All Topics / Legal & Accounting / Trusts and companies???

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Profile photo of kendo5181kendo5181
    Member
    @kendo5181
    Join Date: 2005
    Post Count: 27

    Could someone please give me an idea why I would/should use a trust or a company as people on the forum have been mentioning. I have two properties presently and am about to make that 6… I have never thought of owning them any way other than solely.
    Thanks in advance.[biggrin]

    Profile photo of Paul DobsonPaul Dobson
    Participant
    @pauldobson
    Join Date: 2003
    Post Count: 1,196

    Hi Kendo

    I think if I were to give you an answer here, I’d just miss too much important information. To answer this question properly, I’d recomend you get an educational resource like Steve’s “Wealth Guardian”. I found it to be a great resource for my initial education into understanding and using the various business structures that are “out there”.

    I’m sure others on this forum will have alternative educational resources they too can recomend on the subject.

    Cheers, Paul

    Paul Dobson | Vendor Finance Institute
    http://www.vendorfinanceinstitute.com.au
    Email Me | Phone Me

    An alternative way to finance your home.

    Profile photo of GreatPigGreatPig
    Member
    @greatpig
    Join Date: 2004
    Post Count: 284

    The primary reasons for using a trust are flexibility in distributing profits, which helps minimize tax, and asset protection.

    GP

    Profile photo of catacata
    Participant
    @cata
    Join Date: 2005
    Post Count: 559

    At the risk of being picky GP you should swap your two reason arround. Just to keep the ATO happy.

    CATA
    Asset Protection Specialist
    [email protected]

    Profile photo of coastymikecoastymike
    Participant
    @coastymike
    Join Date: 2005
    Post Count: 125

    Actually to make both the ATO and bankruptcy courts happy you should be saying number 1 Estate and Retirement Planning

    Profile photo of catacata
    Participant
    @cata
    Join Date: 2005
    Post Count: 559

    The advice I have says that this is not necessary,as long as Asset Protection is the main reason the rest ae secondary benifits.

    CATA
    Asset Protection Specialist
    [email protected]

    Profile photo of kendo5181kendo5181
    Member
    @kendo5181
    Join Date: 2005
    Post Count: 27

    Thanks for the advice guys (and girls!). Will probably just continue with private ownership as is for a little while.
    Cheers.[biggrin]

    Profile photo of coastymikecoastymike
    Participant
    @coastymike
    Join Date: 2005
    Post Count: 125

    The problem with claiming that asset protection is the main reason for restructuring or structuring could lead to a lawyer arguing in court that the only reason you did so was to defeat the creditors and therefore the structure would be ineffective as the courts could apply the claw-back provisions. The 2 year limit would no longer apply. Asset protection should never be the primary objective.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.