What’s happening in England and Wales?

Denese MolyneuxMy tenure as Chair of STEP’s England and Wales Regional Committee began in January and I would like to thank Rita Bhargava TEP for being such a hard act to follow. January also heralded the arrival of STEP’s new Chief Executive, Mark Walley. Mark has been quick to get his feet under the table and has ambitions to move STEP forward while keeping the organisation true to both its mission and vision.

The last England and Wales committee meeting pinpointed the areas that the committee felt warranted the most attention: raising the profile of TEPs in the public eye; education, career development and networking; educating professionals; and influencing government/policymakers. We are working on a plan to support and input into further work in these areas over the next year.

As detailed in Rita Bhargava’s blog in December, much has been done in recent years to raise the profile of TEPs in the public eye.  STEP’s Communications Team continue their sterling work with the ‘Talk to a TEP’ campaign and public-facing website, advisingfamilies.org, which continues to receive over 1,000 TEP searches a month.

The mammoth job of upgrading the STEP website is underway. The update will include a new member area, and a full site redesign, which should lead to big improvements and help you find exactly what you are looking for. The new site should be with us by January 2020.

The probate fees issue rumbles on. Rita Bhargava and STEP’s Policy Team have been leading the charge. Despite their best efforts, the government was, until very recently, pushing ahead with the Order. With recent political events, however, this is all looking a little less certain than before, and seems unlikely to come in much before the end of the year, and there is some speculation that, due to its unpopularity, it might not happen at all…  You can keep up with developments on the STEP Blog as they happen.

The EU Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5AMLD) is under consultation by the Treasury.  It is to the credit of our technical and policy team that they have pulled together such a comprehensive response to this consultation, and in addition have organised two roundtables with a number of senior industry practitioners to discuss the impact of the Directive in the UK. Watch this space for updates as they happen.

A hearing for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Inheritance and Intergenerational Fairness was attended by a delegation from STEP in April. This APPG has held a series of hearings, some of which have helped inform recent recommendations in this area from the Office of Tax Simplification (see blog). We are hoping for more fundamental changes in this area, however, and look forward to recommendations from the APPG later this year.

And our Professional Development Team has a number of plans for the next year, not least the introduction of more flexible diplomas, enabling practitioners to tailor their STEP Diploma to better suit their specialisms.

Since joining the England and Wales committee six years ago, I have been constantly in awe of the amount of work that goes on behind the scenes, undertaken by committee members and the Head Office team, a fraction of which I have reported above. It is a pleasure and a privilege to work alongside so many dedicated professionals.

I look forward to updating you with further blog postings during my time as chair.

Denese Molyneux TEP, Chair, STEP England and Wales Regional Committee

OTS inheritance tax review, second report: A welcome start, but could go further

The UK Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) has published a second report following its ‘Inheritance Tax Review: Call for Evidence’ published in April 2018.

The first part of the review focused on inheritance tax (IHT) forms, administration and guidance and the OTS published their response in November 2018.

The second part of the review focuses on various areas of the IHT regime and how they interact with one another. The report, published on 5 July 2019, contains three areas of recommendations for the simplification of inheritance tax: lifetime gifts; interactions with capital gains tax (CGT); and businesses and farms in relation to agricultural property relief (APR) and business property relief (BPR).

STEP is very keen to see the inheritance tax regime simplified due to complexities in the current system, so any proposed simplification is to be welcomed. However, we are disappointed to note that there are no recommendations in relation to the nil-rate band, the residence nil-rate band or the treatment of trusts. We believe that the government could expand upon these recommendations and look at a wholesale change in policy towards IHT.

The summary of recommendations on page 13-14 are as follows.

Key area 1: Lifetime gifts

Gift exemptions package

1. The government should, as a package:

  • replace the annual gift exemption and the exemption for gifts in consideration of marriage or civil partnership with an overall personal gifts allowance
  • consider the level of this allowance and reconsider the level of the small gifts exemption
  • reform the exemption for normal expenditure out of income or replace it with a higher personal gift allowance

Gifting period and taper package

2. The government should, as a package:

  • reduce the 7 year period to 5 years, so that gifts to individuals made more than 5 years before death are exempt from Inheritance Tax, and
  • abolish taper relief 

3. The government should remove the need to take account of gifts made outside of the 7 year period when calculating the Inheritance Tax due (under what is known as the ’14 year rule’).

Liability for payment and the nil-rate band

4. The government should explore options for simplifying and clarifying the rules on liability for the payment of tax on lifetime gifts to individuals and the allocation of the nil-rate band.

Key area 2: Interactions with Capital Gains Tax

5. Where a relief or exemption from Inheritance Tax applies, the government should consider removing the capital gains uplift and instead provide that the recipient is treated as acquiring the assets at the historic base cost of the person who has died.

Key area 3: Businesses and Farms APR/BPR

6. The government should, as a package:

  • consider whether it continues to be appropriate for the level of trading activity for BPR to be set at a lower level than that for gift holdover relief or entrepreneurs’ relief
  • review the treatment of indirect non-controlling holdings in trading companies, and
  • consider whether to align the Inheritance Tax treatment of furnished holiday lets with that of Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax, where they are treated as trading providing that certain conditions are met

7. The government should review the treatment of limited liability partnerships to ensure that they are treated appropriately for the purposes of the BPR trading requirement.

8. HMRC should review their current approach around the eligibility of farmhouses for APR in sensitive cases, such as where a famer needs to leave the farmhouse for medical treatment or go into care.

9. HMRC should be clearer in their guidance as to when a valuation of a business or farm is required and, if it is required, whether this needs to be a formal valuation or an estimate. Other areas of Inheritance Tax.

10. The government should consider ensuring that death benefit payments from term life insurance are Inheritance Tax free on the death of the life assured without the need for them to be written in trust. 

11. The government should review the POAT rules and their interaction with other Inheritance Tax anti-avoidance legislation to consider whether they function as intended and whether they are still necessary.

Useful links

Emily Deane TEP, STEP Technical Counsel

EW to extend online probate service

Daniel NesbittThe online system for England and Wales probate applications is to be extended further, after a Statutory Instrument was laid before the House of Lords last week.

The Non-Contentious Probate (Amendment) Rules 2019 updates previous legislation to allow solicitors and probate practitioners to apply for grants of probate without an invitation from a registry. It also modernises certain definitions, and corrects minor errors, in the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987.

As the legislation is a negative instrument, no vote has been scheduled to take place in parliament, so unless a motion to stop it is tabled within 40 days, it will automatically become law, and is due to come into force on 1 October 2019.

The full text of the Statutory Instrument, along with further explanatory information, can be found here: The Non-Contentious Probate (Amendment) Rules 2019 (PDF) .

The changes are unrelated to the government’s Non-Contentious Probate (Fees) Order 2018, which has still not been scheduled for a final vote in the House of Commons.

 

Daniel Nesbitt, Policy Executive, STEP

EW probate delays and disruption: an update

Emily Deane TEPSTEP met HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) this week, together with The Law Society and Solicitors for the Elderly, to obtain an update on the delays and disruption to the Probate Service in England and Wales.

HMCTS gave us the following update on work undertaken since our last meeting on 14 May:

  • It has taken on 30 new staff since the transfer to the new system.
  • It currently has 180 employees working across the Probate Service.
  • It has recruited additional legal advisors with probate experience.
  • The registry with the most significant backlog is Winchester, which is sharing its work with other registries.
  • HMCTS is issuing approximately 20,000 grants a month, of which 12-13,000 are from practitioners
  • It is dealing with grants in date order, oldest first.
  • It does not prioritise grants according to urgency, and will not deal with applications more quickly by request.
  • It is entering caveats into the system on the day of receipt.
  • It will not refund probate fees due to delay.
  • It will issue grants of probate in approximately six to eight weeks.

STEP’s request for waived interest, or longer timeframe

STEP is aware that the delays are making it difficult for members to pay IHT on estates, since they cannot gain access to funds until the grants have been issued.

STEP has asked HMCTS to consult with HMRC on this issue, to see if it will waive the interest accrued on outstanding IHT, or permit a longer timeframe for paying by instalments. We stressed that this would help ease some of the time pressure and negligence concerns of our members, and generate some much-needed goodwill.

HMCTS anticipates that once its new digital system is up and running, there will be less scope for administrative and human error. Users will be able to track applications and make corrections online.

It will continue to accept paper applications for those less able to deal with applying online.

  • HMCTS is holding a webinar to demonstrate the new online system for professional users on 4 July.

STEP will be meeting HMCTS again in August for a further briefing.

Emily Deane TEP, STEP Technical Counsel

What’s happening with the EW probate fees order?

Daniel Nesbitt

Update 18 July: The probate fees order has not been scheduled for debate in the week commencing 22 July. As this will be the final week before the UK Parliament rises for its summer recess, and the end of the parliamentary session, the order cannot now be debated or passed until parliament returns on 3 September 2019.

Original blog: The status of the EW probate fee order is the same as it has been since February – it is still waiting for its final stage. As it was not scheduled for debate next week, ie w/c 13 May, it will not be possible to bring the new fees in before June.

Following last week’s Business Questions (where the future parliamentary business is set out) there has been a slight change of tone from the government on scheduling the order. In answer to a question, the Leader of the House of Commons, Andrea Leadsom, said the order had already been debated in committee and an approval motion would be brought in due course. Previously she had said ‘where a reasonable request for a debate has been made, time should be allowed for that debate’.

This may mean the government will actively try to avoid a full debate in the House of Commons. Labour seems keen to bring it to a vote and has raised it at a few business questions.

Parliament is due to have its Whitsun Recess from 23 May to 4 June 2019, so that will further limit opportunities to bring the order to the House of Commons. The summer recess date has not yet been announced and will likely depend on the Brexit negotiations, and whether a deal can be passed (the last two summer recesses have started in late July, which may be a guide).

The summer recess will mark the end of the parliamentary session, and whilst secondary legislation not passed before this point is usually abandoned it can be brought back in the following session.  

There are rumours that Theresa May is not planning to hold a substantive Queen’s Speech at the opening of the next session, which would mean there would only be a limited programme of legislation for the government and it would be easier to find time to fit it back in. However, the government may try to bring the order to its final stage before the summer recess.

Daniel Nesbitt, Policy Executive, STEP 

5AMLD consultation: STEP’s view

Emily Deane TEP

The UK Treasury has published a consultation paper on the transposition of the EU’s Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5AMLD), which expands upon the scope of registration for trusts and widens the accessibility provisions to the beneficial ownership records. The 5AMLD Directive provides for public access, but it is up to each Member State to decide whether or not they will restrict this.

Express trusts

5AMLD will require that all UK express trusts register with HMRC, not just those with UK tax consequences (as was the case with 4AMLD). It will also bring into scope non-EU resident trusts that own UK land or property. STEP is concerned that under 5AMLD, a much wider range of trusts will need to be registered. Express trusts may include co-ownership of land, insurance trusts and other dormant trusts, which will significantly enhance the number of trusts that need to be reported. The consultation seeks to clarify the definition of express trusts, which we hope will provide some clarity and narrow the scope.

Access to the register

There will be expanded accessibility provisions. In the UK, the records will be accessible by law enforcement agencies, any UK obliged entity that enters into a business relationship with a trust, and anyone who can show that they have a ‘legitimate interest’ in the data. An exception is that if a trust has a ‘controlling interest’ in a non-EU company, then anyone will be able to access the information by making a written request and no legitimate interest is required. A trust will be deemed to hold a controlling interest in any corporate or other legal entity when the trust has 25 per cent or more of either the voting shares or other means of control over that entity as defined in the Persons with Significant Control (PSC) guidance. It is currently unclear how legitimate interest applications will be dealt with by the government since ‘legitimate interest’ is not defined within 5AMLD.

Legitimate interest

The government will need to decide whether or not requests for trust data meet the definition of legitimate interest. The current train of thought is that those with legitimate interest should be limited to people with active involvement in anti-money laundering or counter-terrorist financing activity, or those who have reason to believe or evidence that a particular trust or person is involved with money laundering or terrorist financing.

We hope that the government will require strong evidence of illegality and/or wrongdoing that clearly implicates the trust concerned before agreeing to consider a legitimate interest application. There are many people who seek to obtain confidential information about individuals and families with wealth for purposes other than the exposure of illegality or wrongdoing. People are often keen to obtain information about the affairs of the wealthy and those in the public domain, for example, and we are concerned that vague assertions of impropriety could be used to obtain confidential information about family trusts.

The consultation does, however, acknowledge that many trusts are used for children and vulnerable adults, and requests for personal information on either of these will be given ‘special consideration’ and will possibly even be withheld, which we fully endorse.

Registration deadlines

For trusts already in existence on 10 March 2020, the government proposes a deadline of 31 March 2021 for them to register. This gives a long lead-in time, given the greater number of trusts that will need to be registered.

For trusts created on or after 1 April 2020, the government proposes that the trust should be registered within 30 days of its creation. The government envisages that this approach will be the most straightforward, as registration can occur as part of the set-up process, when the required details should be readily available to trustees/agents. The proposal for registration within 30 days for new trusts means there is no single deadline each year and it seems sensible for the trust to be registered at the same time it is created.

It is also intended that this 30-day deadline will be used for any amendments that need to be made to the trust register data, for example, to update an address or change a trustee.

Penalties

Due to the fact that 5AMLD extends registration to non-taxpaying trusts, the government considers that the self-assessment penalty regime is not a suitable basis for the 5AMLD penalty framework. The new regime is also being consulted on within the paper.

STEP will be submitting a response to the consultation, which closes on 10 June 2019. The transposition deadline is December 2019, with an implementation deadline of January 2020. There is an extended trust register deadline for the UK of March 2020.

Emily Deane TEP is STEP Technical Counsel

HMRC’s five traps to avoid with CRS/FATCA reporting

Emily Deane TEPHMRC has identified the most common errors made by financial institutions (FIs) when filing their Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) returns, which include Common Reporting Standard (CRS) and Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) reportable information.

1. The FI misunderstands what constitutes an undocumented account

FIs are wrongly reporting accounts as ‘undocumented’ on the basis that a self-certification requested from an account holder has not been completed.

Accounts should only be reported as undocumented where they meet specific criteria, which include that the account has either a hold-mail instruction or a ‘care-of’ address. The full criteria can be found in CRS, Section III: Due Diligence for Preexisting Individual Accounts, subparagraphs B(5) and C(5). HMRC guidance is available at IEIM402850 and IEIM403040.

Any accounts that are correctly reported as ‘undocumented’ must show Great Britain as the residential country code.

2. The FI misunderstands what information is required to be reported 

Some FIs only complete the mandatory fields in the schema or portal, even though they hold additional information which is legally required to be reported. In addition, some FIs fill in mandatory fields with ‘n/a’ or similar.

CRS and the UK-US FATCA Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) state which information is required to be reported. Where a schema or portal field is not mandatory, there can still be a legal requirement to provide this information. For example, where a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) or date of birth is held or obtained by the FI, it is required to be reported even though it is not down as a mandatory field within the portal or schema. Where an address is held, the full address must be provided, even though the only mandatory field is for ‘city’ in the schema or portal.

3. The FI reports accounts held by persons who are not reportable persons

FIs are reporting publicly traded corporations, as well as related entities, governmental entities, international organisations, central banks, and financial institutions. In most cases, such accounts are not reportable. HMRC guidance at IEIM402010 outlines which accounts are not reportable.

4. The FI misreports joint accounts and/or partnership account

Some FIs confuse the treatment of joint individual accounts and partnership accounts.

Joint individual accounts must be reported as individual accounts with the entire balance or value of the account, as well as the entire amounts paid or credited, attributed to each holder of the account.

A partnership is defined as an entity for reporting purposes, and accounts held by partnerships should be reported as entity accounts, with the respective due diligence and reporting requirements applied.

5. The FI reports entities as controlling persons 

Some FIs report entities as the controlling persons of entity accounts, resulting in trusts and companies being reported as controlling persons. However, entities cannot be controlling persons; under CRS and FATCA, ‘controlling persons’ means‘natural persons who exercise control over an entity. In the case of a trust, such term means the settlor, the trustees, the protector (if any), the beneficiaries or class of beneficiaries, and any other natural person exercising ultimate effective control over the trust, and in the case of a legal arrangement other than a trust, such term means persons in equivalent or similar positions. The term ‘Controlling Persons’ shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force.’

Full HMRC guidance on AEOI reporting can be found at: International Exchange of Information Manual.

Please email Emily.Deane@step.org with any further queries.

Emily Deane TEP is STEP Technical Counsel

GDPR Roundtable

Emily Deane TEPSTEP’s GDPR working group recently hosted a roundtable event that enabled representatives from professional bodies, including the Law Society, ICAEW and CIOT, to update each other on their progress in relation to GDPR implementation. It is widely felt by the private client industry that when the legislation was drafted it was not designed with trust and estate practitioners in mind and there are some significant grey areas in practice.

Key issues that continue to be an industry concern discussed were:

  • How the GDPR applies to lay trustees and personal representatives.
  • How non-legal advisors process special category data.
  • How the GDPR impacts upon international transfers.
  • Queries in relation to joint data controllers and confidentiality.
  • GDPR and its impact upon engagement letters.
  • GDPR and its impact upon attorneys and deputies.
  • Erasure of files and filing system requirements.

STEP’s working group is in the process of preparing a joint paper that it will submit to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) identifying the practical issues that have arisen for trust and estate practitioners. We hope that the ICO will be able to address some of the gaps in the guidance and legislation.

STEP has scheduled another roundtable in February 2019 to further discuss these issues and aims, to provide STEP members with a best practice position and guidance in due course. In the meantime, STEP has published an update to its briefing note on the GDPR, listed below.

Please note that STEP will be publishing a webinar in January 2019, recorded by the chair of STEP’s GDPR working group, Edward Hayes TEP of Burges Salmon, that will offer some interim guidance on the application of the GDPR to trust and estate practitioners.

Emily Deane TEP is STEP Technical Counsel

Cross-border protection of vulnerable adults in Europe under discussion

Emily Deane TEPSTEP took part in the EC-HCCH Joint Conference on the Cross-Border Protection of Vulnerable Adults last week in Brussels, to discuss the ratification of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults (the Hague Convention) at EU and global level and the possible future EU legislative initiatives in this field.

The event, organised jointly by the European Commission and The Hague Conference on Private International Law, brought together legal practitioners, judges, academics and government officials who deal practically with the challenges associated with the cross-border protection of vulnerable adults in Europe and beyond.

STEP’s EU cross-border expert Richard Frimston TEP joined panellists to discuss the need for an international and regional legal framework for the cross-border protection of vulnerable adults from the perspective of organisations providing services and/or protection. Richard was accompanied by representatives from Dementia Alliance and Alzheimer’s Disease International, AGE Platform Europe, CEOs in global banking and the President of the International Union of Notaries (UINL).

Richard is the coordinator of the Protection of Adults in International Situations Project Team and spoke on behalf of STEP as a member of the Board and Co-Chair of the Public Policy Committee. He delivered some pertinent points on the need for a protective framework for our increasingly aged society and those living with disabilities, and their supportive loved ones, including family members and guardians, in accordance with their human rights.

He expressed concern with powers of representation which are generally not measures of protection, unless confirmed with sufficient legal process, and the manner of exercise of such powers of representation being governed by the law of the state in which they are exercised. He argued for more balance between the protection and autonomy of individuals, and called for improved methods of powers of representation to be accepted cross-border.

The conference emphasised that this work is invaluable since the Hague Convention determines which courts have the jurisdiction to take protection measures, and which law is to be applied in circumstances when a vulnerable person requires it.

Importantly it establishes a system of central authorities to cooperate with one another and locate vulnerable adults, as well as providing information on the status of vulnerable persons to other authorities. Although much work has been carried out already, more could be done to improve the quality of European law, increase practical guidance in the European legal field and enhance European legal integration.

STEP is asking members for any practical examples of when they have encountered difficulties in practice in relation to England and Wales not having ratified the Hague Convention. Please email STEP’s policy team if you have any feedback on this issue, at step@policy.org.

STEP will keep you updated on the outcome of these discussions.

Emily Deane TEP is STEP Technical Counsel

Committee draws probate fees legislation to UK parliament’s special attention

Daniel NesbittUPDATE 07/12/2018

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments’ full report (PDF) has now been published and includes the following conclusion:

The Committee draws the special attention of both Houses to this draft Order on the grounds that, if it is approved and made, there will be a doubt whether it is intra vires, and that it would in any event make an unexpected use of the power conferred by the enabling Act.

The Committee reached the same view regarding the government’s attempt to raise probate fees in 2017. Underlining this position, the report notes that the Ministry of Justice’s arguments did not ‘dispel the Committee’s doubts about vires expressed in its report on the 2017 Order’.

The depiction of the changes as a ‘fee’ was also challenged by the Committee, which felt the new banded system bore the characteristics of a tax. The report noted that the higher payments were disproportionate to the actual cost of the service and that the measure represented what was in effect a type of stamp duty on probate applications.

The views expressed by the Committee match the legal opinion STEP obtained from Richard Drabble QC in response to the 2017 proposals.

ORIGINAL BLOG 6/12/2018

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has scrutinised the Non-Contentious Probate (Fees) Order 2018, and drawn it to parliament’s special attention.

The committee is responsible for examining the technical aspects of secondary legislation; ensuring that the drafting is correct, clear and within the powers granted by the act under which they are being made. Although it can highlight measures it believes to be of concern, the Joint Committee cannot block or amend legislation itself.

The other committee tasked with examining secondary legislation, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in the 6th Report of Session 2017–19 (PDF) has also drawn parliament’s attention to the measure, calling it a ‘stealth tax’.

The next stage for the order in the House of Lords is for it to be voted on; and as an affirmative measure it will require a majority to pass. In the House of Commons a delegated legislation committee will be convened to scrutinise the legislation.

The Joint Committee’s full report on the order, setting out its detailed views, is yet to be published but it is expected to be released tomorrow (Fri 7 Dec 2018).

STEP will continue to monitor the situation and will provide updates where appropriate.

Daniel Nesbitt, Policy Executive, STEP