Compliance for trusts

Trustees are subject to increasingly numerous and far reaching compliance and regulatory obligations. While seeking to navigate the regimes aimed at increasing transparency and minimising tax evasion worldwide, at the same time as ensuring compliance with data protection rules, trustees must have regard to their fiduciary duties and other trust law principles, such as confidentiality.

Beneficial ownership registers, Money Laundering Regulations 2017 and trustees

In 2014, the G20 countries agreed high-level principles on beneficial ownership transparency.

To implement these principles in the UK, the government introduced legislation which requires most UK companies to keep a register of people who have significant control over a UK company (PSC register) from 6 April 2016 in the same way as they keep a register of members or directors. In contrast to the register of members, which records the legal owners of the shares in a company, the PSC register is designed to record the identities of the individuals who are the ultimate beneficial owners and controllers of the company. This information has to be provided to Companies House when the confirmation statement is delivered. Companies House publishes all unprotected PSC information

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Private Client News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at FA 2003, s 75A applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Private Client by content type :

Popular documents