I am possibly missing the point here, but I’m struggling with scope of data collection. Links added because then there’s no searching or follow up “to clarify” points.
The question is about how much data absolutely has to be identified and what’s a pragmatic response.
Background - Lifetime Trust.
Non taxable, registered with a URN
Settlors (and trustees) are Mr A and Mrs B
They have their children Mr C and Ms D as trustees
Their discretionary beneficiaries are the settlors and their issue.
The trust and indeed their LOW establishes that it was set up to hold their house, ultimately to look after each other and then their children. But that if a child deceased then their share to their children at the discretion of the trustees. Pretty normal standard basic.
Trustees have to compile a register of all beneficial owners.
For Mr A, Mrs B and because they are issue, Mr C and Ms D I have: full name, DOB, address, NI for trustees (and settlors)
Mr C had children early and has 6, 3 of which now have 4 children each and some of whom he has lost touch with. Ms D has 2 children, estranged from one.
I have registered them all on the TRS names and dates of birth (along with country of nationality and country of residence) for all the grandchildren and great grandchildren. I have a document/register for the trustees with as much of this information on as could be collected.
What’s the pragmatic view on having full address and NI for all the grandchildren and great grandchildren? The trustees have named/identified them… Best endeavours or keep on terrorising the family until all is found?
As presumably none of the generation below Mr C & Ms D have yet received any benefit, I would, in addition to the two settlors, when adding another beneficiary tick the “class of beneficiary” option and describe it as “issue of the settlors” with discretionary entitlement.
I have found that it does accept not known under dates of birth, NINOs address etc. for beneficiaries (it has to allow for minors or non-UK resident etc.) Also if their entitlement is only at the trustees discretion, surely they are not really beneficial owners.
I would also likely take the class approach in this instance. Both the law and guidance are clear as mud on the distinction, particularly TRS32050, where I believe the section on the distinction between an individual and a class was amended a few times while HMRC made up their own minds. The resulting guidance is confusing and they don’t even attempt to justify it by reference to the Regulations.
I think you can fairly equate this to the example of “descendants of Mr Silva” on that page of the guidance, particularly as you truly do not have all the details of later generations.
Any family members directly named in the LoW should probably be separately identified i.e. if it says “my children Alex and Bonnie”.
HMRC updated the guidance on when beneficiaries should be included on the register as individuals in August 2023. TRSM32050 as referred to.
In that section it mentions classes being used but says a beneficiary should only be included in a class if they cannot all reasonably be identified individually by the trustees.
It goes on to say that if the beneficiaries are a distinct group such as the grandchildren of X it is reasonable to expect the trustees to know who they are.
The pragmatic approach may be to not identify the grandchildren in this instance as they do not currently benefit but in webinars after the amendments the views of the lecturer was that all people who do or may possibly at some point in the future should be added even to the extent that if the LOW named a person who they would like to be added as a beneficiary (so not even a beneficiary at this time) they would need to be added because they could be a beneficiary in the future!