For those still labouring under the impression that a usufruit can by some interpretative sleight of hand be considered a trust, please see the Recognition of Trusts Act 1987 which reads as follows:
“1. Applicable law and recognition of trusts.
-
The provisions of the Convention set out in the Schedule to this Act shall have the force of law in the United Kingdom.
-
Those provisions shall, so far as applicable, have effect not only in relation to the trusts described in Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention but also in relation to any other trusts of property arising under the law of any part of the United Kingdom or by virtue of a judicial decision whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”
See also (5)
That seems to take out rather effectively HMRC’s “view” as to any “outcome”, under s.43 (2) ITA certainly in relation to the Jersey Usufruct to which Sarah Godfrey alluded. The outcome is simply not a settlement as there is no trust. They do flourish in Jersey as a property right, as they do in France and elsewhere, but not as a Roman Law easement or servitude to which they may owe some past, but not present “genetic” coding.
Article 2 of Schedule 1 (the Hague Convention) reads:
“Article 2
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “trust” refers to the legal relationship created—inter vivos or on death—by a person, the settlor, when assets have been placed under the control of a trustee for the benefit of a beneficiary or for a specified purpose.
A trust has the following characteristics—
-
the assets constitute a separate fund and are not a part of the trustee’s own estate;
-
title to the trust assets stands in the name of the trustee or in the name of another person on behalf of the trustee;
-
the trustee has the power and the duty, in respect of which he is accountable, to manage, employ or dispose of the assets in accordance with the terms of the trust and the special duties imposed upon him by law.
The reservation by the settlor of certain rights and powers, and the fact that the trustee may himself have rights as a beneficiary, are not necessarily inconsistent with the existence of a trust.”
When categorising a usufructuary dismemberment, which one has to do under s.43(2) ITA before making the error of straddling the splintering fictional broomstick proffered by HMRC’s Manual, there is very little more to be said. It simply is not a trust and cannot be treated as such under “the law of any part of the United Kingdom” to which the section refers. The law of any part of the United Kingdom is defined by the Recognition of Trusts Act 1987 which incorporates the Convention into exactly the area of law referred to in s.43(2) ITA 1984.
As was also clarified in Barclays Wealth, in addition to a foreign trust disposition being required for the first limb of the second paragraph to s.43(2) ITA 1984 to operate given a), b) and c), Jersey is not part of the United Kingdom. If Jersey or Guernsey were to be dragged into that fold by unconstitutional force a similar provision to s.43(4) ITA would need to be inserted to render a Chanel Island usufruct a settlement by treating the instrument or conveyance creating the disposition as a “settlement” for the purposes of the Act.
Peter Harris
www.overseaschambers.com (Jersey)