Category: inBriefs

For those with sufficient assets, tax-driven relocations and changes in residency have become commonplace.  They began to occur in earnest in the 1990s and have increased in popularity ever since.  In the past 1-2 years in particular, the popularity of residency changes for tax reasons has seen a marked rise.  This has been driven by several factors, which include:  the steady reduction in other viable international tax planning strategies as the OECD continues to press aggressive reform, more mobile lifestyles brought about by COVID-19, and the expectation of an increased tax burden especially for the wealthy (also brought about by COVID-19, at least in part).  In short, more people have begun to enjoy more mobility, and the comparative tax advantages of relocating have never been greater.   As we have stated in prior inBriefs, for Canadians, changing their country of tax residency is almost certainly going to be the single most effective tax planning strategy they can adopt, with both immediate and long-term benefits.

The opportunity to attract such mobile, wealthy people is also very appealing to potential recipient countries, who stand to gain economically from an influx of wealthy immigrants.  Competition for economically beneficial immigrants is high.  Many countries have established residency programs and tax incentives specifically intended to attract economic immigrants.  Some of the most popular destinations in recent years have included the UAE, Portugal, Greece and Italy, among many others including some Caribbean nations.  The models adopted by these countries typically require the applicant to make an investment in the country, often in real estate, in exchange for medium- or long-term residency (and sometimes a path to citizenship over time), and access to a favourable tax regime.  The amount of the investment varies greatly from country to country (from EUR 200,000 to EUR 3,000,000).^[1]  The favourable tax regime will be one of two models: the   requirement    for   an   annual   lump-sum   payment   of   tax irrespective of actual income each year (e.g., Italy, Switzerland), or, access to a low or no tax environment without the lump-sum in exchange for having made an initial investment (e.g., Portugal, Greece, UAE).

Deciding where to seek your new residency can be complex and should take into account many factors, not only taxation.  There are publicly available resources which help you to evaluate potential destination countries according, breaking down some of the more relevant factors on a country-by-country basis, and even offering rankings of countries by popularity for their tax residency offerings.^[2]

The conditions of residency and favourable tax treatment usually do not require significant “days in country”, so extensive travel is permitted, but you would need to avoid spending so many days in another country that you are deemed tax resident there as well.  The residency status granted normally gives you and your family the ability to live, study, and work in the destination country (and, for EU destinations, these rights would apply anywhere in the Schengen region).

From a tax planning perspective, it is crucial to carefully evaluate your assets and your expected sources of income before settling on a destination for tax residency, and to obtain professional advice as to how your specific assets and income will be taxed there.  There are always exceptions to the favourable tax treatment offered by each jurisdiction.  For instance, some may provide that only passive income from foreign sources will enjoy low/no tax, and only if there is a double taxation treaty in place with the foreign source country (in which case, income from assets located in offshore jurisdictions may not qualify, nor income you generate if you are working in your new country of residence).  Also, assets located in the country you are moving away from may continue to impose tax on income and gains on those assets, despite your non-residency.

As such, the change of residency journey will almost always include a restructuring of your assets, and planning your sources of income, in order to achieve the desired tax-efficient result.  As part of the planning, it can often be helpful to make use of trusts in low/no tax jurisdictions as a vehicle in which to hold appreciating or income-producing investments.  Distributions from trusts can generally be structured in a manner which attracts little or no tax, depending on whether the distribution is out of trust income or trust capital.  International planning using trusts can be complex and requires cooperation among advisors in your new country of residence, your country of origin, the country in which the trust is established, and every country in which there is a beneficiary of the trust.  Trust distributions to a beneficiary will be treated differently depending on where each beneficiary resides.  However, despite some complexity in the planning phase, trusts remain by far the most popular wealth planning vehicle for good reason, as the benefits of their use can be significant.  For example:

– Tax efficient distributions: payments from a trust to its beneficiaries can be managed so as to attract less overall taxation, or no taxation, if the trust has been planned and structured properly.  This can include tax-free distributions to Canadian resident beneficiaries, if properly planned.

– Wealth accumulation: trusts in low/no tax jurisdictions often have very long lifespans, or are permitted to exist indefinitely.  As such, they can accumulate investment gains with little or no tax over a long period, and can effectively preserve and grow capital. As such, capital can effectively be sheltered in the offshore trust indefinitely, with distributions made to beneficiaries as and when desired so that only those distributions are subject to tax when received (assuming the recipient is subject to tax).

– Transition of wealth: for the above reasons, it is often very advantageous to structure an inheritance through an offshore trust, where the capital can be better preserved, grown and distributed much more efficiently than if the inheritance were given directly to beneficiaries.

– Creditor protection: trusts have long been a popular vehicle for asset protection.  Since the trust legally owns the assets, the settlor’s creditors cannot seize them (subject to some exceptions where there are concerns around defrauding creditors).  And, since beneficiaries usually only have discretionary interests which are not vested, the creditors of the beneficiaries have nothing to seize either.  Trusts are also a useful tool to keep wealth outside of the net of “family property” or similar definitions which determine what a spouse is entitled to upon separation, divorce or death.

– Flexibility and control: trusts are flexible enough to allow you to transfer legal title to assets and grant beneficiaries economic benefits to or from the assets, without transferring control over the assets.  This flexibility to retain control can be useful for many reasons, including in situations where beneficiaries may not be ready to responsibly manage the assets, or, in the context of a family business, where you may not yet know which child or children will be involved in the business upon succession.  Often of most interest to settlors is the ability to continue to control the management of the trust’s investments, rather than handing over control to a trustee and institutional investment manager.

– Estate planning benefits: trusts have a great many benefits in the context of an estate plan, including all of those noted above in this list, along with additional benefits such as the ability to place trust assets outside of the scope of a forced heirship regime, and the fact that trust assets will not be made subject to probate and estate administration procedures which are complex, time-consuming and sometimes expensive.

Once you have selected a destination and have considered how to structure your assets and income in order to achieve a tax-efficient result, you may also need to carefully plan your emigration from your current place of residency. For Canadian residents, there are tax consequences of ceasing to be a resident and there may be planning opportunities to reduce the impact upon your exit.  Advance planning is especially important if you own shares in one or more private companies.

In light of the above, it is important that you select an experienced advisor who not only has local expertise along with an international network and capabilities, but who can also mobilize other professionals in your country and your new country of residence (and a suitable trust jurisdiction) in order to provide you with cohesive and complete advice.  It is typical to require legal counsel and tax accountants in at least two countries, along with valuation experts and professional trustees, in order to provide complete advice on a tax-driven relocation.

If you would like to explore a change in residency and the potential tax advantages, please do not hesitate to contact us. ■

[See also our earlier inBrief dated 4 October 2021, “Planning for Non-residency – Doing it Right”]

[1] There are other paths to residency aside from investment in some countries, such as through employment or establishing a business.  In the UAE, for example, you may establish a company for significantly less cost than the cost of investing in real estate, and arrange for the company to sponsor your UAE residency.

[2] For example, see the popular Henley & Partners indices and reports which rank investment immigration programs, and perceived quality of different residencies and citizenships:  https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications

Two common reasons for the use of trusts in estate planning are to achieve tax efficiencies and to protect assets from potential creditors and claims.  These are by no means the only reasons that trusts are utilized, but they are important benefits and are sometimes the primary focus of trust structure.  Generally speaking, trusts that provide tax and asset protection benefits need to be structured so as to grant the trustees very wide discretion as to when distributions are to be made, to which beneficiaries, in what amounts, and in which circumstances.  The language used in trust deeds usually gives trustees “absolute discretion” or “unfettered discretion” or similar.  Consider the following two examples of why discretion is important:

Example A (tax efficiency):  If a family trust is established with many family members as potential beneficiaries (e.g., “all of my issue”, which would include children, grandchildren, and you may include corporations owned by them, etc.), one of the goals of the trust is probably to take advantage of income splitting opportunities among the beneficiaries.  The trustee needs to be able to assess the individual tax brackets of the beneficiaries so they can “income sprinkle” across the beneficiaries in a tax efficient manner.  If the beneficiaries had fixed entitlements to a specified proportion of trust income or capital, the trustees could not achieve a tax efficient result.  Thus, discretion is needed.

Example B (asset protection):  Consider the same example again, but this time one of the beneficiaries has been successfully sued and his/her assets are subject to attachment by the judgment creditor.  If the beneficiary has a fixed entitlement under the terms of the trust, the creditors will be able to attach that interest as well and that beneficiary’s interest is effectively lost.  If the beneficiary’s entitlements are entirely subject to the trustee’s discretion, then the beneficiary has no vested interest at all unless and until the trustee declares each new distribution.  The trustee can confirm before making a distribution whether any beneficiary is subject to creditor claims, and if so, it can exercise its discretion in favour of another beneficiary (or none at all), until the claims are dealt with, keeping the trust assets out of the creditor’s hands.  Accordingly, discretion is again an essential component.[1]

With the necessity for a trustee to be granted such broad discretion, the question is often asked:  how do you know the trustee is going to exercise its discretion in the manner you would have intended?  There are essentially three approaches available:  include terms in the trust instrument itself, issue a letter of wishes, and/or the appointment of trust “protectors”.  We will briefly discuss each in turn.

(i) Terms of the Trust Deed

Some terms can be included in the trust deed itself without unduly constraining the trustee’s discretion.  These may include directions to the trustee not to make distributions to beneficiaries whose assets are subject to attachment; or a term which excludes the trust property from any beneficiary’s net family property to help protect it from being included in equalization payments upon marriage breakdown; or even a direction that requires certain minimum payments or expenses to be paid out of the trust so that the broad discretion only applies to the funds remaining after that.  A trust deed is a very flexible instrument and can be prepared with as many, or as few, specific constraints on a trustee as desired.  However, for the most part, if tax and asset protection benefits are to be maintained, the hard constraints need to be kept to a minimum.  It is more common to do the opposite; that is, explicitly oust duties that trustees would otherwise have as a matter of law that would potentially constrain them.

(ii) Letter of Wishes

A letter of wishes is separate from the trust deed and is just what its name suggests:  a letter from the settlor to the trustee setting out guidance for the trustee as to how the settlor wishes the trustee to exercise its discretion.  The trustee is not legally bound by the letter of wishes, but in practice trustees do give effect to them, and if a beneficiary challenges the trustee’s choices a court will take letters of wishes into account as relevant context.  Letters of wishes are sometimes very brief and provide simply that the trustees should take into account the views of another person when exercising their discretion (and that person is sometimes the settlor).  This is a potentially acceptable approach in the short term, but it has its drawbacks:  a court may find that the settlor is the person who is “in fact” making trust decisions as a de facto trustee, a finding that would almost certainly have detrimental consequences for any plan for which the trust was needed; and, upon the settlor’s death (or to whomever the letter of wishes referred), the settlor obviously then loses whatever influence he/she had.  Thoughtful, detailed, foresightful letters of wishes are strongly recommended.  Note that the trust deed should oust any default duties that trustees must comply with as a matter of law which may prevent compliance with a letter of wishes (the obligation to treat all beneficiaries equally, for example, should be ousted in the trust deed, along with others).

(iii) Appointing a Protector

Finally, there is the role of the trust “protector”.  A protector is someone (or multiple persons) who is granted a number of key powers in the trust deed, but who is not a trustee and, typically, has no fiduciary duties to beneficiaries.[2] They are supposed to provide oversight of trust administration and decision making from the perspective of someone close to the settlor who presumably knows what the settlor would have wanted.  Protectors are often granted powers to approve certain decisions of the trustees, to veto certain decisions, to remove and replace the trustee, or to terminate the trust, among other key powers.  The protector provides a significant check on trustee discretion.  The choice of protector is therefore important:  not only should the protector be someone close to you and who understands your wishes, they should be trustworthy and reliable, and without a conflict of interest (e.g., a beneficiary, or a spouse of a beneficiary).  Care must be taken so as not to usurp the role of the trustees altogether, either in the trust deed or in practice, or there will be a risk that the protector will be found to be the de facto trustee, with potentially disastrous consequences.[3]

In addition to the above, where a trust is created as part of a plan intended to have specific tax consequences, it is common for trustees to obtain professional advice before making a distribution, to ensure that it is being made in a manner that will not upset the plan.  This is not a limit on the discretion of the trustees, per se, but it does function as one.  Sometimes, detailed tax-driven instructions are provided to the trustees by professional legal advisors when the trust is created, setting out guidelines for how distributions are to be made, when, and also to whom they must not be made.  Such advice has similar status to a letter of wishes, but is arguably even more likely to be adhered to as the trustees will not wish to be responsible for triggering negative tax consequences in the face of having received such advice.

The above tools to control the discretion of a trustee are very useful, but they still leave some discretion to the trustee, which is unavoidable if the structure is to be robust enough to withstand a challenge by tax authorities or disgruntled beneficiaries.[4]  On a practical level, these tools are quite effective as professional trustees are motivated to serve their clients (i.e., settlors) as best they can, and to avoid litigation that may arise from ignoring letters of wishes, or professional advice, or contravening a protector’s decision. ■

[1] For asset protection trusts, note that it is important that the beneficiary whose interest is being protected is not also the sole trustee (or ideally even one of multiple trustees), as a court may order the beneficiary/trustee to exercise its control over the trust to satisfy the creditor’s claim.  The beneficiary must not have any control over trust decisions.

[2] The issue of whether a protector does have, or should have, fiduciary obligations to beneficiaries similar to the obligations of trustees is an unresolved issue in Canadian law.  Care should be taken to specify the settlor’s intent in the trust deed as to the duties expected of a protector.

[3] Garron Family Trust v. Her Majesty the Queen (2012 SCC 14) is the leading case in Canada on trust residency.  In that case, the courts “looked through” the exercise of powers by a protector, where the protector was in turn subject to replacement by the beneficiaries, and this was one of the reasons that court found that the beneficiaries were effectively functioning as the trust decision makers, with negative consequences for the trust in that case.

[4] This note focussed on trustee discretion with respect to distributions of trust income and capital.  It is important to bear in mind that a trustee’s discretion with respect to managing the trust’s investments can be controlled as well, to a greater degree of certainty and detail than controlling discretion as to distributions.