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

29 minutes ago, Rushen Spy said:

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.

Not sure I understand.  The logic, apparently  is that if a discretionary trust overlies the company  then it is the trustee who is the line of enquiry.  It has a logic  not one I necessarily agree with, but that is how it works.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours 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

I think this is the crux of the matter. Had they legislated for us we would now be in the midst of an existential constitutional crisis and a dangerous precedent would have been set for the future. So funnily enough the best way round this is for us just to voluntarily accept it all. It keeps it nice and neat politically I’m sure. But it is very clearly all coming in. 

Share this post


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

Not sure I understand.  The logic, apparently  is that if a discretionary trust overlies the company  then it is the trustee who is the line of enquiry.  It has a logic  not one I necessarily agree with, but that is how it works.  

You've lost me. I understand that the parties you mentioned are the people you'd want to have due diligence / compliance on, as they have key roles in the trust, but why would they be classed as the "beneficial owners" if they're only serving as corporate trustees on behalf of an underlying client (e.g. the 3 yr old orphan)? I'm not arguing with you as you undoubtedly know more about this than me; it just doesn't quite mesh with my idea of ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours 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

I'm not sure the UK would be all that bothered if there was uproar from the Isle of Man about it. We're just peasants.

Share this post


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

Speak for yourself 

I'm speaking for you lot, not me. I'm an aristocrat.

Share this post


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

I'm speaking for you lot, not me. I'm an aristocrat.

I saw that film the kittens were lovely !

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I'm speaking for you lot, not me. I'm an arse.

 

Share this post


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

You've lost me. I understand that the parties you mentioned are the people you'd want to have due diligence / compliance on, as they have key roles in the trust, but why would they be classed as the "beneficial owners" if they're only serving as corporate trustees on behalf of an underlying client (e.g. the 3 yr old orphan)? I'm not arguing with you as you undoubtedly know more about this than me; it just doesn't quite mesh with my idea of ownership.

With a discretionary  trust  the legal owner is the trustee.  They hold the assets for the beneficiaries, but a beneficiary of a discretionary trust does not have an absolute right to the assets. 

Say, we have a trust with a 3 year old named beneficiary, but there are other beneficiaries  possibly not named but members of a class.   The trustee is presented with a request to make a distribution to one of the class, let us say it is an aging lady who needs to have her nursing home care paid for, so a big distribution is paid to her to fund her care. The 3 year old has never received a penny  mainly because its parents are fully able to provide for it. So, it would be wrong to name either beneficiary as the ultimate beneficial owner.  To that extent, I agree with the approach as somebody has to be named.

But then, think about it, the trustee holds the assets for other parties, it will never benefit, so why name them as the UBO?

It is just symptomatic of the need to reconcile the concept of beneficial ownership with a thing that has no party with an absolute right to the assets and so, in trust law, no beneficial owner. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add, if the 3 year old had a fixed interest  ie full entitlement to the assets   then they are the bo.  But that is not a discretionary  trust. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similarly,  who is the beneficial owner of John Lewis Partnership or CoOp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is one,  just like a publicly quoted company, where in terms of due diligence the trail ends.  But then you get in to the percentage game.  Does any party have more than x% and who controls the entity, normally demonstrated by who can appoint the board or governing body?

 

 

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...