Have you registered your LEIs?

Emily Deane TEPEvery legal entity will need to get a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) by 3 January 2018. Emily Deane TEP explains what LEIs are, and how to get one.

What is an LEI?

The Global Legal Entity Identification Foundation (GLEIF) has designed a system where every ‘legal entity’ will need to register and obtain a unique identification number – a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) before it can trade on financial markets in the UK after 3 January 2018.

The London Stock Exchange (LSE) requires investors who are deemed to be legal entities to obtain an LEI, which is a 20-character alphanumeric reference code that is unique to the legal entity. Legal entities include Trusts (but not Bare Trusts), Companies (Public and Private), Pension Funds (but not Self-invested Personal Pensions), Charities and Unincorporated Bodies that are parties to financial transactions.

Do trusts need one?

Bare trusts have been excluded from the requirement to obtain an LEI, but all other trusts will be obliged to obtain one if they are parties to financial transactions. In the case of discretionary trusts which have legal restrictions and cannot disclose trust details, the LSE will accept a validation from the trust itself and will not require sight of the trust deed. However, in all other cases the LSE will generally accept a scanned copy of the first couple of pages of the trust deed in the same way that many banks do for AML compliance.

Entities other than trusts are obliged to provide information such as their official registry details and business address. All LEI data will be consolidated in one database in an effort to improve global entity identification and standardisation.

What if I don’t apply?

If the LEI has not been obtained by 3 January 2018 then investment firms will not be able to provide the legal entity with investment services. The legal entity itself is ultimately responsible for obtaining the LEI, but some investment firms may agree to apply for the LEI on behalf of their legal entity clients. The LSE has produced a draft format (pdf) which will be acceptable in order to transfer the application authority from the entity to a third party such as a management company.

The LSE will charge an initial allocation cost of GBP115 + VAT and annual maintenance cost of GBP70 + VAT per LEI.

How do I register?

Registration for individual LEI allocation requests started on 5 August 2013. You can request your LEI via the link below, and there are two user guides to help you:

More information can be found on the Financial Conduct Authority’s website:


Emily Deane TEP is STEP Technical Counsel

 

European Data Protection Supervisor voices privacy concerns over 4AMLD

George HodgsonThe European Data Protection Supervisor’s Opinion on proposed amends to the Fourth EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive (4AMLD) shines a welcome spotlight on data protection implications and the ‘significant and unnecessary risks to an individual’s right to privacy’.

The Opinion, published on 2 February 2017, raises questions as to whether or not the proposed collection of personal data is proportionate to the fight against money laundering and terrorism financing and scrutinises the access to beneficial ownership information and the significant and unnecessary risks that this might cause an individual who has a right to privacy and data protection.

STEP has been heavily engaged with Brussels for some time on proposed revisions to 4AMLD. We have also, via our relevant STEP branches, been active on the issue in several EU Member States.

The existing 4AMLD recognises that many trusts are sensitive family arrangements, often designed to protect the interests of vulnerable family members. Trusts are therefore treated differently to corporate structures: beneficial ownership information on trusts is not publicly available and is only accessible by recognised competent authorities, and registers of trusts are confined to trusts with tax consequences, reflecting the fact that any risk assessment suggests that this is where the highest risk of abuse lies.

The proposed revisions to 4AMLD effectively put trusts on the same basis as most corporate structures. This means Member States would be required to establish comprehensive beneficial ownership registers of ALL trusts – a change that will impact on millions of ordinary families. It also would require that such register should be available, as a minimum, to anyone who has a ‘legitimate interest’ (not defined – but understood to include journalists and NGOs with an interest in this area), and allowing Member States to open such registers even to those with no demonstrable ‘legitimate interest’ in the information.

In spite of STEP’s best efforts, and the best efforts of other professional bodies who have been working with us on this issue, our arguments against these proposals were getting little attention from policy makers. The original proposals for the revision were sparked by a wave of terrorist attacks in Brussels, and then were increasingly seen as a necessary political response to the Panama Papers scandal. Brexit then did few favours for those trying to argue in Brussels for the merits of what are still generally seen as ‘Anglo-Saxon trusts’…

It is encouraging, therefore, that the European Data Protection Supervisor, a powerful voice in Brussels, has now weighed in with a stinging review of the proposed amendments. They are seen as having muddled objectives underpinned by little objective risk assessment and paying scant regard to the issue of proportionality, particularly in the proposal to allow wide access to beneficial ownership information on family trusts. We can only wait and see how this impacts on the intense debate that is currently going on in the EU Parliament on the proposals.

 

George Hodgson is Chief Executive of STEP

CRS and Charities: January 2017 update

Donations boxHMRC hosted another Charities CRS working group on 16 January. The following issues were on the agenda for discussion:

Anti-Avoidance Rules

HMRC would like to refine its currently broad regulation regarding anti-avoidance. It is scheduled to discuss it with the compliance team shortly. It will also be reviewing the anti-avoidance issues surrounding donations channelled through other charites and some more detailed guidance is expected to be issued shortly thereafter.

Trust Guidance

HMRC is in the process of preparing some guidance with the OECD focusing on some of the grey areas surrounding trusts. STEP has produced a memorandum on the issues of concern on how the CRS is intended to apply to trusts, persons connected with trusts and trust assets. The memorandum sets out our understanding of the application of the CRS in certain circumstances and highlights points of uncertainty in the reporting framework. We have submitted the paper to HMRC and the OECD and hope that it will form part of the additional new OECD guidance.

Human Rights

HMRC has issued new guidance, Charities: Protection on Human Rights Grounds, which will assist charities concerned about the human rights implications associated with information they are required to report under the automatic exchange of information (AEOI) agreements. HMRC recognises that there may be cases where the threat to an individual’s human rights as a result of his or her information being exchanged may justify information being redacted from that transmitted. The guidance covers the redaction of information on human rights grounds; threats to human rights, and safeguards already in place; and how to apply for redaction of information, including the HMRC process and the documentation required.

STEP will continue to attend the periodic working group to discuss ongoing technical issues with HMRC.

 

Emily Deane TEP is STEP Technical Counsel

What next for offshore?

Offshore PerceptionsSTEP has published Offshore Perceptions, a major new piece of research looking at the current state of the offshore world. It paints a picture of a sector adapting rapidly to a new regulatory and institutional environment. It also confirms that measures designed to tackle abuse by a few, are actually having a major impact on costs for the legitimate clients who are the overwhelming majority of users of private client services both offshore and onshore.

The research, sponsored by First Names Group, is based on a survey of over 1,000 respondents, fairly evenly split between the offshore and onshore world, and with a very broad geographical reach.

Over three quarters of the offshore respondents to the survey report that compliance has become a burden to a ‘great’ or ‘large’ extent. Not surprisingly, this rising burden of compliance is driving up costs to the client and the report highlights a shift away from smaller clients and lower value work, both of which are no longer economically viable in the new cost environment.

Another major factor impacting the industry is the move by banks to de-risk their business. Half of all offshore respondents identified this as impacting their business to a ‘great’ or ‘large’ extent. Intriguingly, the de-risking issue was seen as important by even more onshore practitioners, with 60% telling us that it was having a ‘great’ or ‘large’ impact on the offshore worlds.

This mix of rising costs and the major banks withdrawing from many areas as they lower their risk appetite is, not surprisingly, expected to produce yet more consolidation in the offshore world, with most offshore respondents expecting the pace of consolidation to accelerate still further.

This inevitably raises fears about employment prospects, although there is still considerable optimism about business opportunities, not just in Asia and other traditional offshore markets but also, increasingly, from Africa. The survey confirms that family offices are also seen as an important growth area within the overall offshore environment.

Measures to improve transparency and tighten regulation have been one of the key global themes of the past few years, impacting offshore and onshore practitioners alike. The Offshore Perceptions report confirms that industry concerns have proved accurate in predicting that these measures, aimed at tackling abuse by a few, would result in sharply higher costs and less choice for the many.

The report also suggests, however, that the offshore world is busy adapting to the new environment and is far from gloomy. Over three quarters of offshore respondents feel optimistic (to a ‘great’, ‘large’ or ‘moderate’ extent) about the prospects for their jurisdiction and a broadly equivalent number are also optimistic about the prospects of their business sector. Many of the offshore centres have had to adapt to major challenges in the past. Generally they seem well placed to do so again.

George Hodgson is Interim Chief Executive of STEP

CRS and Charities October update

Emily Deane TEPHMRC hosted another Charities CRS working group on 12 October. The following issues were on the agenda for discussion:

Human Rights Guidance

  • HMRC has been collecting examples from the working group to increase transparency and address concerns where the exchange of information could put individuals at risk. Its new guidance has addressed some of these concerns.
  • It was pointed out that HMRC has highlighted the absolute rights within the Human Rights Act, but it does not refer to the qualified rights of individuals, and these should also be considered.

Discretionary Management

  • Some discretionary management scenarios were discussed by the group and it was suggested that HMRC provide examples of these in its guidance.

    HMRC noted that it was difficult to provide examples to cover every scenario, because the facts of each individual case will determine whether or not it falls within the scope of CRS. However, it agreed to continue to refine its guidance where possible.

  • HMRC confirmed that simply setting parameters for an investment manager (for example that he/she may only invest in ethical investments) does not mean that discretion is retained by charity trustees.

Communications

  • HMRC will be producing a webinar for charities setting out a basic introduction to CRS, which should be available before December.
  • HMRC was asked to produce a proforma for charities to use when completing the self-certification process. It advised that while this was not possible, some examples on the OECD automatic exchange portal might be useful instead.
  • HMRC has been hosting some CRS Charity events in conjunction with STEP. If you would like more information please contact Emily.Deane@step.org

STEP will continue to attend the periodic working group to discuss ongoing technical issues with HMRC. The next meeting is in January.

 

Emily Deane TEP, STEP Technical Counsel

Legacy giving: the role of the practitioner

charity jarOn 18 October, my colleague Beatriz Brockhurst (STEP News Editor) and I attended the launch of Legacy Giving and Behavioural Insights – a research report which examined how will writers discussed charitable giving with their clients.

Bridging the gap

The research illustrates the gap between clients expressing an interest in leaving charitable gifts (35 per cent) and those who actually do so (6 per cent). The event considered the ways in which practitioners can encourage greater giving by testators, drawing on evidence gathered from eight law firms and 31 solicitors, as well as 2,600 wills that were analysed during the two-year study.

Having the conversation

As a starting point, professionals should be talking about charitable legacy with their clients as part of the will preparation process.

But are clients comfortable with having this conversation? The study found that 69 per cent of clients generally deemed it acceptable for such a topic to be raised – and 46 per cent regarded it as the duty of the professional to mention it.

Different approaches

The research trialled three different ways of talking to clients about charitable legacies:

  1. Social norm framing – informing the client that charitable bequests was something many people did, and to ask if they would like to do the same. Legacy giving increased by 40 per cent for people making their first will.
  2. Emotional framing – asking the client to think about charities they or their families were passionate about, and/or had benefited from. This type of messaging was found to increase donations from clients both with and without children.
  3. Posthumous benefit framing – highlighting the good work that would result from a charitable bequest. This was regarded as the least acceptable and least effective form of messaging.

Tax incentives

The study also found that, in most cases, the tax advantage of legacy giving due to inheritance tax thresholds was not a motivating factor.

A TEP’s perspective

Jo Summers TEP, a member of STEP’s UK Practice Committee, offered a practitioner’s point of view. She emphasised the need to broach the subject of charitable legacy carefully and sensitively, not least to protect against being regarded as having exercised undue influence. Jo cited the initial client questionnaire as a good way to introduce the topic, with scope for a further conversation, if the client indicated this would be appropriate.

Practitioners also need to be aware that the charity the client would like to leave a donation to could change over time. As a practical solution, Jo suggested the will could contain a clause stating a percentage legacy, or a fixed sum to be split between charities chosen by the executors, with a letter of wishes to indicate where the money should be donated, depending on the client’s family circumstances at the time of their death.

Conclusion

The study concludes that will clients are generally open to having a conversation about charitable legacy. Practitioners can therefore play an important role in raising the level of charitable donations as legacy gifts.

The report offers interesting behavioural insights around legacy giving – I encourage you to read it:

 

Sean Smith, STEP Policy Manager

April 2017 changes to the UK’s taxation of long-term resident, non-domiciled individuals

Update on discussions relating to the treatment of trusts

Following the consultation paper issued on 19 August 2016, members of STEP’s UK Technical Committee have been closely involved in discussions with HM Treasury and HM Revenue & Customs in relation to the latest proposals.

The most difficult area is the treatment of offshore trusts set up by non-domiciliaries who become deemed domiciled in the UK as a result of having lived there for 15 years in a 20 year period.

When the changes were announced in the July 2015 budget, much was made of the fact that assets held in trust would be protected from inheritance tax, capital gains tax and income tax (other than in relation to UK source income which would continue to be taxed as it arises). A deemed domiciled settlor would only be taxable on benefits received from the structure or conferred on close family members.

One significant surprise in the August consultation paper therefore was a proposal that a deemed domiciled settlor would be taxed on all of the gains of an offshore trust once the settlor or a close family member has received any benefit from the trust – ie the receipt of the benefit would mean that the capital gains tax protections would be lost for the future.

As part of the consultation discussions, a paper has been prepared by a barrister with input from colleagues from various representative bodies including STEP. The paper is very much in draft form but sets out a potential alternative approach to legislating the trust protections. A copy of the paper can be found below.

We have been asked to make it absolutely clear that the paper was not commissioned by HMRC or HMT. Nor does it represent an approach to trusts preferred either by HMT, HMRC or the government. The paper was prepared to facilitate discussion at a consultation meeting between HMRC/HMT and various representative bodies to consider alternative approaches to how it is best to legislate the protections and it should be read in that context.

Having said this, it is important that STEP members are aware that alternative proposals are being put forward and discussed and that the final proposals may well be different to those made in the 19 August 2016 consultation paper.

We are expecting the government’s position to be announced as part of the Autumn Statement on 23 November 2016 with draft legislation being available by 5 December as part of the draft Finance Bill.

 

STEP UK Technical Committee

STEP in Brussels to discuss money laundering and terrorist financing risks

bank notes, laundered

STEP was invited by the European Commission to attend a second private sector consultative meeting on Wednesday 5 October to discuss the supranational risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing risk in the EU.

We represented the trust sector and legal professionals in the first consultative meeting with the Commission in March 2016.

The Commission presented the preliminary results of its risk analysis relating to the threat and vulnerability of certain sectors to money laundering and terrorist financing across Member States.

The initial results found that some sectors, including the real estate sector, legal professionals and trust company and service providers (TCSPs) are at significant risk to infiltration by money launderers and terrorist finance activities.

STEP was keen to provide feedback on the methodology of the assessment, the inconsistency of regulations by service providers across Members States, and the lack of understanding towards trusts in some jurisdictions. We will continue to provide feedback to the Commission until the end of the year, and a follow up meeting will take place in March.

• STEP would like to remind members that HM Treasury’s consultation paper on the Transposition of the Fourth Money Laundering Directive will be closing on 10 November. You may provide feedback directly to the Treasury or via ourselves, via emily.deane@step.org.

Emily Deane TEP, STEP Technical Counsel

Invitation to members – LPA discretionary investment clauses

Emily DeaneThe England & Wales Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) published an update in September 2015 providing guidance on financial lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) and how attorneys can delegate investment management decisions to a discretionary investment manager.

Under this guidance an attorney can appoint a bank or an IFA to act on their behalf to make investment decisions; however specific wording must be incorporated into the LPA. Since the guidance was issued in 2015, STEP and other professional bodies have contacted the OPG with their concerns.

The primary issue is that if an attorney is currently using a discretionary manager without explicit permission in the LPA, then they need to apply to the Court of Protection to obtain retrospective consent.

The suggested wording within the LPA can be similar to the following, ‘My attorney(s) may transfer my investments into a discretionary management scheme. Or, if I already had investments in a discretionary management scheme before I lost capacity to make financial decisions, I want the scheme to continue. I understand in both cases that managers of the scheme will make investment decisions and my investments will be held in their names or the names of their nominees’.

Tell us your views

STEP would like to invite members to provide examples of how the OPG guidance may be difficult to apply in practice, so that we can present a test case to the OPG and underline that the impact of this issue is potentially far-reaching.

Issues that have arisen include:

  • There is no guarantee that your bank or IFA will accept this wording, and you may need to confirm their agreement in writing before the LPA is registered.
  • HSBC has specific wording that it will not stray from, while other fund managers are willing to continue acting without the delegation clause. Other banks and IFAs may switch to the stringent guidelines in future.
  • You can re-do the LPA where the donor still has capacity, but this option may not be well received by the client, and is time consuming and costly.
  • If the LPA has already been registered without the express wording, the attorney can apply to the Court of Protection for the retrospective authority to appoint an investment manager.

This is also time consuming and costly.

If you are currently acting as an attorney and you have already delegated investment making decisions, there are some options available to you:

  • You could change your discretionary manager to an advisory manager so that you are still ultimately making the decisions, although you should check any potential liability issues that may arise.
  • You could speak to your discretionary manager about the firm’s policy and what their requirements are.
  • You could re-do the LPA where the donor still has capacity, or alternatively apply to the Court of Protection when the existing discretionary manager is not willing to continue/or start acting in accordance with the OPG guidance.

However, it might be prudent to wait and see whether the OPG will consider amending its guidance before taking any action. Currently, the OPG feels discretionary investment management accounts for a tiny percentage of registered Powers of Attorney, so the number of Attorneys affected is relatively small.

STEP is hopeful that by providing the OPG with a test case of practical working examples, then it might recognise and review the difficulties that attorneys and their advisors are facing in this connection.

The best case scenario would be the determination that the delegation of investment management by an attorney to a discretionary investment manager is already legally permissible, without the need to retrospectively apply for it through the court.

STEP will provide an update when further information is available.

We would very much value your input. Please send your examples to policy@step.org by 31 October.

Emily Deane TEP, STEP Technical Counsel

STEP – the reality

STEP logo iconThere have been a number of recent press articles about the role of STEP, a leading professional body, in the wealth management industry. Some of these articles have presented a highly distorted view of STEP and the activities of our members.

STEP members, known as TEPs, spend their professional lives helping families plan for their futures: from drafting a will or advising family businesses, to helping international families and protecting vulnerable family members who may have mental capacity issues or other forms of disability. With around 20,000 members worldwide, TEPs are the acknowledged specialists in giving advice to families in these areas.

Some TEPs focus on servicing very wealthy families, often with a range of international interests, who need expert advice to manage their affairs to ensure all tax and legal requirements are met in multiple countries. Most TEPs, however, are engaged in helping ordinary families deal with everyday problems. All are committed to the high technical and professional standards that STEP promotes and insists on from all its members.

Internationally, STEP has an important role to play in improving professionalism among all those working with families in areas such as inheritance planning and the care of vulnerable relatives. We are thus proud to be actively involved in helping raise standards in jurisdictions where there have to date been few, if any, equivalent professional bodies.

STEP also works constructively and transparently with a range of policymakers. As acknowledged global experts in their fields, STEP members have an important role to play in ensuring that policy development is informed by the practical experience of professionals working in the relevant area. STEP’s responses to official consultations are all publicly available on the STEP website (see www.step.org/consultation-tracker/1).

George Hodgson is Interim Chief Executive of STEP