"'[A] well-educated, long-experienced and sophisticated businessman' is expected to answer with more care and accuracy than a financially unsophisticated one." In re Adler, 494 B.R. 43, 78 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Maring v. PG Alaska Crab Inv. Co., 338 Fed. Appx. 655, 658 (9th Cir. 2008)). Additionally, considering Mr. Eifler reviewed the forms multiple times with the assistance of Mr. Frentz, the Court struggles to believe that Mr. Eifler did not have the opportunity to ask what a term meant if he did not understand it. "A debtor cannot, merely by playing ostrich and burying his head deeply enough in the sand, disclaim all responsibility for statements which he has made under oath."

The Ninth Circuit "has held that the advice of counsel claim is not a separate defense, but rather 'a circumstance indicating good faith which the trier of fact is entitled to consider on the issue of fraudulent intent.'" Maring v. PG Alasak Crab Investment Co. LLC (In re Maring), 338 Fed.Appx. 655, 658 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bisno v. U.S., 299 F.2d 711, 719 (9th Cir. 1961)); see also In re Spencer, BAP No. SC-16-1253, 2017 WL 3470996, at *6 (Aug. 11, 2017) ("Based on the well-settled rule in the Ninth Circuit, the Debtors did not need to plead advice of counsel as an affirmative defense.").

The Ninth Circuit has stated that advice of counsel is not recognized as an affirmative defense in the objection to discharge context. Maring v. PG Alaska Crab Inv. Co. (In re Maring), 338 Fed.Appx. 655, 658 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Bisno v. United States, 299 F.2d 711, 719 (9th Cir. 1961)). (applying § 727(a)(4)).

Debtors with advanced education and significant business experience are expected to answer questions in the petition with "more care and accuracy" than those without such sophistication. Adler, 494 B.R. at 78 (citing Maring v. PG Alaska Crab Inv. Co., 338 Fed.Appx. 655, 658 (9th Cir. 2008)). A debtor's advice of counsel defense is insufficient to rebut a claim of fraudulent intent if a similarly situated debtor "would regard the misrepresented or omitted information as 'plain, palpable, and transparent fact[s]' to be scheduled and disclosed . . . ." Id.

This court has held that the advice of counsel claim is not a separate defense, but rather "a circumstance indicating good faith which the trier of fact is entitled to consider on the issue of fraudulent intent."Maring v. PG Alaska Crab Inv. Co. LLC (In re Maring), 338 F. App'x 655, 658 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations and emphasis omitted). The defendant has the burden of proving the requisite elements of advice of counsel.

These circumstances include the relative sophistication and life experiences of the debtor. In re Thomsen, 172 F.3d 877 (Table), 1999 WL 140607, *1 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 1999) ("Ample evidence supports the bankruptcy court's finding of fraudulent intent, especially given Steven Thomsen's extensive education, multiple degrees and experience as a real-estate broker"); In re Maring, 338 F. App'x. 655, 658 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming bankruptcy court's finding of fraudulent intent based, in part, on debtor's status as a "well-educated, long-experienced and sophisticated businessman"); In re Gronlund, 2014 WL 4090433, at *7 (B.A.P. 9th Cir., Aug. 19, 2014) ("The combination of Debtor's business sophistication and the fact that the 'only asset of value' was omitted support the bankruptcy court's finding that Debtor's concealment of the Mexican Note was to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors within the meaning of § 727(a)(2)"). Based on all of the circumstances surrounding Albert's purchase of the ZALICO Policy and her understanding of the scheme perpetrated by her insurance broker to prepay three years' worth of premiums to collect a 10% broker's commission, and in light of her experience as a former life insurance agent, it is evident Albert concealed the premium payments and her ownership of the ZALICO Policy to hinder the Trustee from investigating any of the circumstances surrounding the Policy.

This court has held that the advice of counsel claim is not a separate defense, but rather "a circumstance indicating good faith which the trier of fact is entitled to consider on the issue of fraudulent intent."Maring v. PG Alaska Crab Inv. Co. LLC (In re Maring), 338 F. App'x 655, 658 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations and emphasis omitted). "[T]he debtor's reliance must be in good faith."

This court has held that the advice of counsel claim is not a separate defense, but rather "a circumstance indicating good faith which the trier of fact is entitled to consider on the issue of fraudulent intent."Maring v. PG Alaska Crab Inv. Co. LLC (In re Maring), 338 F. App'x 655, 658 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations and emphasis omitted). Based on the well-settled rule in the Ninth Circuit, the Debtors did not need to plead advice of counsel as an affirmative defense.

A "well-educated, long experienced and sophisticated businessman is expected to answer with more care and accuracy than a financially unsophisticated one." Id. (quoting Maring v. PG Alska Crab Inv. Co., 338 Fed.Appx. 655, 658 (9th Cir. 2008)). If a person similar to the Debtor would regard the omitted information as "plain, palpable and transparent fact[s]," the inference of fraudulent intent raised by a debtor's false papers will not be rebutted by an advice of counsel defense. Id. (quoting Barnett Bank of Tampa, N.A. v. Muscatell (In re Muscatell), 113 B.R. 72, 75 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1990)); see also Dolata, 306 B.R. at 150 (stating that the advice of counsel defense is only available to debtors if the advice of counsel was needed by such debtors in order for them to be able to ascertain whether they needed to disclose.

The advice-of-counsel "defense" is "a circumstance indicating good faith which the trier of fact is entitled to consider on the issue of fraudulent intent." Maring v. PG Alaska Inv. Co. (In re Maring), 338 F.App'x 655, 658 (9th Cir. 2009). "Generally, a debtor who acts in reliance on the advice of his attorney lacks the intent required to deny him a discharge of his debts."