Money left to child in Trust, but not released until child is 25

Murphy_The_Cat

xylophone wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm42807

You could type Tolley Accumulation and Maintenance Trust into Google and pick up the relevant chapters.

I've just googled it and it may well have been written in Swahili, for the sense that it made to me _pale_

Murphy_The_Cat

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Yes the child entitled to it nonsense. As. Trustee you are personally liable. See solicitor now.

Yorkshireman, the punctuation makes your post difficult to understand. I'm already going down the professional advice from a solicitor route, as it is way, way, way above my level of understanding !


Mildred didn't want the sprogs getting the money until they are 25 and I wholeheartedly support her wishes.:beer:

theoretica

Do you realistically fear the children in question will demand the money early?

Murphy_The_Cat

theoretica wrote: »

Do you realistically fear the children in question will demand the money early?

There is a possibility that one of the parents of the other children may think that it is a good idea for their children to get their share before they are 25.


At my end, not a problem, as they won't learn of the Trust until the elder sprog turns 25.

Malthusian

Murphy_The_Cat wrote: »

As a layperson, it doesn't seem right that a person (lets call her Mildred) can be generous enough to put some money to one side for people, with a reasonable restrictions as to when that money can be accessed, and her wishes aren't respected by the recipients.

What does that have to do with the price of fish? Thinking that you can control what other compos mentis people do with their own money from beyond the grave is not reasonable.

If you think it is reasonable then it's a free country, but common law says it's unreasonable, as confirmed by the case of Saunders v Vautier.

Murphy_The_Cat wrote: »

They'd have to know about the Trust 1st .

Concealing people's money from them is a bad idea. But you might get away with it.

The argument over whether a trustee of a trust with beneficiaries who have the right to ask for capital from it, should tell the beneficiaries that they can ask, could go on for pages. But that is the short version of it.

Note that I'm talking in generalities. There isn't enough information in the thread to say whether Saunders v Vautier applies anyway.

If the trustees have the power to vary the beneficiaries' shares (i.e. the eldest can't point to a quarter of the fund and say "That's mine" because the trustees can say "No, we've decided at our discretion that the whole lot belongs to the other three") then Saunders v Vautier may not apply. Not as far as one single beneficiary asking for their share goes, anyway.

Manxman_in_exile

Malthusian wrote: »

What does that have to do with the price of fish? Thinking that you can control what other compos mentis people do with their own money from beyond the grave is not reasonable.

If you think it is reasonable then it's a free country, but common law says it's unreasonable, as confirmed by the case of Saunders v Vautier.


Concealing people's money from them is a bad idea. But you might get away with it.

The argument over whether a trustee of a trust with beneficiaries who have the right to ask for capital from it, should tell the beneficiaries that they can ask, could go on for pages. But that is the short version of it.

Note that I'm talking in generalities. There isn't enough information in the thread to say whether Saunders v Vautier applies anyway.

If the trustees have the power to vary the beneficiaries' shares (i.e. the eldest can't point to a quarter of the fund and say "That's mine" because the trustees can say "No, we've decided at our discretion that the whole lot belongs to the other three") then Saunders v Vautier may not apply. Not as far as one single beneficiary asking for their share goes, anyway.

I'm inclined to agree. In particular, I think it's ethically questionable deliberately not to tell a grown adult that they are beneficiaries under a trust. I'd be concerned that they could end up making decisions in ignorance that they would not make if they were aware of the facts.


What's the significance of being 25? Might as well say they'll never be responsible enough so let's give them nothing.


OP - do you think Aunt Mildred would have preferred not to set up the trust at all if she'd been advised the age 25 threshold wouldn't work?

xylophone

There is a possibility that one of the parents of the other children may think that it is a good idea for their children to get their share before they are 25.


At my end, not a problem, as they won't learn of the Trust until the elder sprog turns 25.

Be very, very sure that you are employing a professional who is expert in the law/taxation of A&M Trusts.


https://library.croneri.co.uk/cch_uk/etc/62575

Murphy_The_Cat

Malthusian wrote: »

What does that have to do with the price of fish? Thinking that you can control what other compos mentis people do with their own money from beyond the grave is not reasonable.


But it won't be there own money until they're 25 - in Mildreds eyes and I respect her wishes.


If you think it is reasonable then it's a free country, but common law says it's unreasonable, as confirmed by the case of Saunders v Vautier.


I've looked at Saunders vs Vautier as per your suggestion and this came up " if all of the beneficiaries in the trust are of adult age and under no disability, the beneficiaries may require the trustee to transfer the legal estate to them and thereby terminate the trust." If my memory is working right, when the oldest becomes 25, the youngest will still be 17.




Concealing people's money from them is a bad idea. But you might get away with it.

I WILL get away with it, with child C&D


The argument over whether a trustee of a trust with beneficiaries who have the right to ask for capital from it, should tell the beneficiaries that they can ask, could go on for pages. But that is the short version of it.
Thank you


Note that I'm talking in generalities. There isn't enough information in the thread to say whether Saunders v Vautier applies anyway.
For Child A, it looks like it wouldn't (if I've got the childrens ages correct), for Child B, it could. The other proposed Trustee wishes to respect Mildreds wishes as well. The professional person who would become the 3rd proposed Trustee suggests that if there is a "need" from any of the benificiaries once they are adult, then the Trustees can discuss the "need" and act accordingly, but they are happy for the Trust to run until Child D turns 25.


If the trustees have the power to vary the beneficiaries' shares (i.e. the eldest can't point to a quarter of the fund and say "That's mine" because the trustees can say "No, we've decided at our discretion that the whole lot belongs to the other three") then Saunders v Vautier may not apply. Not as far as one single beneficiary asking for their share goes, anyway.
I'd need to rely on the professional person to interpret the Trust document, as its written in legaliseacoountancyspeak :eek:

My addons are in red.

Murphy_The_Cat

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree. In particular, I think it's ethically questionable deliberately not to tell a grown adult that they are beneficiaries under a trust. I'd be concerned that they could end up making decisions in ignorance that they would not make if they were aware of the facts.


I'd be more concerned that they'd not fully apply themselves to education, apprenticship or their chosen career path, knowing that they are due a windfall on X date.



What's the significance of being 25? Might as well say they'll never be responsible enough so let's give them nothing.


I suspect (but I'm not certain), that it was the longest length that Mildred could set up a A&M Trust, to be sure that she wasn't alive when the Trust started to mature.



OP - do you think Aunt Mildred would have preferred not to set up the trust at all if she'd been advised the age 25 threshold wouldn't work?
There is a very distinct possibility that she wouldn't have set the Trust up, if her wishes wouldn't have been respected.

Mine in red again

Murphy_The_Cat

xylophone wrote: »

Be very, very sure that you employing a professional who is expert in the law/taxation of A&M Trusts.


https://library.croneri.co.uk/cch_uk/etc/62575

I need to be registered to access the link .


I am very confident with the professional that I/we are employing - in the areas that they are not absolutely certain, they are referring it to others within their group who have a deeper knowledge of A&M Trusts.
Its all costing a bleeding fortune, but will be worthwhile in the end.