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

Public beneficial ownership register to be introduced

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Phillip Dearden said:

Yes, but a more complete answer, also in English, would be; 

If you are prepared to give up the rights and privileges of being an owner, then you need not be reported as an owner.

Notail's scenario didn't ask about "reporting" to relevant authorities and regulated bodies; he/she asked about whether it could be done without his/her name  being included on a register available to the public/press. But even your answer to the changed goal posts isn't entirely complete. You can give up "rights and privileges" of ownership while continuing to benefit the same as if you were the owner; you can also entered into fixed term arrangements whereby a CSP takes ownership of some money, invests it, the CSP owns the investments, and then at the end of the fixed term they will pay out from the return on investment.

Edited by Rushen Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rushen Spy said:

Notail's scenario didn't ask about "reporting" to relevant authorities and regulated bodies; he/she asked about whether it could be done without his/her name  being included on a register available to the public/press. But even your answer to the changed goal posts isn't entirely complete. You can give up "rights and privileges" of ownership while continuing to benefit the same as if you were the owner; you can also entered into fixed term arrangements whereby a CSP takes ownership of some money, invests it, the CSP owns the investments, and then at the end of the fixed term they will pay out from the return on investment.

That's clearly an abusive device.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, doc.fixit said:

but can you still profit from the arrangement? ie receive a benefit from the capital?

Not unless you are named as a beneficiary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, woolley said:

That's clearly an abusive device.

It is also a "device" that I have never encountered.   Rushen Spy's description is either not accurate or missing some vital elements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It is also a "device" that I have never encountered.  

How come? Philip Dearden seems to suggest above that everyone’s doing it apparently as we have so many of them. I have to say that I can see a day where the trust companies are going to be asked to prove how they got to the point that they claim no party is registerable. It will happen pretty quickly (and around or before 2023) would be my guess too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MrPB said:

How come? Philip Dearden seems to suggest above that everyone’s doing it apparently as we have so many of them. I have to say that I can see a day where the trust companies are going to be asked to prove how they got to the point that they claim no party is registerable. It will happen pretty quickly (and around or before 2023) would be my guess too. 

Why are so many misinterpreting what I say. Is it wilful or have I lost my powers of explanation?

To be clear, I am not aware of anyone who has deliberately set up arrangements to avoid BO provisions. Most  arrangements on the Island pre-date the 2012 (NO must be aware of BO) and 2017 (non-public register) provisions and so cannot have been set up with these provisions in mind. I guess arrangements may have either been tweaked or implemented since then in order to frustrate these provisions but why would you do so? The domestic tax provisions are unchanged, FATCA, CRS and AML ensure that tax exposures will be highlighted if not properly reported and a TSP deliberately assisting in frustrating a BO report would be endangering his future prosperity. All this to avoid an entry on a private register when access to BO info for appropriate authorities already exists. Seems to involve a lot of risk and complication for little gain.

My main point in all the comments above is that in some cases it will not be easy to identify a BO. That is not because anyone has implemented an anti-BO strategy but because the economics of some arrangements are such that there is no clear BO.  

In Rushen Spy's example, the owner does not seem to have given up ownership. As Gladys said, we may be missing some key elements but if these are designed purely to frustrate BO reporting, any sensible TSP will think carefully about getting involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phillip Dearden said:

Why are so many misinterpreting what I say. Is it wilful or have I lost my powers of explanation?

To be clear, I am not aware of anyone who has deliberately set up arrangements to avoid BO provisions. Most  arrangements on the Island pre-date the 2012 (NO must be aware of BO) and 2017 (non-public register) provisions and so cannot have been set up with these provisions in mind. I guess arrangements may have either been tweaked or implemented since then in order to frustrate these provisions but why would you do so? The domestic tax provisions are unchanged, FATCA, CRS and AML ensure that tax exposures will be highlighted if not properly reported and a TSP deliberately assisting in frustrating a BO report would be endangering his future prosperity. All this to avoid an entry on a private register when access to BO info for appropriate authorities already exists. Seems to involve a lot of risk and complication for little gain.

My main point in all the comments above is that in some cases it will not be easy to identify a BO. That is not because anyone has implemented an anti-BO strategy but because the economics of some arrangements are such that there is no clear BO.  

In Rushen Spy's example, the owner does not seem to have given up ownership. As Gladys said, we may be missing some key elements but if these are designed purely to frustrate BO reporting, any sensible TSP will think carefully about getting involved.

Not at all, just remember who you are replying to... :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phillip Dearden said:

Why are so many misinterpreting what I say. Is it wilful or have I lost my powers of explanation?

 

LOL - this is Manx Forums. Despite your recognized professional expertise, everyone here knows better and regardless of what you say, they will twist your answer to suit their preconceived notions. Just roll with it!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found Phillip and Gladys contributions helpful and enlightening for what its worth. I hope all TSP/ CSPs act with their level of integrity and honesty. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, NoTail said:

I have found Phillip and Gladys contributions helpful and enlightening for what its worth. I hope all TSP/ CSPs act with their level of integrity and honesty. 

I'm sure they will now that they have your seal of approval...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Neil Down said:

Not at all, just remember who you are replying to... :whistling:

I wish I knew who was who but I don't know that I know anyone...except John W.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, piebaps said:

LOL - this is Manx Forums. Despite your recognized professional expertise, everyone here knows better and regardless of what you say, they will twist your answer to suit their preconceived notions. Just roll with it!

TYVM, duly rolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NoTail said:

I have found Phillip and Gladys contributions helpful and enlightening for what its worth. I hope all TSP/ CSPs act with their level of integrity and honesty. 

Most will and if a minority were to consider acting otherwise they know they would encounter a grumpy regulator.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gladys said:

It is also a "device" that I have never encountered.   Rushen Spy's description is either not accurate or missing some vital elements. 

Notail asked whether something was possible, not whether it was common.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phillip Dearden said:

Most will and if a minority were to consider acting otherwise they know they would encounter a grumpy regulator.

The island is fortunate those grumpy regulators were able to prevent the Singer & Friedlander and the Louis Group fiascos.

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...