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.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

UT strikes out taxpayer’s appeal concerning recusal of the FTT judge (Circleplane Ltd v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Circleplane Ltd v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) struck out an appeal against a decision of a judge of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) not to recuse herself from hearing the appellant’s appeal. It also rejected an application for its decision to be anonymised.

IFS report finds women 'hit hard' by state pension age increases

Law360: Historical increases in the state pension age have had a disproportionate adverse effect on women in their late 50s who are not working, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has found.

FTT rules that not receiving a letter can constitute a reasonable excuse (MBP Europe Ltd v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In MBP Europe Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) allowed the appellant’s appeal against a penalty, imposed by HMRC under Schedule 26 of the Finance Act 2021 (FA 2021), for the late payment of VAT. This was on the basis that the appellant demonstrated that it had not received a letter informing it that it was being moved to the payments on account regime.

UT follows Medpro when applying Martland three-stage test, but still refuses late appeal application (Tajinder Pawar v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Tajinder Pawar v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the First-tier Tax Tribunal’s (FTT) decision refusing permission for a late appeal against a Personal Liability Notice (PLN), as it found that the FTT had erred in its weighting of the need to respect time limits when applying the third-stage balancing exercise test set out in Martland. On remaking the decision, it dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal.