According to ABC News, experts and are predicting a great deal of volatility as the International Monetary Fund trimmed its outlook for global growth this year and next (1). The freefalling securities of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) in mid-September were countered by a brief recovery followed by a few days of fluctuations, only to be capped by a sharp drop on the last day of the month. The closely followed index then rebounded strongly in just one trading session and then plunged into a new period of fluctuation. Although the DJIA had experienced an even sharper drop in late July and early August, many economists and market analysts believe that the ongoing market correction could easily mature into a sluggish bear market (2).

In April 2013, one of the most respected names in investment banking called attention to the financial markets as he predicted a rocky decade for stock investors. Jack Bogle, the senior chairman and founder of the Vanguard Group, appeared on CNBC and issued a somber outlook with regard to the global financial exchanges: A market correction between 30 and 50 percent was clearly on the horizon at least once, and perhaps twice in the next 10 years (3).

While Mr. Bogle did not appear to be overly concerned with his 2013 prediction, market corrections tend to spell undue risk and significant losses for the average investor. Mr. Bogle explained that he has survived market corrections of 50 percent, once in 1971, three decades later in 2001, and just a few years ago in late 2008 (3). One of the major reasons why Mr. Bogle is not so concerned with a possible market correction is because he believes in efficient fund management and not in market timing.

Rocco Beatrice, Managing Director of Estate Street Partners, LLC, shares a similar sentiment with Bogle, Faber and Soros. Estate Street Partners owns and operates UltraTrust.com, a website that teaches clients about efficient asset protection and wealth management practices. With regard to market corrections and how they can impact portfolios, Mr. Beatrice explains that: “We like to evaluate our clients’ exposure to the financial markets and show them how they can minimize their risks while still maintaining solid returns. Most of our clients cannot afford to lose 30 to 40 percent in the market because they are too close to retirement.”

Expanding on the above, Mr. Beatrice adds: “Most of our solutions were through extensive research of only the top 1% of fund managers. What makes them different is they offer 100 percent liquidity and a tactical strategy that resulted in no losses in the 2001, 2008, 2009, and 2011 stock market crashes. We typically gather basic information from our clients including brokerage statements and their latest tax returns, and from those we can show them where hidden risks lie, how they can generate tax free income, and how to avoid 30 to 40 percent declines while surpassing their expectations on returns without the implied volatility.”

“Hoffman left behind a will after his unfortunate death that sparked a massive debate by many ultra-wealthy, including Sting, Gates, and Buffett regarding their passion for avoiding creating trust-fund kids,” says Rocco Beatrice. Hoffman passed away from a massive heroin overdose in early February; he left a will that specifically called for his son to be raised in an American metropolis, and he also voiced his disapproval of the trust-fund baby image. Hoffman limited his estate planning to a will that was introduced in surrogate court weeks after his death (4). Hoffman is hardly alone in this overly cautious approach to the trust fund baby stigma.

In early 2012, American voters were given a close look at the lives of the rich and famous via a man who could have become President of the United States. The wealth of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney became a point of interest among the public, particularly when it came to estate planning. What voters in the U.S. learned was that Romney’s five sons: Ben, Craig, Josh, Matt, and Tagg, had been certainly taken care of by their parents to the tune of $100 million (1).

As a successful investment banker, Romney certainly knew how to take advantage of certain financial vehicles that offered tax-free gifts that he could use to establish a trust fund for his children. As with many other things in politics, Romney’s thoughtful estate planning drew praise from some circles and criticism from others (1). On one hand, some families approved of Mitt and Ann Romney’s desire to financially establish their sons at a time when the economic future of the world faces uncertainty; on the other hand, famous millionaires such as singer Sting, American investor Warren Buffett and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates have expressed their opinions on the “trust-fund kid” phenomenon (2)./div>

“The trust-fund baby image tends to be very negative among our clients,” explains Rocco Beatrice, Managing Director of Estate Street Partners, LLC. “We are a financial and estate planning firm, and we get some clients who feel that leaving everything they own to their children would just end up spoiling them and making them lazy. It’s a valid concern, not to mention that a lump sum distribution of assets could be quickly spent.” Estate Street Partners, LLC, operates UltraTrust.com, a website where clients can learn about the advantages of irrevocable trusts as estate planning tools.

Commenting on Hoffman’s probate proceedings, Mr. Beatrice comments: “Here we have an actor whose estate is estimated at $35 million and bound to increase as more films that he worked on are released post-mortem. One can understand his hesitation at leaving his three children all of his assets at once, but his will bequeathed everything to Mimi O’Donnell, his longtime partner. Our office would have recommended an irrevocable trust instead of a will. If Hoffman wanted O’Donnell to administer his estate so that his children do not grow up to be trust-fund babies, then he could have appointed an independent trustee to carry out distributions to his children with a certain amount of discretion and leveraged the use of incentives. This is known as spendthrift and incentive clauses.”

It’s never too late for marital bliss, but the clock’s ticking for Hollywood icon George Clooney to secure his premarital assets. UltraTrust.com explains why.

As news about George Clooney’s engagement to prestigious British attorney Amal Alamuddin made entertainment news headlines around the world as described by USA Today (1), the conversation around this topic is turning to what the future may hold for this fabulous couple. The Belfast Telegraph reported on reactions from Stacy Kiebler, a former professional wrestler who was previously romantically linked to Clooney. Kiebler was not too happy to learn about the engagement news (2).

According to The Guardian, Clooney was dining in Malibu with his beautiful fiancee when fellow actor Edward Norton stopped by the couple’s table (3) and learned about the engagement, which took place as the actor celebrated his 53rd birthday in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. Fox News confirmed the announcement with a congratulatory statement from Clooney’s father (4), and remarked that this is the actor’s second attempt at marriage.

“We’re going to hear more about this engagement and the possibility of a prenuptial agreement as the wedding date gets closer,” comments Rocco Beatrice of UltraTrust.com. Mr. Beatrice is the Managing Director of Estate Street Partners, LLC, the CPA firm that specializes in strategic wealth management solutions. Mr. Beatrice continues: “This is similar to the buzz surrounding the wedding plans of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt; a lot of media attention has been focused on their reported prenuptial agreement and their desire to keep their wealth separate,” explains Mr. Beatrice, who is referring to the advice, according to The Guardian, Jolie gave to fellow Hollywood star Johnny Depp earlier this year (5).

“While the intentions of prenuptial agreements may seem clear, the actual results are often not what most couples expect; Prenups have pro’s and con’s. Legal history shows us that media magnate Rupert Murdoch lost quite a bit of wealth after his 1999 divorce, and he had a prenuptial agreement.” Mr. Beatrice is referring to Murdoch’s divorce from Anna Torv, who received $110 million in cash and the rights to more than $1 billion in News Corp. stock, which she promptly and kindly assigned to her children through a series of irrevocable trusts (6).

“Let’s not forget about Barry Bonds’ divorce; his prenup was questioned and challenged in various California courtrooms as the battle was brought all the way up to the Supreme Court of California. It prevailed in the end, but it took years and a million dollars in legal fees to do so.” Here Mr. Beatrice is referring to the Major League Baseball legend who played for the Pittsburgh Pirates and the San Francisco Giants. Bonds nearly struck out on his separation from Susann Branco; his prenuptial agreement had to be certified as voluntary by the Supreme Court of California six years after the divorce was filed (7).

“Clooney has a few things to consider before going into this marriage. He is in his 50s, he has amassed a considerable fortune a top Hollywood A-lister, and this is his second run at life as a married man. He is also getting married to a top-notch attorney, one of the brightest legal minds in England. Instead of a prenup, he should be looking into something a bit more sophisticated such as an irrevocable trust to protect and control the most critical parts of the fortune he has made as an actor, producer and director,” explains Mr. Beatrice.

On May 5th, 2014, the National Basketball Association (NBA) announced that Michael Carter-Williams was selected as the recipient of the 2014 Kia Rookie of the Year Award (1). At just 22 years of age and appropriately wearing the number 1 jersey for the Philadelphia 76ers, Carter-Williams is making history in more ways than one. Consider his impressive first season’s numbers: In 70 appearances on the court, he scored an average 16.7 points, 6.3 rebounds and 6.2 assists per game, which means he was at the very top of the rookie ladder (2).

In the history of the NBA, there have only been three rookie players who managed to surpass their peers in terms of scoring, rebounds and assists (2). The first rookie to accomplish this was the legendary Oscar Robertson in 1961, during his first season with the Cincinnati Royals. The second was Alvan Adams in 1976 with the Phoenix Suns. Robertson would later be inducted into the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame, and Adams’ jersey would be retired by the Suns (3). Carter-Williams certainly seems as if he’s in the right path to great achievement in the NBA.

In December 2013, Carter-Williams scored what could be considered a financial triple-double, or at least a slam-dunk by infamously announcing his estate planning prowess. CBS Sports reported that the young rookie agreed to put his salary from the 76ers into a trust managed by his mother and a close family friend who is a financial planner (4). At this point, Carter-Williams is earning a guaranteed $4.5 million for this season and the next. He is clearly earning his salary: On the 76ers opening game this season, Carter-Williams scored a jaw-dropping 22 points, caught 7 rebounds and passed 12 assists to beat the Miami Heat, the reigning NBA champions (5).

Under the terms of the trust according to CBS Sports, Carter-Williams cannot touch his salary, which could increase considerably after his second season, for three years. This does not mean that he has to depend on his family to get by; CBS Sports went on to state that he is making money from his endorsement contracts signed with sporting goods giant Nike and Panini America trading cards (4). Now that he has earned Rookie of the Year, his endorsement deals are bound to become even more lucrative.

“What we have here is a very smart young man who is choosing responsibility over the temptations of earning more than 99.9% of his peers at an early age. For this reason we want to nominate him as well as a financial role model of the year,” explains Rocco Beatrice of UltraTrust.com, a website that provides asset management tools such as irrevocable trusts, FLP’s, and LLC’s. UltraTrust.com is owned by Estate Street Partners LLC, a firm that provides estate planning and financial advice. “The painful subject of professional athletes facing bankruptcy and ending up broke is becoming far too common these days. Let’s not forget about the last player from the Sixers who had the honor of being named Rookie of the Year.”

It was a tragic end to a love affair that was often tumultuous according to the Telegraph. American designer and former model L’Wren Scott took her own life on March 17th; a little more than a year after she composed her last will and testament (7). The document, which was filed in Manhattan’s Surrogate Court, revealed that Scott left her entire estate to her long-time romantic partner and legendary lead singer of the Rolling Stones (1).

L’Wren Scott was 49 years old when an administrative assistant found her in a New York City apartment located at 200 11th Avenue on March 17th, 2014 (2). Her death was ruled a suicide shortly after police officers and the medical examiner issued their respective reports. Mick Jagger was on tour with the Rolling Stones in Australia when he received the sad news. Scott and Jagger were never married and did not have children.

According to a news report by CNN, Scott’s will was quickly entered into probate at Manhattan’s surrogate court (3). Estimates of her personal net worth vary; CNN used public records to determine that her estate could be worth about $9 million in assets, which include the stylish apartment and fashion design business holdings.

The BBC reported that Scott’s design firm in London, LS Fashion Limited, was operating at deep loss when compared to her assets (2). The Telegraph cited records kept by Companies House in Britain that indicate an operational business loss of $5.9 million two years ago.

“We are getting this picture of Scott’s estate due to the very public nature of wills, which routinely enter the public record via probate court. We are also getting other details about her life and relationship with Jagger because wills tend to feed tabloid journalists who are pretty good at sleuthing,” explained Rocco Beatrice, Managing Director of Estate Street Partners, LLC and of UltraTrust.com. “Irrevocable trusts are pretty good instruments for privacy when it comes to estates and personal affairs.”

What Mr. Beatrice is referring to with regard to revealing personal information and inviting media speculation has already happened in the wake of Scott’s sad demise. The Telegraph reported that Scott’s will did not include any liabilities (1); this may have, according to the Telegraph, “prompted speculation about her suicide” being prompted by turmoil caused by financial adversity. CNN included a statement issued by LS Fashion Limited that admonished such speculation and calling it disrespectful./div>

Certain tax and wealth planning benefits provided by CICs have prompted the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to increase scrutiny and examinations of these structures (3); but, as we can see in Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. C.I.R., 142 T.C. No. 1 (2014)., captives are still viable entities when it comes to certain tax deductions. Captive insurance companies (CICs) are defined by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) as legal structures established for the purpose of insuring risks faced by owners of business enterprises (1). A CIC can be formed as a domestic business entity, but interested parties may also go offshore and seek foreign incorporation for this purpose (2).

“CICs can benefit individuals from an estate planning and wealth management point of view, but everything must be treated as a business,” explains Rocco Beatrice, Managing Director of Estate Street Partners, LLC, parent company of UltraTrust.com. “Individuals must pass an income and revenue check as it relates to the business entity they control; in essence, the company must have annual revenues of at least $1 million and net income of $500,000. This is not a matter of individual net worth; it is all about making money from a business enterprise.”

At the heart of Rent-a-Center v. the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, there is a large commercial enterprise that has substantial levels of risk through numerous locations and complex operations (5). This is a brand that operates all over the U.S. and thus must operate with considerable levels of liability. As is often the case with such large commercial enterprises, Rent-a-Center ran into certain operational risks that proved expensive to insure through third-party commercial insurance companies.

Mr. Beatrice commented on this particular CIC strategy before expanding on the case: “We can see the financial reasons for Rent-a-Center to form a CIC in Bermuda. In a way, the millions of dollars the company spent on litigation against the IRS probably came from the savings realized through years of CIC coverage.”

“The Rent-a-Center CIC structure is quite complex, but what the IRS seemingly had an issue with were the large payments made by the company to the CIC they controlled. The IRS determined that these were not tax deductible for insurance premiums, which are normally deemed as trade or business expenses deductible as per Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code (6).

It was an ironic, yet heartbreaking tragedy. According to Cinema.com Actor Paul Walker was known to people around the world as Brian O’Conner (1), an undercover agent working from the Los Angeles Police Department and later the FBI, who investigates a street-racing crew that also dabbled in criminality. A central theme of the Fast and the Furious film franchise is O’Conner’s transformation into a reckless character, which mirrors some of his estate planning strategy as shown by facts uncovered by In Re: The Estate of Paul William Walker IV, 1439814, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara (2).

According to The Guardian, Walker was not behind the wheel of the Porsche Carrera GT that burst into flames and nearly disintegrated on a late November night (3). His financial advisor had been driving the sports car at speeds that rivaled the stunts seen in the Fast and the Furious films. The financial advisor, who was also a race car driver, did not survive the fiery crash.

Walker died as passenger in a sports car that was recklessly careening down the twisty streets of the Los Angeles suburbs, and his estate planning strategy was not an altogether cautious affair. In an article published by Forbes, attorneys Danielle and Andy Majoras call attention to the lessons that can be gleaned (4) from the moment Walker’s father petitioned the Superior Court of California to open his late son’s estate.

“In Walker’s case, we have a will that is part of the public record, and a revocable trust that is kept private and confidential,” explains Rocco Beatrice, Managing Director of Estate Street Partners, LLC, parent company of UltraTrust.com. “In this case, the will revealed the trust; in other cases, a trust can be structured in a way that creates a will when the grantor passes away. Any will is subject to probate, but probate headaches are generally avoided with trusts.”

Walker’s will, in essence, directs all his assets to be transferred to his revocable trust (4). To this end, Mr. Beatrice explains: “This is a good move insofar that it clearly dictates where future earnings must be deposited: Directly to his now “irrevocable” trust. This avoids the uncomfortable process of potential unspoken-for payments ending up as unclaimed property.”

UltraTrust.com reviewed the tragedy of Phillip Seymour Hoffman and his estate planning blunders. He was 46 years old when a friend found him unresponsive in a rented New York apartment after trying to reach him numerous times. According to the New York Times, Hoffman was found with a syringe sticking out of his arm and surrounded by small bags of heroin (1). He was one of the finest American actors of the 20th and 21st centuries, and he was known to families and friends as a very nice guy who somehow managed to come across as a menacing villain in films such Capote, “Mission: Impossible III,” and “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead.”

Hoffman was a prolific actor whose net worth was estimated by the Christian Post to be in the range of $35 million (2). He is survived by three young children and his long-time partner Mimi O’Donnell. According to his will that will eventually have to be probated, Hoffman’s assets will be placed in an irrevocable trust for the benefit of his son, Cooper Hoffman, upon his 25th and 30th birthdays. He has placed his life-long partner, Marianne O’Donnell, in the role as trustee of the trust and a backup trustee of Emily Ziff. In the will, he goes on to name Marianne O’Donnell as the guardian of the children and a backup guardian of Suzanne O’Donnell, Marianne’s sister.

“Since wills are public documents, we get this glimpse into the private life of a celebrity when probate petitions are filed,” explains Rocco Beatrice, Managing Director of Estate Street Partners, LLC, parent company of UltraTrust.com. “Wills do not provide the privacy and confidentiality of trusts. More importantly, and the biggest blunder in his planning, Hoffman will be forced to pay $10-12M in Estate Taxes because all of the assets were titled in his name. An Irrevocable trust would have saved the family a lot of money and time avoiding probate and the estate tax.”

According to the Christian Post, although Hoffman has shuffled off this mortal coil, moviegoers have most recently seen him in the long-awaited sequel “Hunger Games” sequel, “The Hunger Games: Mocking Jay Part 2,” and possibly other films (2) such as “God’s Pocket” and “A Most Wanted Man.”

“Though he is no longer with us, Hoffman will certainly continue to earn income through the body of cinematic work he left behind,” explains Mr. Beatrice. “Trusts are not only smart substitutes for wills; they are legal structures that effectively pass more than just wealth and estate to beneficiaries. Trusts make the execution of artist contracts more efficient. In this regard, should Hoffman continue to earn compensation or royalties through the Hunger Games franchise or other films, payments can be easily deposited into a trust – avoiding future gift and estate tax issues if the family is guided in the right direction.”

Adam Molon of CNBC on January 31, 2014 reported on NFL quarterback Vince Young’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection filing in the Southern District of Texas (1). “CNBC underscored the unfortunate fact that Young is only the latest financial casualty among a string of NFL players who have gone from earning millions to coping with insolvency and limited prospects.” Says Rocco Beatrice, Managing Director of Estate Street Partners and parent company of UltraTrust.com; a firm dedicated to estate planning and asset protection for clients of all levels.

The inauspicious trend of professional athletes going broke picked up considerable interest in the midst of the Great American Recession thanks to a groundbreaking investigative report published by Sports Illustrated (SI) in March 2009. “How (and Why) Athletes Go Broke” (2) revealed that nearly 80 percent of NFL players fall into serious financial hardship three years after they stop playing. Their research goes on to say that the situation is marginally better in the NBA, where 60 percent of players are nearly penniless five years into their retirement. MLB players face a similar situation.

On average, according the SI article, NFL careers tend to be short and lucrative. In just three years, players can earn $4 million and move on to the next stage of their lives. Vince Young is currently a free agent; he has spent most of his last two years away from the gridiron and embroiled in a couple of lawsuits related to a loan gone wrong. According to an MSN Money article, Young’s insolvency can be traced to bad investment choices, overspending and a lack of an effective asset protection strategy (3).

Yahoo Sports sheds some light into Young’s legal troubles: During the NFL lockout in 2011, Young reportedly obtained a $1.8 million cash loan through his financial advisor (4). Young claims that he never received the loan proceeds, and the amount he allegedly owes has ballooned to $2.5 million.

“Looking at the reported figures of Young’s Chapter 11 filing, it is clear that this judgment against him to recover the lockout loan is dragging him down,” explains Mr. Beatrice. “NFL players are often targets of lawsuits; for this, and many other reasons, and they should strongly consider setting up structured, personalized plans to protect their assets. Often that means the use of FLP or irrevocable trust.”

A January 30, 2014 CNBC report by Herb Weisbaum (1) reviewed a comprehensive study and subsequent report by the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) that uncovered widespread irregularities in the handling of financial guidance and tax returns by tax preparation professionals nationwide (2).

According to NCLC, a substantial portion of the NCLC report consists of mystery shopping evaluations of tax preparation professionals ranging from certified public accountants (CPAs) to enrolled agents and from major tax return shops such as H&R Block to lesser-known offices such as the colorfully named Mo’ Money Taxes.

Some of the findings in the report (2) are alarming according to the NCLC. The NCLC found an uncomfortably high rate of incompetence and even fraud. Tax preparation shops are used far more frequently than CPAs and Enrolled Agents; these two are registered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and thus fall under government oversight, but only four states have a regulatory body overseeing tax preparers: California, Maryland, New York, and Oregon. With this report, the NCLC said that they hope to call attention to their support of legislation to regulate tax preparation services.

According to the NCLC, the report uncovered data entry errors as well as major mistakes such as incorrect filing status and bungled Earned Income Tax Credit (EIC) calculations. UltraTrust.com sees another problem insofar as individuals relying on CPAs for financial planning: How can they trust CPAs with their estate planning and asset protection needs when they can’t even get their 1040 filings right?

“Tax returns are the bread and butter of many CPA offices,” explains Rocco Beatrice, managing director of Estate Street Partners, parent company of UltraTrust.com, “and they limit their scope of taxation practice to processing returns during the busy season. It’s a good business for them, but sometimes they offer other services outside of the season for the purpose of maintaining a steady flow of income. In addition, many people depend on their accountant as a knowledgeable sound board for their entire financial planning, estate planning, and asset protection. In many instances, we find clients asking for their accountants to give second opinions on the advice we give, and very few are experts in all of these fields of expertise, but that does not stop clients from asking. It is scarey when the accountant does not know what he does not know.”