That's right. There is no viable asset protection scheme that involves
putting
your assets in another individual's name.

Really?
Here it's quite legal to place assets in another name providing the
appropriate taxes are paid during the transfer.

Sure, Alfie, you can do that anywhere, but why would you want to? You've
already paid the taxes and the other person can make off with the assets.
If
you retain enough control the transfer will be disregarded. Try again, boy.

Try again? Why?
I'm happy with my arrangements and I believe Bubbles is with his.
My boats are owned by companies that pay me, my cars are company
owned, my home is owned by my wife,the real estate..company, hell even
my share portfolio is owned by my investment company, they all pay me
a wage and I get directors benefits.
Good deal and no-one can take off with anything..except my wife and
she's not looking to that.
Come to think of it, I don't actually own much more than the clothes
in my wardrobe and the money in my pocket.
Try agai...nah, don't think so!

Bwahahahahaha OK, joker. Your investment company pays you a wage? What a
laugh. You better try again, cause that ain't gonna work. And pray tell, why
the home is in the name of your "wife the real estate . . .company" whatever
that is. Look, even if you had this setup (which you do not), it would be
about the most ass-backwards way to hold assets, particularly income-producing
ones as you describe them. It is certainly the case in the US, and according
to my AAR friends it is in Oz also. And, to top it off, you still haven't
explained why you or Boobs could gain any advantage by having an individual
(like a wife) hold assets. Please get back to the question at hand (but thanks
for the laugh anyway).