Need Answers?
We Can Help!
We Can Help!
litigation
lawsuit
corporate strategy
tax strategy
estate planning
Nevada Supreme Court Cases
entity selection
Nevada corporation benefits
tax nexus
Non profit
charging order
llc
franchise tax
corporate veil
IRS
web
lawsuit
corporate strategy
tax strategy
royalties
intellectual property
web-based businessestate planning
Nevada Supreme Court Cases
entity selection
Nevada corporation benefits
tax nexus
Non profit
charging order
corporation
california franchise tax boardllc
franchise tax
corporate veil
IRS
millionaires
Top Tenweb
- 501(c)(3)
- advertising
- alter ego
- asset protection
- backhauling
- canada
- charitable organization
- class action
- Clear Channel
- contingency fees
- contracts
- corporate charging order
- corporate trustee
- corporate veil
- day traders
- dog bite
- dual corporation strategy
- educational organization
- EFTPS
- estate tax
- fraud
- Gilbert Hyatt
- Great White
- intellectual property
- international
- interstate commerce
- investors
- JBL Speakers
- judgment debtor
- juries
- labor/employment
- legal costs
- living trust
- Macomb Daily
- multi state tax commission
- multi-state taxation
- Nevada advantages
- Nevada office package
- Nevada Registered Agent Association
- nightclub fire
- Northwest Energetic Services, LLC
- payroll
- personal injury
- private foundation
- probate
- public relations
- punitive damages
- rayner v. reeves custom builders
- real estate
- regulations
- religious organization
- reverse piercing
- royalties
- Smartmoney
- tax strategy
- trucking
- upstreaming
- veil piercing
- verdict
- will
- wisconsin
Most Downloaded: Social Security
01/10/08 12:10 Filed in: web
As our population continues to age, with the Baby Boomer generation starting into retirement, businesses need to identify how to tap into that growing market. A recent email I received reported the “most downloaded” legal reports accessed by lawyers over a 60 day period. The winner? A Guide to starting Social Security benefits.
Rhode Island nightclub fire settlement
22/09/08 12:11 Filed in: litigation
by Derek G. Rowley (c) 2008. All rights reserved.
LAS VEGAS - You will recall the tragic 2003 nightclub fire in Rhode Island that occurred when the rock band Great White set off fireworks in the club that ignited soundproofing foam, killing 96 and injuring over 200. I saw a news report that Clear Channel Communications, which owns a local radio station that helped promote the concert, recently settled for $22 million, even though they had nothing to do with the fire. Apparently Rhode Island’s “joint and several liability” laws allow for the liability to extend to anyone with the remotest connection to the event. Thus, JBL Speakers settled for $815,000 because their speakers contained flammable foam; Anheuser-Busch settled for $5 million and their local distributor for $16 million because their beer was sold at the nightclub; the manufacturer of the foam paid $16 million - even though their foam was not designed for the way it was being used; WPRI-TV paid $30 million because their cameraman’s equipment allegedly blocked an exit. WPRI was there to do a story on the fire dangers of nightclubs when the fire broke out.
LAS VEGAS - You will recall the tragic 2003 nightclub fire in Rhode Island that occurred when the rock band Great White set off fireworks in the club that ignited soundproofing foam, killing 96 and injuring over 200. I saw a news report that Clear Channel Communications, which owns a local radio station that helped promote the concert, recently settled for $22 million, even though they had nothing to do with the fire. Apparently Rhode Island’s “joint and several liability” laws allow for the liability to extend to anyone with the remotest connection to the event. Thus, JBL Speakers settled for $815,000 because their speakers contained flammable foam; Anheuser-Busch settled for $5 million and their local distributor for $16 million because their beer was sold at the nightclub; the manufacturer of the foam paid $16 million - even though their foam was not designed for the way it was being used; WPRI-TV paid $30 million because their cameraman’s equipment allegedly blocked an exit. WPRI was there to do a story on the fire dangers of nightclubs when the fire broke out.
Financial turmoil impacts living trusts
17/09/08 11:57 Filed in: estate planning
Time to Review Your Estate Plan
by Derek G. Rowley (c) 2008. All rights reserved.
LAS VEGAS - For years, legal practitioners and estate planners have advised clients to carefully think through the appointment of successor trustees named in living trusts. That advice has never been more relevant than now, as financial titans on Wall Street and elsewhere reel from the impact of our latest financial crisis. In light of the financial meltdown, now is a good time for you to review your trust and estate planning documents to look for potential problems.
In the typical living trust, the individual creating the trust becomes the trustee and the beneficiary. Then, in the event of death or disability, successor trustees are typically named, frequently the spouse or other family member. However, the traditional “catch-all” has been to name an additional successor trustee that is thought to be guaranteed to outlive any individual by naming a prominent national or regional bank as a corporate trustee. The reason for this is that the existence of a corporate trustee will ensure that the provisions of the trust will be carried out by someone with professional fiduciary responsibility.
Today, however, that strategy may need to be re-evaluated as some of the biggest names on Wall Street and other regional and local banks are shut down, seized by regulators and their assets sold. This can result in an unanticipated change in the actual corporate trustee, often resulting in long-distance frustration for future beneficiaries.
It is important to note that the trust assets held by a corporate trustee are not counted as property of the trustee, so they will not be directly impacted by the failure or bankruptcy of a corporate trustee. Nevertheless, the trust assets can be seriously impacted my market conditions, without any clear path for how trust assets should be invested to weather financial storms.
While there may be no clear solution to these challenges, those who are aware of these potential problems may avoid serious future problems by reviewing how their living trust addresses these issues, if they are addressed at all. That, and a bit of common-sense can go a long way towards avoiding problems. Fortunately, the beauty of the living trust is that it is revocable, allowing the individual who created the trust to make any necessary changes in the trust as long as they live. So, if you find a potential problem, you still have time to fix it.
by Derek G. Rowley (c) 2008. All rights reserved.
LAS VEGAS - For years, legal practitioners and estate planners have advised clients to carefully think through the appointment of successor trustees named in living trusts. That advice has never been more relevant than now, as financial titans on Wall Street and elsewhere reel from the impact of our latest financial crisis. In light of the financial meltdown, now is a good time for you to review your trust and estate planning documents to look for potential problems.
In the typical living trust, the individual creating the trust becomes the trustee and the beneficiary. Then, in the event of death or disability, successor trustees are typically named, frequently the spouse or other family member. However, the traditional “catch-all” has been to name an additional successor trustee that is thought to be guaranteed to outlive any individual by naming a prominent national or regional bank as a corporate trustee. The reason for this is that the existence of a corporate trustee will ensure that the provisions of the trust will be carried out by someone with professional fiduciary responsibility.
Today, however, that strategy may need to be re-evaluated as some of the biggest names on Wall Street and other regional and local banks are shut down, seized by regulators and their assets sold. This can result in an unanticipated change in the actual corporate trustee, often resulting in long-distance frustration for future beneficiaries.
It is important to note that the trust assets held by a corporate trustee are not counted as property of the trustee, so they will not be directly impacted by the failure or bankruptcy of a corporate trustee. Nevertheless, the trust assets can be seriously impacted my market conditions, without any clear path for how trust assets should be invested to weather financial storms.
While there may be no clear solution to these challenges, those who are aware of these potential problems may avoid serious future problems by reviewing how their living trust addresses these issues, if they are addressed at all. That, and a bit of common-sense can go a long way towards avoiding problems. Fortunately, the beauty of the living trust is that it is revocable, allowing the individual who created the trust to make any necessary changes in the trust as long as they live. So, if you find a potential problem, you still have time to fix it.
Writings of UCLA law professor can highlight Nevada corporate advantages
15/09/08 11:54 Filed in: corporate veil
by Derek G. Rowley (c) 2008. All rights reserved.
LOS ANGELES - Stephen M. Bainbridge is arguably the brightest mind in the field of corporate law in California. He is the William D. Warren Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law, and has written extensively about all aspects corporate law. Not to be stereotyped as a high-brow elitist intellectual, Professor Bainbridge maintains a family of blogs at www.professorbainbridge.com that offer a broad range of commentary “on law, politics, religion, culture & food” that is definitely worth reading.
In 2007, Professor Bainbridge published an article, “Piercing the Corporate Veil in California” which exposes the alarming breadth of activity that can be used to pierce the corporate veil in California - and allow creditors to hold individual shareholders personally liable for corporate debt or obligations. In the article, Bainbridge provides detailed legal analysis supporting the perception that public policy in California favors piercing the corporate veil. As he points out, “among the eight states with the largest number of reported veil piercing decisions, California courts have the highest rate (45%) of piercing the corporate veil.”
So, successful veil piercing in California appears to be almost a statistical coin-flip. Bainbridge, in his article, discusses many significant reasons why California treats veil piercing so liberally.
Historically, California has been slow to recognize the legal doctrine of limited liability. Until 1931, California’s constitution provided no limited liability for corporate shareholders, and actually imposed personal liability on shareholders for their portion of corporate debts. This history creates the backdrop for the legal culture in which California’s corporate law has been since percolated.
Even today, California does not recognize limited liability doctrine by statute. Bainbridge calls this “unusual,” compared with other states. Instead, it relies on California case law to provide limited liability; and that case law - as all case law does - is constantly evolving and subject to interpretation of an increasingly liberal and anti-business judiciary.
Bainbridge writes that the case law of California courts provides for “an astonishingly large number of factors to be considered” in order to pierce the corporate veil, all with little guidance as to how the factors should be weighted, balanced or considered.
The primary legal precedent in California veil piercing law is found in the case of Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co., a 1962 case that establishes twenty-seven separate factors that can be considered. Not only is the sheer number of possible factors that can pierce the corporate veil astonishing, as Bainbridge put it, but when some of these factors are considered individually, they are all the more astounding. For example, here are a few of more unbelievable factors:
California recognizes something called “Enterprise Liability”, which holds the entire business enterprise liable - including all divisions, subsidiaries and shareholders - for a debt incurred by one part of the business.
All of these issues stand in stark contrast to Nevada, where the number of successful veil piercing cases can be counted on the fingers of one hand - and where in every instance the court found the presence of fraud.
In Nevada, the corporate veil is not subject to the interpretation of a body of developing case law. It is provided in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), and can only be applied according to statute. NRS 78.747 provides Nevada’s standard for veil piercing which reads as follows:
“Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, no stockholder, director or officer of a corporation is individually liable for a debt or liability of the corporation, unless the stockholder, director or officer acts as the alter ego of the corporation. A stockholder, director or officer acts as the alter ego of a corporation if: the corporation is influenced and governed by the stockholder, director or officer; there is such unity of interest and ownership that the corporation and the stockholder, director or officer are inseparable from each other; and adherence to the corporate fiction of a separate entity would sanction fraud or promote a manifest injustice. The question of whether a stockholder, director or officer acts as the alter ego of a corporation must be determined by the court as a matter of law.”
So, in contrast to California’s liberal application of the corporate veil piercing, Nevada has strict standards. Those standards include the requirement that preserving the corporate veil would sanction fraud or manifest injustice as a matter of law. Nevada provides no opportunity for analysis as to whether the stock is owned by members of a family, or if there is a shared attorney or business address, etc.
Verdict: Nevada wins, in a knockout.
LOS ANGELES - Stephen M. Bainbridge is arguably the brightest mind in the field of corporate law in California. He is the William D. Warren Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law, and has written extensively about all aspects corporate law. Not to be stereotyped as a high-brow elitist intellectual, Professor Bainbridge maintains a family of blogs at www.professorbainbridge.com that offer a broad range of commentary “on law, politics, religion, culture & food” that is definitely worth reading.
In 2007, Professor Bainbridge published an article, “Piercing the Corporate Veil in California” which exposes the alarming breadth of activity that can be used to pierce the corporate veil in California - and allow creditors to hold individual shareholders personally liable for corporate debt or obligations. In the article, Bainbridge provides detailed legal analysis supporting the perception that public policy in California favors piercing the corporate veil. As he points out, “among the eight states with the largest number of reported veil piercing decisions, California courts have the highest rate (45%) of piercing the corporate veil.”
So, successful veil piercing in California appears to be almost a statistical coin-flip. Bainbridge, in his article, discusses many significant reasons why California treats veil piercing so liberally.
Historically, California has been slow to recognize the legal doctrine of limited liability. Until 1931, California’s constitution provided no limited liability for corporate shareholders, and actually imposed personal liability on shareholders for their portion of corporate debts. This history creates the backdrop for the legal culture in which California’s corporate law has been since percolated.
Even today, California does not recognize limited liability doctrine by statute. Bainbridge calls this “unusual,” compared with other states. Instead, it relies on California case law to provide limited liability; and that case law - as all case law does - is constantly evolving and subject to interpretation of an increasingly liberal and anti-business judiciary.
Bainbridge writes that the case law of California courts provides for “an astonishingly large number of factors to be considered” in order to pierce the corporate veil, all with little guidance as to how the factors should be weighted, balanced or considered.
The primary legal precedent in California veil piercing law is found in the case of Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co., a 1962 case that establishes twenty-seven separate factors that can be considered. Not only is the sheer number of possible factors that can pierce the corporate veil astonishing, as Bainbridge put it, but when some of these factors are considered individually, they are all the more astounding. For example, here are a few of more unbelievable factors:
- Two different corporations have identical ownership
- Two different corporations have the same officers and directors
- Two different corporations have the same employees
- Two different corporations have the same attorney
- Two different corporations have the same business address
- The use of a corporation to procure labor, services or merchandise for another person or entity.
- Sole ownership of all the stock in a corporation by one individual
- Sole ownership of all the stock in a corporation by members of a family
California recognizes something called “Enterprise Liability”, which holds the entire business enterprise liable - including all divisions, subsidiaries and shareholders - for a debt incurred by one part of the business.
All of these issues stand in stark contrast to Nevada, where the number of successful veil piercing cases can be counted on the fingers of one hand - and where in every instance the court found the presence of fraud.
In Nevada, the corporate veil is not subject to the interpretation of a body of developing case law. It is provided in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), and can only be applied according to statute. NRS 78.747 provides Nevada’s standard for veil piercing which reads as follows:
“Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, no stockholder, director or officer of a corporation is individually liable for a debt or liability of the corporation, unless the stockholder, director or officer acts as the alter ego of the corporation. A stockholder, director or officer acts as the alter ego of a corporation if: the corporation is influenced and governed by the stockholder, director or officer; there is such unity of interest and ownership that the corporation and the stockholder, director or officer are inseparable from each other; and adherence to the corporate fiction of a separate entity would sanction fraud or promote a manifest injustice. The question of whether a stockholder, director or officer acts as the alter ego of a corporation must be determined by the court as a matter of law.”
So, in contrast to California’s liberal application of the corporate veil piercing, Nevada has strict standards. Those standards include the requirement that preserving the corporate veil would sanction fraud or manifest injustice as a matter of law. Nevada provides no opportunity for analysis as to whether the stock is owned by members of a family, or if there is a shared attorney or business address, etc.
Verdict: Nevada wins, in a knockout.
Top Ten Things millionaires don't want to reveal
08/09/08 12:03 Filed in: Top Ten
Smartmoney.com surveyed millionaires and compiled the top ten things that millionaires don’t want to reveal:
- “You may think I’m rich, but I don’t.” A millionaire in 1945 would need $12 million today to be in the same position.
- “I shop at Wal-Mart.” They hunt for bargains and clip coupons.
- “I didn’t get rich by skimping on lattes.” The most common path to wealth is entrepreneurism - starting a business.
- “I have a concierge for everything.” Many of the wealthy consider the value of their time to be worth more than to spend it doing menial tasks.
- “You don’t get rich by being nice.”
- “Taxes are for little people.” They can afford high-level tax planning.
- “I was a B student.” The median college GPA of millionaires is 2.9. Most credit their success to hard work and determination, rather than “smarts”.
- “Like my Ferrari? It’s a rental.” It makes sense for many high-ticket items.
- “Turns out money can buy happiness.” Statistics show that the wealthy are happier.
- “You worry about the Joneses - I worry about the Trumps.” There is a growing disparity between the middle-class rich and billionaires
Dog sued
05/09/08 12:00 Filed in: litigation
by Derek G. Rowley (c) 2008. All rights reserved.
LAS VEGAS - The Macomb Daily reported on August 31 that a woman who claims the city police dog, named “Liberty” bit her on the buttocks has named the dog as an additional defendant in the lawsuit against the city. Attorney Charlie Langton is quoted as saying “I’ve never heard of that. A dog can’t be a party to a lawsuit.” He added, “It raises a lot of legal questions. How do they serve the dog, put it in his mouth? Is the dog going to have court-appointed counsel? Will the dog be able to sit in on the proceedings? This is a case you can really sink your teeth into.”
LAS VEGAS - The Macomb Daily reported on August 31 that a woman who claims the city police dog, named “Liberty” bit her on the buttocks has named the dog as an additional defendant in the lawsuit against the city. Attorney Charlie Langton is quoted as saying “I’ve never heard of that. A dog can’t be a party to a lawsuit.” He added, “It raises a lot of legal questions. How do they serve the dog, put it in his mouth? Is the dog going to have court-appointed counsel? Will the dog be able to sit in on the proceedings? This is a case you can really sink your teeth into.”
Jury finds California tax board guilty of fraud
04/09/08 11:51 Filed in: california franchise tax board
A $388 million verdict
by Derek G. Rowley (c) 2008. All rights reserved.
LAS VEGAS - Gilbert Hyatt is quite a remarkable man. In 1968, he advanced the concept of the integrated circuit when he developed the method for including all the pieces necessary to operate a computer - other than the memory and interface - in one place. In 1970, he applied for a patent for a computer microprocessor.
While Hyatt’s patent application worked its way through the bureaucracy of the patent office, three engineers from Intel Corporation created the first commercially viable microprocessor. So, Intel is usually credited with the invention of the first microprocessor. Gilbert Hyatt thought that was unfair, and fought the perception of Intel as the inventor of the microprocessor until 1990, when the U.S. Patent Office formally - and finally - recognized Hyatt as the rightful inventor.
Gilbert Hyatt, as you already know, is a very smart man. So in 1991, Hyatt, a multi-millionaire electrical engineer and inventor with more than 70 U.S. patents, moved from La Palma, California to Las Vegas. He wanted a better quality of life and a better business environment. He also wanted the added tax benefits that Nevada offered of having no corporate or personal income taxes.
The California Franchise Tax Board was not happy to see Hyatt - and the hundreds of millions of dollars in licensing from his patents - move from the state. So, they arbitrarily claimed that Hyatt was a California resident through 1992, and assessed millions of dollars in income taxes for those years, in addition to imposing harsh penalties alleging that Hyatt had committed fraud against the state by moving.
Unable to resolve the dispute with the California tax bureaucracy using facts, logic and reason, Hyatt filed a civil lawsuit in 1998 in the Clark County, Nevada District Court. In his lawsuit against the California Franchise Tax Board, Hyatt alleged fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, breach of confidential relationship and invasions of privacy.
California fought back, claiming that this lawsuit shouldn’t be heard in Nevada. They took this argument to the Nevada Supreme Court, and lost. So, they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and lost again. In the actual trial, an eight-member civil jury ruled unanimously against the California Franchise Tax Board, finding the allegations of fraud, abuse, and privacy invasions to be true. On August 4th, 2008, the jury awarded Hyatt $138.1 million in compensatory damages, and an additional $250 million in punitive damages on August 14th.
Hyatt expects California to appeal the verdict. John Barrett, spokesman for the tax authority in Sacramento told the San Jose Mercury News that, “we’re reviewing the matter and hope to have a decision soon.”
by Derek G. Rowley (c) 2008. All rights reserved.
LAS VEGAS - Gilbert Hyatt is quite a remarkable man. In 1968, he advanced the concept of the integrated circuit when he developed the method for including all the pieces necessary to operate a computer - other than the memory and interface - in one place. In 1970, he applied for a patent for a computer microprocessor.
While Hyatt’s patent application worked its way through the bureaucracy of the patent office, three engineers from Intel Corporation created the first commercially viable microprocessor. So, Intel is usually credited with the invention of the first microprocessor. Gilbert Hyatt thought that was unfair, and fought the perception of Intel as the inventor of the microprocessor until 1990, when the U.S. Patent Office formally - and finally - recognized Hyatt as the rightful inventor.
Gilbert Hyatt, as you already know, is a very smart man. So in 1991, Hyatt, a multi-millionaire electrical engineer and inventor with more than 70 U.S. patents, moved from La Palma, California to Las Vegas. He wanted a better quality of life and a better business environment. He also wanted the added tax benefits that Nevada offered of having no corporate or personal income taxes.
The California Franchise Tax Board was not happy to see Hyatt - and the hundreds of millions of dollars in licensing from his patents - move from the state. So, they arbitrarily claimed that Hyatt was a California resident through 1992, and assessed millions of dollars in income taxes for those years, in addition to imposing harsh penalties alleging that Hyatt had committed fraud against the state by moving.
Unable to resolve the dispute with the California tax bureaucracy using facts, logic and reason, Hyatt filed a civil lawsuit in 1998 in the Clark County, Nevada District Court. In his lawsuit against the California Franchise Tax Board, Hyatt alleged fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, breach of confidential relationship and invasions of privacy.
California fought back, claiming that this lawsuit shouldn’t be heard in Nevada. They took this argument to the Nevada Supreme Court, and lost. So, they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and lost again. In the actual trial, an eight-member civil jury ruled unanimously against the California Franchise Tax Board, finding the allegations of fraud, abuse, and privacy invasions to be true. On August 4th, 2008, the jury awarded Hyatt $138.1 million in compensatory damages, and an additional $250 million in punitive damages on August 14th.
Hyatt expects California to appeal the verdict. John Barrett, spokesman for the tax authority in Sacramento told the San Jose Mercury News that, “we’re reviewing the matter and hope to have a decision soon.”
IRS warns about outsourced payroll
02/09/08 12:02 Filed in: IRS
by Derek G. Rowley (c) 2008. All rights reserved.
LAS VEGAS - The IRS recently issued a warning to employers that outsource their payroll responsibilities to third-party service providers to be aware of certain potential problems. First, they remind employers that they are ultimately responsible if the provider fails to make payments. Second, they don’t recommend that you change the address of record on file with the IRS, so if there is problem you will know about it. Third, they recommend that you have the payroll provider post a fiduciary bond to protect you. And fourth, the IRS recommends that you ensure that your payroll provider uses Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS) so you can confirm that payments are made on your behalf.
LAS VEGAS - The IRS recently issued a warning to employers that outsource their payroll responsibilities to third-party service providers to be aware of certain potential problems. First, they remind employers that they are ultimately responsible if the provider fails to make payments. Second, they don’t recommend that you change the address of record on file with the IRS, so if there is problem you will know about it. Third, they recommend that you have the payroll provider post a fiduciary bond to protect you. And fourth, the IRS recommends that you ensure that your payroll provider uses Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS) so you can confirm that payments are made on your behalf.
Drunken lawsuit
25/08/08 12:06 Filed in: litigation
by Derek G. Rowley (c) 2008. All rights reserved.
LAS VEGAS - In May, 2005 a man in Connecticut drank 5 large margaritas at a restaurant and then walked to the New Haven train station. According to court documents, he claims that the ticket agent sold him a ticket and told him the train was waiting on track number eight, and he’d “better hurray”. So, he drunkenly stumbles onto the first train he finds - an out-of-service metro train. The doors close and the train travels to the train yard, about 10 minutes away. When the doors opened, the man saw that there was no train platform. He looks down and can’t see the ground. So he jumps from the train, spraining his ankle. And then he files a lawsuit. On July 11th, the Judge threw the case out.
LAS VEGAS - In May, 2005 a man in Connecticut drank 5 large margaritas at a restaurant and then walked to the New Haven train station. According to court documents, he claims that the ticket agent sold him a ticket and told him the train was waiting on track number eight, and he’d “better hurray”. So, he drunkenly stumbles onto the first train he finds - an out-of-service metro train. The doors close and the train travels to the train yard, about 10 minutes away. When the doors opened, the man saw that there was no train platform. He looks down and can’t see the ground. So he jumps from the train, spraining his ankle. And then he files a lawsuit. On July 11th, the Judge threw the case out.
Charging Order Protection for Nevada corporations
20/08/08 01:53 Filed in: charging order
The right of a judgment creditor to collect against the assets of a judgment debtor varies depending upon the nature of the assets. Some asset types – primarily liquid assets - can be directly attached, while other asset types have limitations on attachment by the judgment creditor. Assets that cannot generally be directly taken by a judgment creditor usually provide for other recourse, such as potential foreclosure and forced sale of assets, or the imposition of a “charging order” against future income of assets. Read More...
Cheat Sheet: Non Profit Companies
20/08/08 00:56 Filed in: Non profit
What is a Non-Profit Corporation?
A Nonprofit corporation has no shareholders and cannot pay dividends. Instead of stockholders, the nonprofit has “members”, who generally pay dues for membership. Essentially, the shareholder of a nonprofit company is the “public good”. Under IRS Code 501 (c)(3) a nonprofit corporation may be formed to operate for some religious, charitable, educational, literary, or scientific purpose. Read More...
Tax nexus principles for Trucking
20/08/08 00:50 Filed in: tax nexus
Here are the basic principles of tax nexus for the trucking industry:
- The state of Incorporation has automatic nexus
- Trucking businesses provide a service, which is not a generally protected activity under Public Law 86-272
Asset protection strategies for real estate investors
19/08/08 23:46 Filed in: corporate strategy
Are you like the majority of real estate investors who are focused on finding good deals, buying, selling, and turning a great profit? If so, do not forget to protect what you have accumulated. It takes only one lawsuit and your entire investment empire can come crashing down. Read More...
Ten facts that make Nevada's corporate shield ultra strong
19/08/08 23:40 Filed in: Nevada corporation benefits
Here are ten reasons why Nevada's corporate veil is the strongest available. Read More...
TRADERS: What is the best structure for tax savings?
19/08/08 23:27 Filed in: tax strategy | entity selection
The following is an explanation of the corporation - limited partnership strategy for active traders. This strategy can allow you to legally write-off your computers, home office equipment, all educational expenses, and a large percentage of meals, entertainment and travel. Read More...
LFC Marketing v. Loomis
19/08/08 22:43 Filed in: Nevada Supreme Court Cases
This case presents us with two issues: (1) whether a writ of attachment may be used to secure property after a judgment has already been obtained; and (2) whether a judgment creditor can pierce the corporate veil using a reverse alter ego analysis to reach the assets of a corporation that is allegedly controlled by the judgment debtor. Read More...
Why Everyone Needs a Living Trust
19/08/08 22:34 Filed in: estate planning
John and Mary owned a successful small business for 15 years until John suddenly died
of a heart attack. Mary did not want to run the business alone, so decided to sell it.
Read More...
of a heart attack. Mary did not want to run the business alone, so decided to sell it.
Read More...
Upstreaming Advertising
19/08/08 22:10 Filed in: corporate strategy
Chuck owns and operates a very successful mountain bike tire manufacturing
plant in Illinois that has been in business for the past ten years. Read More...
plant in Illinois that has been in business for the past ten years. Read More...
Upstreaming PR
19/08/08 22:09 Filed in: corporate strategy
John runs a busy executive recruiting firm in San Diego and uses two Public
Relations Firms extensively to get exposure around San Diego. Read More...
Relations Firms extensively to get exposure around San Diego. Read More...
Upstreaming royalties
19/08/08 22:08 Filed in: corporate strategy
Jill lives in California and has an active seminar business that teaches investors
strategies on investing in the current real estate foreclosure market. Read More...
strategies on investing in the current real estate foreclosure market. Read More...
Nevada dual corporation strategy
19/08/08 22:06 Filed in: corporate strategy
Sam runs a very successful pipe bending business in Los Angeles. Read More...
Web-based business
19/08/08 22:04 Filed in: corporate strategy | web-based business
Jane is a PHD Nutritionist who lives in Seattle, Washington and writes a very
successful e-newsletter on the latest trends in health and wellness. Read More...
successful e-newsletter on the latest trends in health and wellness. Read More...
Royalties
19/08/08 21:57 Filed in: corporate strategy
Bob is a prolific writer of business success books and has written over 20 books
in his 15 year writing career. Read More...
in his 15 year writing career. Read More...
Foreigners doing business in USA
19/08/08 21:52 Filed in: corporate strategy
Larry lives in Canada and wants to start selling his unique line of fly fishing poles
in the United States. Read More...
in the United States. Read More...
Nevada Single Entity Strategy
19/08/08 21:48 Filed in: corporate strategy
Sarah lives in New York City and acts as a manufacturer’s representative for
several products in the medical field. Read More...
several products in the medical field. Read More...
Litigation Facts
19/08/08 21:36 Filed in: litigation | lawsuit
WARNING: Reading this list may cause high-blood pressure, nausea, or uncontrollable tears
Read More...Wisconsin pierces the corporate veil over violation of consumer regulations
02/07/08 16:05 Filed in: corporate veil
Mark R. Hinkston, a Wisconsin attorney, wrote an article that appeared in the February 2006 edition of Wisconsin Lawyer titled "Piercing the Corporate Veil". In his article, Hinkston discusses a case where the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that personal liability attaches when a shareholder or officer violates consumer regulations such as Wisconsin's Home Improvement Code. This ruling potentially impacts the officers, agents and employees of many businesses that sell goods and services to consumers. Read More...
California Gets Caught
The California Franchise Tax Board got caught overstepping the restrictions placed by the U.S. Constitution on the ability of states to tax and regulate interstate commerce. For years, California has imposed state taxes on the WORLD-WIDE income of limited liability companies that do business in California - in blatant disregard for the Constitution.
Well, they got sued, and lost. Now they have to refund a whole lot of money. Read More...
Well, they got sued, and lost. Now they have to refund a whole lot of money. Read More...