Reserved Powers, a Protector's Consent and a Loan to a Beneficiary-Connected Company
In March 2019, Aisha settled £2.4 million on an English-law discretionary trust for her adult daughter, Nadia, Nadia's two minor children and remoter issue. Aisha reserved the right to appoint and remove trustees and to veto distributions; her accountant, Peter, is protector with power to consent to investment changes. Nadia is one of three trustees. The trust holds a let portfolio and £600,000 cash. Nadia's catering company, in which she holds 60%, needs £300,000 working capital. She proposes that the trustees lend trust cash to the company at 3% interest, secured by a second charge over her home, which is already charged to the bank. The independent trustee supports the loan; the third trustee is Nadia's husband. Peter is minded to consent. The settlor is 82 and has capacity but has said she wants to help Nadia. The trust deed is silent on loans to beneficiaries.
1. Identify the fiduciary and validity issues raised by Aisha's reserved powers and Peter's protector role, and explain how the trustees should approach the proposed loan.
Read the worked answer
The reserved powers do not by themselves invalidate the trust: English law allows a settlor to reserve powers, but they may colour the trustees' independence and require them to satisfy themselves that they are exercising an independent fiduciary discretion. Aisha's veto means the trustees cannot distribute without her consent, but her wishes are not a direction and cannot override their duty to the beneficiaries as a class. Peter's protector consent is a fiduciary power: he must consider the interests of all beneficiaries, not simply the settlor's family preference, and he should not consent merely because Aisha wants to help Nadia.
The loan is the central problem. The deed is silent on loans to beneficiaries, so the trustees must identify a source of power. The Trustee Act 2000 investment power can cover a commercial loan, but a loan to a trustee-controlled company at 3%, secured by a second charge over an already charged home, looks like a benefit rather than a prudent investment. The self-dealing rule is engaged because Nadia and her husband are trustees and the borrower is Nadia's company. The transaction is vulnerable unless authorised by the deed, approved by the court, or structured so that no trustee has a conflict. The trustees must also consider the minor and remoter beneficiaries, who bear the downside risk.
2. Explain the conflicts of interest and the decision-making process the trustees should follow, including any need for independent advice or court approval.
Read the worked answer
Disclosure and abstention are the minimum. Nadia and her husband must not vote or count towards quorum on the loan; their conflict is direct and continuing. The independent trustee should not rely on Peter's consent as a substitute for independent judgement. Peter himself has a conflict because he is the settlor's accountant and protector; he should take independent advice and minute his reasons. The trustees should obtain a written valuation of the company, cash-flow forecasts, a commercial lending opinion and independent legal advice on the self-dealing issue.
They should ask whether a bank would lend £300,000 at 3% on a second charge; if not, the terms are not commercial. They should consider taking a first charge, personal guarantee, share pledge, or a smaller loan, and whether the trust can afford to lose the money. Because minors are beneficiaries, a compromise or distribution to them may need court approval. If the conflicts cannot be managed, the trustees should apply to court for directions or appoint an independent trustee. A minute recording the alternatives, the beneficiaries' interests and the reasons is essential. A decision taken by the conflicted majority would be liable to be set aside.
3. Analyse the tax consequences of a loan versus an outright appointment, including the IHT relevant property regime and income tax.
Read the worked answer
A loan is not an outright appointment, so it does not immediately trigger an exit charge. But a soft loan can still be a transfer of value for IHT if it reduces the value of the relevant property, and a write-off would be a chargeable distribution. The loan is an asset of the trust; if it is not commercial or recoverable, the trustees should consider whether it is being used to benefit Nadia at the expense of the other beneficiaries. Interest received is trust income taxable at the trust rate; if the loan is interest-free, there is no income, but the benefit to Nadia may be challenged as a breach.
An outright appointment of £300,000 would be a capital distribution, potentially subject to an exit charge based on the relevant property value and the trust's rate. Nadia would receive capital; if the trust has accumulated income, an appointment of income could carry an income tax charge. The trustees should compare the IHT cost of an appointment with the risk of an unrecoverable loan, and consider a commercial loan at market interest with proper security. They also need to consider whether Aisha's reserved powers create a settlement for tax purposes; they do not normally, but the pattern of control may attract scrutiny.