Trust administration has become increasingly complex, with legal expert noting that trusts are now managed through three fundamental pillars: the Trust Property Control Act and master's directives, case law, and tax considerations. However, as emphasized in recent expert guidance, tax should never be the primary driving force for trust establishment.
The expert warns: "If the way that you're structuring, all the things that you're doing are solely because of the tax, that is very short sighted." This perspective reflects the evolving nature of trust law and the importance of establishing trusts for substantive, long-term purposes.
The most critical principle in trust administration: The trust deed is the beginning and end of trust operations. As emphasized by trust law specialists:
This differs fundamentally from company law, where the Companies Act provides comprehensive operational frameworks. With trusts, the trust deed is the sole authority.
Critical requirement: The founder must completely separate themselves from the trust. As explained in the webinar:
"The founder, the settler, the person who started that trust has to divorce themselves, step away, go away from the trust."
If you cannot separate yourself from the trust, do not create a trust. Rather create a company. The consequences of maintaining control can be severe - courts will trace the "golden thread" from founder to assets and bring them back to the founder's estate, defeating the trust's purpose.
Shocking requirement: Under the Trust Property Control Act, document retention is required from inception until five years after dissolution.
Real example: "I'm currently writing an opinion for a trust that was set up in 1924, that trust needs to have 101 years worth of documentation on hand."
Case law precedent: In the Doyle case, a judge requested 50 years of documentation to prove whether trustees had properly managed trust affairs.
Letters of authority are crucial - they give trustees the power to act. Key points:
Trusts operate on resolution, not majority rule. This is critical because:
SARS verification requirements: Tax authorities now demand extensive documentation:
Key distinction: Funds from trusts are either distributions (equity nature) or loans (debt nature).
For valid loans:
Alternative approach: Create allocations where "I can allocate this to you and basically take a portion of my capital and say this is [yours]. I cannot pay it to anybody else, but I as the trustee determine when I will pay it."
Mandatory requirement: "RT3s are mandated" when distributions are made. Failure to submit RT3 forms results in penalties and interest - the same consequences as failing to submit any tax return.
Additional complexity: Foreign beneficiaries create significant administrative burdens:
Clear guidance for accountants: "Auditors do not be a trustee of a trust... Unless it's your own family trust or your brother's trust... auditors do not be a trustee of somebody else's trust. It is only going to lead you into pain."
Why this matters:
Recommended alternatives:
For audits: Only registered auditors can audit trusts. Reviews can be done by other professionals, but audits specifically require RA designation.
Independence concerns: Courts are harsh on auditors who are not seen as independent or objective in trust matters.
Beneficiaries have absolute rights to:
Case law confirmation: Multiple cases (Cardie, Fundamirva, Esportelesi) confirm that trustees are held personally liable for breaches of fiduciary duty and failure to provide proper disclosure.
Primary purpose: "The purpose of a set of financial statements for the trust is to assess the stewardship of the trustees."
Content should include:
Expert warning: "I would never, ever, ever have capital and income beneficiaries. I will have beneficiaries, and identify my beneficiaries, and then I would have different instructions to my trustees around when and how they can make different types of distributions."
Why this matters: The movement between capital and income classifications becomes "ugly," "messy," and "never ends well in later years."
Hidden danger: Many trusts from the 1970s and 1980s included termination clauses requiring trustee action after 25 years. Many trustees were unaware, creating "zombie structures" that technically should not exist but continue operating.
Practical problem: Trust deeds often require trustees to treat beneficiaries "fairly" rather than "equally."
Real scenario: "What is fair to the one child that is a stockbroker in New York and printing money versus the other child that is a teacher in the public school that has three kids and barely making ends meet?"
Recommendation: Hold investments at cost with fair value notation, but consider beneficiary needs:
Critical requirement: Proper documentation for all related party arrangements:
Case precedent: In Brits versus FNB, the judge demanded "show me a piece of paper on the back of a cigarette box almost, that says that there's some paperwork here to show that you're actually leasing this house from the trust."
Modern requirement: Trusts are juristic personalities under the Information Regulator's mandate, requiring:
These are intervivos trusts set up by court order with specific purposes. The only difference is the court-ordered establishment rather than voluntary creation.
Key distinction:
Problem with testamentary trusts: "The founder of the trust is six feet under... if these trust deeds and these trusts are not set up with a great amount of care, we can sometimes be left with flaws in the trust that we can only resolve by going to court."
Expert opinion: "I don't always agree that IFRS for SMEs is the appropriate framework" for trusts because:
Automatic consequence: When a trust owns a company, you lose owner-managed status and the company has public interest, requiring:
Exception: Close corporations where family trusts can be members (1990s loophole).
Observation: "I very seldomly see companies actually and trusts get to the third generation without problems" unless very carefully structured.
Challenges include:
Emerging problem: As minor beneficiaries mature, they question past trustee decisions:
When someone wants a trust, ask why:
Reality check: "If you've got, you know, a million rand, two million rand sitting in a trust, the administration and the cost of running and complying with everything that is required of that trust... it's going to eat away at that capital until there's nothing left."
Recommended approach: When setting up trusts, have all parties present:
Purpose: "To think about all the trip wires and consequences and intent and how this is going to play out."
Pattern in court decisions:
Shipsta Waili vs Trustees case: Demonstrated that while trusts generally require unanimous decisions, majority voting is exceptional and only allowed under specific circumstances with proper constitutional meeting procedures.
Essential systems:
Ongoing obligations:
The expert's final warning encapsulates the complexity: "These are beasts" that require substantial resources and professional management. Trusts should be established for protection of wealth and legacy purposes, not tax planning.
Key takeaway: "Tax should be the consequence of the transactions that have occurred. The transaction shouldn't be driven by the tax."
Modern trust administration demands understanding that these structures are long-term vehicles requiring professional oversight, continuous compliance, and genuine separation from founders. The costs and complexities are substantial, but when properly administered, trusts serve their intended protective and wealth preservation purposes.
Ready to master these complex requirements? Access the complete expert guidance and case studies: Modern Trust Administration Strategies
This article is based on expert insights from the Modern Trust Administration Strategies webinar presented by Caryn Maitland of Maitland Accounting.