Why d’you have to make things complicated?

Types of Trust (UK specific) explained, and why they are used

Trusts are something that people often get worried about – they think it’s all too complex and not for them.  But basically it’s about putting a defined amount of money (or other assets) under someone else’s control for the benefit of defined group of people (and you choose who those people are).  The person who is listed as the owner is not necessarily entitled to the money themselves, but is looking after it for others.  They are entrusted with its care. 

This is written about UK trusts, but they can exist in other forms in other countries in the world. The choice of trust is important, as there can be adverse tax consequences if you are using the wrong type for the task in hand. This short post is not a substitute for specialist legal advice tailored to your circumstances.

Why would I need one?   

You might be using a trust structure without realizing it – now!  If you and your partner own a house together, then you might both be listed on the deeds.  When you sell, do you each get half of what is left over after expenses?  If you died, would you want your partner to automatically have all the value in the house?  How have you decided the terms of your house ownership with each other? 

If you have a child who is under the age of 18 when you die – who will look after the assets you have on their behalf until they are old enough?  Is 18 old enough to inherit what you have?  Do you have a child who has additional needs?  Do you want them to have all your money when their needs might be lifelong, and they might not be able to manage money well? 

Do you worry about what might happen if your partner meets someone new and forgets about how much they have inherited from you – and spends it on them?  Or if they get into debt, and it eats up not only all their share, but yours as well?  A trust can be a good way of letting your partner have some of the benefit of what you have, but keeping a bit of security, so they don’t spend it (or have it spent for them) 

Are they expensive? 

There will be a cost for setting up your trust.  Running a trust can cost, but then again, if you choose non-lawyers or non-accountants to be your trustees, the cost may be minor, being limited to out of pocket expenses.  Looking after a million pounds means more work to do than if you were being asked to look after a thousand pounds, and you might need professional help.   

Apart from working out what sort of trust suits you and getting the right sort of trust in the beginning, making it work will require some effort, just like running a car or getting a regular haircut. 

Will I need a lawyer all the time? 

Probably not, if you still have an idea of what the responsibilities of a trustee can be.  However, if you are worried, then legal advice is available, if your trustees want to know more.  It can be necessary to have an independent person as a trustee – a friend or someone outside your closest family. 

You mean there are different sorts of trusts? 

Yes – there used to be many more types of trusts – and confusingly, not everyone talks about them using the same labels.  Basically, trusts now can be broken down into four types: 

  1. The bare trust 
  1. The Interest in possession trust 
  1. The discretionary trust 
  1. The charitable trust. 

A bare trust is similar to a nominee – you decide that someone is to own the asset in name only.  But you expect that the proceeds of sale will not go to the person who appears to own it, but to your choice of recipients 

An Interest in possession is where a named person is entitled to receive the income (or to live rent free) in an asset.  The capital remains safeguarded.  Some sub-types of this sort of trust can also be chosen.  These are usually set up in a will, to take effect after death, for tax reasons. 

A discretionary trust is one where you place the most trust – because it is the most flexible arrangement.  You give your assets to your trustees, identify the people who you want to benefit, and then leave the management of the trust, including how and when people benefit to your trustees.  It is helpful to leave them some written guidance, so that they know what you have in mind – but ultimately, you give them the authority to do the “right thing” with your assets, for the benefit of those whom you have chosen.   

So, a bare trust is quite simple? 

Yes – it’s the sort of thing you have if you purchase a house for a person under 18 – when they turn 18, they can force the trustee to hand it over.  You find this sort of thing when administering an estate – an executor, once they have paid debts, can say that they are holding assets for your benefit – and sell on your behalf, at your direction.   

Interest in Possession sounds really weird… 

This is one of the sorts of trusts that ends up with lots of different names, because the technical name is not really all that catchy.  Sometimes it’s called a property trust – because it’s often used to safeguard a share of the house for the benefit of the surviving member of a couple, so they can continue to live in a house rent free, but without being able to spend it on someone new.  Other names can be “Life Interest Trust”, “home trust” and so on – sometimes there are advisers that use this structure and want to brand it specifically so that it has more appeal.   

Discretionary Trusts sound so complicated.  Why would anyone want them? 

These are the most flexible sort.  If you have a person with a learning disability, they may need money throughout their lives, but may not be able to make significant financial decisions either now or in the future.  They may be able to live independently, but be easily swayed by people who want to take advantage.  They might have a physical disability that could need more and more care as time goes on.  Choosing a discretionary trust structure allows those in charge of it (trustees) all the power they need not only to invest according to the needs of those who benefit, but also to pay out in all sorts of different ways – as and when needed.   

It is true to say that Discretionary Trusts are used in times of uncertainty, for those who are wealthy and who want to pass on money for tax reasons, perhaps for their children not to receive the money too soon, if at all.  Or for business owners who want there to be only a few people that own a block of shares, rather than lots of minor shareholders clamouring for power.  But essentially the structure is the same – two trustees who look after something for the benefit of a range of people.   

You left out charities!

Well, there are not many people who want to set up charities – usually there is a charity to suit every need in existence already.  Sometimes using an existing charity presents the best value for money for those who are in need – saving on set up costs and running costs.  Charities can be made using trust documents, setting out their objectives and who is proposed to benefit.  Similarly, pension fund trusts are less often the creation of an individual – and pension fund trustees have wide powers over what they do to invest, and distribute. 

What else do I need to think about? 

Taxation is something that can come into your decision making process.  If you give a property away, there might be a Capital Gains Tax bill – but your advisers might have a way of postponing this.  If you have a fund larger than £325,000 initially, then there are other considerations for Inheritance Tax.  Inheritance Tax capital gifts also have fairly strict allowances – otherwise they might be a gift that you need to survive by a period of years (7 years to a maximum 14 years from trust gift). As with all Inheritance Tax gifts, you cannot benefit from what you have put into your discretionary trust, or it will not work (1)

During the lifetime of the trust, the size of the fund and how it is invested can be important – because it means there will need to be more financial housekeeping.  This can be a relevant consideration in many cases.   

What do you recommend? 

It depends on what matters the most to you – behind every choice there is a risk and benefit.  There is not really a one-size-fits-all solution for every circumstance, and that is where the advice from your solicitor (or accountant) about a trust can be so beneficial.  For more in –depth analysis of the structures you would like to use, and their implications for your own financial situation, you should consider this general note with tailored advice to suit you. 

(1) There are exceptions to this rule, but only very few. Tread carefully, with advice.

Budget 2015 and initial thoughts.

Budget statement in pdf from Inland Revenue

Some of the things I think this means.

Terms:

Although this refers to a “main residence nil rate band” the personal representatives can elect for any property owned and lived in by the deceased to count as the residence for this purpose.  The term is not related to the main residence or Principal Private Residence.  Potentially, each spouse could have a separate private residence, therefore.

The residence nil rate band (which if someone else has not already labelled it thus, I shall call it the “RNRB”) can be transferred to a spouse and remain intact.  This applies no matter when the first death occurs, so long as the second death occurs after the start of the tax year 2017-18.

The RNRB might end up, therefore, also being called the TRNRB when claimed on the death of the second spouse. There will be new additional forms to complete in addition to the IHT402 and the IHT217.  There will need to be new evidential burdens to show that a recipient falls within the class of acceptable beneficiaries called “descendants”.

The NRB as we know and love it applies at the current rate until the tax year 2021-2 commences.  It applies to all transfers whether intervivos or on death.

The RNRB applies only where there is a residential property in which the deceased has resided (or the spouse of the deceased???) and where the “proceeds of sale of that property” or the property itself pass to a linear descendant of the deceased (or of the deceased’s former spouse??).  The bits in brackets are where I am less certain of the detail.  One thing is clear – the definition of what is considered “linear descendants” is different from the standard definition of “issue” or “bloodline” since it includes not only the usual adopted children and children of the bloodline but also step children and foster children.

Things I am not sure about:

I don’t understand quite how you can quantify the foster children – but perhaps it is possible to prove that an individual is a foster child or has been one at any date.  Similarly, step children.  But then again, this gives an allowance for those children, rather than penalising them or giving them an entitlement.

I am not sure about the “proceeds of sale” aspect of things.  The Inland Revenue states that identifying what has been the proceeds of sale of a family home and making sure that there is a credit for this will be something that will be the subject of a consultation paper shortly.  Presumably, there is some paperwork required for Inheritance Tax purposes on the sale of a family home – so where downsizing from any home worth less than £2,400,000 is potentially eligible for this – so as to preserve the relief on this home.  This will be something that all conveyancing solicitors will need to know about as well, since otherwise it would not be something that would be mentioned to the client.  Few clients associate the sale of their home with the need to consider how it fits in with estate planning.

Does this now mean that flexible life interest trusts now need to be altered so as to take account of this potential future relief?  A “FLIT” by which I mean a discretionary trust, subject to a prior life interest.  I think it does.  Because the whole flexibility of these relies on the discretionary trust *not* being an individual or descendant.  Time to review these I think, and adjust expectations and drafting accordingly.

I think the new legislation means that (at least initially) if you are worth £2.4 million or more, then this RNRB is useless to you.

I also think this means that if you are selling up so that you can free up capital to make potentially exempt transfers, then you have to weigh up carefully whether doing so means that you will lose out on the RNRB.  The RNRB *only* applies on death, and does not apply to PETS that become chargeable.  Worst case scenario is that you free up funds, give some away to your children and do not survive the seven years.  When I say “some”, I mean if you give away more than one Nil Rate Band’s worth of gifts.  So – PETs will have to be limited to below £325,000 for each individual donor if they are within 7 years of death, or statistically likely to be so.  Or in other words, there is no such limitation, but without advice on the pros and cons, the decision should not be taken without, for example, more seriously considering term life insurance, in the very least.

 

In conclusion:

Possibilities of legal involvement in people’s affairs seem to have increased.  And in a way that doesn’t seem right – why should the taxpayer be hemmed in at every turn?  Why not just increase the whole of the NRB to £500,000 each – and not have this extra complication?  What about those childless couples who want to leave their money to nieces and nephews?  Why is this budget not making it easier for the rich to pay tax, rather than harder for the middle income people to manage the burden of it?  This extra complexity just means more work for the civil servants, more bad luck for the childless, more work for lawyers, more fees for professional advice.   And the extra complexity is not actually needed – it doesn’t close any major loopholes or planning issues where “clever lawyers/accountants” have been finding “loopholes”.

Word of the Day

decennial

(dɪˈsɛnɪəl)

adj

1. (Units) lasting for ten years
2. (Units) occurring every ten years
n

3. a tenth anniversary or its celebration

deˈcenniallyadv

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

suggested usage:”Should the value of the Trust Fund be close to the Nil Rate Threshold, Mr and Mrs Client should consider whether it is possible to appoint out of the fund (probably not possible) and prepare for recording the amount in the Trust Fund prior to calculating the decennial charge”

A significant advance | STEP

A significant advance | STEP.  An article about the changes in the law relating to how much capital money can be given from a trust fund to a beneficiary where there is no existing adaptation of the general law – ie on intestacy, or where the document provides no modification to the statutory powers.  Applies to trusts created after October 2014.

Wright and another v National Westminster Bank Plc [2014] EWHC 3158 (Ch)

Applying Pitt v Holt – Unilateral transaction — life death litigation.

I can’t find a publicly downloadable account of the judgment in this case, and this report does quote some of the detail.

The lesson being highlighted for practitioners is that the gift of something must be certain.

I wonder whether there was adequate advice on the part of the advisor assisting them with setting up an intervivos trust.   Perhaps it might have been part of the advisor’s targets to sell this sort of structure.

Perhaps even, there were detailed attendance notes of what was said when, and whether it appeared as if the clients understood that they could not have the income from what was given away, that a valuable source of income on a daily basis would be removed.  Hindsight has a terrible clarity, but surely that is the basis of any advice about giving up assets.  A clarity that this money is no longer yours, but you can watch over it.  With perhaps more care than you have done with your own assets, precisely because it belongs to another