- This topic has 4 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 15th June 2011 at 12:46 pm by Patrick.
27th May 2011 at 2:02 pm #563mitchGuest
If you have pension trustees as a partner in a partnership and the trustees comprise a mixture of individuals and a corporate trustee, how do you approach the relevant parts of para 12 and para 24 of Schedule 15 where they refer to the partner (or corresponding partner) being an individual or a company?
For example, in relation to step 2(b) of para 12, do you treat the individual trustees as individuals? If so, how do you make an apportionment out of the entire trustees’ share (assuming the corporate trustee is not treated as an indivdual by virtue of para 12(3)?
In relation to para 24, if there is one other partner besides the pension fund trustees and that partner is a company, do you have a partnership wholly made up of bodies corporate, even though some of the trustees are individuals?
I know that trustees are generally regarded as a single and continuing body, but I can’t see how that notion has been incorporated into the SDLT partnership rules.
Any ideas?14th June 2011 at 8:50 am #564David HannahGuest
I do not actually think there is a problem here ? if one looks through the partnership to the individual “partner” then that partner is the Trustees as a single continuing body. Accordingly the Trustees as a whole are a one partner for the purposes of Schedule 15. It follows therefore that you do not need to consider the relevant interests of each individual Trustee but merely the interests of the Trust. The reason for this is that para 4, Schedule 16, etc. deals with their treatment as a single and continuing body and thereby allocates the responsibilities to each other.14th June 2011 at 5:08 pm #565PatrickGuest
Mitch, I think that they are neither a company or an individual but are trustees for this purpose ie of their own type.15th June 2011 at 12:19 pm #566MitchGuest
David, thanks for your reply. I probably didn’t make it clear but I am not looking at any apportionment to individual trustees. I am happy that the trustees are a single body and that one doesn’t look through to the various persons comprising the trustees.
Patrick, treating the trustees as neither an individual or company makes sense but doesn’t that give an odd result in step 2(b) of para 12? If there is a company acting as a trustee then that company can be an indivdual for the purposes of step 2(b) by virtue of sub para 3, whereas an individual acting as a trustee is not an individual for the purposes of step 2(b).
Applying the treatment to para 24, I assume that if the trustee is a company then it will be a body corporate. In which case replacing a corporate trustee with individual trustees would potentially be a route out of any para 24 problem?15th June 2011 at 12:46 pm #567PatrickGuest
Mitch, yes it is an odd result but I think that is the position. With para 24, corporate trustees ought not to be caught but relying on this being so is one for the brave (or those in possession of a positive counsel’s opinion on the point) and so it might be prudent to introduce individual trustees as a precaution rather than have to argue the position.