Will-writing reforms proposed

Signing Last Will and TestamentThe Law Commission of England and Wales is holding a public consultation on reform of the law of wills. The current law, largely derived from the Wills Act 1837, is understandably antiquated and requires an overhaul. The Commission notes that 40 per cent of people in England and Wales die without leaving a valid will, which often results in application of the unfavourable laws of intestacy.

Background

Significant changes in society, technology and medicine have prompted the Commission to review the wills law. Some of these factors include:

• the ageing population;
• the greater incidence of dementia;
• the evolution of the medical understanding of disorders, diseases and conditions that could affect a person’s capacity to make a will;
• the emergence of, and increasing reliance on, digital technology;
• changing patterns of family life – for example, more cohabiting couples and more people having second families; and
• with more people having substantial amounts of property, clarity about what happens to it after death being more important than ever.

Objectives

The Commission’s objective is to modernise and improve the current, archaic wills law. Some of the key focus areas include:

More flexibility: This would enable courts, when it is clear what the deceased wanted or intended, to dispense with the formalities of a will. If a particular formality, such as having two witnesses sign the will, had been overlooked or incorrectly administered, new ‘dispensing powers’ would enable the court to validate the will.
Capacity review: It may be necessary to improve the test for capacity to reflect the modern understanding of medical conditions such as dementia. This review could result in the introduction of a new test specifically linked to these conditions, where the testator makes a will with specific new guidance and support.
Statutory guidance: It may be necessary to introduce statutory guidance for doctors and other professionals when assessing whether or not a person has the required mental capacity to make a will. This could reduce the need for lengthy, costly litigation.
Undue influence: New rules should be considered to protect testators from being unduly influenced by another person. In particular, elderly and vulnerable testators should be better protected from fraud.
Testamentary capacity: Lowering the age at which a will can be made from 18 years old to 16. A child of 16 or 17 might have significant assets that he or she may not want to pass to an estranged parent under the rules of intestacy.
Electronic wills: It may be necessary to review how technology can be adapted in relation to making a will; it may become easier, cheaper and more convenient to a testator if they are able to do so electronically, though some practical challenges will need to be considered.
Ademption: The Commission would like to encourage discussions as to whether or not the ademption rules need to be reviewed. The rules could be improved to better align the testator’s wishes and intentions with the operation of the law.

Consultation events

STEP is working closely with the Law Commission and the Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS) on this consultation project. STEP is hosting free consultation events in London, Newcastle and Manchester, and STEP members are invited to provide feedback to Commission representatives.

Consultation event schedule:

London, 13 Sep
Newcastle, 18 Sep
• Manchester (tbc)

The consultation closes on 10 November 2017, and the Commission’s conclusions, along with its final recommendations and a draft Bill, are expected to be published in early 2018.

Emily Deane TEP is STEP Technical Counsel

Are you prepared for the UK’s new corporate criminal offence?

HandcuffsSTEP advised members earlier this year that the Criminal Finances Act 2017 received Royal Assent on 27 April 2017. The Act contains the new corporate criminal offence of ‘failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion’, which is anticipated to take effect in September 2017.

Even though tax evasion and facilitation of tax-related crimes are already criminal offences, it has previously been difficult to pin these offences on a corporation or partnership such as a law firm. The new legislation will create a liability on the employer for the actions of its employees and ‘associated persons’ who knowingly facilitate any tax evasion. The definition of ‘associated person’ is very wide in scope and will include employees, partners, consultants and also agents and anyone performing services for or on behalf of the company or partnership.

The Act applies to LLPs and partnerships as well as companies. It does not alter what is criminal but who should be liable for the criminal act.

There are three elements to the new offence:

1. The criminal UK or non-UK tax evasion by a taxpayer under the current law.

2. The criminal facilitation of this offence by an associated person acting on behalf of the company.

3. The company failed to prevent the associated person from committing the criminal act at stage two.

The legislation creates two new offences – a UK offence and an overseas offence. If a UK tax offence is committed then it is irrelevant if the company or associated persons are not UK-based. In accordance with the new legislation, the offence will have been committed and can be tried in the UK courts. This stance reinforces the UK’s position that any individual can be guilty of a UK tax evasion offence, regardless of their location, if they assist someone else to evade UK tax.

If non-UK tax is evaded then the company will be liable for the offence if they have a place of business in the UK, or if any of the facilitation took place in the UK.

Defence

There will be a defence available if the employer put in place reasonable prevention measures, but otherwise the offence is strict liability, and the employer may face criminal prosecution, financial penalties and reputational damage. A reasonable prevention procedure is one that ‘identifies and mitigates its tax evasion facilitation risks’ which will make prosecution more unlikely.

Advice for members

HMRC’s draft guidance dated October 2016 provides six guiding principles that companies should consider when interpreting the new legislation:

Risk assessment

Companies should assess their own risk exposure level in relation to their employees engaging in the facilitation of tax evasion in the course of business. The guidance notes that the bodies most affected by the new offence will be those in financial services, including the legal and accounting sectors. These bodies are advised to review the following additional guidance: The Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) guide for firms on preventing Financial Crime, the Law Society’s Anti Money Laundering Guidance, particularly Chapter 2 and the Joint Money Steering Group (JMLSG) guidance.

Proportionality of risk-based prevention procedures

It is anticipated that relying upon existing in house anti-money laundering procedures will not be sufficient to satisfy the defence of having prevention procedures in place. The guidance explores some of the varying common elements that would be considered to be reasonable prevention procedures.

Top level commitment

The top level management of each company should be committed to raising awareness and establishing safeguards intended to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion amongst its employees. Procedures include communication and endorsement of the new legislation within the company, as well as development and review of prevention procedures.

Due diligence

The company should mitigate any risks that it identifies by way of applying advanced due diligence procedures. The guidance notes that bespoke financial or tax related service companies will face the greatest risk, and that merely applying existing procedures will not be an adequate response to mitigating their exposure. New procedures are expected to be applied clearly in conjunction with the new legislation.

Communication (including training)

The company must ensure that its new prevention procedures are widely communicated and understood through internal and external communication with all employees. This communication may vary depending upon the size of the company, however training must be provided, and a zero tolerance policy for facilitation of tax evasion and its consequences must be properly communicated.

Monitoring and review

The company must put in place ongoing monitoring mechanisms and reviews to ensure that the system is effective, and it must make improvements where necessary. The company may choose to have reviews conducted by internal or external parties.

While HMRC’s guidance contains some useful terminology and case studies, it is recognised that further guidance is needed in this area. We understand that HMRC is working with industry bodies to support them in producing more specific guidance and STEP will keep you updated accordingly.

Emily Deane TEP is STEP Technical Counsel

EU AMLD: where are we now?

Emily Deane TEPOn 21 March 2017, the first political trilogue on the Commission proposals to amend the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (4AMLD), proposed in July 2016, on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing took place at the European Parliament (EP).

In the wake of the ‘Panama Papers’ scandal the Commission has been intent on cracking down on the hiding of illicit funds by adopting a coordinated approach at both EU and international level.

The EP, Commission and Council have expressed their willingness to engage in negotiations with a view to a swift agreement, and the EP stressed the importance of transparency in fighting money laundering.

Beneficial ownership debate

STEP has concerns about some of the proposals to amend the Directive. In particular, the requirement for member states to set up publicly accessible central registers for the mandatory registration of the beneficial owners (BO) of all trusts (not just those with tax consequences), and similar legal arrangements (Articles 30-31).

The general consensus of the majority of member states is that the BO information on these registers should be publicly accessible. STEP is arguing that a publicly accessible register is likely to infringe data protection rights, the right for private and family life guaranteed by Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Publishing details of beneficiaries, particularly vulnerable beneficiaries, would leave them seriously exposed to potential abuse, given the risk of such information falling into the wrong hands and being disseminated for illegitimate purposes.

The state of negotiations:

• The definition of the BO of a company or trust remains in dispute.
• There are questions whether the information on the registers should be publicly accessible and if not, who should be granted access?
• Should registration of a BO be required where the activities are carried out, or where the entity is owned?
• MEP Judith Sargentini is hoping to reduce the threshold for the identification of a BO from 25% to 10% ownership. The Commission continues to state that this should only be the case if it’s a high-risk entity.

The trilogue parties intended to reach an agreement by the end of the Maltese Presidency on 30 June 2017, but the EP has stated it will be difficult to conclude it by then. Estonia takes over the Presidency on 1 July.

The next meetings are on 29 May, 7 June, 28 June 2017.

4AMLD – UK’s obligations

In the meantime 4AMLD implementation into national law is required by 26 June 2017.

The UK’s newly published draft of the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 will be its instrument to transpose the directive. This will revoke and replace the Money Laundering Regulations 2007.

The UK is required to implement a central register of trusts on 26 June, which will apply to worldwide trusts with UK assets that generate a tax consequence. The Directive leaves it to each member state to decide the level of transparency to be applied and the UK has confirmed that access to this register will be limited to law enforcement agencies on the grounds of privacy (see HMRC consultation on 4AML implementation).

The corresponding German bill has faced scrutiny at the committee stage whereby some of its members were pushing for full public access but other members have rejected a fully public registry of company and trust beneficial ownership. The bill will be subject to revision before it is enacted but it is unlikely that public access will be granted.

STEP will continue to monitor the progress on 4AMLD and the revised Directive and keep members updated accordingly.

 

Emily Deane TEP is STEP Technical Counsel

STEP Caribbean Conference, Cayman

George HodgsonI have just enjoyed a highly informative STEP Caribbean Conference in Cayman from May 1-3, which attracted well over 300 delegates from across the STEP world.

Presentations ranged from the emerging theme of cryptocurrencies, which I suspect is a wholly new topic to many in the audience, to the use of firewall provisions in fending off matrimonial claims.

What really stood out, however, is the changing mood across much of the Caribbean regarding transparency and the rising regulatory burden. Yes, these developments are providing major challenges, particularly in driving costs up sharply across the board.

This was a theme very clearly evidenced in STEP’s Offshore Perceptions research report last autumn. But the message from a string of eminent speakers is that the time is gone to complain about this; it’s time instead to ‘get on with it’ and ensure that businesses adapt to the new environment they are now working in.

This obviously echoes the mood in the UK regarding Brexit, where whatever the views of STEP members on the issue, I sense most agree that we need to now accept it is going to happen and plan on that basis. Indeed Brexit and its potential implications for the offshore world was another key issue which attracted a full house.

The Caribbean Conference, which is now in its 19th year, remains one of the flagship STEP events in the calendar and I look forward to next year’s meeting in Barbados.

 

George Hodgson is Chief Executive of STEP

STEP attends FATF Joint Experts’ Meeting on Typologies in Moscow

money laundering
STEP attended the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Joint Experts’ Meeting on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Typologies in Moscow late last month. STEP’s Co-Chair of its Public Policy Committee, John Riches TEP, also attended in his capacity as a trust expert.

STEP was invited to participate in a ‘Challenges of establishing beneficial ownership’ round table discussion. This focused on the private sector perspective of the challenges associated with identifying beneficial ownership for natural or legal persons, and examined the following points:

Is it suspicious to have accounts in other jurisdictions?

STEP was quick to point out that there may be a bona fide business purpose for having trust accounts in alternative jurisdictions. International families will often have their financial counterparties abroad, and this should not be grounds for suspicion. Many may prefer to use a bank or existing custodian to a new one, and trustees are understandably attracted to jurisdictions that are more economically or politically stable and have a clear understanding of trust arrangements.

In the UK it can take as long as six months to open a bank account for this purpose, so a well-regulated jurisdiction that can act faster may be more attractive to a trustee. Many offshore centres are highly regarded due to their regulation of Trust and Company Service Providers (TCSPs). They can also be more flexible and less expensive.

What are specific vulnerabilities in various types of trust arrangements?

Most of those present believed that advisors would not proceed to set up an arrangement unless they have obtained the requisite Know Your Client (KYC) documents, plus a clear understanding of the function and purpose of the arrangement. There should not be any uncertainty or lack of understanding regarding the client, location or objective of the vehicle.

If there was even a slight suspicion that the purpose was illegitimate, the client would be reported to the local authorities.

What are potential risk indicators to practitioners, i.e. red flags?

In its 2013 report, Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Vulnerabilities of Legal Professionals, FATF identified some 42 risk indicators. Those discussed in the meeting included a client’s reluctance to provide information, data or documents to facilitate a transaction.

However, it was agreed that it would be unusual for an advisor to act illegitimately and run the risk of significant prosecution, reputational and regulatory penalties.

What challenges are associated with verifying the beneficial ownership?

Those attending agreed it can be challenging to identify a legal entity that is some way down the chain of ownership in multi-layered structures. It can also be confusing to verify the beneficial ownership of the ultimate holding entity. This is often not helped by an absence of proper documentation.

A particularly topical problem with legal arrangements is to ascertain what is meant by a ‘natural person exercising effective control’ in the context of trusts. Also problematic is a lack of understanding as to what information is required in the extended category of ‘beneficial owners’. This creates a lot of confusion and wasted effort for financial institutions and advisors.

Are there indicators of activities being undertaken to obscure beneficial ownership?

The use of shell companies and nominees to hide true beneficial owners appears to be much more common than the use of more sophisticated legal arrangements, such as common-law trusts and civil-law foundations.

It’s worth noting that professional advisors rarely report potential abuse of trusts or foundations in a money-laundering or terrorist-financing context.

Many of the advisors in the meeting confirmed that they have never actually encountered any suspicious activity in their own careers.

Are there particular risk indicators with certain arrangements or jurisdictions?

Most agreed that those with bad intentions would shun more complex arrangements like trusts and foundations in favour of simpler vehicles. These might include companies that can be misrepresented with false information about a single beneficial owner.

Any jurisdiction likely to be seen as requiring less exacting information in the formation of new legal entities will naturally be preferred.

However, public perception about particular jurisdictions can be misleading. Many offshore finance centres regulate TCSPs in a more stringent and well-considered way than ‘onshore’ jurisdictions.

• FATF is planning to collect some real life case studies among attendees to analyse for vulnerabilities and discuss in more detail with advisors. It is also collecting examples of adjudicated and publicly available cases to identify realistic money laundering concerns, which it will share. STEP will keep you updated in due course.

 

Emily Deane TEP is STEP Technical Counsel

Probate fees – will common sense prevail?

George HodgsonThe government’s threat to radically increase probate fees next month (Probate fee rise ‘a new tax on bereaved families’) may be receding, following a meeting of the House of Commons Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on 29 March.

Using some very welcome common sense, the committee raises the issue (para 1.12) that it is a constitutional principle that there should be ‘no taxation without the consent of Parliament’. This is something I suspect 99% of people will agree with.

It finds that the proposal from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is clearly a tax, not a fee, in every normal definition of the term, and should therefore be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, rather than brought in via the back door through a Statutory Instrument.

The committee also finds (para 1.13) that ‘charges’ of the magnitude proposed by the MoJ were probably never envisaged when the original legislation the government was attempting to use here was approved. In other words, using this process is an abuse.

We would hope that this will provide an opportunity for the government to re-think its approach, which was criticised by over 90% of those responding to the consultation, and submit re-worked proposals for proper scrutiny by Parliament.

• Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments: Non-Contentious Probate Fees Order 2017

 

George Hodgson is Chief Executive of STEP

New probate fees: a guide for the public

flowers

UPDATE 21/04/2017: the Ministry of Justice has abandoned the new fee regime due to lack of parliamentary time prior to the 2017 General Election. See more information.

What is probate?
When someone dies, you need to get the legal right to deal with their property, money and possessions, and to do so you need a grant of representation, which is known as ‘probate’.

When is probate not needed?
Usually you won’t need to apply for probate if the estate does not include land, property or shares; if it is passing to a surviving spouse or civil partner because it was held in joint names (e.g. a joint bank account, or a home owned as ‘joint tenants’); or if the estate is valued at less than £15,000.

Each financial institution has its own rules, however, and may still require you to apply for a grant even if the value is under this threshold.

What is happening to probate fees?
In February 2017, the government announced that probate fees in England and Wales will change in May 2017 to a banded system, where fees increase with the value of the estate, replacing the current flat fees of £155 if you apply through a solicitor, or £215 for a personal application.

The proposal to link probate fees to the value of the estate was published in February 2016 and attracted overwhelming opposition. Nonetheless, the new system has been brought in, and was confirmed in the March 2017 Budget.

The fee structure as of May will therefore be as follows:

Value of Estate New Fee % Change (from £215)
Up to £5,000 £0 0%
£5,000 – £50,000 £0 -100%
£50,001 – £300,000 £300 +40%
£300,001 – £500,000 £1,000 +365%
£500,001 – £1m £4,000 +1,760%
£1m – £1.6m £8,000 +3,621%
£1.6m – £2m £12,000 +5,481%
Over £2m £20,000 +9,202%

When in May does the change kick in?
The government has not yet confirmed the exact date in May from which these changes will apply. The new fees will apply to all applications received by the probate service on or after this still-to-be-announced date in May, irrespective of the date of death. Probate registries have said that any application received within working hours of the Probate Registry before the implementation date will be charged the current fee.

What can you do?
Applying for probate takes time as you need to gather a number of documents and all the relevant information regarding the value of the estate to ensure any inheritance tax obligations are correctly accounted for. If you are very recently bereaved it may therefore be very difficult to submit a full application for probate before the new fees are implemented.

If, however, you have already started the process, you may want to try and get your probate application in before May to ensure you pay the current flat fee.

If you are applying for probate through a solicitor, your solicitor will be aware of the situation and will be doing everything they can to try to get your probate application lodged with the probate registry before the new fee structure applies.

If you are making a personal application, you should be aware of a few important points:

  • In cases where you are required to submit an IHT400 or any document for assessment by HMRC for inheritance tax purposes, many probate registries have said that it is possible for you to submit the appropriate forms to both HMRC and HMCTS Probate simultaneously. They will not issue your grant until the approved IHT421 is received, but the probate registry will mark your application as lodged. To assist them in not raising this as a query, they have advised that you clearly mark on your application that the inheritance tax document will follow after assessment.
  • A ‘full application’ for probate purposes, and therefore to qualify for the appropriate fee, must include:
    • Full oath sworn by all deponents and commissioners
    • An original will and codicil (where appropriate) endorsed by all commissioners and deponents
    • The appropriate number of correct copy wills and codicils
    • An Inland Revenue account (with the exception of IHT400s/421s where assessment is ongoing and it has been noted on the covering letter that it will follow)
    • All associated documents including any affidavit evidence required at the time of submission, renunciations, powers of attorney
    • The appropriate fee.

    Upon receipt of an application in this form prior to commencement then the existing fee will be charged.

  • If the estate you are dealing with is asset rich but cash poor, the probate registries have said that executors will be able to apply to the Probate Service to access a particular asset for the sole purpose of paying the fee. Instalment options will not be available.

Where can you get more information?
The government has not published any public information on this issue beyond the consultation documents:

In the absence of public-facing information from the government, we will continue to publish updates on this, as and when they are announced, here on the STEP Blog.

If you have any specific questions about your probate application please contact your local probate registry.

George Hodgson is Chief Executive of STEP

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

 

HMRC: no more safe havens

Treasure chestThis week STEP hosted a seminar to update members on HMRC’s latest moves to tackle tax evasion and avoidance.

Entitled, ‘An essential update on HMRC’s activity to tackle tax evasion and avoidance, including information exchange, new powers and its impact on professional advisors,’ the seminar took place at BDO LLP’s office in London. Speakers included John Shuker from the HMRC International & Offshore Evasion Team, and Dawn Register TEP of BDO LLP.

The introduction of the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) this year follows a raft of governmental efforts including the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the EU Directive 2003/48/EC (the EU Savings Directive) to improve cross-border tax compliance. The Offshore Evasion Team has focused on clamping down on UK tax evaders, in particular:

• Moving UK gains, income or assets offshore to conceal them from HMRC
• Not declaring taxable income from overseas, or taxable assets kept overseas
• Using complex offshore structures to hide beneficial ownership of assets.

The tax gap for 2014-2015 is estimated to be GBP36 billion, with GBP 5.2 billion attributed to tax evasion.

HMRC launched the campaign ‘No Safe Havens’ in 2013 with the objective of ensuring that there are no jurisdictions where UK taxpayers can hide their income and assets. It also implemented a number of disclosure facilities to give people the incentive to come forward and pay tax voluntarily, before they are detected and sanctioned.

In the last two years, HMRC has vigorously escalated its tax evasion strategy. The Worldwide Disclosure Facility opened last September, in addition to a new requirement for all financial institutions and tax advisers to notify their customers about new automatic exchange of information agreements.

The following further measures are due to be implemented in 2017:

Corporate Criminal Offences of Failure to Prevent Facilitation of Evasion
This will apply to corporations who fail to prevent their agents from criminally facilitating tax evasion (facilitating evasion is already considered a criminal offence). The offences will apply to domestic or overseas corporations whose agents facilitate the evasion of UK taxes, or a domestic corporation which facilitates the evasion of tax overseas.

Tackling Offshore Tax Evasion: A Requirement to Correct
Taxpayers will be obliged to disclose any outstanding UK tax related to offshore investments or assets, or face ‘failure to correct’ penalties. These penalties will be significantly higher than for those who voluntarily put their affairs in order, and will be a minimum of 100%.

STEP’s Technical Committee has submitted responses to a variety of HMRC’s consultation papers relating to tax evasion below:

 

Emily Deane TEP is STEP Technical Counsel

STEP puts CRS, transparency and public registers under the SIG spotlight

SIG Spotlight Session Nov 2016STEP hosted its annual Special Interest Group (SIG) Spotlight Sessions on 14 November in London, a day comprising six conference streams. SIGs provide opportunities for members to connect and advance their focused area of practice.

I attended the International Client SIG session, which focused on the needs of practitioners serving international clients with complex planning needs. The presentation was entitled ‘Moving Out, Moving In and Moving On: Key Movements for International Clients’. STEP members John Riches, William Ahern and Dr Angelo Venardos spoke on the topical issues surrounding CRS, transparency and public registers.

The Common Reporting Standard (CRS) continues to cause confusion in some key areas, and STEP is seeking clarification on a number of points surrounding settlors, beneficiaries, protectors, what constitutes a trust, controlling persons that are entities, charitable trusts and private trust companies. William Ahern and Dr Angelo Venardos discussed how CRS is being applied in Hong Kong and Singapore, and they touched upon the inconsistencies in the legislation compared to the UK, for example, anti-avoidance legislation, which is not as comprehensive as the UK’s.

Automatic exchange of tax information on a wide basis will unleash a deluge of confidential and highly sensitive personal financial information for transmission around the world. Differing jurisdictions may have differing issues to consider under these circumstances. Some jurisdictions may also need to consider if their data-protection laws are consistent with the commitments they have made with respect to CRS implementation. Conversely others may have to consider if the confidentiality obligations contained in their trust and banking laws are consistent with their CRS commitments.

The emergence of many corporate and non-corporate trust registers across the globe has caused privacy and compliancy concerns among most practitioners, although the recent non-constitutional ruling of the French trust register may have an influential outcome across Europe in that respect. We continue to wait and assess the new challenges as they arise in this upcoming new era of transparency.

However, the consistent theme across most jurisdictions is the urgent need to consider which jurisdictions are fit and proper to be granted access to an individual’s financial details.

About STEP’s Special Interest Groups

STEP’s SIGs focus on some of the more complex issues families face in planning for their future, including international families, protection of vulnerable people, family businesses and philanthropic giving.

The groups aim to benefit the practitioner, their area of specialisation, the clients they serve, and the industry at large. They are also open to professionals who are not STEP members.

The SIGs are:

• Business Families
• Charities
• Contentious Trust and Estates
• Cross-Border Estates
• International Client
• Mental Capacity
• Philanthropy Advisors

Please see this page for more details: www.step.org/sigs

 

Emily Deane TEP, STEP Technical Counsel