Molatof!  More information on the Trusts Register

Trustees have an obligation to keep good records and accounts, not only for beneficiaries, but also for the Inland Revenue (HMRC).

Until recently, trustees did not have to supply details to the Inland Revenue of who was going to receive money from a trust – but this has changed.

Trustees have always been under an obligation to report income and gains, as well as reporting on the 10 year anniversary Inheritance Tax charge – if you are a trustee and you think you may not have failed to keep up to date, then your solicitor or accountant can help you keep on track, with a “trusts checkup”.

HMRC are now introducing an online registration process, in order both to streamline its function, as well as to comply with new anti-money-laundering legislation – called the Money Laundering Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017 (Molatof, anyone?).  HMRC issued a newsletter about the upcoming changes in April – and suggested that the system would be online this month.  The Molatof regulations were published today, and it seems that it will be a few more weeks whilst HMRC tests the system to see whether it is working correctly.

The Molatof regulations mean that not only do trustees have to supply their details, but also they have to supply the names of beneficiaries and how they benefit – and in addition to their names, will also ask for National Insurance Numbers – and if a National Insurance Number is not available, addresses and passport details may be required.

HMRC have set themselves a deadline of the system going live by 5th October 2017 – for all trusts which have a tax consequence, information on the existence of the trust must be provided on or before 31 January 2018

Advertisements

http://www.bkltax.co.uk/aug13_brasstax_when-is-cgt-exemption-due.htm

http://www.bkltax.co.uk/aug13_brasstax_when-is-cgt-exemption-due.htm.

 

A commentary on a recent case (Piers Moore -v- HMRC, 1st Tier Tribunal, ref  TC/2011/05305 where, on separating from his wife, a man went to live in a property that he had previously owned as an investment property.  The taxpayer subsequently lived there for a period of time, but then moved to live with his new wife in a property they jointly owned.  The first tier tribunal have determined that this is a case of the man not being able to claim PPR as he did not have the requisite intention for it to be his home, following the decision in Goodwin -v- Curtis where it was decided that a persons “home” was to be distinguished from a property which a person temporarily occupied

 

Cases referred to  Goodwin -v- Curtis 70TC 478

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2013/TC02827.html

Statute referred to TCGA 1992 s222, s223