email@example.com MARK A. JACOB LOCKE LIDDELL & SAPP LLP
Areas Of Practice Estate Planning and Probate, Asset Protection Planning, Business Tax, Charitable Planning
Board Certified in Estate Planning and Probate Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Education Juris Doctor degree (with Honors) from The University of Texas, Austin, Texas 1994
Bachelor of Arts degree (Summa Cum Laude) from Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri 1991
Professional History Licensed to practice law in Texas in 1994
Partner in the law firm of Locke Liddell & Sapp LLP
Professional Affiliations Member, State Bar of Texas (Real Estate, Probate and Trust Law Section)
Member, Houston Bar Association (Probate, Trusts & Estates Section)
Board Member, Houston Estate and Financial Forum
Member, Generation X Estate Forum Study Group
Speeches and Publications Speaker: "Fiduciary Liability," Texas Bankers Association Trust School, 1999
Speaker/Author: "Current Issues in Trust Law," South Texas College of Law Wills & Probate Institute, 2000
Speaker/Author: "Drafting and Exercising Powers of Appointment," State Bar of Texas
Speaker/Author: "Asset Protection Planning," Deloitte Family Office Roundtable, 2004
Speaker/Author: “Drafting and Exercising Powers of Appointment,” Houston Bar Association Probate, Trusts and Estates Section Meeting, 2005
Speaker/Author: “Basic Asset Protection Planning for Texans after the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform,” Houston Business and Estate Council, 2006
ASSET PROTECTION PLANNING AFTER THE 2005 BANKRUPTCY REFORM
On April 20, 2005, President Bush signed The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (S. 256) (the “Reform Act”). The Reform Act generally became effective for bankruptcy cases commenced on or after October 17, 2005.1 The Reform Act predominantly affects consumer debtors, as opposed to business debtors. A number of provisions of the Reform Act were added in reaction to the perceived abuse by wealthy debtors of asset protection planning devices and the unlimited homestead exemptions in a handful of states. This outline will briefly summarize basic asset protection rules and techniques and address the impact that the Reform Act has had in this area. This outline incorporates an outline summarizing the Reform Act prepared by Elizabeth Freeman of Locke Liddell & Sapp LLP. I give special thanks to Liz for all of her contributions to this outline.
II.Distinction Between Non-Bankruptcy Rules and Bankruptcy Rules
One thing that is important for advisors in the asset protection planning area to keep in mind is that changes to the Bankruptcy Code only impact the rules and exemptions for debtors who file bankruptcy. They do not impact the state law rules and exemptions that were previously applicable to debtors outside of the bankruptcy context. So, even though the Reform Act trumps state law and takes away the unlimited homestead exemption in certain situations for a debtor who files bankruptcy, the unlimited homestead exemption for Texans remains intact outside of bankruptcy. That means if someone buys a $1 million home and a year later something happens resulting in a judgment against him or her, the judgment creditor likely will have no ability to reach the homestead of the debtor unless he or she files for bankruptcy.
III.Fraudulent Transfer Rules
The timing of any type of asset protection planning is critical, since the fraudulent transfer rules pose the biggest obstacle to effective asset protection planning. The fraudulent transfer rules can come into play either in a bankruptcy or non-bankruptcy setting. In a bankruptcy setting, if a debtor makes a transfer and then later files for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee can file a fraudulent transfer action to make any transferred assets part of the bankruptcy estate and available to be divided up by the trustee. In a non-bankruptcy setting, a judgment creditor can file a fraudulent transfer claim against a debtor to unwind a transaction, making assets reachable by the creditor.
B.Texas Fraudulent Transfer Rules
The Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) is contained in Chapter 24 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. It provides that any transfer is considered fraudulent if made: “ (1) with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor; or (2) without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor: (A) was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or (B) intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the debtor’s ability to pay as they became due.” §24.005(a). For these purposes, “transfer” is construed very broadly and can include many transactions that are not typically considered a transfer, as will be explained later in this outline.
(1)Badges of Fraud
The UFTA sets forth a number of factors that a court will consider to determine whether someone has made a transfer with actual intent to delay, hinder or defraud a creditor. §24.005(b). These factors are referred to as badges of fraud. They include:
Insolvency of the debtor, either before or as a result of the transfer
Concealment of the pre-liability/pre-bankruptcy transfer
Misrepresentations made to creditors regarding a transaction
Proximity in time between the transfer and the collection effort/bankruptcy
Continued use of or retention of a beneficial or economic interest in the transferred property by the debtor or members of the debtor’s family
An intra-family transfer
A transfer in close proximity to or in anticipation of the entry of a judgment against the debtor
A transfer for less than full and adequate consideration
(2)Statute of Limitations
Generally, a four-year statute of limitations applies to fraudulent transfer claims in Texas, although discovery rules do apply. §24.010. That means if a lawyer transfers a large sum of money to trusts for his children, someone bringing a legal malpractice claim against the lawyer would have four years to file a fraudulent transfer action to unwind the gift, unless the gift was not disclosed, in which case the claimant would have an additional year after the gift was reasonably discoverable. §24.010(a).
C.Federal Fraudulent Transfer Rules
In a bankruptcy setting, a bankruptcy trustee can either elect to file a fraudulent transfer claim under state law or under the federal bankruptcy laws. Under the prior Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code, the trustee could be successful in bringing transferred assets back into the bankruptcy estate by showing that: (i) the debtor made a transfer within one year of the bankruptcy filing with an intent to hinder, delay or defraud a creditor; (ii) for less than reasonably equivalent value; and (iii) that the debtor was insolvent before or as a result of the transfer.
IMPACT OF REFORM ACT: Significant The Reform Act makes a few significant modifications to Bankruptcy Code § 548 governing fraudulent transfers and fraudulent conveyances. First, an amendment to § 548(a)(1) extends the look-back period in which a debtor or trustee may recover a fraudulent transfer from one year prior to the bankruptcy filing to two years.2 Another significant change is that one of the causes of action contained in § 548 no longer requires actual intent to defraud. Rather, insufficient consideration being paid to an insolvent debtor is sufficient to unwind a transaction. This brings the federal fraudulent transfer rules more in line with the Texas rules.
Second, a new § 548(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) permits avoidance of a transfer made to or for the benefit of an insider pursuant to an employment contract if the transfer was outside the ordinary course of business and made for less than a reasonably equivalent value. To avoid such transfers a debtor does not even have to prove it was insolvent at the time the transfer to the insider was made.3 This section is meant primarily to target bonuses paid to officers, directors and employees of a company within two years of a bankruptcy filing.
D.Importance of Solvency in Determining Fraudulent Transfer
As shown in the list of the badges of fraud, the solvency of the person doing asset protection planning also is one of the key elements of whether the planning could be considered fraudulent. There are two parts to the solvency test, the “balance sheet test” and the “ability to pay test.” §24.003. The most important is the balance sheet test, whether one’s assets exceed one’s liability. But, exempt assets do not count as part of the solvency analysis when looking at unsecured creditors. §§24.003(a) and 24.002(2). The “reachable” assets are compared to the unsecured debts and likely expenses. In addition to the balance sheet test, if a person is generally unable to pay ordinary debts and expenses as the come due, then there will be a presumption of insolvency. §24.003(b). Any planning that results in a person having a negative balance sheet or not being able to pay general debts and expenses is going to look extremely suspicious when viewed in hindsight.
However, the solvency test can also be used affirmatively to justify asset protection planning. Just as many people believe it is appropriate to make transfers any time prior to a lawsuit being filed, many people also believe that it is inappropriate to make any transfers after a lawsuit has been filed against someone. That is a misconception. Asset protection planning can be appropriate, even after someone has filed a lawsuit against you. As long as the result of the planning does not leave the person insolvent, then it should not be considered a fraudulent transfer. For purposes of the balance sheet insolvency test, a lawsuit would need to be valued or appraised to determine its likelihood of success and the likelihood that it will be paid by insurance. This appraised value of the lawsuit (not the total damages sought) is what should be used in determining someone’s solvency at the time of proposed asset protection planning.
Example: Assume a real estate developer gets sued for $5 million on a deal that went bad, and the lawsuit implicates not only the developer but others as well. If the real estate developer was interested in asset protection planning, he could hire someone to value the claim against him (in a manner similar to how insurance companies value claims). If the merits of the case are not very strong and if the insurance policy of the developer likely would cover the liability anyway, then the “value” of the case from the developer’s standpoint might only be $500,000. It would be appropriate for the developer to do planning that left maybe $1 million of his assets exposed to creditors. It is much better to be conservative and leave a little wiggle room when planning, than to be greedy and risk a fraudulent transfer determination.
Even if a current lawsuit makes someone insolvent, that situation may not prevent asset protection planning that could be effective for future creditors, but not for the current claimant. Although not much authority addressing this situation seems to exist, it should be appropriate to do planning that acknowledges the current debt and the ability of that specific creditor to ultimately unwind a transaction, but that would be effective to protect assets from any claims arising in the future if not unwound by the current creditor.
The best approach to doing asset protection planning, especially if in a situation where there are actually or potential creditors, is to be very up front and open with the planning that is done. The badges of fraud show that any type of concealment or deception in making transfers increases the chances that the debtor will be found to have the intent to delay, hinder or defraud. The planning will look much more legitimate if done in the open. See Lester v. Robinson (101 SW.2d 1038 (Tex. App. 1939)(no presumption of fraud arose on conveyance because of insolvency where nothing was concealed by the conveyance).
E.Ethical and Liability Issues for Advisors
From an ethics standpoint, it is obviously very important for advisors to be very careful not to assist in fraudulent transfers or other types of inappropriate conduct by their clients. One of the common approaches to make sure that advisors are not “unwittingly” assisting in inappropriate conduct is to get a solvency affidavit from their clients, confirming that the client is solvent both before and after any asset protection planning.
From a liability standpoint, even if an advisor assists with a transaction that is later determined to be a fraudulent transfer, the advisor should have no liability unless the advisor is a transferee or beneficiary of the fraudulent transfer. The case of Mack v. Newton, 737 F.2d 1343 (5th Cir. 1984)(interpreting Texas law) distinguished between aiding and abetting a fraud and assisting with a fraudulent transfer. The case also clarified that receiving a normal fee for assisting a client is not “benefiting” from a transaction such that the advisor could be held financially responsible.
IV.Asset Protection Techniques
A.Investing in Exempt Assets
The single best asset protection planning technique for residents of Texas has always been to invest in a homestead. Article XVI of the Texas Constitution, along with Section 41 of the Texas Property Code, provides generous protection to a Texan’s homestead. A rural homestead can exempt up to 200 acres (with improvements) for a couple (100 acres for an individual). An urban homestead can exempt up to 10 acres, with improvements. Someone with an urban homestead that does not utilize the full 10 acres can also have a business homestead in the same urban area. Section 41 of the Texas Property Code allows someone to file a homestead designation with the real property records any time after property is acquired, but it should not be inconsistent with the ad valorem property tax homestead exemption, or else the tax benefits could be lost.
IMPACT OF REFORM ACT: Tremendous Limitations on equity “acquired” within 1215 days of filing. The Reform Act substantially changed §522 of the Bankruptcy Code to provide that a debtor filing bankruptcy may not exempt more than $125,000 under the homestead exemption if the interest was “acquired” within 1215 days of the filing date. Nobody knows where the 1215 days (approximately 3⅓ years) came from.
Under normal circumstances, this should not be much of an issue. A 30-year mortgage, at 6% interest, from its inception, would need to be in the principal amount of about $3,000,000 for a note to accrue $125,000 in principal payments in a 1215 day period. Of course, as a mortgage ages, the rate of payment to principal increases.
In addition to the $125,000 exemption, any equity rolled over from a previous homestead located in Texas that was owned for 1215 days is also exempt. The Act seems to disallow equity rolled over from a homestead in another state, even if that state also had an unlimited homestead exemption. §522(p)(2)(B).
Family farmers are not subject to the limitation, meaning that family farmers in Texas still have an unlimited homestead exemption even in the bankruptcy context. §522. Section 101(18) of the Bankruptcy Code defines a “family farmer” as an individual engaged in farming operations with debts less than $3.237 million, at least half of which arise from the farming operation and at least 50% of the debtor’s gross income generally arises from farming operations.
Appreciation Congress left open question as to whether the $125,000 limitation applies only to payments made against a mortgage, or if the value of the homestead exemption is limited as well by an increase in value of the home. The first court to address the issue was in the Northern District of Texas in In re Blair, 2005 Bankr. Lexis 2294 (Bankr.N.D.Tex. 11/21/05). The court found that a debtor does not “acquire” an increased value in its property like one would acquire title or a reduction in a mortgage by virtue of payment. Therefore, the court ruled that the appreciation in the value of the home was not considered in calculating the value of the interest acquired within 1215 days. In so ruling, the court noted the purpose of the amendment was to prevent out of state debtors from moving states to take advantage of more advantageous homestead exemptions.
Criminal Conduct The Reform Act provides that the homestead exemption will be limited to $125,000 regardless of any other issue (including rolled over equity, family farmer, etc.) if the debtor has engaged in any of the following conduct, unless he can demonstrate that the homestead is reasonably necessary to support the debtor or the debtor’s dependents:
conviction of a felony, which under the circumstances demonstrates that filing would constitute an abuse;
the debtor owing a debt arising from a violation of federal Securities Exchange Act or similar state law; or
the debtor owing a debt arising from a criminal act, intentional tort, or willful or reckless misconduct causing serious physical injury or death to an individual or a RICO penalty in the five years prior to the filing of a petition.
Transfers to Equity in a Homestead Asset protection planning, and even pre-bankruptcy planning, has traditionally been accepted as appropriate. Conversion of non-exempt assets to exempt status, even within the year preceding a petition for bankruptcy is not necessarily fraudulent to creditors. In the Matter of Smiley, 864 F.2d 562, 566 (7th Cir. 1989). In the past, in the face of potential liabilities, it was frequently recommended that clients use non-exempt funds to pay down a mortgage or invest in a homestead. Only very rarely, and particularly in Texas, was the reduction of a mortgage from the proceeds of nonexempt assets found to be a fraudulent transfer. However, in the Reform Act Congress has directly addressed this frequent maneuver.
In addition to the 1215 day limitation, § 522(o) states that a state law homestead exemption is reduced by the amount that the value of the exemption is attributable to any property disposed of by the debtor during the preceding 10 years with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud a creditor, to the extent the property disposed of or converted was not exempt at the time of disposition. The language is similar to that contained in § 548 of the Code (fraudulent transfers), thus courts will likely use cases under § 548 to determine what “intent to hinder, delay or defraud a creditor” means. Historically, that burden has been very high. But this change highlights the importance of doing any type of asset protection planning, even with the homestead, prior to any incident that could lead to liability.
(2)Other Exempt Assets
Section 42 of the Texas Property Code exempts from creditors all retirement plans, IRAs, annuities and all life insurance policies. §42.002. The life insurance exemption is extremely broad and appears to extend not only to the insured’s creditors but also to the beneficiary’s creditors. Tex. Ins. Code §1108.151. It is unclear, however, if assets purchased with insurance proceeds are similarly exempt.
The timing of the investment in these exempt assets is critical. If someone has an “event” that he or she thinks could lead to liability, then converting “reachable” assets into “exempt” assets (such as taking marketable securities and investing them in annuities) could be a fraudulent transfer under Texas law or under the Bankruptcy Code. Obviously if the investment in the annuities had been planned as part of a diversification strategy prior to the “event,” then it likely would not be considered a transfer “with an intent to delay, hinder or defraud” a creditor.
The Texas Legislature recently clarified that assets transferred to Section 529 plans for children’s education are exempt from creditors, despite the fact that someone contributing to the 529 plan can elect to take the money back out of the plan. Tex. Prop. Code §42.0022.
IMPACT OF REFORM ACT: Significant Cap for Individual Retirement Accounts and SEPs The Reform Act limits an individual’s exemption for IRAs and SEPs to $1,000,000 (aggregating all such accounts and plans). 11 U.S.C. §522. The cap does not apply to qualified retirement plans, or amounts rolled over from such plans to an IRA or SEP. It is unclear how appreciation is handled after rollover. A way to address the uncertainty is to maintain segregated accounts.
Education IRAs and 529 Plans The Reform Act clarified the treatment of certain transfer for education purposes and imposed some important limitations. Funds placed in an Education IRA or contributed to a 529 Plan for the benefit of a child, stepchild, grandchild, or step grandchild at least 365 days before a bankruptcy filing are not considered assets of the bankruptcy estate. However, this exclusion applies only up to $5,000 per beneficiary if the funds were contributed between 365 and 720 days before filing. § 541(b)(5), (e). Funds placed in such an account or plan within 364 days of the filing are property of the bankruptcy estate.
In Texas, a creditor of one spouse generally is able to reach all of that spouse’s separate property, along with both halves of the joint community property between spouses. Tex. Fam. Code §3.202. As a result, a common asset protection technique is for spouses to partition their community property assets, so that each receives a share as separate property. That way each spouse’s assets are only exposed to that spouse’s creditors. If one of the spouses has a higher likelihood of liability than the other spouse, then a partition can be even more effective.
Example: Assume husband and wife have $4.25 million between them, all of which is jointly held community property. They have a $1 million residence, $1 million in annuities and other exempt assets and $2.25 million in non-exempt investment assets. Assume also that wife is on the board of some major organization and is concerned about potential liability, while husband’s job is unlikely to create any liability. Husband and wife could partition their community property so that wife receives the house and the annuities and exempt assets as her separate property. Husband could receive $2.0 million of the non-exempt investment assets as his separate property, leaving $250,000 as community property. After the partition, if someone sues wife and receives a judgment, then the creditor only has $250,000 of “reachable assets” to pursue.
(1)Partition Can Be Fraudulent Transfer
Even though the couple is not transferring any assets to outside parties, a partition can be considered a fraudulent transfer if done with the intent to delay, hinder or defraud a creditor. Therefore, it is important that neither spouse be insolvent as a result of the partition. Since exempt assets are excluded from the solvency test, it is important to leave some reachable assets when doing this type of planning.
(2)Other Consequences to Partition to Consider
The asset protection benefits of a partition can be substantial, but they must be weighed against other consequences of a partition. First, a partition agreement has significant marital property consequences. If a husband and wife get divorced in Texas, the Family Law Court has jurisdiction to divide the community property among the parties in a fair and equitable manner, which does not have to be equally. If one party has significantly more earning potential than the other, then that party may receive less than 50% of the divided community property. However, the court does not have any jurisdiction to divide the separate property of one party.
A partition agreement of community property does not have to be exactly equal. To balance potential inequities from a divorce decree perspective or to account for asset illiquidity or valuation volatility issues, spouses may partition assets unequally. The important thing is that spouses should consider the consequences of a partition agreement very carefully and both spouses should be fully informed of these issues before proceeding with a partition agreement.
One additional drawback to a partition agreement is that spouses potentially lose part of their step up in basis with a partition agreement. When someone dies, Section 1014 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that the decedent receives a stepped up basis in his or her property. One of the benefits of living in a community property state is that both halves of the community property receive a stepped up basis at the death of the first spouse to die. If spouses partition their assets, then only the decedent’s separate property receives a stepped up basis.
IMPACT OF REFORM ACT: Minimal The only significant impact of the Reform Act upon the partitioning of assets between spouses would be the extension of the bankruptcy fraudulent transfer rules from one year to two years.
C.Family Limited Partnerships
Family limited partnerships are popular estate planning techniques. Transferring assets to an FLP often results in significant estate and gift tax discounts. What some people do not realize is that transferring assets to a family limited partnership also can be an effective asset protection technique. Limited partnership interests and the assets transferred to a family limited partnership are not “exempt” the same way that retirement plans or insurance products are exempt, but assets held in a partnership are difficult for a creditor to reach. As Stanley Johanson is prone to saying, holding assets in a partnership “uglies up the situation” from a creditor standpoint.
(1)Effects of a Charging Order
The reason that an FLP can be effective is that a creditor of a partnership generally can only obtain a charging order against a partner’s interest in a partnership. The creditor cannot directly reach the assets in the partnership. A charging order allows the creditor to receive whatever distributions from the partnership would have come to the partner. But in a family limited partnership, the family can simply stop making any regular distributions from the partnership, preventing the creditor from getting anything. Even more importantly, while a creditor has a charging order against a partnership interest, the creditor must recognize all of the income tax consequences that flow from the partnership. So, the creditor would get a K-1 from the partnership for its share of the income, even though the creditor may not have received any money from the partnership.
The obvious downside for the debtor in this situation is the he or she would not be able to receive any distributions from the partnership either while the creditor has a charging order on the partnership interest. However, the family members might be able to receive management fees or other compensation from the partnership. It is only “distributions” from the partnership that are subject to the charging order.
(2)Mutual Planning Benefits
Because family limited partnerships can be effective for both estate tax purposes and asset protection purposes, it makes both planning techniques more effective. One of the main challenges by the IRS against FLPs is that they are created solely for tax purposes and serve no other business purpose. Obviously the asset protection benefits of transferring assets to an FLP give the technique a significant non-tax purpose. Similarly, a creditor will have a harder time successfully arguing that a debtor formed a family limited partnership solely to delay, hinder or defraud creditors because of all of the estate and gift tax benefits associated with the technique.
IMPACT OF REFORM ACT: Minimal The only significant impact of the Reform Act upon the transfer of assets to family limited partnership would be the extension of the bankruptcy fraudulent transfer rules from one year to two years.
D.Domestic Asset Protection Trusts
Asset protection trusts (also called self-settled spendthrift trusts) have become quite popular in the last twenty years. These trusts are intended to allow people to contribute assets to a trust beyond the reach of their creditors, but retain the right to receive distributions from the trust. This concept is contrary to traditional trust law. Historically, trust law has held that any time someone transferred assets into a trust for his or her own benefit (a self-settled trust), a creditor of the settlor would be able to reach any assets of the trust that could have been distributed to the settlor.
Certain foreign jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands and Isle of Mann began the process of altering traditional trust law to allow self-settled trusts to avoid the reach of creditors. As these offshore trusts became more and more popular, people started transferring vast amounts of wealth offshore. As states saw all of this money flowing to offshore jurisdictions, some decided that they should not be bound by these traditional trust law concepts either. Alaska, Delaware, Rhode Island, Nevada, South Dakota and Utah all now have passed laws allowing asset protection trusts in their states. Instead of relying on deception and unrealistic statute of limitation periods like some of the offshore trusts, these states are very open about their benefits to debtors. These states generally provide that if a settlor is willing to create a trust in their state and transfer assets to an in-state trustee, then after a specified waiting period (usually four years), the assets will be unreachable by settlor’s creditors. The settlor is able to receive distributions from the trusts and can effectively control the trustee through a trust protector or other co-trustees, but cannot retain absolute control over the trust.
Example: Assume I am an accountant and I make a lot of money. I have not had any “incidents” that would lead me to think someone is going to sue me, but I am still concerned about potential liability. I decide to contribute most of my investment assets to one of these trusts set up in Delaware. I appoint my local bank, which has a branch in Delaware as my trustee, but I appoint my brother as trust protector, with the ability to remove the bank and appoint another trustee. If somebody sues me within four years of establishing the trust, they can reach the assets of the trust if they obtain a judgment. But, if I stay clean for four years, then those assets should be beyond the reach of any future creditors.
(1)Potential Drawback to Domestic Asset Protection Trusts
The major drawback to domestic asset protection trusts is that they have only been around for a few years, there are no definitive cases confirming that they work as anticipated. There is a Constitutional debate over conflicts of laws in determining whether one state can pass and uphold a law that could have such a severe, negative impact on the rights of a creditor from another state (especially when the debtor is from the other state also). It will probably be a few more years before any courts actually make a definitive ruling about the true effectiveness of these types of trusts.
IMPACT OF REFORM ACT: Significant New § 548(e) of the Bankruptcy Code specifically addresses transfers to self-settled asset protection trusts, both onshore and offshore. The new section provides that transfers made to such trusts within ten years of a bankruptcy filing may be unwound and the assets made part of the bankruptcy estate, if such transfer was made with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors.
While this new provision extends the time period for certainty that transfers to these types of trusts are fully effective, the fact that they are specifically addressed in the Reform Act adds some legitimacy and eases some concerns that they would not stand up to Constitutional attack. Although apparently not intended by the drafters of the Reform Act, this new provision may actually encourage the use of asset protection trusts.
1 Certain provisions in the Reform Act became effective on enactment or are scheduled to go into effect on other dates. When discussing a provision with an effective date different from October 17, 2005, I will indicate the correct date.
2 The two-year look-back period applies to all cases commenced more than one year after the date of enactment.
3 This new avoidance provision became effective immediately upon enactment for all bankruptcy cases commenced after April 20, 2005.