Why don't big firms sell HDTs?

Hi GP

Yes, it is entirely possible that the market value of the SIU's is exactly the same as was paid for them. Thus, the CG made on the redemption of the SIU's may well be NIL.

It will depend upon:

your trust deed
your accountant's understanding
the tax law at the time of the redemption

Have fun

Dale

Hi Dale,

Thanks for that.


I don't know how the proper market value would be calculated either, but in the case of where the income units are used to purchase a single IP, I would assume that they would at least have to be worth the current market value of the IP.

In which case redeeming them before selling would give no benefit at all in relation to the CG issue.


Well... beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say :D. While it might provide opportunities, it also makes effective planning difficult.

Cheers,
GP
 
It will depend upon:

your trust deed
your accountant's understanding
the tax law at the time of the redemption

Have fun

Dale

I endorse what Dale said above. The only thing I'd add is that sometimes to units have terms of issue which will spell things out some more.

With proper forward planning presumably one may choose to redeem the income units well before any trust asset (which provides the income to which those units have rights) is disposed of.

With respect to redemption price, well...valuation is, within certain bounds, a subjective thing. Differing valuations and value ranges are entirely defensible...read any independent expert's report from a target's statement in a takeover...

Cheers
N
 
Thanks, guys.

My SIUs state that the unitholder is entitled to the value of the units at redemption, provided it is not less than what was paid, but doesn't say anything about how that value should be determined (from memory, I think the trust deed says it's up to the trustees' absolute discretion).

My accountant's understanding I am currently querying, and from previous comments in this & other threads, it would seem that the tax law is somewhat vague on the issue.

And while a range of values may be defensible, personally I'd prefer not to be put in a position where I have to defend any :D

Cheers,
GP
 
Trying to understand...

Hi,

Thanks to the accountants and others for their replies thus far.

It's so good to see the different interpretations of the use of the HDT, by different accountants. It certainly helps me make more informed choices regarding my investing.

As a conservative investor with a conservative risk/investing profile it makes more sense for me to adopt a conservative, rather than aggressive interpretation of the HDT for my investing - and these differing interpretations are only becoming clear to me know, thanks to the posts on this thread.

Although I have been trying to convince myself otherwise, I find myself leaning towards the interpretation that Mry seems to suggest.

I'm finding it hard to convince myself that attributing income (including capital gains) to anyone other than the special income unitholder makes any sense. Even with some apportioning, it doesn't really seem logical to me.

To Dale, and those who feel that income can be apportioned as Alex had earlier described:

(1) If income is apportioned, then do you also believe that the interest expense must also be apportioned?

(2) If so, what is the point of decreasing the income to the SIU person and at the same time decreasing their tax deductible interest expense - isn't the net effect nil?

(3) If you don't redeem units prior to selling, or you don't sell the IP at all, but, instead, get the property in question re-valued by the bank - either a conservative bank valuation or a valuation at 'fair and open market value - can you then use this new valuation (new present 'market value' figure) to apportion income (not capital gains since there has not been a CGT event, and also note that no redeeming is occurring)? So you could in theory do this after holding the property for a few years or less, if property values have increased, and supported by a valuation?

(4) In the future when rent is greater than interest, as rents rise, so a positive gearing situation for the SIU person, do you still have to apportion in this way? Or, can you know distribute all the income to other beneficiaries? So the HDT becomes a DT. If so, the SIU person may not be getting any income, so does that mean none of their interest expense is tax deductible? At this point should you be redeeming units, as there is no longer a negative gearing situation for the SIU person? - so the loan could be effectively transferred to the Trust and all the interest expense then becomes tax deductible?

To Mry:

(1) Again, if all the income (including capital gains) must be attributed to the SIU person, what happens when rent is greater than the interest expense, so a positive gearing situation in the future, as rents rise, for the SIU person? Does all the income still have to go to the SIU person? So, no income splitting is possible at all even now? I thought the point of the HDT was that it later can act as a DT and income split? Is this still the case in your opinion, or not? Or, is this the point where you should be redeeming units?

If there is no income splitting at all, then the reasons to negative gear with a HDT I guess would be:

- slightly more tax deductions
- asset protection
- refinancing principle (I'm not sure if there is positive consensus re. this?)
- 'flexibility'

The questions brought up by the HDT, reminds me of the 'PIT' - which I think seemed to suggest that you could distribute all income to other beneficiaries from day 1, with no apportioning - which seems overly aggressive to me.

Regarding redeeming units prior to selling the property. This seems to make sense, as long as you can justify the market value of the units and hopefully minimise it (but at least cost value).

Again, would be interested to see other accountants' interpretations of the use of the HDT. I'm sure you guys have discussed this amongst yourselves, but it would be good to hear what these views are on the forum, especially if they are very different to each other, so non-accountants like myself can make up their minds about where they stand!

Thanks for the clarification.

I feel much better getting these thoughts out of my head and into a post!

GSJ
 
Last edited:
GSJ said:
what happens when rent is greater than the interest expense, so a positive gearing situation in the future, as rents rise, for the SIU person? Does all the income still have to go to the SIU person?
My suggestion would be that once it's cashflow positive, the trust would redeem all the units by borrowing itself, thus creating the loan in the trust with no SIUs on issue. Then the surplus cash could be distributed discretionally.

However, if you apportion income based on the price paid for the units as a percentage of current value of the assets then the unitholder will never become cashflow positive, assuming he wasn't to start with and yields don't increase significantly. That's because the unitholder's income stream is tied to the percentage yield, not the absolute value of rents or asset values.

GP
 
GreatPig; said:
However, if you apportion income based on the price paid for the units as a percentage of current value of the assets then the unitholder will never become cashflow positive, assuming he wasn't to start with and yields don't increase significantly. That's because the unitholder's income stream is tied to the percentage yield, not the absolute value of rents or asset values.
GP

So they may never become CF+ve...? - but I guess you could also redeem units at any time. Would it be more advantageous to not be CF+ve for longer though? If you are income splitting maybe, but aren't you also reducing tax-deductible interest expense by doing this? So this apportioning doesn't quite make sense to me?

GSJ
 
A more aggressive interpretation of the law would allow you to split taxable income (I would include CG) using the cost of asset / market value of asset calculation, and still deduct interest 100%. i.e. the more aggressive interpretation would be that you can income split without apportioning interest as well.
Alex
 
'Tax loopholes'

A more aggressive interpretation of the law would allow you to split taxable income (I would include CG) using the cost of asset / market value of asset calculation, and still deduct interest 100%. i.e. the more aggressive interpretation would be that you can income split without apportioning interest as well.
Alex

Yes, sounds aggressive to me, and I would be interested in Dale's view on this.

Also, what happens if you adopted an aggressive interpretation on the use of the HDT, then a few years down the track the ATO is more clear about its stance, say after a court case, and says this aggressive interpretation is not acceptable - will they make their stance retrospective, so you may have to pay back taxes that would have been paid had you adopted a more conservative approach?

But how would they know this unless they specifically audited you?

So, regardless of whether they make it retrospective or not, if they don't audit you, would you be safe to just adopt the conservative interpretation from then on?!

What usually happens to a 'tax loophole' when it is cut - ie. what happens to the people who were using that loophole?!

GSJ
 
To Mry:

(1) Again, if all the income (including capital gains) must be attributed to the SIU person, what happens when rent is greater than the interest expense, so a positive gearing situation in the future, as rents rise, for the SIU person? Does all the income still have to go to the SIU person? So, no income splitting is possible at all even now? I thought the point of the HDT was that it later can act as a DT and income split? Is this still the case in your opinion, or not? Or, is this the point where you should be redeeming units?

When the distribution from the HDT is greater than the interest incurred by the individual, I would refinance the loan by effectively changing the name of the borrower from the individual to the trust. At the same time, I would redeem the units for the same price as they were purchased ($1 per unit), treat the loan as a partial payout of the units and put the rest of the redemption towards a loan to that special income unit holder as a beneficiary loan. This allows the trust to gain back its discretionary powers to distribute growing positive gains to others.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Mry,

I think I get the gist of what you're saying - so eventually the HDT can later become a DT, so that's good.

GSJ
 
HI

Our office policy is a reasonably conservative one..... if there are units on issue then the trust income (including any CG) MUST be distributed to the unit holders.

I am sorry if I have given you the impression that this is not the case.

Dale

Hi,

Thanks to the accountants and others for their replies thus far.

It's so good to see the different interpretations of the use of the HDT, by different accountants. It certainly helps me make more informed choices regarding my investing.

As a conservative investor with a conservative risk/investing profile it makes more sense for me to adopt a conservative, rather than aggressive interpretation of the HDT for my investing - and these differing interpretations are only becoming clear to me know, thanks to the posts on this thread.

Although I have been trying to convince myself otherwise, I find myself leaning towards the interpretation that Mry seems to suggest.

I'm finding it hard to convince myself that attributing income (including capital gains) to anyone other than the special income unitholder makes any sense. Even with some apportioning, it doesn't really seem logical to me.

To Dale, and those who feel that income can be apportioned as Alex had earlier described:

(1) If income is apportioned, then do you also believe that the interest expense must also be apportioned?

(2) If so, what is the point of decreasing the income to the SIU person and at the same time decreasing their tax deductible interest expense - isn't the net effect nil?

(3) If you don't redeem units prior to selling, or you don't sell the IP at all, but, instead, get the property in question re-valued by the bank - either a conservative bank valuation or a valuation at 'fair and open market value - can you then use this new valuation (new present 'market value' figure) to apportion income (not capital gains since there has not been a CGT event, and also note that no redeeming is occurring)? So you could in theory do this after holding the property for a few years or less, if property values have increased, and supported by a valuation?

(4) In the future when rent is greater than interest, as rents rise, so a positive gearing situation for the SIU person, do you still have to apportion in this way? Or, can you know distribute all the income to other beneficiaries? So the HDT becomes a DT. If so, the SIU person may not be getting any income, so does that mean none of their interest expense is tax deductible? At this point should you be redeeming units, as there is no longer a negative gearing situation for the SIU person? - so the loan could be effectively transferred to the Trust and all the interest expense then becomes tax deductible?

To Mry:

(1) Again, if all the income (including capital gains) must be attributed to the SIU person, what happens when rent is greater than the interest expense, so a positive gearing situation in the future, as rents rise, for the SIU person? Does all the income still have to go to the SIU person? So, no income splitting is possible at all even now? I thought the point of the HDT was that it later can act as a DT and income split? Is this still the case in your opinion, or not? Or, is this the point where you should be redeeming units?

If there is no income splitting at all, then the reasons to negative gear with a HDT I guess would be:

- slightly more tax deductions
- asset protection
- refinancing principle (I'm not sure if there is positive consensus re. this?)
- 'flexibility'

The questions brought up by the HDT, reminds me of the 'PIT' - which I think seemed to suggest that you could distribute all income to other beneficiaries from day 1, with no apportioning - which seems overly aggressive to me.

Regarding redeeming units prior to selling the property. This seems to make sense, as long as you can justify the market value of the units and hopefully minimise it (but at least cost value).

Again, would be interested to see other accountants' interpretations of the use of the HDT. I'm sure you guys have discussed this amongst yourselves, but it would be good to hear what these views are on the forum, especially if they are very different to each other, so non-accountants like myself can make up their minds about where they stand!

Thanks for the clarification.

I feel much better getting these thoughts out of my head and into a post!

GSJ
 
Trying to understand...

Our office policy is a reasonably conservative one..... if there are units on issue then the trust income (including any CG) MUST be distributed to the unit holders.

I am sorry if I have given you the impression that this is not the case.

Dale
That's fine Dale. I am just trying to understand the rationale behind apportioning income, which is what I thought you believed is OK from your response to Alex's posts? So some of the income, but not necessarily all of the income is distributed to unitholders?

Maybe I misunderstood and got this wrong, or my questions don't make any sense??? I thought my arguments and questions were pretty logical?

Anyone else have any thoughts?

GSJ
 
Last edited:
Dale, I suppose it can be clarified by:

Trust has $200k in units outstanding. Market value of the asset is $400k. Net rent = $20k.

Would the SIU holder get $20k regardless, or would he get $10k and the other $10k will be distributed at the trustee's discretion? i.e. does the % of income the SIU holder is entitled to change with market value?
Alex
 
Just another thought re. the 'PIT' - if with this C&N believed you could distribute all income to other beneficiaries from day 1, with no attribution/apportioning of income to the unitholder at all, and, still claim the full interest expense as tax deductible to the unitholder - that would seem really aggressive. But, I'm just speculating here as I don't know too much about the PIT, so take this comment with a grain of salt.

GSJ
 
Hi

Let's say that a HDT has two classes of income:

  • rent from an IP that was financed by issuing SIU's; and
  • managed fund income with no SIU's issued

the net rent must be distributed to the SIU holder
the net managed fund income can be distributed at the discretion of the trustee

However, each time we add a variable such as different classes of income; differing assets and differing valuations and differing trust deeds we MAY well get differing answers. It may not be possible to provide a one size fits all answer......

Have fun

Dale

That's fine Dale. I am just trying to understand the rationale behind apportioning income, which is what I thought you believed is OK from your response to Alex's posts? So some of the income, but not necessarily all of the income is distributed to unitholders?

Maybe I misunderstood and got this wrong, or my questions don't make any sense??? I thought my arguments and questions were pretty logical?

Anyone else have any thoughts?

GSJ
 
Hi

I believe that the discretion to distribute income to beneficiaries other than the unit holders will create a legal problem with the "entitlement" to income and this is usually enough to deny tax deductions for the interest incurred by an individual.

Be careful with this structure.

Dale

Just another thought re. the 'PIT' - if with this C&N believed you could distribute all income to other beneficiaries from day 1, with no attribution/apportioning of income to the unitholder at all, and, still claim the full interest expense as tax deductible to the unitholder - that would seem really aggressive. But, I'm just speculating here as I don't know too much about the PIT, so take this comment with a grain of salt.

GSJ
 
alexlee said:
A more aggressive interpretation of the law would allow you to split taxable income (I would include CG) using the cost of asset / market value of asset calculation, and still deduct interest 100%
I'll have to read my trust deed again to see if that's what it really means by attributable income.

I can see a potential problem with that, in that the unitholder's ROI would then match the percentage yield relative to market value of the asset. As this has some long-term average that is normally lower than the loan interest rate, then the unitholder would be investing in a permanent loss situation (at least until the asset was sold), similar to borrowing at one rate to invest in a fixed-interest security at a lower rate. I can't imagine the ATO being happy with that situation.

GP
 
Dale, I suppose it can be clarified by:

Trust has $200k in units outstanding. Market value of the asset is $400k. Net rent = $20k.

Would the SIU holder get $20k regardless, or would he get $10k and the other $10k will be distributed at the trustee's discretion? i.e. does the % of income the SIU holder is entitled to change with market value?
Alex

i suspect this would be pushing it - given as discussed earlier by Dale, capital gains are still 'income' to the unit holder if they are realised. In your example you are saying you are distributing income from an unrealised capital gain (on an asset purchased through a unit holders contribution) to someone other than the unit holder. i dont think that makes a lot of sense ... surely the unit holder is entitled to any increase in rent due to increases in the market value of their contribution?

although you could possibly justify it somehow .... we are in a land of self assessment .... just be prepared for it to be denied in future i suppose!
 
Hi

As a way of demonstrating how the ATO appears to think about the HDT and the issue of income/capital, here is a copy of a Private Binding Ruling that makes very interesting reading.....

66298


Edited version of private ruling

Authorisation Number 66298

This ruling is a private ruling for the purposes of Division 359 of Schedule 1 of the

Taxation Administration Act 1953.

What this ruling is about:

1. Can you claim a full deduction for interest payable on your bank loan under section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) for the acquisition of income units in a hybrid trust?

2. Can you claim a full deduction for annual interest payable on your bank loan under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 in relation to the acquisition of income units in a hybrid trust in the event of an estimated negative annual return?

Ruling:

1. Can you claim a full deduction for interest payable on your bank loan under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 for the acquisition of income units in a hybrid trust?

No.

2. Can you claim a full deduction for annual interest payable on your bank loan under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 in relation to the acquisition of income units in a hybrid trust in the event of an estimated negative annual return?

No. You can only claim a deduction equivalent to the amount of assessable income distributions received.

The scheme that is the subject of the ruling:

The settlor has established a hybrid trust.

The corporate trustee has the power at any time to create capital or income units in the trust.

If units have not been issued, the trustee has the discretion to distribute income and capital to discretionary beneficiaries of the trust.

The trustee has created income units in the trust.

You will borrow funds from a bank and use those borrowings to subscribe to units in the trust.

The trust will use the subscribed capital to purchase a rental property.

Under the terms of subscription for the Income Units to you:

the trust will provide the rental property as security for your borrowings;

you as the only unit holder are entitled to all of the income of the trust; and

the trustee of the trust cannot issue further units of any kind without the express written permission of the unit holders.

The rental property will be a residential property.

An arms length rental agreement will be entered into between the trust and the tenant via a letting agent.

There will be no relationship between the trustee and the tenant or yourself and the tenant.

It is expected that the property will rent for $1,200 per week.

Once the Units are issued, the trustee, in accordance with the terms of the trust, will distribute all the income of the trust to the unit holders each income year.

The property will not be your main residence.

There will be no brokerage or stamp duty costs associated with the buying and selling of the Income Units of the trust.

The estimated interest expense on the borrowings is to be about $180,000 per annum and the estimated income payable to the unit holder is to be about $60,000 per annum.

It is expected that the income paid to the unit holder will increase each financial year relative to the increase in value of the property.

Relevant provisions:

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 8-1.

Explanation: (This does not form part of the notice of private ruling)

Taxation Ruling No. IT 2385 is about expenses incurred by beneficiaries of discretionary trusts. IT 2385 states the Commissioner does not allow deductions to beneficiaries of trusts in relation to trust income unless it is established the beneficiaries were presently entitled to the trust income when the expenditure was incurred. This view is consistent with the decision handed down by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT reference QT 85/1311; 87 ATC 318) where it was stated:

For the expenditure to be deemed to be an allowable deduction, it must be demonstrated that a claimant is presently entitled to a share of the trust income of the trust estate.

The trust deed provides that a unit holder in the trust has a present or fixed entitlement to the trust income. Clauses 5 and 9 of the trust deed state:
Subject to clause 9, the Trustee may at any time before the end of each financial year and from time to time up to and including the vesting day: (a) pay, transfer or set aside all or part of the income to or for any or all of the beneficiaries;

…the Trustee cannot vary or alter the rights and restrictions attaching to an Income Unit after it has been issued.

If there are Income Units existing, the Trustee must pay all of the Income to Income Unitholders divided equally between each Income Unit and in accordance with their respective unitholding.

If there are Income Units existing, the Trustee cannot exercise the discretion in clause 6 of this Deed with respect to the Income.

If there are Income Units existing, the Trustee cannot issue any Units which purport to deal with the Income other than further Income Units.

If there are Income Units existing, the Trustee cannot issue further Income Units without the written consent of all Income Unitholders.

Therefore the Commissioner is satisfied your trust has the characteristics of a hybrid trust, in that income distributions are fixed whereas capital distributions are discretionary. Therefore the interest payable on your bank loan for the acquisition of income units in the trust may be allowable as a deduction under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997, subject to Taxation Ruling IT 2684.

Taxation Ruling IT 2684 is about the deductibility of interest on money borrowed to acquire units in a property unit trust. IT 2684 discusses the deductibility of interest on money borrowed to acquire units in a property unit in respect to four situations:

split property unit trusts.

growth units with negligible income.

where apportionment of interest expenses is necessary.

other property unit trusts.

Your circumstances require consideration of whether ‘apportionment of interest expenses is necessary’. This is because the units you intend to purchase in the trust do not have a fixed entitlement to capital and therefore do not have the features of ‘split property units’, ‘growth units’ or ‘other property units’ as described in IT 2684.

In respect to the situation of ‘where apportionment of interest expenses is necessary’ paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of IT 2684 provide the following guidance:

An interest expense is not fully deductible in those cases where the expected return from the units, both income and capital growth, does not provide an obvious commercial explanation for incurring the interest. This may arise in situations where the total amount of income and capital growth which can reasonably be expected from the units is less than the total interest expense, especially if the amount of assessable income expected is disproportionately less than the amount of the interest expense.

In the type of situation referred to in paragraph 9, it is necessary to carefully examine all of the circumstances of the case, including the direct and indirect objects and advantages sought by the unitholder in acquiring the units and in making the interest outgoing. The indirect objects may include private or domestic purposes (e.g. Ure v. FC of T 81 ATC 4100; (1981) 11 ATR 484), or the manufacturing of a taxation deduction (e.g. FC of T v. Ilbery 81 ATC 4661; (1981) 11 ATR 827). If it can be concluded that the interest expense is incurred for dual or multiple purposes, including private or domestic purposes, it is necessary to apportion the expense.

In determining whether an interest expense has the character of an outgoing incurred in gaining or producing assessable income, the motive of the taxpayer (or the end which the taxpayer subjectively had in view) in incurring it may be a relevant factor ( Fletcher & Ors v. FC of T 91 ATC 4538 at 4957; (1991) 22 ATR 613 at 622). In a case where the taxpayer's motive or purpose is relevant, it will be necessary to look at the motive or purpose at the time the interest outgoing was incurred ( FC of T v. Total Holdings (Australia) Pty. Ltd. 79 ATC 4279 per Lockhart J. at 4283; (1979) 9 ATR 885 at 891).

In applying paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of IT 2684 to your circumstances, it is necessary to apportion the interest expense for the following reasons:

as the capital return under the trust remains discretionary, the expected capital return from the units cannot be quantified. Therefore the anticipated income return in itself does not provide an obvious commercial explanation for incurring the interest. Your private ruling applications states the estimated income return to you as a unit holder will be around 2% per annum.

as you have advised, there is a private purpose or motive for establishing a hybrid trust and purchasing units in this trust, where the capital return is discretionary. Your purpose is to obtain the private advantage of asset protection given because due to your occupation you have a high exposure to legal action against you. Therefore, the nature of your interest outgoing will not have the character of an outgoing fully incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income.

We note section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 states you can deduct from your assessable income any loss or outgoing to the extent that it is incurred in gaining or producing your assessable income however you cannot deduct a loss or outgoing to the extent that it is a loss or outgoing of a capital nature or it is a loss or outgoing of a private or domestic nature.

In conclusion, apportionment of the interest expenses is necessary in respect to your purchase of units in the trust because the nature of your interest payments do not have the character of an outgoing fully incurred in producing assessable income or of an outgoing fully incurred in a transaction with an obvious commercial explanation. This is because your motives for purchasing units in a trust where the capital return is discretionary include the private purpose of asset protection. Being so, your interest expense is only deductible up to the extent of the assessable income actually received. This is consistent with the decision in Ure v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 81 ATC 4100; 11 ATR 484.

DISCLAIMER

The Register of private binding rulings is a historical public record of written binding advice the Tax Office has issued to specific entities.

Each record is based on the facts of a specific situation as advised to the Tax Office and reflects our view of the law in force at the time the advice was issued.

Before we place a record on the Register, we edit it to protect the applicant’s privacy, so this record may not disclose all the relevant facts or circumstances on which our advice was based.

The Register is not updated to reflect changes in the law or the Tax Office’s views, withdrawal of the advice, or any other change in circumstances.

Given the above, this record is not a publication approved in writing by the Commissioner. It is not intended to provide advice, nor does it set out the Tax Office’s general administrative practice. Therefore this record is non-binding and provides no protection (including from any penalty or interest).

The Commissioner is required to apply the law in the way set out in the ruling only in respect of the entity/ies on whose behalf the ruling was sought.

Edited versions of written binding advice as published on the Register of private binding rulings cannot be relied upon as precedent by any other entity.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright
© Commonwealth of Australia 2004

This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved.

Requests for further authorisation should be directed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Intellectual Property Branch, Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, GPO Box 2154, Canberra ACT 2601 or posted at http://www.dcita.gov.au/cca.
 
I’m not a fan of fixed unit trusts. A facet that I don’t like is the potential problem from the distribution of CG and the flow through of any applicable CGT discounts/concessions. Unit holders might be distributed CG income and not be entitled to the same CGT discounts as the trust. This leads to either a reduction in the cost base of their interest in the trust (potentially to zero and causing adverse effects when the units are sold or the trust wound up) and may even result in a capital gain.
 
Back
Top