Thanks for the feedback, Purge and TheBlackTruth. There were a few details I didn't mention that your replies prompted. Regarding the taxes, true, you could be subject to them, but if you just use the corp. as a shell (that's all I would use it for), the corp. doesn't make any money, so there are no taxes for it per se (a federal tax form must still be submitted each year for the corporation, though).
However, if you do decide to set up your business there, there are numerous tax advantages, including using APG's TIN and the fact that Nevada has no state corporate or individual income tax, requires only 15% of the first $50,000 be paid in federal income taxes (compared with 28% of same for personal elsewhere), and numerous other advantages enumerated in the book I mentioned in my previous post, should you actually register an active and/or profitable business. Tax protection is one of the specific advantages touted by the Nevada Corp.
TheBlackTruth, you bring up many good points, including the common-law trust angle, anonymity, and price. I appreciate them, and would be interested in hearing more about your info, since I haven't committed yet. I'll contact you offline. However, no attempt was made to mislead in my previous post; only to hopefully add to the previously posited information, since none referenced Nevada Corps. I did mention the danger of trusts, but I stand by the warning, since statutory trust do, in fact, expose one to possible asset seizure. I also made it clear that I am simply relating what I was told regarding the Nevada Corps, but if anyone did see anything misleading in my information, please do not hesitate to bring it up.
Another thing I didn't mention is Asset Protection Group's IBC (International Business Corp.) product, which isn't something I would consider because of the added cost and the fact that it wouldn't really help me on the scale I am at right now (reeeally small-time and non-biz
). But it does add the advantages TheBlackTruth mentions about offshores, and would offer even more, if we were not considered "United States citizens." Then, all kinds of investments would be available to us that would supposedly be extremely lucrative. I am somewhat familiar with this conundrum, having an offshore trust in another investment. I remember reading about it in that structure's material. If anyone knows of a generally-accepted solution to this, I would be very interested in hearing about it!
In any event, the statement that a Nevada Corp. is vulnerable to suit/litigation depends on how you set it up and how you behave, as TheBlackTruth mentions in general. The fact that many rich and successful people, including many celebrities (e.g., Madonna, Prince, Michael Jackson and Paul Simon) have used this structure successfully for many years (Robert Wagner, APG's spokesman, said he has had one since the '50s) points to its power and desirability; not because "a famous person is doing it," but for the same reason TheBlackTruth mentions that the Rockefellers, et. al., use what they do. Of course, we can only conject at what these elites use, since their information is obviously kept well-hidden.
In addition, regarding the issue that a Nevada Corp. is statutory-based may actually help ease the fears of many a seeker who has been burned trying to fly too close to the sovereign ideal before being fully prepared. I am definitely not knocking such an ideal, but I have had personal experience with trying to explain such "fanciful notions" to so-called officials. I would consider this a safe alternative, at least until I can learn more, as TheBlackTruth has offered.
However, the point was also made in my previous post that these corps are tied to education funding in Nevada, an always-contentious monetary issue, so they won't be going away soon. This may or may not be ultimately true, but even if it is not, it certainly has been in the past for many a famous and infamous personality. I still recommend checking out the book for more info, keeping in mind that any financial decision includes risk, no matter how bullet-proof it may appear, if only for the price of setting it up.
Also, attachment is specifically addressed, as the only individuals you must register in Nevada's state records are the corporate officers and directors, and one person is allowed hold all these offices. Many nominate as their officer Bill Reed (he can also serve as a resident, or registered agent, in the state), and he, in turn opens a bank account for the corporation and places his clients as "vice-presidents," with full authority to act on behalf of the company (primarily for wire transfers) since such an office is not required to be registered with the state. Admittedly, this can relinquish some privacy, but it is not considered public record, so would require more than prima-facia evidence of ownership. He still signs the physical checks and, if asked for names and owners of any corporation, he can truthfully answer that he does not have any idea, since in Nevada, bearer shares allow anyone to "own" the company, and are impossible to trace from the state or any other level, save the private. This is unique among Wyoming, Delaware, and Nevada, the generally most favored incorporation states. In fact, it is key to protecting the privacy of any corporation.
Nevada has striven to be most privacy-friendly, as is noted by its edict to not allow the IRS access to its records, which has stood since 1991. Even if they were to sign any kind of agreement, Nevada can only turn over the list of directors and corporate officers it has on record, and would therefore have no impact on anyone's privacy.
By way of concluding, the ideas presented by all are definitely worth closer examination to determine what is going to be the ideal situation for each one individually. I just hope to have helped clear up some of them about Nevada Corps in my small, non-expert way.
Happy hunting and apologies for my verbosity, too
,
Kara