Trusts
Beware of Abusive Trusts & Con Artists
There are many sites on the internet now describing abusive trusts, the problem is according to these, alleged guru’s, all Pure Trusts are Abusive Trusts and are not legal. They don’t look at any particular trust, they generalize all of them as shams.
I will start with Arnold S. Goldstein & Associates, LLC you can view him at: asgoldstein.com
To prove his point, Arnold Goldstein says:
1. Sham Trusts are presented in the clause in the U.S. Constitution, which says, “No state shall impair the obligation of contracts”. He says, it is then argued that because this is in the Constitution, you and any other citizen can make a contract to do anything you want! Then he goes on with the absurdity that based on this logic you could contract with a drug dealer to buy cocaine.
Answer: I don’t know of any Trust provider that states because the Pure Trust is a contract that you can contract to do anything. Because the Pure Trust is a contract is one of the elements that make it lawful and disallows states to stop you from having the Pure Trust. The Trust is a contract and like all contracts under contract law it has to be for lawful purposes. For this attorney to say this stuff proves he is trying to scam you. It is ridiculous to say the least.
2. Next he says that this Trust does not pay taxes because it does not exist.
Answer: well in that case his LLC would not exist. An LLC does not pay taxes; the members do on their distributions. The Pure Trust does not have a filing requirement or a requirement to pay income taxes. When it disburses funds to any person or entity that is a “taxpayer” that person or entity pays the tax proportionately on their received taxable income.
3. Then he says, if you have creditors and have tried to avoid them through the use of Sham Trusts—then you have done nothing because a U.S. Court will not recognize these trusts as existing.
Answer: This is a total LIE! Yes, this man is not wrong here he is a LIAR! I say this because he is a lawyer and this statement makes him either an incompetent lawyer or a LIAR! I believe the latter. And to prove to him that the Pure Trust will protect you from creditors he should try and sue me for all the slander that will be in here. I don’t think he could win, because unlike him, everything I print here I can prove, but if he did win, he would see how protective the Pure Trust is. When he says U.S. Courts will not recognize this trust, why doesn’t he give us even one case as an example. Well, I will give you one:
In the case of United States National Bank of Omaha v. Andrew Kaminski, civil action # 77 cv. 1830.
In the District Court of Jefferson County, Colorado, June 17, 1980, the bank alleged that Kaminski owed them $20,000. When he had no personal assets to seize after they obtained judgment, the bank tried to seize the assets of a Pure Trust that Kaminski had set up a few years earlier. The banks action failed and they were unable to penetrate the trust.
To further illustrate how creditors or the IRS cannot penetrate a Pure Trust that has been established by the Exchanger at a time when he was personally solvent, the case of Mr. John King is an example. In 1969 oil entrepreneur John M. King was worth $300 Million Dollars. In September 1971, he became involved in bankruptcy proceedings. Despite personal bankruptcy that began in June 1971 Mr. King testified thereafter that he and his wife and four children still lived in an elegant, gated estate in a Denver suburb and had the use of vacation places in Palm Springs and La Jolla California, as well as property in Vale Colorado, and Maui Hawaii. He was able to do this because although his personal assets were currently tied up in bankruptcy court, Mr. King had according to him, exchanged 80% of his assets to various Pure Trusts, which he had established several years prior. Thus, when creditors with claims of $42 Million Dollars, including $5.3 Million allegedly owed to the IRS, tried to collect, they discovered they could not penetrate the Trusts that held these former assets.
In addition you could look at the following:
Mayo v. Moritz, 24 N.E. 1083 (1890)
Smith v. Morse, 2 CA 524
Reeves v. Powell, 267 SW 328 (1924)
Hussey v. Arnold, 70n N.E. 87
13 am jur 2d page 379 para. 51
I think Goldstein should do more legal research before he opens his big mouth. Of course he doesn’t want to research this, and he knows it, that’s why he is exposed here as a LIAR!
4. Then he comes up with this beauty just to show you he is not only a LIAR, but is also STUPID, or maybe he thinks you who read this are stupid.
He says, "Imagine" the following. A friend approaches you and says: It is legal to own slaves in this country. And for proof, he shows you case law from the 1700’s and early 1800’s are you convinced?
Answer: Yes, I’m convinced it was legal to own slaves in the 1700’s and early 1800’s in some states. What Goldstein doesn’t know is that the 13th Amendment was enacted in 1865 making that case law null and void. Is Goldstein saying that all old case law is not good? If no Constitutional Amendment ruled against the case law, or it was never repealed, it stands and stands strong. Goldstein tried to get you with that one, because he thinks you’re stupid.
Based on his web site I can tell you it is pure junk and Mr. Goldstein is the scam artist here. And what does he give you at the end of all this, his services, off shore trusts, asset protection trusts, LLC’s and so forth. Do you think he has an agenda? You bet he does!
Mr. Goldstein, this is a personal challenge, I will debate you anytime on this issue on national radio, TV or whatever you can arrange so I can show you up for the LIAR and SCAM ARTIST you are.
Now we will take a look at the incomparable ignorance of Ginger Applegarth you can visit her at: moneycentral.com
Applegarth is a CFP and has her own radio talk show and she offers many lies about the Pure Trust.
She talks about empty promises made by trust providers and she outlines them in the following:
Promise: Your trust will be completely exempt from taxes. You won’t pay a gift tax when you transfer assets into the trust. The Pure Trust will never owe any income tax, and no estate tax will be imposed on the trust at your death.
Her Answer: True! That’s because your trust does not exist as a legal entity. She says that the creation of the trust does not alter your control over the property or business transferred to the trust. She says the “taxpayer” who transfers property or business to the trust must report all the income earned by the trust and is liable for the taxes.
My Answer: Applegarth hasn’t a clue what she is talking about. First she says the Pure Trust does not exist as a legal entity. Well, she is right! But not for the reasons she thinks. If the Pure Trust were a legal entity it wouldn’t be worth doing, you might as well just do a Corporation, LLC or whatever. Of course Applegarth doesn’t know what the word “legal” means. The word “Legal” is a legal term, if something is legal then there is a statute saying so. And that statute would also tell you how you have to create it and operate it. Just like the statutes that control Corporations and LLC’s. But, many things are lawful with no law saying they are legal. For instance, is it legal to eat a banana? NO, but it is lawful. You won’t find any law stating that you can legally eat a banana, but you won’t find any law that says you can’t, therefore, it is lawful. Here is how Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word “legal”. 1. Of or relating to law: Falling within the province of law. 2. Established, required, or permitted by law. “Lawful” 1. Not contrary to law. Does law permit eating a banana? Is eating a banana contrary to law? Now you can see how eating a banana is not legal but it is lawful, so go ahead, enjoy.
In addition, the Supreme Court says that this trust is not legal, but the court says; that’s a good thing!
In Morrissey v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 296 US 344 1935. the court held:
“…The fact that a Business Pure Trust is not regarded as a legal entity distinct from its Trustees, if a true Trust…may result in this advantage to the Trust, which a corporation does not possess…”
The advantage of the Trust the court is talking about is the fact that it is lawful but not a legal entity. It is private and the government cannot control it. The Pure Trust unlike statutory forms has constitutional protections and privileges.
See: Crocker v. Mac Cloy 649 US 39. “A Pure Trust is not subject to legislative control. The Court holds that the trust is…not subject to legislative restrictions as are corporations and other statutory entities created by legislative authority.”
Crocker v. Malley, 264 US 144. “A Pure Trust derives no power, benefit, or privilege from any statute.”
Next Applegarth says that the taxpayer who transfers assets or businesses to the trust must report all the income earned by the trust and is liable for all the taxes.
My Answer: First of all no one transfer’s assets to a Pure Trust. You exchange assets to a Pure Trust and for that exchange you receive full and adequate consideration. Therefore this is an exchange of like kind a non-recognition transaction. The exchanger or the person exchanging the assets to the trust does not report all of the income of the trust as their income, only that which the trust would distribute to the exchanger and no more. Want proof?
Burnett v. Logan, 283 U.S. 404 “Certificates in exchange are not taxable until a realized gain has occurred.”
Master Tax Guide, para 910. “Certificates are without determinable fair market value, no gain or loss is recognized until the cost or other basis of the property disposed of has been recovered.”
Trenton Cotton Co., v. Commissioner, 147 F. 2d 33 (1945) "Exchange the giving of one thing in kind excluding money as a basis of measure.”
As far as estate tax is concerned, how could an estate tax at your death be taxed to the trust? This financial planner doesn’t know what estate tax is, or like Goldstein, she does but tries to ‘get over’ here because she thinks you are stupid! This, like Goldstein makes her a scam artist.
The fact is estate tax is not a tax on death, although many people call it the death tax. It is a tax on the transfer of property. When you die and leave assets to your heirs be it money, real estate or whatever, it has to be transferred to that heir; this transfer invokes the tax. If most of your assets are in the Pure Trust they belong to the Trust. At your death, there is no transfer of assets they remain in the Trust. Your heirs simply take over as manager or they are Certificate Holders. The assets are not transferred to them, so there is no estate tax reporting on these assets. The only tax they will pay is on any income they receive from the Trust - if they are a “taxpayer”.
I think that says it all for Applegarth, another Guru bites the dust. If you go to her for financial planning beware! Maybe Applegarth could invite me on her show, if she has the guts to debate this, and she could also invite Goldstein for help, I will take them on two at a time, no problem!
Written By Ronald Ottaviano