Property InvestmentTrust clain of no vesting date

Hi

Reading Ed Chan's newsletter it is stated that his Property Investment Trust now legally has no vestment date. My understanding that a vesting date is required by the common law Rule Against Perpetuities, and further put into statute throughout Australia (see below). In Victoria the relevant legislation is The Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1968.

I have read elsewhere that the Property Investment Trust is some super secret document that clients and other accountants ane not allowed to see.

Has anyone got any insight as to whether these claims are fair dincum???

Graeme :)



The situation in other Australian jurisdictions

All Australian jurisdictions except for South Australia have retained the rule against perpetuities, as modified by the relevant state legislation. In Victoria, along with Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, individuals may select between the common law perpetuity period (‘a life in being plus 21 years’), or a statutory period defined by an upper limit of 80 years. In the ACT and NSW the common law perpetuity period has been abrogated entirely and replaced with a statutory period of 80 years.

Although South Australia has abolished the rule, section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1936 (SA) provides that 80 years after the date of a disposition, parties may apply to the court for orders to vary the disposition so that any remaining unvested interests will immediately vest. Alternatively, if it is clear that interests under a disposition cannot vest or are unlikely to vest within 80 years, section 62 allows the parties to apply to the court to vary the terms of a disposition to ensure that those interest will vest within 80 years. Section 62 of the South Australian Law of Property Act 1936 therefore serves a comparable function to the rule against perpetuities, and effects a similar final result, albeit through a different mechanism.
 
Last edited:
Because PITs are an exclusive product of Chan and Naylor, it would not be proper to offer comments in public about them as they may seen to be impuning upon their reputation. Besides this question is best put in the legal forum here.

As far as I know though, the rule against perpetuities is enshrined in most state's laws and also carries over into the trust deed itself. It also limits the abilities of trusts to distribute to other trusts that vest later than it does. There was a Queensland case that had some interesting repercussions on that point but I have forgotten the name at the moment. I would be interested in hearing their justifications for this approach because I can see the trust coming into conflict with state law based on my understanding.
 
Since I have a close working relationship with Chan & Naylor - many of our clients use them, I asked myself the same questions.

(I would like to make it clear that we work closely with a range of consultants in all fields - more than one mortgage broker, more than one solicitor, and more than one accounting firm - in fact many of our clients use Dale GG on our recommendation.)

Having now made that disclaimer....

I had the same questions about vesting so I asked.

I don't think it is correct to say the trust is a "super secret document" - I would assume it is in the possession of all the clients who paid for it.

As for the vesting date comments made so far in this post, I am not a legal person - but I believe they are accurate.

I also think I understand what was explained to me and it seems to me that despite the legal comments made in this post, there is a legal ??? way that the desired result has been accomplished and it is much, much simpler than many would imagine.

I obviously can't disclose it and I do not profess to have much knowledge in this field.

All I can say was the explanantion given to me seemed plausible, sensible and workable.
 
"Super secretive

Hi Michael

I knew I had read about the secretive nature of the PIT elsewhere. After scouring the forums I found where I read it. Following are to quotes from another Somersoft Forum that state the clients do not have access to their PIT deeds.

QUOTE=GSJ;189158]Thanks grossreal,

At the moment my impression of the big negatives of the product are:

1. They keep the trust deed!!!
2. For property only (could be a positive too).
3. Lack of ATO track record.


Thanks Housekeeper,

This is the first I've heard of it being effectively 2 trusts. That makes it sound even more like a unit trust with all the units owned by a hybrid trust and special income units then issued to the individual seeking the interest deductibility on the loan which has been taken out. So can someone from Chan & Naylor explain what is the difference between that structure and the Property Investors Trust.

What about standards disclaimers that most accountants make, or at least should be making, when advising on structural issues that independant legal advice should be sought before proceeding with any type of structure. Are they suggesting that an independent legal advisor is not allowed to see the deeds either ? What if someone wants to leave Chan & Naylor and go to another accountant, which a client has a right to under the by-laws of CPA Australia and the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Does this mean the new accountant isn't allowed to see the deed ? How can the accountant decide whether things are allowed or disallowed under the deed ? How can the accountant work with the legal advisor to interpret the deed and determine whether a particular course of action can be taken without having someone with a legal background read the document ? Sounds concerning to me.

With respect to the ability to transfer to a SMSF the unit trust/hybrid trust combination, which Chris Batten has had available on his website for ages, allow this as well.
 
Vesting date

The vesting date is the date by which the trust must be wound up and all it's assetts distributed to beneficiariies.

A company can last for ever, but eventually shareholder die etc. so assets (shares) pass from one owner to another and governments can get their share. However, if trusts could last for ever the assets could sit there and accumilate without ever changing hands. The law makers over the years have decided that they don't want that so they made it law that trusts had to be wound up eventually. The relevant common law is the "Rule Against Perpetuities"

I suppose one could easily put into the trust deed that another trust be started and everything goes into it, so the thing can roll on for another 80 years. However if one did that the titles for all the assets would change hand so it's a fair bet that the government of the day would be there with a tax bill huge enough to seriously undermine the asset base.

Ed Chan claims to have found a way around this, but apparently it is not easy to scrutinise his claims.

Graeme :)
 
We have been dealing with clients lately that have the PIT trust deed.

I can assure that the clients do have a copy of the deed -banks want to see the deed before they approve the loan.
 
that state the clients do not have access to their PIT deeds.

QUOTE=GSJ;189158]Thanks grossreal,

At the moment my impression of the big negatives of the product are:

1. They keep the trust deed!!!
2. For property only (could be a positive too).
3. Lack of ATO track record.

Um, DrGraeme, I stated 'they keep the trust deed', but didn't say their clients don't get a copy.

GSJ
 
Hi

We had a couple of people raise this with us lately and rather than us argue the rights and wrongs of C&N's claims, we directed those people to Alan Swan.

Swan is one of the most respected trust lawyers in the country and regularly holds seminars teaching both the accounting and legal profession about trusts.

His bio reads:

Allan Swan is a Principal of the firm Moores Legal, and of the training and advisor services firm Moores Training & Advisory Services. He holds degrees in law and economics and a diploma in financial services.

Allan’s background in taxation and trusts law gives him a practical perspective in the impact of those areas of law provision of legal and consulting services to lawyers, accountants and financial advisors. Allan’s experience is in advising and implementing all aspects of complex estate structuring, asset protection and business succession planning; as well as issues relating to the use of trusts, superannuation and other investment and business structures, ownership of life insurance and structuring of not for profit entities.

Allan is a regular speaker across Australia to professional audiences in these areas, as well as lecturing at the Securities and Leo Cussen Institutes on topics relating to these areas of practice. Examples of the extensive writing Allan does for professional journals can be found in the extensive range of information available at www.MooresTraining.com.au

Allan may be contacted at [email protected]


The clients have come back to me and elected not to follow the advice given by C&N.

Dale






The vesting date is the date by which the trust must be wound up and all it's assetts distributed to beneficiariies.

A company can last for ever, but eventually shareholder die etc. so assets (shares) pass from one owner to another and governments can get their share. However, if trusts could last for ever the assets could sit there and accumilate without ever changing hands. The law makers over the years have decided that they don't want that so they made it law that trusts had to be wound up eventually. The relevant common law is the "Rule Against Perpetuities"

I suppose one could easily put into the trust deed that another trust be started and everything goes into it, so the thing can roll on for another 80 years. However if one did that the titles for all the assets would change hand so it's a fair bet that the government of the day would be there with a tax bill huge enough to seriously undermine the asset base.

Ed Chan claims to have found a way around this, but apparently it is not easy to scrutinise his claims.

Graeme :)
 
Back
Top