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

Don't worry we're all going to be working in the plantations tending to the hemp and bud as soon as the boy Ashford gives the nod. No need for CSP's anymore.

giphy.gif


 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Rushen Spy said:

You could have a trust set-up for a 3 yr old child (eg an inheritance fund) who is living in an orphanage and the trust is 100% shareholder in a company. The terms of the trust could be that they will begin to receive benefit from it at the age of 21 (accrued return on investment, and potentially selling all the shares). Who does the beneficial ownership register publish as the beneficial owner of the company? The child has not received any benefit from the fund, so they're not a "beneficial owner", but they are the ultimate intended beneficial owner. I can't imagine this beneficial owner registry including that child's name and the address of the orphanage they live in? It would surely end with the name of the trust and the CSP(s) who operate it at most?

Unless there is a revert to settlor clause in the trust - in your scenario the settlor has pretty much given his money away. You can’t control something you have given up all rights too. This note is long winded but a good guide on trusts and when to disclose. 

https://www.careyolsen.com/briefings/offshore-company-beneficial-ownership-registers-and-trusts-key-questions-csps

Edited by MrPB
Add text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Weird forum glitch. 

Edited by MrPB

Share this post


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

Looks like they don't know either.

“Are there any particular powers that if held by a person, would mean that person is required to be included on the BO Register? If so, what are those powers (e.g. powers to appoint or remove trustees, amend the trust, distribute trust property, revoke the trust, make investments)? Does it make any difference if the powers are to direct, veto or are only exercisable on the occurrence of a condition? In particular, note the UK, Jersey and Guernsey explicitly set out powers that they appear to consider evidence a person having control over the trust and, by extension, its underlying company.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what is being said. It seems that the UK calling it a "beneficial ownership registry" (or similar wording) was a bit stupid and is why there is some confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Rushen Spy said:

What if the ultimate beneficial owner owns the company via a trust?

The trustee is the ubo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

He had no choice.

Anyone labouring under the misapprehension that IOMG actually has any clout in wider affairs is deluded. 

We did exactly as we are told. This may actually be the start of the rout of offshore. And if labour get in....

 

Constitutionally the Uk can not make us part of the UK it would cause uproar. Of course whether it is desirable or not is a different matter

Share this post


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

The trustee is the ubo.

In some cases. What about the example of the 3 yr old orphan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK psc register is without verification and I have known at least one manifestly stupid registration. Trying to correct it with CRO was equally frustrating.  I am sure there are more examples.

I believe csps in the UK are going to be subject to better regulation.  About time, I had a long running argument with one who saw nothing wrong with having nominee declarations from directors and got into quite a heated conversation about how not only was the declaration useless, it was probably a breach of director's duties. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Rushen Spy said:

In some cases. What about the example of the 3 yr old orphan?

The trustee.  There may be a different view if there are fixed interests.  But in a discretionary trust  the IOM considers the trustee as the UBO. 

Edited by Gladys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, alpha-acid said:

Constitutionally the Uk can not make us part of the UK it would cause uproar. Of course whether it is desirable or not is a different matter

But why would they do that when they can tell us to do exactly what they want under the current arrangements? If we and the other British jurisdictions were part of the UK, what would the rich do for tax havens? It is hilarious that people keep harking back to this "rolling over" notion. There is no argument. They set the agenda and plot the course. As I've said before, if you think otherwise study what happened when we got too big for our boots over Radio Caroline North in 1967.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The trustee.  There may be a different view if there are fixed interests.  But in a discretionary trust  the IOM considers the trustee as the UBO. 

Okay, so the Isle of Man considers a person or legal entity who is not the UBO to be the UBO? What a strange world we live in.

Share this post


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

But why would they do that when they can tell us to do exactly what they want under the current arrangements? If we and the other British jurisdictions were part of the UK, what would the rich do for tax havens? It is hilarious that people keep harking back to this "rolling over" notion. There is no argument. They set the agenda and plot the course. As I've said before, if you think otherwise study what happened when we got too big for our boots over Radio Caroline North in 1967.

I agree all I was saying that that the Crown Dependencies are not part of the UK  and can not be incorporated into the UK without constitutional reform. The UK are our PayMasters and hold the whip. Unless we asked for devolution which would be granted but then we would have a massive financial Black Hole to fund the CS pensions with the loss of of the  Common Purse Agreement

  • Like 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...