Trust Scotland Act 1921 centenary prompts call for reform

Emily Deane TEPThe Edinburgh Tax Network celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Trust Scotland Act 1921 by hosting a web event for stakeholders this week, which STEP attended. The centenary of the Principal Statute on 19 August has prompted the Scottish Law Commission to submit a draft bill for potential reform, the Trusts (Scotland) Bill, to the Scottish Parliament.

The web event panel consisted of Lady Ann Paton (Chair of the Scottish Law Commission), The Hon Lord Tyre and Lord Drummond-Young who discussed the overwhelming need for modernisation. They noted that current legislation has been heavily amended, making it convoluted and difficult to use, and much of the content is now largely obsolete.

The panel stressed that reform is essential in order to shape an innovative and high tech economy, comply with the more modern applications of trust law, and support businesses recovering from the pandemic.

The Scottish Law Commission’s proposals for reform include, but are not limited to, the following:

  1. recognition of trusts’ inherent simplicity and flexibility;
  2. appointment of Protectors;
  3. recognition of the commercial use of trusts. The current legislation fails to deal with commercial trusts, which have significantly developed in the last 40 years;
  4. express recognition of private purpose trusts;
  5. trustees’ powers should be flexible and wide, similar to a natural person managing his or her own affairs;
  6. courts given simplified and effective powers to deal with trust litigation;
  7. courts given power to remedy defects in the exercise of fiduciary powers;
  8. coherent provisions governing decision-making by trustees, beneficiaries’ information rights, delegation to agents, trustees’ liability for breach of trust and trustees’ liability to third parties.

The Scottish Law Commission’s review runs concurrently with the announcement of the Law Commission of England and Wales to reform trust law earlier this year under its 14th Programme of Law Reform. The EW review will focus on modernising legislation that has not been updated since 1925, and will explore modern and efficient structures in other jurisdictions to bring it up to international standards.

Both Law Commissions say it is essential to update trust legislation to uphold competitive economies and maintain their status as international financial centres.

STEP will continue to keep members apprised on both of these legislative developments.

Emily Deane TEP, STEP Technical Counsel

Trusts and AML-CFT registers of beneficial owners: I’m a trustee, do I need to register somewhere?

Robert CaringtonOn 11 February, STEP Europe held a webinar to examine how various jurisdictions have transposed the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5AMLD), and particularly how those Member States have chosen to define a business relationship.

The panel included Stéphanie Auferil TEP from France; Dr Petra Camilleri from Malta; Aileen Keogan TEP from Ireland; Filippo Noseda TEP from the UK; Paolo Panico TEP from Luxembourg; and Nicola Saccardo TEP from Italy; with Dr Anthony Cremona TEP moderating. The event was sponsored by IQEQ.

Many trustees based in the EU, and other jurisdictions with regulations similar to the EU’s central Register of Beneficial Ownership (RBO), are familiar with the need to register trusts. The details are sent to the competent authority and disclose information on all persons who fall within the definition of ‘beneficiary’, with respect to trusts in the appropriate RBO form. However, non-EU-based trustees are less likely to be familiar with the new requirement to also have the trust registered when the trustee enters into a business relationship in the EU, whilst in a number of countries EU based trustees have already been required to register (France).

The panel members each explained how their own countries have implemented the following provision from the Official Journal of the European Union regarding article 31, as covered in this discussion document (pdf).

Some of the key updates per jurisdiction were:

Ireland: It still has not implemented 5AMLD as the legislation does not yet fully transpose 5AMLD. It is difficult to see how it would work in the country, due to the number of trusts to be found in many aspects of society (house purchases, pensions and to protect the vulnerable) and how the directive would affect daily life. Ireland has already removed statutory trusts, unit trusts and pension trusts from the definition of an express trust, though further clarification is needed. However as yet there has been no carve-out for trusts known already to be of minimum risk, such as those for the vulnerable and charities.

Italy: The RBO of trusts is not yet operative and the legislation refers to implementing provisions which have been made available in draft for public consultation, but not yet issued. Under the legislation, trusts have an obligation to register non-EU trustees either for a business relationship under the EU directive, or if under Italian law, trusts have tax consequences pursuant to Article 73 of the Income Tax Code. The draft implementing provisions are being considered and will cover both resident trusts and non-resident trusts with Italian source income/gains.

France: The country already had reporting obligations from 2011 for EU or non EU trustees and those with French connections (such as resident settlor or beneficiary or French situs assets). It transposed 5AMLD in February 2020 and extended reporting to non-EU trustees acquiring French real estate or entering into a business relationship in France.

Robert Carington is Policy Executive at STEP

The five most common reporting errors for trusts to avoid

HM Revenue & Custom’s (HMRC) compliance team has identified the five most common errors made by UK administered trusts which are Financial Institutions (FIs) when fulfilling their obligations under the International Tax Compliance Regulations 2015.

These obligations relate to Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) which includes the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). Any errors should be rectified by submitting amendments using an online HMRC AEOI account, or if relating to the FATCA FFI list, an IRS FATCA online account.

1.Trusts wrongly classified for AEOI purposes

A trust can be either a FI or a non-financial entity. A trust will be classified as an FI where more than 50 per cent of its income is from investing, reinvesting, or trading in financial assets, and another FI has discretionary authority to manage these assets wholly or in part. A trust or settlement is regarded as being managed by an FI where either one or more of the trustees is an FI or the trustees have appointed an FI, such as a discretionary fund manager, to manage the trust’s assets or the trust itself. Trusts that are FIs have to register and submit AEOI returns to HMRC if they have reportable accounts. More information.

2.Due diligence requirements incorrectly carried out

Trusts that are FIs must carry out due diligence on their financial accounts to determine whether any are reportable accounts.  For trusts, financial accounts are the debt or equity interests in the trust. The equity interests are deemed to be held by any person treated as a settlor or beneficiary of all or a portion of the trust, or any other person exercising ultimate effective control, including trustees and protectors.

The debt and equity interests of the trust are reportable accounts if they are held by a reportable person. For example, if a settlor or beneficiary is resident in a reportable jurisdiction (outside of the UK), their equity interest is a reportable account.

The trust that is an FI must apply the due diligence rules in order to determine the identity and residence of its debt and equity interest holders. Please see the due diligence rules.

A trust that has reportable accounts must report the account information and the financial activity for the year in respect of each reportable account. The account information includes the identifying information for each reportable person (such as name, address, jurisdiction of residence, taxpayer identification number, date of birth and account number), and the identifying information of the trust (name and identifying number).

3.Mistakes when reporting discretionary beneficiaries and trustees.

A discretionary beneficiary will only be treated as an account holder in the years in which it receives a distribution from the trust. Other reportable accounts are reportable regardless of whether a distribution is made in the calendar year. More information (para 253).

4.Reporting entities as controlling persons.

Where an equity interest (such as the interest held by a settlor, beneficiary or any other natural person exercising ultimate effective control over the trust) is held by an entity, the equity interest holder will instead be its controlling persons. As such, the trust will be required to look through a settlor, trustee, protector or beneficiary that is an entity to locate the relevant controlling persons. (This obligation corresponds to the obligation to identify the beneficial owners of a trust under anti money-laundering rules). More information (para 253).

5.Errors relating to the IRS FATCA Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) list.

A trust that registers on the IRS FATCA registration website as being a FFI, will receive a Global Intermediary Identification Number (GIIN) from the IRS, upon approval. Some UK administered trusts are incorrectly registered on the FFI list, including trusts that do not meet the definition of being an FFI, or that have already been terminated.

Where FFI registration has been approved but is no longer appropriate, the trust should cancel the agreement. Cancelling a registration agreement that is in approved status will mean it will no longer be published on the FFI List and the GIIN will no longer be valid. The FATCA registration user guide contains guidance on deregistration and cancelling the agreement.

 

Emily Deane TEP, STEP Technical Counsel

GDPR and trusts and estates: new guidance coming

STEP is aware that many members are looking for clarification as to how GDPR should be interpreted in the context of trusts and estates.

STEP’s Data Protection Working Group has made submissions to, and had discussions with, the Information Commissioner’s Office on this topic, and intends to publish guidance early next year (most likely in January or February 2020).

The topics covered by the guidance will include:

  • how to apply tests such as ‘number of staff’ and ‘turnover’ in the trusts and estates context;
  • the distinction between data processors and data controllers;
  • the extent to which GDPR applies to trustees and personal representatives acting in a non-professional capacity;
  • the legal basis on which trustees and personal representatives can process special category data;
  • the circumstances in which trustees and personal representatives should issue privacy notices to beneficiaries; and
  • the obligations on trustees and personal representatives when responding to subject access requests.

The Data Protection Working Group intends to add to this guidance in due course, including setting out views on matters such as the treatment of bare trusts and of attorneys and deputies.

Edward Hayes, Chair of STEP Data Protection Working Group

Trust Registration Service: clarification on reporting requirements

HMRCIt has come to STEP’s attention that in HMRC’s GOV.UK guidance on how to register a trust, the guidance about which beneficiaries need to be registered on the Trust Registration Service (TRS) differed in certain important respects from the HMRC guidance that was published on 22 November 2017.

For example, the GOV.UK guidance said: ‘When a member of a class becomes known they must be named, even if they have not benefited yet’, whereas HMRC’s 22 November 2017 guidance said: ‘…But where a beneficiary is un-named, being only part of a class of beneficiaries, a trustee will only need to disclose the identities of the beneficiary when they receive a financial or non-financial benefit…’.

STEP contacted HMRC about this discrepancy and it confirmed that the 22 November 2017 HMRC guidance ‘is still current and correctly reflects the requirement for trustees to disclose details of the identity of all named/known beneficiaries.’ HMRC has since made amendments to the GOV.UK guidance with regard to which beneficiaries must be disclosed.

HMRC also confirmed that although the GOV.UK guidance states that trusts that have registered for FATCA/CRS do not need to be registered on TRS, this is not accurate. The inaccuracy reportedly results from an incorrect transposition of guidance that was in the August 2018 Trusts and Estates Newsletter, which referred to trusts that need to report under FATCA or CRS that don’t have a Unique Taxpayer Reference (UTR). To date, however, HMRC has not amended the GOV.UK guidance in this regard and STEP will be taking up this issue with HMRC.

Imogen Davies TEP, STEP UK Technical Committee

The future of the Trust Registration Service

Emily Deane TEPUpdate: 4 September 2018

HMRC would like to notify members regarding a mismatch problem with the SA950 Trust and Estates Tax Return Guide and the SA900 2017/18. The original guidance notes indicated that untaxed interest could be declared at boxes 9.2 to 9.4 when in fact, if box 9.3 is populated with ‘0’, automatic capture of the return will fail. This has caused a backlog of rejected returns requiring manual capture and, therefore, significant delays. The correct action is that all untaxed interest should be declared at box 9.1 instead. The SA950 guidance notes were updated on 24th August to reflect this. HMRC’s Software Developers Support Team has been in touch with commercial software suppliers to alert them of the change.

The next issue of HMRC’s Agent Update due for publication 17 October 2018 will also highlight this issue.

Original blog:

STEP attended a meeting with HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and HM Treasury (HMT) last month to discuss the operation of the Trust Registration Service (TRS) and its progress, and the implementation of the EU’s Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5MLD). The following feedback was provided.

Operation of TRS

The TRS GOV.UK guidance should be published by the end of June 2018. The 22 November FAQs (hosted on STEP’s website) will not be updated in the meantime.

HMRC has allocated a 15-month timeframe to enhance the online functionality and make it more efficient for future service. It will be seeking volunteers to assist with piloting the new system shortly.

In situations where non-resident trustees have bought a UK property (and paid Stamp Duty Land Tax – SDLT), but have no UK income tax or capital gains, they should not be receiving demands for four years’ tax returns from HMRC. This will be addressed.

Named beneficiaries must be identified on the TRS, which is part of the EU Directive, and HMRC is constrained on this point.

HMRC is aware of the issue where the system requires the Unique Tax Reference (UTR), trust name or postcode to be matched to HMRC’s records, and access is being denied.

Delays to UTRs being received following registration of trusts and complex estates are being investigated.

HMRC will endeavour to produce more guidance on complex estates in the GOV.UK guidance.

The paper and online system will be amalgamated as soon as is practical.

HMRC is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction around the penalties, and has confirmed that it will take a soft approach this year.

HMRC introduced dummy variables to enable registration to proceed on the TRS, but will no longer accept them.

There will be no more trust registration deadline extensions in 2018.

HMRC is considering changing the March deadline to align with the Self-Assessment deadline, 31 March or 5 April.

The 28-day period to save and return data will be reviewed, and possibly extended.

The functionality is still not available to complete Q20 on the SA900, which should be left blank.

EU 5MLD

The EU’s 5MLD will extend the TRS to all UK express trusts and non-EU trusts that own UK real estate or have a business relationship with a UK Obliged Entity. The new Directive will require HMRC to share the trust data with Obliged Entities and anyone with a ‘legitimate interest’ – the latter term will be defined in full in due course. STEP is liaising with HMT on this.

HMT is planning to publish a policy consultation in winter 2018/19* that will last for eight weeks, followed by a consultation on draft legislation in spring 2019* that will last for four weeks.

5MLD is expected to come into law at EU level later in June 2018, with a transposition deadline of around December 2019, and an implementation deadline of around February 2020.

STEP will keep members apprised of any further developments.

*corrected date

Emily Deane TEP is STEP Technical Counsel

Reviewing the New Zealand Property (Relationships) Act: have your say

New ZealandYou might not know it, but New Zealanders have a love affair with trusts. NZ practitioners probably won’t be surprised to hear that there may be anywhere between 300,000 to 500,000 trusts in the country, one of the highest per capita rates in the world.

But trusts can lead to unfair outcomes when a relationship ends. As a general rule, trust property isn’t divided equally between the partners. It’s only divisible to the extent that each partner is a beneficiary of the trust, and has a vested or contingent interest in the trust property. That means the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) doesn’t apply to a lot of the property used and enjoyed by New Zealand families.

While the law does offer some remedies, there are issues with those too. Sections 44 and 44C of the PRA are limited, and the proliferation of alternative remedies to attack trusts is making it difficult for practitioners to provide advice. Many people argue that the PRA should deal with trusts more effectively, and on a clearer and more principled basis.

Our preliminary view is that the PRA doesn’t strike the right balance between the preservation of trusts and enabling a just division of property at the end of a relationship. Unfortunately there’s no ‘silver bullet’ solution. So we’ve presented four options for reform in our paper, Dividing relationship property – Time for change? Te mātatoha rawa tokorau – Kua eke te wā?

1. Change the PRA’s definition of ‘property’ to include any interest under a trust through which it is both likely and permissible that the partner will receive a distribution of trust property. This may include a partner’s power of appointment if they can exercise it in their own favour. Option 1 would mean that qualifying discretionary beneficial interests could be treated like any other item of property under the PRA.

2. Change the PRA’s definition of ‘relationship property’ to include the value of trust property attributable to the relationship if the court considers it just. The focus of this option is on the character of the underlying trust assets rather than option 1’s focus on the nature of the partner’s beneficial interest in the trust. It seeks to bring trust property into the relationship property pool when that property has the character of relationship property. The court would, however, retain discretion to prevent sharing of the trust property when the partners have genuinely, and with informed consent, alienated the trust property for the benefit of third party beneficiaries.

3. Broaden section 44C to overcome its main limitations. This would include changes to remove the requirements that the disposition be of relationship property and that it must occur after the relationship began. Section 44C(2) would be expanded so that the court may order the trustees to pay to one partner a sum of money from the trust property or transfer to a partner any property from the trust. The matters the court must take into account in exercising its powers under section 44C(2) could also be expanded. These changes would give section 44C a much wider application.

4. A new provision modelled on section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980. Section 182 has proven to be a useful provision that gives effect to the original expectations of people that settle trusts and deals with injustice that could otherwise be caused by changed circumstances. But it needs to be enlarged to apply to de facto relationships as well as marriages and civil unions, and there’s a case for bringing it into the PRA.

There will be varying degrees of support for, and opposition to, the options above. That’s why it’s so important for you as STEP members to have your say. Please visit our consultation website below and tell us how you think the law should be reformed. Part G of our issues paper is dedicated to what should happen to property held on trusts.

Reviewing the Property (Relationships) Act

Please email your submission to [email protected] by 7 February 2018

Helen McQueen, Commissioner, New Zealand Law Commission

Trustees, have you got your LEIs?

Emily Deane TEPThe Global Legal Entity Identification Foundation (GLEIF) has designed a system whereby every ‘legal entity’ will need to register and obtain a unique identification number – a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) when new European legislation, the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) and Regulation (MiFIR) takes effect in the UK.

If the entity does not obtain an LEI it will not be able to trade on the 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 the LEI, which is a 20-character alphanumeric reference code unique to the legal entity.

Legal entities include trusts, companies (public and private), pension funds (but not self-invested personal pensions), charities and unincorporated bodies that are parties to financial transactions. If the LEI has not been obtained by 3 January 2018, the investment firms will not be able to meet their obligations and provide the legal entity with investment services.

What is the purpose of LEIs?

All LEI data will be consolidated in one database in an effort to improve global entity identification and standardisation, which will enable regulators and organisations to measure and manage counterparty exposure. In addition it will enable every legal entity or structure with an LEI to be identified in any jurisdiction. Once the legal entity has the LEI, it will be required to quote it to the requisite service provider when it enters into a reportable financial transaction. Every financial transaction will require sight of the LEI in order for it to be processed.

Do trusts need one?

The regulations require trustees who are using capital markets in relation to trust funds to obtain the LEI for the trust. We understand that bare trusts may have been excluded from the requirement to obtain an LEI (depending on whether the firm classifies bare trusts as legal entities or as individual/joint accounts) 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.

Issues around trusts

When you apply for the LEI you will be asked to reference the source of its identity, such as Companies House if it is a company registered there. However, there is no equivalent register for trusts. It may be possible to use the trust’s Unique Tax Reference (UTR) from HMRC’s tax return to identify it. This would appear to be a sensible approach for the purpose of minimising the number of LEIs for a trust with multiple funds; however some larger trusts may apply for an LEI covering all of the sub-funds regardless of the UTR. There is still no guidance available on this point.

Renewal

Every entity will be required to renew its LEI on an annual basis and there will be a charge for renewal. To renew your LEI you must provide the Local Operating Unit with updated information, so that it may verify the data held.

However the FCA update dated 2 August 2017 clarifies that the requirement under MiFID II to renew the LEI on an annual basis applies to firms that are subject to MiFIR transaction reporting obligations, and in the UK, under our implementation of MiFID II, to UK branches of non-EEA firms when providing investment services and activities.

This recent update clarifies that trusts will not need to renew their LEIs on an annual basis unless they want to continue undertaking financial transactions.

What if I don’t apply?

If the LEI has not been obtained by 3 January 2018, 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 which will be acceptable in order to transfer the application authority from the entity to a third party such as a management company, if preferred.

Registration information

Each Local Operating Unit (LOU) may charge a fee for arranging the LEI and the fee may variable at each Operating Unit. You can find a LOU on the GLEIF website.

For more details on how to request your LEI, see the guides:

Quick User guide (pdf)
Full LEI User Guide (pdf)

It is widely acknowledged that guidance is lacking in this area, and the private client sector is keen to see some more prescriptive guidance in relation to trusts before the end of the year.

Emily Deane TEP is STEP Technical Counsel

Happy 25th birthday STEP Jersey!

George HodgsonI had the pleasure of attending STEP Jersey’s AGM and 25th anniversary celebration this week. STEP Jersey is one of our largest branches, with over 1200 members, and is also one of our most active. Not only does it host many well-attended events, but it works closely with government, regulators and others to ensure the jurisdiction maintains its position as a respected international financial centre.

Indeed it is fair to say that STEP Jersey plays an integral and important role in the economic life of the island, with the trust industry one of the largest local employers.

Much of the discussion focused on how to ensure that STEP, both locally and internationally, could maintain the success of its first quarter century well into the next. In conversations over a most enjoyable traditional cream tea (with the welcome, but less traditional, addition of a glass of Prosecco) I was struck by the confident tone of many senior professionals who were present.

They fully acknowledge the challenges that increased transparency and a consequent explosion in compliance costs will bring. Rather as with Brexit in the UK, however, the mood was generally ‘what is done is done – so let’s get on with it.’

I am delighted to see that STEP Jersey is setting up a policy-focused committee to ensure there are effective links with local regulators and others to work through the rapid changes now underway.

The team at STEP Worldwide will continue to give STEP Jersey (and other branches working on these issues) all the support we can in helping develop a coherent and well-informed strategic approach to the trust industry in the new age of transparency.

George Hodgson is Chief Executive of STEP

CRS reporting update, June 2017

Emily Deane TEPSTEP attended the most recent CRS Business Advisory Group hosted by HMRC and discussed the following issues:

FAQs

HMRC advised that new documents on the OECD portal have been published along with some additional FAQs.

Anti-avoidance

Members were interested to know when the OECD will publish its loophole paper which will review loophole reporting strategies.

HMRC advised it does not expect imminent changes to the OECD’s anti-avoidance strategy but does expect a review prior to that planned in 2019.

In the meantime, the OECD has launched a facility for parties to disclose CRS schemes which are potentially used to circumvent CRS reporting.

US TINs – invalid format

The number of the US Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) to be submitted has to be in a certain format, otherwise the return will be rejected.

In some cases a nine-zero approach will be accepted but some accounts with missing TINs are causing difficulties having been submitted in an incorrect format. The ‘missing TIN’ cases are inevitably causing issues for users and HMRC. Members agreed that there will be problems next year when the nine-zero approach will no longer be accepted.

HMRC recognises these difficulties and has been liaising with the IRS regarding the TIN issues. A member also mentioned that the issue was being raised by industry groups in EU circles.

Invalid self-certifications

Members agreed that HMRC’s guidance is ambiguous if a self-certification is returned to the financial institution but contains errors. For example, would HMRC accept a self cert that had been returned, but not signed, in a time sensitive case?

HMRC declined to generalise on self-certification issues, stating that each example has to be judged on its own specific issues. It confirmed that it is up to the financial institution to decide whether it is satisfied that a person is non reportable. The financial institution should apply due diligence procedures based on guidance and common sense.

The mediation period and the cut off timing were also discussed. HMRC stated that it is up to the individual financial institution’s procedures as to the cut off. It was agreed that it can be a grey area with some contradictions, and in some cases the financial institution may need to decide whether a person is reportable, whilst the validation is undertaken. More clarity on this issue was requested from HMRC.

HMRC customer support

HMRC has been receiving increasing numbers of calls from clients of financial institutions, rather than the financial institutions themselves. This is causing problems, particularly when close to filing dates. As a result, HMRC has asked financial institutions to omit its contact details from notes that accompany the self-certifications, stating these are not relevant to clients and it does not have the resources to deal with additional queries.

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

Resources:

STEP Guidance Note: CRS and trusts
Live STEP webinar on ‘CRS and Trustees’ with John Riches TEP and Samantha Morgan TEP, 13 June

 

Emily Deane TEP is STEP Technical Counsel