2020 – OUR 28th YEAR OF PUBLICATION! Volume XXVII • Number 3 • September 2020 TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE – TAKE ADVANTAGE NOW INTRODUCTION As you know, the Trump tax cuts (2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) created unprecedented opportunities for individuals and families to transfer their legacies in a tax-efficient manner. These cuts […]
The Jamie Solow contempt incarceration case has caused a lot of people to write a lot of articles and offer a lot of opinions – most of which are completely inaccurate. The author, Howard D. Rosen, is one of Mrs. Solow’s attorneys, attended court hearings, testified, and can state with accuracy what actually transpired in this case.
On April 20, 2005, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 was enacted into law. The stated purpose of the Act is to “improve bankruptcy law and practice by restoring personal responsibility and integrity in the bankruptcy system and ensure that the system is fair for both debtors and creditors.”
On April 4, 2005, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Rousey v. Jacoway, a case addressing the issue of exempting individual retirement accounts (IRAs) from federal bankruptcy proceedings. The decision was widely hailed in the financial press, with such headlines as “High Court Rules IRAs Untouchable – Unanimous Decision Means Retirement Savings Are Protected From Creditors”.
All states provide some degree of “asset protection” through their state exemption laws. Such laws shield certain types of assets, such as homestead, wages, annuities, life insurance and retirement funds from creditor claims. This issue of the APN is the second of two parts addressing the most frequent errors people make in attempting to implement asset protection on their own by using (or failing to use) state exemption laws.
All states provide some degree of “asset protection” through state exemption laws which shield certain types of assets, such as homestead, wages, annuities, life insurance and retirement funds (“exempt assets”). This issue of the APN is the first of two parts addressing the most frequent failings of individuals attempting to implement asset protection on their own by using (or failing to properly use) state exemption laws.
In our September 1992 issue (AP NEWS, Vol. I, No.2) we reported that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Patterson v. Shumate, had resolved the national controversy regarding whether qualified retirement plan interests were reachable by creditors by its unanimous holding that such interests were protected.