Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

Phillip Dearden

Regulars
  • Content Count

    312
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phillip Dearden

  1. Serious? So you have £100m and want some advice regarding provisions that do not exist yet? Lets speculate. If you put £100m into an IOM company that buys some properties and funds some companies that also buys properties, it seems to me that you are the BO and will be reported as such. If you want to put the shares into a trust that you cannot benefit from and have no control over, possibly for distant family members or charitable purposes, then you may not be the BO - but would you do this with all of your wealth? There will be circumstances in between these two extremes and that is what the new legislation will have to deal with.
  2. A bit unfair. This matter will not affect me. I was merely trying to shine light where there was (and still is) darkness. Re the comments above, I can see how disclosure re trusts can be achieved, I was pointing out that some of what was said above was not realistic. I think there will be cases where the only solution is to see the trustees as the owner eg dead settlor, no-one yet benefited, not all beneficiaries born yet, no fixed interests, trustee (or someone) has a power to add new beneficiaries, beneficiaries can be excluded (even if not yet had anything). I can see that some won't like this but what workable alternative is there?
  3. Most of the trusts I have seen and worked with were Discretionary. The largest category were trusts created by now-deceased settlors for the benefit of family members and others. Who do those who think this all about obfuscation suggest should be shown as UBO in these cases?
  4. A bit cryptic. What obfuscation? What people? I agree that clarity is a nice thing, unfortunately we can't always achieve it.
  5. Yes, I think this is a good point. Not only the man on the Clapham Omnibus, but also may Tax Inspectors, Policy-makers and media commentators will expect that there is a shifty and shady Mr Big behind most offshore arrangements. In my experience this is not usually the case so we may get a reporting regime that does not meet all expectations.
  6. It's the question that needs clarifying. CSPs and TSPs need to know who their clients are and where funds come from and to understand the arrangements they administer and to satisfy themselves that those arrangements have a legitimate and legal purpose. That is not the same as saying that there is a box called UBO which must be filled in. Where a company is owned by a Discretionary Trust which may have many beneficiairies and the possibility of new benficiaries being born or added, it would be hard to name a UBO for that company. The CSP would still know who its client was (initially the settlor, later the trust) and would, we hope, understand the source of funds. Imagine, Esme a Canadian lady who has 4 children and dies at a mature age. She was left monies by her husband and invested them well so that when she passed away she had substantial funds. Her 4 children have done well for themselves but are not wealthy. She has 24 Grandchildren and great-grandchildren scattered around the world, most in various stages of education. She does not know who will need financial help. In her will she passes her wealth to a trust, which invests that wealth via a company in the IOM. The trustees are directed to stay in touch with the beneficiaires and to provide funds, as and when required, eg for education, on a marriage and on a business start-up. Esme has now passed away and the trust has been funded but no benefits have yet been applied. Who would we say is the BO of the company? I do not think there is any obvious answer and I expect current IOM Law and Guidance would encourage the NO to see the trustees as BOs. This will not be very useful information but what better result is there? Thiat this is a tricky matter is not the fault of the CSP or TSP.
  7. That's like saying Brexit means Brexit. Its a nice soundbite but it does not mean much. Trusts do not have owners, beneficial or not. IOM Legislation has to create some deemed fictions in order to determine who should be reported where Trust's own companies. This is feasible but might not produce the result all observers are seeking. In your example - "Trust (A) has as its ultimate beneficial owner, person (C) who is a 3 yr old orphan." This cannot happen as a Trust has no owner. I think you mean main or principal beneficiary but do we declare such a person as the UBO - they may never have benefited, they will have no control and they may never benefit (things may change, the beneficiary may pass away before benefits are applied). You ask if ownership is "simply with (E) and (F)" but you answered that question yourself, (E) and (F) are the trustees so they own the trust property, that is what trustees do. In the IOM we have law and guidance which helps Nominated Officers determine who they report as Beneficial Owners. In this case I think (would need to see the Deed to be sure) they would identify (E) and (F) as BOs. I am not sure what use this result will be. Creating some rules to ensure someone can be identified as UBO and entered on a register is not impossible but it is not simple and it may lead to some pointless reporting. "Just people trying to get around it." Not really, most arrangements and all trust law and practice pre-date these discussions so any complications cannot come about as a result of practitioners designing arrangements to frustrate BO rules unless you credit those practitioners with an awesome degree of prescience.
  8. There is a lot of barking up non-existent trees here. A trust is not an entity, it cannot be owned and the trust itself cannot own assets. A trust is an arrangement where a person (trustee) or some people (trustees) have legal ownership of an asset(s) but that ownership is subject to a duty to hold that asset for the benefit of some other person or persons or purpose. Not only does "Beneficial Owner" not have any widely accepted meaning but even if it did, to answer questions like those above you would need to know the terms of the trust. To cope with these uncertainties many jurisdictions have introduced artificial rules to treat someone, other than the trustee, as the "owner" of trust assets. In the cases that I can think of, where there is no deemed owner, the trustees are accepted/acknowledged as the owner. I can think of several different regimes that try to treat someone as the owner of trust assets, in IOM and elsewhere, and they do not all produce the same result. This is a long way round to saying that some artificial rules will be needed to determine who is treated as UBO of trust assets for the new beefed-up, linked-up, available to the public registers. There are rules for the current IOM register but they are not perfect and I expect that if we really do get to the position of registers linked up internationally, then we will need to ensure everyone applies similar artificial rules or there will be some assets with no owners and some with multiple owners. In summary, messy and the result will offend purists, but it could be done with a lot of effort and clear thinking. [That's not to say it is a good thing, which is a whole different ball game]
  9. The Cave? I think you had to fill in forms and wear a suit and tie and be 21 when it first opened.
  10. Agreed. Crazy.
  11. ...not to mention stupid, cruel and self-defeating.
  12. Isn't it a financing transaction? SG needs cash and so sells hotel but also needs hotel to trade and so leases it back. This frees up some cash and allows trade to continue but has a cost.
  13. Can I suggest that the Brexit debate moves on from whether Brexit was/is stupid or not to what kind of Brexit we want? There is an important debate in the UK amongst leading Brexiteers about what we do with tariffs and subsidies. Some want a Hayekian "red-meat" economy with no tariffs and allowing competition to do its stuff. This will produce cheap food and some other produce but will devastate farming and some other trades. Opponents query whether dropping all tariffs on imports removes incentives to 3rd countries to enter into trade-deals. Mr Gove is pushing to protect agriculture which will make farmers happy but does remove one of the big wins from leaving the EU ie protect farmers but keep food prices artificially high. We can't control these issues but we need to watch them as they could have big implications for the IOM. If the UK removes agriculture protection the IOM either follows suit (devastating for farmers) or doesn't (Manx produce becomes uncompetitive). PS - I would rather Brexit had never happened and that it would go away but wishing for the way things were will get us nowhere.
  14. BUT BUT BUT Commercial Property Rates is a big issue in the UK. Where a property is empty the landlord will have to pay the rates after 3 months (6 months if industrial). If leased to someone who uses for charitable purposes, there is a relief but this relief is about the purposes (charitable) not the tenant (not nec. a charity) and charity shops are not a charitable activity.
  15. I agree with Steve. Charities will always ask for a very good deal, sometimes they get lucky or find sympathy. The number of charity shops will be related to economic conditions and changing habits. When demand for retail space is low some (nice) landlords will allow a charity a very good deal if the choice is an empty or uncared for shop. Planning is an issue - the IOM may have too many retail areas for them all to remain viable.
  16. I partly agree. The Brexit debate has become too toxic. We have to respect each others rights to disagree - some want to leave the EU and some don't - those are both reasonable positions. Any debate should be about the issues rather than the tribal name-calling a very serious debate has descended into. BUT...why is she anti-democratic. I can't see what is anti-democratic about campaigning for a different direction. If we could not change our minds we would still have Robert Walpole as Prime Minister along with slavery and sending children up chimneys. At the moment we have a Government following the referendum result and we are set to Leave, this makes me sad but I accept it is the result of a (far from perfect) democratic process. I want this direction to change but I accept this can only happen as a result of a new vote - either a referendum or an election. Why is it undemocratic to promote such a notion? "Harridan" is a tribal insult and has no place in a mature debate.
  17. http://www.invest.gov.ma/?Id=77&lang=en Lots of tomatoes come from Morocco. Current terms of trade are relieved by a free trade agreement between Morocco and the EU. That will lapse, I do not know what happens then.
  18. You are right and I agree but not because of debt. The IOM Govt. does issue bonds - there are £260m of MUA Bonds in existence but it does not create money. I don't know if it can but even if it did, I think it would be hard to get people to use it.
  19. Wow. That's a can of worms. A Government that creates a money supply eg the UK can't really have "money". In the UK, a £ is a debt due by the government so a £ in a bank account held by the Govt. is really a £ owed by the Govt. to the Govt. which does not really mean anything. So you may be correct to laugh at the phrase "Government Money".
  20. Is that not comparing an earlier apple with a later pear?
  21. I do not hate dogs at all, a number are assisting me in typing this response now. Are you sure a mistake was made?
×
×
  • Create New...