There is a fundamental distinction between a specific gift outright to a beneficiary in a Will and one left on trust to him. Either may be absolute contingent or deferred. If the first type of gift not only creates no express trust it does not even justify the implication of a trust (except of the legal estate in land given to a minor, see below).
s31 TA 1925 applies “Where any property is held by trustees in trust for any person for any interest whatsoever, whether vested or contingent”. It does not create a trust; it is a pre-condition of its application that a trust exists, though it may surely be express or implied. It then proceeds to set out the terms to be implied by statute into that trust unless disapplied: s69(2). My earlier answer was (uncharacteristically!) too brief and so confusing: s31 imposes statutory terms on an existing trust, it does not create one. So for TRS the issue is not whether s31 applies but whether a trust to which it applies or not is express.
A minor can own any kind of property except a legal estate in land: s1(6) LPA 1925. s19 formerly then went on broadly to create a statutory trust for sale of the property but was repealed by ToLaATA 1996 Sch4 so that under its s1 the implied bare trust of the legal estate is now a trust of land. So an outright gift of a freehold to a minor in a will, if it creates a trust at all of the legal title, creates an implied trust so not registrable under TRS as non-taxable and without having to resort to the exclusion for trusts imposed by legislation. Fortunate because although the 1996 Act governs trusts for land it arguably does not impose one (see ss4 and 5).
So, to use shares as an example, a gift of all my shares in X Ltd to Y aged 10 need not be on trust. The Articles of X Ltd may prevent Y being registered until 18 though the PRs may be and sometimes a parent. It is unlikely that any such alternative arrangement would be construed as creating a trust given s126 CA 2006. If a bare trust of the legal title is to be implied it will be non-registrable under TRS whether taxable or non-taxable.
If the gift is not on trust then s31 cannot apply to it. For the avoidance of doubt it can be excluded. It can also be excluded where it would certainly otherwise apply e.g. the gift is to Y for a life interest subject to defeasance by a power of appointment of which he is an object (to avoid his being absolutely entitled to capital at 18). This difference is vital for income tax. Provided s31 does not apply Y is taxed on the income from the shares as it arises using his personal allowance and own rate bands. The trustees do not have to distribute the income to achieve that. If it applies the trust rate is charged and income has to be distributed to him to achieve that same goal.
So to answer your question, the first two gifts of £2000 are not given on express trusts. In my view nor can any trust be implied. Strictly s31 has no application but could be excluded to avoid doubt. I am not sure whether the second gift is contingent or deferred but it does not matter. No trust arises, certainly no express trust. The third gift creates an express trust, so it is registrable. s31 applying makes no difference to TRS although if it attracts interest it will affect the income tax treatment of that.
HMRC can of course argue what they like but they have to accept the general law. A trust is either express or not. There is no such thing as an implied or constructive express trust or a trust that is to be treated for TRS or any other purpose as express because the donor could have used an express trust but didn’t or because HMRC would have preferred that. Where a trust is implied, whether s31 applies or is disapplied, the trust is not registrable under TRS as non-taxable. It is not even registrable as a taxable trust because despite being taxable in terms of Reg 45(14) it is not “relevant” : Regs 42(2)(b) and 45(1). The trustees may have other tax notification obligations e.g. s7 TMA 1970.
I think it unlikely that anyone will succeed in arguing, where an express trust has been used (e.g. following a precedent), that it is superfluous and so is non-registrable. I am not sure whether avoiding TRS in any given situation will ever be paramount or significant but your examples indicate that using the words “upon Trust” requires registration whereas if omitted they do not, and regardless of whether any trust is then to be implied or not it would not be registrable, and grandson cannot get his hands on the money until 18 whether the gift is contingent or deferred. In view of the size of the sum TRS might seem a cost or hassle worth avoiding if the choice is open.
Jack Harper