. He soon learned that Larry, the promoter, had left Las Vegas after being charged for fraud in an online Ponzi scheme. Like so many criminals before him, Larry was able to easily reemerge without training or scruples as an offshore asset protection expert.

Scott learned from other investigators that there were very few barriers to entry to this scam. One could easily rent out a Panama hotel and lure attendees. Printing color brochures was not difficult. In fact, Scott learned a rule of thumb in the asset protection world: the more expensive the color brochures, the bigger the scam.

Joe continued talking with Scott and was amazed by what he dug up. Nigel was a convicted felon from London who had drifted down to the Caribbean. Hooking up with Larry, they created a fake investment firm out of Nevis and Panama. Together, through seminars and other means, they had taken in over $12 million in investment monies by promising huge returns. When it was time to pull the plug they each disappeared with $6 million.

Ron from Cincinnati was one of the many shills in the room at the Panama seminar. He was there to praise Larry’s knowledge and creativity. He was one of the first five people to jump up and buy each session. His enthusiasm was contagious and others followed him with credit cards in hand.

Scott learned, not surprisingly, the Belize project was a scam. The developer, Ron and Larry split the $750,000 non refundable deposit between themselves. While Larry had disappeared, Ron and the developer were in Scott’s sights. Using very unorthodox and highly aggressive tactics not condoned by this U.S. Civil Courts, Scott was able to get his $100,000 back.

Still, Scott was out $270,000 from his experience in Panama. As he and Joe continued to keep in touch, Scott always hailed Joe for his restraint amongst the purveyors of greed and fear at the Panama Seminar.

Garrett Sutton, Esq. is the author of “Own Your Own Corporation” and other books in Robert Kioysaki’s Rich Dad’s Advisor series. Garrett and his firm provide affordable and professional asset protection. For more information visit www.CorporateDirect.com.

You most certainly have seen the ads and heard the promoters touting the incredible benefits of offshore asset protection: Privacy, anonymity - and the big one - no taxes ever.

But there is a wrinkle in all their chatter. Uncle Sam taxes U. S. citizens on their worldwide income. So in another one of those too good to be true scenarios, setting up offshore won't get you off the hook for federal income and capital gains taxes.

Of course, this is not enough of a deterrence for some. They will listen to the promoter and not to their U.S. advisors, who the promoters successfully argue don't "understand" the benefits of offshore strategies. The promoter will tell them once you are set up offshore there are no filing requirements ever again for U.S. taxation purposes.

This is not the case. And the failure to file the proper form has just gotten very expensive.

The form in question is I.R.S Form 5471. All U.S. citizens who have equity in, or a controlling interest in a Controlled Foreign Corporation ("CFC") must file one. Most offshore asset protection promoters put their U.S. clients into entities that are considered CFCs.
As of January 1, 2009, the IRS will now assess an automatic penalty of $10,000 for each CFC filing that is missed. That is $10,000 for each entity in each year that is not filed.

So let's review an example of what can and now does happen in the offshore world.

Joe listens to an offshore promoter in Nevis about the benefits of offshore asset protection. The promoter never mentions the need to file Form 5471 each year. Joe spends tens of thousands of dollars to set up five CFCs in 2009.

In 2012, the Nevis promoter's mistress realized the promoter won't leave his wife. She is spiteful and turns all of the promoter's files in to the IRS. Very quickly, the IRS is calling on Joe demanding $200,000 in penalties for the five entities for which no Form 5471 was filed for four years. And that's just the start. Joe will have penalties, interest and taxes due on all the income he made over those years.

If you think it is unlikely the IRS could ever receive information in such a way, think again. If it is not from the promoter's mistress, it may be from your own spouse or mistress or other aggrieved party. The IRS counts on domestic troubles as one of its best sources of information. But even if your life is trouble-free you can count on the authorities to be monitoring your wiring instructions and banking activities for offshore violations. And with this new $10,000 automatic penalty they have ever more incentive to do so.

You can complain about Big Brother and Big Government if you want (and you should; it's healthy and to be encouraged). But it is important to know that certain offshore promoters will never tell you about these crucial requirements, to your great financial detriment.