ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

[Bjauck]

...
Unfortunately the concept of trusts and those who are beneficiaries of them have been stigmatised in a very negative light by many.

I am not sure that the concept of trusts has been stigmatised but rather family trusts in particular by some. However whether or not that is justified is not necessarily the issue in this case.

The big issues in this instance are the need for the full required disclosure of MPs financial and vested interests. Plus, Seymour had used his lack of residential property ownership for political purposes when he actually has beneficial interests as a trust beneficiary in residential property. Also his criticism of the bright line test for taxing residential investment capital gains can no longer be seen as from the point of view of someone without any residential property interests.

[777]

Every descendant of any house owner is in the same position as a beneficiary of a trust settled by a parent or grandparent. They may or may not actually benefit in the future. Beneficiaries can be removed at the stroke of a pen.Descendants can likewise be disinherited although they have the advantage of contesting a will.

The average journalist doesn't know s*** from clay on most topics they write about.

[iceman]

Every descendant of any house owner is in the same position as a beneficiary of a trust settled by a parent or grandparent. They may or may not actually benefit in the future. Beneficiaries can be removed at the stroke of a pen.Descendants can likewise be disinherited although they have the advantage of contesting a will.

The average journalist doesn't know s*** from clay on most topics they write about.

Well put, an absolute non story. As pointed out by Baa Baa above, Seymour has disclosed his interest in the Trusts since he first became a MP

[Panda-NZ-]

Maybe Seymour will now make a thing about how being born into a family, with real estate interests settled in trust structures, in Nineteenth Century Victorian Britain - oops I mean in present day NZ - is the best way to secure an interest in residential property in NZ.

Dodgy dave, not many are surprised by this.

He probably gets more than his $1m in declared political donations too.

[777]

Dodgy dave, not many are surprised by this.

He probably gets more than his $1m in declared political donations too.

What, dodgy because he is out to the right of you? Not many would be surprised at your comment though. It follows a continual theme.

Seymour would rank the smartest person on Parliament at the moment. Not hard I know given the quality of current bunch.

[fungus pudding]

Presumably they had the assets originally and were the settlors in favour of their nominated beneficiaries.

And preumably he had more than one parent and more than one grandparent.

[Zaphod]

I am not sure that the concept of trusts has been stigmatised but rather family trusts in particular by some. However whether or not that is justified is not necessarily the issue in this case.

The average member of the public does view anyone connected to a trust with a degree of disdain. Why else would you require any of the various types of trusts other than to hide assets, to avoid taxation, or to use them to deprive the rights of others? You need to look no further than the vitriol on social media that accompanies any discussion about trusts, including here. It does not even matter what type of trust is involved, just the word evokes a visceral negative reaction.

The big issues in this instance are the need for the full required disclosure of MPs financial and vested interests. Plus, Seymour had used his lack of residential property ownership for political purposes when he actually has beneficial interests as a trust beneficiary in residential property. Also his criticism of the bright line test for taxing residential investment capital gains can no longer be seen as from the point of view of someone without any residential property interests.

As you obviously know beneficial interest does not equate to actual ownership, nor is he guaranteed to ever own or even control the properties held in the trusts. His position on property based on his lack of ownership is therefore valid, but regardless of this the position is not predicated on the lack of ownership. As for the brightline test, it may not even apply to him in the future.

No doubt the media will now investigate all politicians for similar situations, exposing their so-called hypocrisy. A total non-event.

[Aaron]

Every descendant of any house owner is in the same position as a beneficiary of a trust settled by a parent or grandparent. They may or may not actually benefit in the future. Beneficiaries can be removed at the stroke of a pen.Descendants can likewise be disinherited although they have the advantage of contesting a will.

The average journalist doesn't know s*** from clay on most topics they write about.

When a Trust is set up the settlors (parents/grandparents) pass ownership of the assets to the beneficiaries but manage the assets on their behalf and for the benefit of all beneficiaries. The truth is that beneficiaries can be removed with a stroke of a pen but with the new requirements to report to the beneficiaries people might become aware of their rights under the Trust deed. In theory once a kid reaches 18 there is no reason why they can't approach the trustees and ask for the transfer of the assets and control to pass to them as they are now capable of managing the assets in their own interests. Trustees can also be sued for not managing the assets well for the benefit of ALL beneficiaries.

Because it doesn't happen it doesn't mean it won't in the future. I imagine the legal cost to challenge trustees will ensure nothing changes.

[Bjauck]

…
As you obviously know beneficial interest does not equate to actual ownership, nor is he guaranteed to ever own or even control the properties held in the trusts. His position on property based on his lack of ownership is therefore valid, but regardless of this the position is not predicated on the lack of ownership. As for the brightline test, it may not even apply to him in the future.

No doubt the media will now investigate all politicians for similar situations, exposing their so-called hypocrisy. A total non-event.

As the word beneficiary implies he benefits from the ownership of the real estate held in the trust. So the current ownership of real estate benefits him.

So definitely a relevant interest which should be on the register. I don’t know whether or not these interests on the register affect the various MPs stance on proposed legislation.

[fungus pudding]

As the word beneficiary implies he benefits from the ownership of the real estate held in the trust. So the current ownership of real estate benefits him.

So definitely a relevant interest which should be on the register. I don’t know whether or not these interests on the register affect the various MPs stance on proposed legislation.

The current ownership of an asett does not benefit a beneficiary until the title or ownership passes; which may never happen for various reasons, like predeceasing the settlor, or discovering previously unknown debt, or some similar claim. Try mortgaging a property you don't own but are a beneficiary to and the bank will soon show you the door. Until the estate is settled the trust may not be worth any more than an undrawn lotto ticket.