Taxation of trusts—income tax and capital gains tax

Tax categories for trusts

Taxation of trusts—introduction

Trusts are subject to the same taxes as individuals—income tax, capital gains tax (CGT) and inheritance tax (IHT)—but the application of those taxes varies according to the status and terms of the trust. The determining factor is most commonly the entitlement of the beneficiaries. Other relevant factors are the date of commencement of the trust, the age of the beneficiaries, and whether it was created during lifetime or on death. Therefore, the first step in working out how a trust is to be taxed is to read the trust deed or instrument to assess what type of trust it is. For a basic introduction as to how trusts are taxed, see Practice Note: Introductory guide to the taxation of trusts.

This subtopic deals with trusts that are resident for UK tax purposes and have no foreign connections (such as a non-UK resident or domiciled settlor). For information on the taxation of trusts whose trustees are non-UK resident, see subtopic: Offshore trusts—taxation.

Reform to the taxation of trusts

The government ran a consultation on the taxation of trusts

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

Double taxation tiebreakers—meaning of POEM (Haworth v HMRC)

Private Client analysis: The Court of Appeal has found that the test of ‘Place of Effective Management’ (POEM) in a double taxation treaty (DTT) is not the same as the central management and control (CMC) test for company residence. POEM is frequently used in DTTs as a tiebreaker to determine in which of two contracting states a person other than an individual (eg a company or trust) is resident for the purposes of the DTT. There is limited case law, either in the UK or internationally, on how the test should be applied. The court rejected the appellants’ submissions that a tribunal determining POEM should adopt a test derived from the CMC case of Wood v Holden, with the focus upon whether the decision-making functions of the constitutional organs have been usurped or dictated to. It found no support for this submission in authorities or materials admissible to interpret the DTT. Written by Christopher Stone KC, barrister at Devereux Chambers.

Pensions Adequacy Review: Pensions Commission formally relaunched to address retirement crisis, coinciding with launch of Third State Pension Age Review

The government has relaunched a new Pensions Commission on 21 July 2025, headed by Baroness Jeannie Drake, Sir Ian Cheshire, and Professor Nick Pearce. The Pensions Commission is set to examine the barriers preventing adequate retirement savings and resulting in poor retirement outcomes by assessing the overall pension system, while building on the findings of the Pensions Investment Review published in May 2025 and the measures outlined in the Pension Schemes Bill that aim to boost investment and stimulate economic growth. The initiative also builds on the success of the original Pensions Commission (2002–2006), which led to the introduction of Auto-Enrolment and improved pension saving participation from 55% in 2012 to 88% in 2025.

Government responds to 2024 MLR consultation

HM Treasury (HMT) has published the government’s response to the 2024 consultation on the Money Laundering Regulations (MLRs), detailing changes that will be made to the MLRs to close loopholes, clarify requirements and ensure customer due diligence is targeted at high-risk activity. A draft Statutory Instrument will be published for technical feedback in due course, and laid before Parliament later in 2025 if parliamentary time allows. The government says other issues will be addressed through guidance, in collaboration with supervisors, to ensure a consistent, risk-based approach.

Private Client weekly highlights—17 July 2025

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Legislation Day is on 21 July 2025; (2) the ICAEW has launched a consultation on proposed probate registration fees for 2026; (3) analysis of Rogers v Wills, a rare example of the court finding a contract for care existed between family members; (4) the Investing and Saving Alliance proposes alternative approaches to the government’s pension IHT reforms; (5) Marcus v Marcus in which the appeal court upheld the decision that the word ‘children’ included a non-biological son; and (6) analysis of Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP v HRH Prince Hussam Bin Saud Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud in which the court rules on the meaning of ‘place of residence’ in a bankruptcy jurisdiction appeal.