Trust Law In For A Shake-Up?

[CJ]

Those claims have been around for years and they are pretty accurate from the number of trust deeds I look at and how the family use the trust.

They have been around for years though very few cases of trusts being ruled a sham. I think it is little more than propaganda for lawyers.

Introducing a register would be a fairly simply process I would think, and so probably likely.

there is the companies register and the charities register for them to piggy back off. The only question will be who will pay for the register and how.

[tpr2]

They have been around for years though very few cases of trusts being ruled a sham. I think it is little more than propaganda for lawyers.

I think that's more to do with the fact that the ones which would be considered sham ones are not usually the ones being targeted by people attempting to get at the assets.

Good question on the "who would pay?"

Probably user pays

[Perry]

Good question on the "who would pay?"
Probably user pays

The government would be the user, right?

[Perry]

Talking of Trusts . . . (Change to a Corporate Trustee)

OK, so circumstances have changed. It's been decided that
three Trustees wont do any more. A corporate trustee
company is formed, with the existing Trustees as Directors.

The intention is for the existing Trustees to resign as Trustees,
(as individuals) and the corporate trustee is to 'take over' as
the sole corporate Trustee. One of the soon-to-be-ex-Trustees,
(who's also one of the new corporate trustee company directors),
has the power to appoint and remove Trustees, pursuant to
the Trust Deed.

Effectively, this appointer (not being the original settlor) has to
resign personally and contemporaneously 'appoint' the new
Trustee company as the sole Trustee, for the future. Oh, and
I suppose accept the resignations of the individual Trustees,
at the same time, too.

Sounds like a convoluted exercise, to me. Can it be done? It
seems so. Really? How?
.

[CJ]

Just put it on one document saying X, Y and Z agree to resign as directors. X with power of appointment appoints company A as Corporate Trustee. X, Y and Z as Directors in Company A accept appointment.

Obviously need other docs as setting up company.

Or you could see a lawyer and have them charge you $1k

I personally dont like to over complicate anything. I have drafted 1 page agreements and then seen a lawyer turn it into 5 pages with no real value add.

[Ivan McIntosh]

Like CJ says, that's a reasonably simple one page deed (with one facing page and one page for signatures).

The order is actually X appoints Company as trustee with everyone agreeing then XYZ resign as trustees, with the resignations accepted by the (now) corporate trustee.

Thing happen in order, even though they're all in the one document.

Check trust deed to make sure power of appointment remains vested in someone.

Also, make sure the company you use as a corporate trustee is only used for your trust. Recent case law has forced prudent lawyers to set up a separate company each time....lest the debts of one trust lead to the firm's one and only corporate trustee (which is a trustee of dozens or hundreds of trusts) being liquidated.

That can be inconvenient!

Regards
Ivan McIntosh
Partner, Carter Atmore Law
09 921 5026
[email protected]

Disclaimer: You are not entitled, and would frankly be unwise, to rely on any views expressed by me in this forum which in the absence of any real knowledge about your specific circumstances are inevitably worth exactly what you paid for them. You can, however, call me for a no-cost chat about whatever it was...am always happy to hear from people and not precious about my time.

[Perry]

Gotta love that disclaimer, Ivan.

[Ivan McIntosh]

I aim to amuse

[Winston001]

So, in your hypothesis, the person reclaimed all their
social security taxes, paid for and collected for the
purpose of providing for their elder care?

You know very well Perry that old age pensions are paid by the current working population, not by the pensioners. It's a social pay-as-you-go contract.

The pensioners when much younger and working, paid for their parents pension.

Except for the newish (Cullen) NZ Super Fund, there is no lump of money paid forward from the past. We rely on our children to pay up when our turn comes.

[Wayne]

You know very well Perry that old age pensions are paid by the current working population, not by the pensioners. It's a social pay-as-you-go contract.

The pensioners when much younger and working, paid for their parents pension.

Except for the newish (Cullen) NZ Super Fund, there is no lump of money paid forward from the past. We rely on our children to pay up when our turn comes.

which is why those that don't have children are being selfish and shouldn't get the pension.

[ChrisD]

Hah, I didn't even read it the first time. I'm so used to reading over disclaimers. Nice

[Perry]

So, in your hypothesis, the person reclaimed all their
social security taxes, paid for and collected for the
purpose of providing for their elder care?

You know very well Perry that old age pensions are paid by the current working population, not by the pensioners. It's a social pay-as-you-go contract.

The pensioners when much younger and working, paid for their parents pension.

Except for the newish (Cullen) NZ Super Fund, there is no lump of money paid forward from the past. We rely on our children to pay up when our turn comes.

The teeming and lading aside, it was 'sold' to
the population of the era as a social compact
(or social contract, not sure which.) They
paid their one and fourpence in the pound*;
they paid their premium, so the contract /
compact entitles them to collect.

Well, it should do, but the other party to the
contract were politicians who're above the
law - of course. If not that, then plain liars.

* My father remembers it well.

[Winston001]

The teeming and lading aside, it was 'sold' to
the population of the era as a social compact
(or social contract, not sure which.) They
paid their one and fourpence in the pound*;
they paid their premium, so the contract /
compact entitles them to collect.

One shilling and sixpence to be accurate. And my dad used to refer to it too.

You are correct that existing super-annuitants think there is a fund they paid into. However the reality is that the fund was soon over-run by retirees and the 1/6 was swallowed up by inflation.

Nice piece of the history here: http://www.goodreturns.co.nz/article...em-unique.html

[Perry]

However the reality is that the fund was soon over-run
by retirees and the 1/6 was swallowed up by inflation.

I wonder how much was pillaged by the W'gton
Woodenheads, like happened to the EQC, et al?

[Wayne]

I wonder how much was pillaged by the W'gton
Woodenheads, like happened to the EQC, et al?

Muldoon took it and put it into the consolidated account didn't he?