CONTINUEThis site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more.

By subscribing to our newsletter service, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Introduction: The History Of Offshore Trusts

It's a fairly well known fact that the trust originated in England many hundreds of years ago, and that its purpose was to preserve assets against depredations occurring through death, matrimonial and family squabbles, spendthrift descendants and the like. Taxation at death was one of the incidents that trusts were effective against, but they were not particularly designed to guard against the taxation of income or capital during the settlor's life, because such taxes were not a major threat to wealth at the time, and anyway a domestic trust was a taxable person in itself.

Income tax was first levied in England at the beginning of the 20th century, and in many countries had become worth avoiding by mid-century; but initially at least the best way of avoiding it was to turn income into capital, which was not so heavily taxed. It was only when capital taxes of various types became significant that the offshore trust came into its heyday.

Very rich people had begun to use offshore trusts in the first half of the century, but at least as much because of the additional asset protection that they offered, simply by being in a different jurisdiction, as because they were tax efficient.

The administrative overhead and other complications of dealing with an offshore location were initially very great, so that at first only conveniently close-by jurisdictions like Jersey (Channel Isles) for the Brits and the Bahamas (for Americans) developed as 'offshore' jurisdictions. The first trusts legislation in the Bahamas, surprisingly, dates from 1893. The great expansion of trusts, both in terms of number of jurisdictions and volume of business, came later when telecommunications, air transport and the end of capital controls opened up the world and gave freedom to investors and the owners of capital.

At all events, by say 1980, offshore was burgeoning in response to horrific tax rates, and tax avoidance had taken over as the main driver of offshore growth. In this process, and as more and more countries laid claim to the worldwide income and assets of individuals during life and at the end of it, the trust played a key part. But in two respects at least the traditional English trust was lacking: first in its perpetuity rule, which limited the duration of a trust to 'life in being' plus 35 years, or to 80 years, in order not to permit the alienation of property for more than one generation after death of the settlor; and secondly in its abhorrence of 'spendthrift' clauses, ie wording which prevents a creditor from 'seeing through' the trust to obtain settled assets if the settlor is a beneficiary.

In the US, and in the main island offshore jurisdictions, which all inherited English trust law (since almost all of them were British originally) perpetuities were legislated away during the 1980s and '90s - no-one wants to see assets reverting to family members who may still be living in the country from which the settlor had removed them, with disastrous tax consequences. During this period, tax authorities in high-tax countries gradually began to attack the offshore trust, either through specific legislation or through general anti-avoidance provisions, and as this process whittled away at the tax advantages of offshore trusts, asset protection began to take over as the predominant motive for offshore settlements. The 'spendthrift' problem stood in the way, particularly for non-common-law families, who had to cope with 'Code' country legislation which often incorporates forced heirship provisions and specific creditor protection (both usually absent in common law jurisdictions).

Initially, rich 'continentals' used different techniques to protect their assets, but in time they grew to like the friendly Anglo-Saxon trust, and in the latter part of the 20th century as trust law began to be implanted into the foreign soil of one 'Code' jurisdiction after another, the common-law jurisdictions needed to follow and passed laws which specifically excluded forced heirship and creditor protection provisions. The US itself has largely removed anti-spendthrift wording from its trust legislation - unlike in the unitary UK, there is a kind of onshore offshore in the US because of its federal structure, and there has been a competition between states to offer good trust regimes to residents in other states, and for that matter to compete against the offshore 'offshore', which is nowadays practicable because after the enactment of Section 679 of the Tax Code, the IRS treatment of offshore trusts is now worse than its treatment of onshore trusts.

Even without perpetuities and with asset protection features, the bare offshore trust came to be seen as vulnerable and by the turn of the century was much more likely to be used as part of a more complex framework involving corporate features and multiple jurisdictions than on its own. It's not right in fact to say that a plain trust is ineffective: in the Cook Islands, which may have been the first jurisdiction to offer asset protection trusts per se, only one trust has been penetrated by creditors in 20 years, and that was due to a weakness in the drafting of the governing law which has subsequently been corrected.

The trend towards complexity also reflects growing corporate interest in the trust, and the tendency for the more advanced offshore jurisdictions to offer structures suited to particular purposes - hence the 'purpose' trust. A trust which is suitable for one purpose may well not be suitable for another, and the original English trust law was one more time not ideal for purpose trusts, which has led to a third round of adjustment of trust legislation in many jurisdictions.

   

The Report

Offshore Trusts Guide: Introduction

The History of Offshore Trusts
Development of Professional Competence in the Jurisdictions
What Future for the Trust?
The New Age of Transparency
The Swiss Association of Trust Companies
The Society of Trusts and Estates Practitioners

Offshore Trusts Guide: Jurisdictions

Bahamas

Bahamas: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Bahamas: 2006 Private Trust Companies Legislation

Barbados

Barbados: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Barbados: Supervisory and Licensing Regime and Fees

Bermuda

Bermuda: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Bermuda: Supervisory and Licensing Regime and Fees

British Virgin Islands

British Virgin Islands: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
British Virgin Islands: Special Trusts Act 2003
British Virgin Islands: The Trustee Act 2003
British Virgin Islands: :Supervisory and Licensing Regime and Fees
British Virgin Islands: New Laws on Private Trust Companies
British Virgin Islands: New Private Trust Company Regulations

Cayman Islands

Cayman Islands: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Cayman Islands: Supervisory and Licensing Regime and Fees

Cook Islands

Cook Islands: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Cook Islands: Supervisory and Licensing Regime and Fees

Cyprus

Cyprus: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Cyprus: Supervision, Licensing and Tax

Gibraltar

Gibraltar: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Gibraltar: Legislation, Regulation and Supervision

Guernsey

Guernsey: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Guernsey: Trusts Law 2007

Isle of Man

Isle of Man: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Isle of Man: Supervisory and Licensing Regime
Isle of Man: Uses Clients and Tax Treatment

Jersey

Jersey: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Jersey: Supervisory and Licensing Regime
Jersey: Trusts Amendment Act 2006
Jersey: Foundations

Liechtenstein

Liechtenstein: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Liechtenstein: Regulation Supervision and Transparency
Liechtenstein: Characteristics of Liechtenstein Trusts
Liechtenstein: Foundations

Madeira

Madeira: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees

Malta

Malta: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Malta: The Trust and Trustees Act 2004

Mauritius

Mauritius: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Mauritius: Characteristics of the 2001 Trusts Act
Mauritius: Additional Provisions of the 2001 Trusts Act
Mauritius: Tax Treatment

Monaco

Monaco: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees

Nevis

Nevis: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees

New Zealand

New Zealand: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
New Zealand: Review of the Law of Trusts
New Zealand: Taxation of Trusts

Panama

Panama: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Panama: Requirements for Acting as Trust Company in Panama

Seychelles

Seychelles: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees

Turks & Caicos

Turks & Caicos: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Turks & Caicos: The Voidable Dispositions Ordinance

Vanuatu

Vanuatu Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees

 


Offshore Trusts News

Australian CEOs Urge Lawmakers To Approve Tax Cuts Tuesday 21/11/2017 Four out of five Australian CEOs have said that their companies would increase investment spending if the company tax rate was reduced to 25 percent, according to a new survey by the Business Council of Australia.

IRS Failing To Properly Vet Third-Party Filers, TIGTA Says Tuesday 21/11/2017 The IRS is not always verifying that its third party electronic filing providers meet the required standards, according to a report released on November 20 by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

IRS Reminds Taxpayers Of Savers' Credit Tuesday 21/11/2017 The Internal Revenue Service has issued a reminder to low- and moderate-income workers that they can obtain a 50 percent credit for the first USD2,000 contributed to a retirement plan, called the Saver's Credit.

Seychelles Overhauls Tax Settings In Recent 2018 Budget Tuesday 21/11/2017 The Seychelles Budget included numerous proposals to change the territory's tax settings, including new corporate tax reliefs and the settings for a progressive personal income tax regime.

HMRC Given New Powers Against Tax Scheme Promoters Monday 20/11/2017 The Chartered Institute of Taxation has highlighted that two significant new penalties for tax non-compliance are now effective, following Royal Assent to Finance (No. 2) Act 2017.

South Australia Presses Ahead With Tax Reforms Monday 20/11/2017 Following its decision to abandon plans for a controversial bank levy, the South Australian Government has announced that it will still press ahead with payroll tax cuts and a higher foreign investor surcharge.

US Security Summit Undertaking 'Taxpayer Awareness Week' Monday 20/11/2017 The Internal Revenue Service will join forces with state tax agencies and the tax industry to hold a second annual National Tax Security Awareness Week.

IRS Reminds Businesses Of New Jan 31 Filing Deadline Friday 17/11/2017 The Internal Revenue Service on November 16 issued a reminder to employers and other businesses of the January 31 filing deadline that now applies to filing wage statements and independent contractor forms with the government.

MEPs: EU Must Do More To Tackle Tax Evasion Friday 17/11/2017 MEPs have criticized the European Council and European finance ministers for a "lacklustre performance" in the fight against tax evasion and avoidance.

US Tax Reform Bills Advanced By Senate Committee, House Friday 17/11/2017 Both the House of Representatives and the Senate Finance Committee passed their respective US tax reform bills on November 16.