Today’s post considers the above-mentioned topic in a ‘vidcast’.
As usual, an edited transcript of the presentation for those that cannot (or choose not) to view it is below.
The following case study falls under the mantra ‘Read the Deed’.
Here, the factual scenario centred on a standard family trust.
However, when I say ‘standard’, I should put an asterisk. This is because we thought it was standard and the accountants that had sent the job in to us had been operating for about 10 years on the basis that it was a ‘standard’ family trust.
Under the trust deed, there was a principal (often also referred to as an appointor). In other words, there was a person who had the right to hire and fire the trustee.
As is well understood, in some trust instruments where there is a principal or an appointor, there is then under the power to vary a requirement that that principal or appointor consent to any purported variation before the trustee is permitted to proceed with the proposed variation.
Here, arguably, re-enforcing the assumption that the deed did seem to be a standard family trust, pursuant to the variation power, the principal was not required to consent to any variation.
Importantly, there was a variation that had been done about 12 years ago, which was two years before the current accountant became involved. Under the variation, there was the nomination of a bucket company. In other words, the nomination of a corporate beneficiary to help cap the tax rate at 30 cents – a standard strategy.
As part of a review and updating of the trust deed, we, in conjunction with the accountant, actually sat down and read the entire trust instrument.
What we discovered was that the second to last clause in the deed, buried with the general powers (for example, powers about the power to lend, the power to invest), was a clause that had a nebulous title of ‘Further Provision’.
The Further Provision clause was said to apply in relation to any exercise of the power to vary that resulted in the nomination of a new beneficiary.
The clause mandated that the trustee must obtain the principal’s consent before relying on the variation power.
The relevant deed of variation however did not have the principal’s consent. There was therefore 12 years of distributions to the bucket company, and every single one of those was void for the failure to comply with the trust instrument.
The only real solution, with the aid of hindsight, is to ensure in the future, always - read the deed, read the deed, read the deed, read the deed.
As always thanks to the Television Education Network for the video content here.
** for the trainspotters, the title here is riffed from the Queen song ‘Another one bites the dust’.