Better to store Wealth (cash, securities) under your Personal or Corporate account?

[mike400]

In terms of wealth protection, privacy and being tax compliant...

Could tax authorities easier argue, that my offshore company is being managed from their country (digital nomad spending couple months per year in different countries) and is thus tax resident there? (With personal tax residence, there’s more clarity)

 

[troubled soul]

Bitcoin, Stable coin with store in Paper Wallet.

 

[Sols]

Could tax authorities easier argue, that my offshore company is being managed from their country (digital nomad spending couple months per year in different countries) and is thus tax resident there?

Yes, it's possible and that's more and more the direction we're headed towards over the coming years.

(With personal tax residence, there’s more clarity)

Keep your own money in your own personal accounts.

If you want to separate yourself from your wealth but still have a modicum of control or influence over them, without using a corporate account, you might want to look into trusts, foundations, and other such arrangements. Really only suitable for wealth exceeding a few million, though, as it tends to cost a pretty penny.

 

[Cetme308win]

I preffer a corporate account for this

 

[mike400]

I preffer a corporate account for this

For what reasons?

 

[neweraoffshore]

I would also go with corporate accounts rather than a personal account.
All your money and assets on your individual name could be seized by creditors if you for example go bankrupt privately, no matter for what reason. There are many reasons and sometimes s**t happens.
A company offers a better asset protection as it as seen as a legal person (depends on the jurisdiction of course! Look for jurisdictions with so called "single member protection" if you are looking into the US), so they may take your personal money, but not the money in your offshore company. And piercing of the corporate veil lawsuits are very hard to go through if you follow the asset protection rules correctly. Most important of all is to not do personal spending with the company. For example if you buy a house in the name of the company you have to pay a small rent to your own company while you live in it, so it wasn't personal spending and the living their was a business deal from the viewpoint of the company.

So I recommend structuring your wealth in clusters with various companies and keep them seperate as good as possible from personal spending. Of course there is a lot more to take care of, but you can find many informations in the internet to single member protected companies and piercing of the corporate veil lawsuits. You can even have a company for personal spending, but make this just for personal spending without holding any assets or large sums on the bank account from the personal spending company. For example you have Company 1 for one asset and money in the bank account and you have company 2 for personal spending, then just move the money which you need for a few months from 1 to 2 via a good acceptable invoice and then spend it personally. To have another safety from piercing of the corporate veil lawsuits I recommend to look for a third party which can do the invoicing.

 

[troubled soul]

There is no one perfect 100% safe asset parking vehicle.
Each has its pro and con. You have to choose what you need and suits you better.

Thanks

 

[Cetme308win]

For what reasons?

@neweraoffshore just explained it damn well

 

[Mr Gus]

If we talk about protection of assets a Nevis foundation serves really well, but it's more as icing on the cake.

 

[jkk]

I would also go with corporate accounts rather than a personal account.
All your money and assets on your individual name could be seized by creditors if you for example go bankrupt privately, no matter for what reason. There are many reasons and sometimes s**t happens.

If you go bankrupt as a private person, wouldn't the creditors also be able to take your shares in the offshore companies? If I'm not wrong, to stay compliant, you need to declare them, so it is no secret you have them.

 

[Golden Fleece]

If you go bankrupt as a private person, wouldn't the creditors also be able to take your shares in the offshore companies? If I'm not wrong, to stay compliant, you need to declare them, so it is no secret you have them.

That is why jurisdiction is important. For example, Nevis has statutes that preclude transfers under duress or coercion by a court.

There is a coercive clause in Nevis’ legislation, which prohibits trustees from accepting instructions if the person giving instructions is under duress.

Therefore, if the owner of an LLC demands that the company director pay assets, the director should object if he knows that the owner is being compelled to do so by court order or similar.

Without the free will of the owner, no assets can be taken out of an LLC.

https://tax-free.today/blog/llc-nevis-company/

The amendments to the Nevis trust laws allows a trustee to ignore a settlor’s directions if the settlor is acting under duress. In this instance, duress often means the settlor is following a court order from a non-Nevis court with regards to the distribution of his assets or interest in a trust. This has long been the practice on the island with regards to trust administration.

https://www.assetprotectionplanners...n, a Nevis trust,its interests and/or assets.

 

[JohnLocke]

All your money and assets on your individual name could be seized by creditors if you for example go bankrupt privately, no matter for what reason.

If you do so they can still seize all the shares in the company and in that way access the bank account to get money out of it?

I find crypto coins to be the most secure, at the time we speak, for credit protection.

 

[celizo]

I understand that most of professionals will tell me that a company will be better for protection... in order to sale expensive services.

I've seen in the last years some examples in my country of origin: if a state want to seize a part or even all, they are able to do it even with complex service (trust, foundation, offshore company...).

One example, a politician with Panama/Liechenstein/... banks/trusts... 2 villas seized in Caribbean and Morocco.

Another example with a trust and inheritance basis for a non resident. This person (his great lawyers) thought it was possible to protect his inheritance decisions behind a trust... not the case.

 

[avalanche]

That is why jurisdiction is important. For example, Nevis has statutes that preclude transfers under duress or coercion by a court.


https://tax-free.today/blog/llc-nevis-company/

https://www.assetprotectionplanners...n, a Nevis trust,its interests and/or assets.

What about Cyprus, is this jurisdiction safe enough?

 

[Sols]

When you set up asset protection, the first thing you look at is what you're protecting yourself from and cater the solution around that.

That's why throwing around broad statements that "X works" or "just incorporate in Y" or "put your money in Z" are quite dangerous.

Holding money personally is easy from a tax and compliance perspective, but risky if you are the risk of creditors (for whatever reason).

Holding money in a company can be a tax (CIT, WHT, CGT, et cetera), compliance, and accounting/management burden, and corporate veil can be pierced in case of criminal negligence. You don't want to be on the receiving end of a forced dissolution where the assets risk becoming government property if you can't transfer them somewhere else (i.e. into yourself, at which point creditors can go after you).

What's stopping a court from holding you in contempt if you refuse to hand over assets citing the laws of Saint Kitts and Nevis? That only works if all the steps before that were taken correctly (in good faith, well ahead of time).

Trusts, foundations, and other arrangements/vehicles can work but, again, only if you set them up correctly. That means no dipping into your Liechtenstein Anstalt for pocket money every month to buy a new Lambo or YOLO on some crypto.

What's safe for you might not be safe for someone else, because you have different nationalities, live in different countries, have different types and sizes of assets, and different life circumstances in general.

 

[troubled soul]

When you set up asset protection, the first thing you look at is what you're protecting yourself from and cater the solution around that.

That's why throwing around broad statements that "X works" or "just incorporate in Y" or "put your money in Z" are quite dangerous.

Holding money personally is easy from a tax and compliance perspective, but risky if you are the risk of creditors (for whatever reason).

Holding money in a company can be a tax (CIT, WHT, CGT, et cetera), compliance, and accounting/management burden, and corporate veil can be pierced in case of criminal negligence. You don't want to be on the receiving end of a forced dissolution where the assets risk becoming government property if you can't transfer them somewhere else (i.e. into yourself, at which point creditors can go after you).

What's stopping a court from holding you in contempt if you refuse to hand over assets citing the laws of Saint Kitts and Nevis? That only works if all the steps before that were taken correctly (in good faith, well ahead of time).

Trusts, foundations, and other arrangements/vehicles can work but, again, only if you set them up correctly. That means no dipping into your Liechtenstein Anstalt for pocket money every month to buy a new Lambo or YOLO on some crypto.

What's safe for you might not be safe for someone else, because you have different nationalities, live in different countries, have different types and sizes of assets, and different life circumstances in general.

Thanks for this input.
Really appreciate it.

 

[Golden Fleece]

What's stopping a court from holding you in contempt if you refuse to hand over assets citing the laws of Saint Kitts and Nevis? That only works if all the steps before that were taken correctly (in good faith, well ahead of time).

You must be out of the country. That is rule number one. If a court has no personal jurisdiction over you and you use duress, coercion, and flight clauses in a jurisdiction that upholds them, then there is nothing that your home country can do -- unless it is a serious criminal matter and your home country has great international influence.

https://www.escapeartist.com/blog/o...clause in an,the trust for the beneficiaries.
You cannot do anything haphazard and careless anymore. You must be quite serious about your asset protection in an uncertain world with predatory governments. Otherwise, why do it?

 

[BlueMist]

I understand that most of professionals will tell me that a company will be better for protection... in order to sale expensive services.

As much as I like this forum and CSPs giving their inputs here, I have to agree with this statement. I know rich people who sold their businesses and they have liquidated their complex holding structures after cashing out to personal accounts. We are taking about €200M+. The only sense I see in storing wealth under the holding company is if it can get me some advantage in terms of tax deferral.

 

[neweraoffshore]

go bankrupt as a private person, wouldn't the creditors also be able to take your shares in the offshore companies? If I'm not wrong, to stay compliant, you need to declare them, so it is no secret you have them.

If you do so they can still seize all the shares in the company and in that way access the bank account to get money out of it?

Not if structured correctly. Some jurisdictions have no or less ownership restrictions, so they can be owned by "paper entities and or trusts" from foreign jurisdictions . That's the moment where these Seychelles, Cook, Nevis etc. companies come in handy. They mostly won't get you a bank account, but they are a suitable vehicle to hold ownership rights.
(Forgot to mention this in my first post)

 

[Golden Fleece]

As much as I like this forum and CSPs giving their inputs here, I have to agree with this statement. I know rich people who sold their businesses and they have liquidated their complex holding structures after cashing out to personal accounts. We are taking about €200M+. The only sense I see in storing wealth under the holding company is if it can get me some advantage in terms of tax deferral.

Many super-successful business people are dumb as a rock when it comes to other aspects of life, just as many genius-level scientists and professionals are dumb as a rock when it comes to areas outside their expertise.

Such structures are not appropriate for everyone, but if you have your entire €200M+ wealth in a few personal accounts then you are acting like an imbecile and you need the help of a professional for no other than estate planning purposes. Using the right structures can mean the difference between the government obtaining more than half your wealth when you die versus the government nothing or very little. Some strategies can reduce or eliminate the death tax burden completely. The same goes for asset protection against predatory lawsuits that could wipe out a substantial portion of your wealth.