On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:39:46AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote: [ Alex: ] > > I'm quite certain this is already obvious and will simply be interpreted > > as a tautological affirmation of the obvious, but such co-mingling of > > personal and business assets -- whether with an evidently fraudalent > > purpose or not as such -- will generally not survive the "test of > > reasonableness" that must be satisfied for corporate liability to not be > > pierced. > > > > In other words, if you simply pay for your house in this manner, and > > then you declare bankruptcy or are sued by creditors or whatever, the > > courts will scavenge this sort of thing up as evidence that your > > corporate entity is a financial alter-ego to whatever degree, and > > declare that your house is actually, de facto, a personal asset and can > > be included in the asset classes potentially awarded by judgments to the > > plaintiffs. > > It is a legitimate real estate company renting you a place to live. > This asset protection tactic has been around for a very long time and > is legit. Totally separate entities.
Happens in the commercial world all the time; it's a common way to "get cash out of the corporation" -- a business's building is owned by the corporation's owners, and rented to the corporation. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. -- (Joseph Stalin) _______________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users