| 51 | catwoman1974 wrote:
It seems they changed it again, can't keep up with this government and their changes Er, it was changed 10 years ago by the National government. sparkychap - 2021-10-03 19:57:00 |
| 52 | sarahb5 wrote:
The changes aren’t new - did you read the information in the link I posted? I think it’s about 10 years since things changed in respect of gifting Just shows ya how long it's been since I've bothered to look into trusts |
| 53 | sparkychap wrote:
Er, it was changed 10 years ago by the National government.
Scares me how many people who are trustees, settlors or beneficiaries who don’t know about changes affecting trusts sarahb5 - 2021-10-03 20:00:00 |
| 54 | sarahb5 wrote:
Scares me how many people who are trustees, settlors or beneficiaries who don’t know about changes affecting trusts Yep, some people should just avoid giving "advice". sparkychap - 2021-10-03 20:04:00 |
| 55 | sparkychap wrote:
Yep, some people should just avoid giving "advice".
Me? sarahb5 - 2021-10-03 20:37:00 |
| 56 | sarahb5 wrote:
Me? God no, your advice is excellent, please keep it up.
I was looking elsewhere in the thread.... sparkychap - 2021-10-03 20:44:00 |
| 57 | sparkychap wrote:
God no, your advice is excellent, please keep it up.
I was looking elsewhere in the thread....
Thanks - got a bit paranoid then Edited by sarahb5 at 9:03 pm, Sun 3 Oct sarahb5 - 2021-10-03 21:02:00 |
| 58 | laurelanne wrote:
Where did you get gifting at $10KPA from. That's new to me. When was it ever $10k after the $24k limit? smallwoods - 2021-10-05 09:13:00 |
| 59 | sarahb5 wrote:
Thanks - got a bit paranoid then No, was another, lol. smallwoods - 2021-10-05 09:15:00 |
| 60 | smallwoods wrote:
When was it ever $10k after the $24k limit?
Never - and the limit was $27,000 each sarahb5 - 2021-10-05 10:25:00 |
| 61 | sarahb5 wrote:
Never - and the limit was $27,000 each
I wondered if they were meaning it was the amount a person that is in care can gift. I think that's about $6,000 annually. bryalea - 2021-10-05 10:39:00 |
| 62 | sarahb5 wrote:
Never - and the limit was $27,000 each Until the courts said it was $27,000 in total. For the residential care subsidy you need to look at all the criteria including income and deprivation. johnston - 2021-10-05 13:07:00 |
| 63 | sarahb5 wrote:
Never - and the limit was $27,000 each My bad, finger slip. smallwoods - 2021-10-05 13:31:00 |
| 64 | johnston wrote:
Until the courts said it was $27,000 in total. For the residential care subsidy you need to look at all the criteria including income and deprivation.
I don’t anything about the residential care subsidy criteria or how it’s assessed so can’t comment on that sarahb5 - 2021-10-05 13:33:00 |
| 65 | sarahb5 wrote:
I don’t anything about the residential care subsidy criteria or how it’s assessed so can’t comment on that A modest 1 million dollar house starting gifting today would take more than 35 years to complete the gifting process. Then consider only 7% of kiwis will end up in residential care, then factor in income and other assets. You can see from this thread alone a general misunderstanding about trusts and their purpose. Edited by johnston at 2:13 pm, Tue 5 Oct johnston - 2021-10-05 14:12:00 |
| 66 | susiesilver wrote:
'depriv-
ing their beneficiaries'? Is it or is it not their money in the first place? It seems that at least one beneficiary has taken advantage of that money already doesn't it? Yeah. Some people's morals and ethics are unbelievable.
The poor buggers having her for a daughter-in-law.
That self-centered not even aware what they posted is morally wrong. houseofdad - 2021-10-05 15:01:00 |
| 67 | houseofdad wrote:
Yeah. Some people's morals and ethics are unbelievable.
The poor buggers having her for a daughter-in-law.
That self-centered not even aware what they posted is morally wrong. To be fair though, it appears the parents gave the money away. johnston - 2021-10-05 18:44:00 |
| 68 | johnston wrote:
A modest 1 million dollar house starting gifting today would take more than 35 years to complete the gifting process. Then consider only 7% of kiwis will end up in residential care, then factor in income and other assets. You can see from this thread alone a general misunderstanding about trusts and their purpose.
Banks transfer ownership to the trust and the mortgage gets transferred too so essentially the trust becomes the mortgagee but the “settlers” continue to make the repayments the same way they have been. Very little actual gifting these days and it’s all just paper shuffling anyway. sarahb5 - 2021-10-05 18:55:00 |
| 69 | sarahb5 wrote:
Banks transfer ownership to the trust and the mortgage gets transferred too so essentially the trust becomes the mortgagee but the “settlers” continue to make the repayments the same way they have been. Very little actual gifting these days and it’s all just paper shuffling anyway. LINZ transfers ownership and the mortgagee (if any) agrees. When settled the entire house (say) is given to the trust in return for an IOU so to speak. Gifting the $27,000 (and previously $54,000 erroneously) from the amount owed per annum once had a purpose but not so often now for the reasons I mentioned earlier. johnston - 2021-10-05 22:26:00 |
| 70 | johnston wrote:
LINZ transfers ownership and the mortgagee (if any) agrees. When settled the entire house (say) is given to the trust in return for an IOU so to speak. Gifting the $27,000 (and previously $54,000 erroneously) from the amount owed per annum once had a purpose but not so often now for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
Well if you’re going to get technical yes I suppose that’s true but the bank has to agree to the transfer before the transfer is completed by LINZ and forgiveness of debt completed. Most trusts I deal with don’t have a set gifting programme as used to be the case although I suppose, other than lawyers fees, there’s no real reason why not. We don’t set up as many new trusts these days as we used to. sarahb5 - 2021-10-06 07:39:00 |
| 71 | The member deleted this message. seaqueen - 2021-10-06 08:15:00 |
| 72 | bryalea wrote:
I wondered if they were meaning it was the amount a person that is in care can gift. I think that's about $6,000 annually. That amount is correct. Actually edited: They have increased it to $6500 per year. Edited by seaqueen at 8:28 am, Wed 6 Oct seaqueen - 2021-10-06 08:20:00 |
| 73 | sarahb5 wrote:
Well if you’re going to get technical yes I suppose that’s true but the bank has to agree to the transfer before the transfer is completed by LINZ and forgiveness of debt completed. Most trusts I deal with don’t have a set gifting programme as used to be the case although I suppose, other than lawyers fees, there’s no real reason why not. We don’t set up as many new trusts these days as we used to. It is definitely true and as I posted the mortgagee has to agree just as they have to with any change to the registered owners. Gifting in less common now because it is largely a pointless exercise for many trusts. johnston - 2021-10-06 08:57:00 |
| 74 | sarahb5, are you available officially to be engaged to review a family trust situation - not face to face as we are obviously in different cities. sumstyle - 2021-10-13 11:15:00 |
| 75 | sumstyle wrote:
sarahb5, are you available officially to be engaged to review a family trust situation - not face to face as we are obviously in different cities.
I’m flattered but no I wouldn’t be able to do that - it’s not part of my current role so I suggest your first call should be to the lawyer or accountant who prepared the Trust Deed sarahb5 - 2021-10-13 18:10:00 |
| 76 | sarahb5 wrote:
I’m flattered but no I wouldn’t be able to do that - it’s not part of my current role so I suggest your first call should be to the lawyer or accountant who prepared the Trust Deed Thank you for replying. The trust was set up by our mum's solicitor, and after her death he retired as trustee. We have transferred to the trust to a local solicitor, but I'm disatisfied with his work on two other legal matters, so I was looking for a checkup and a finesse of how we are measuring up with a fresh brain. sumstyle - 2021-10-13 18:30:00 |
| 77 | sumstyle wrote:
Thank you for replying. The trust was set up by our mum's solicitor, and after her death he retired as trustee. We have transferred to the trust to a local solicitor, but I'm disatisfied with his work on two other legal matters, so I was looking for a checkup and a finesse of how we are measuring up with a fresh brain.
Is the new lawyer also the new trustee? If not then you can uplift your deeds and take them elsewhere for a review. The firm I work for could probably do it but I don’t want to post a link on here Edited by sarahb5 at 6:34 pm, Wed 13 Oct sarahb5 - 2021-10-13 18:33:00 |
| 78 | sumstyle wrote:
Thank you for replying. The trust was set up by our mum's solicitor, and after her death he retired as trustee. We have transferred to the trust to a local solicitor, but I'm disatisfied with his work on two other legal matters, so I was looking for a checkup and a finesse of how we are measuring up with a fresh brain. If you are unhappy with your current solictor then you probably want to change firms. If the solictor's trustee company is a trustee they will resign when you uplift your files. johnston - 2021-10-13 21:20:00 |
| 79 | johnston wrote:
If you are unhappy with your current solictor then you probably want to change firms. If the solictor's trustee company is a trustee they will resign when you uplift your files.
They may not agree to the uplift until they have been replaced which will be an added expense as well as the review sarahb5 - 2021-10-13 21:42:00 |
| 80 | sarahb5 wrote:
They may not agree to the uplift until they have been replaced which will be an added expense as well as the review They don't necessarily need to be replaced just retired. I'm not sure that would be ground for refusing to release a client's file. Edited by johnston at 10:08 pm, Wed 13 Oct johnston - 2021-10-13 22:07:00 |
| 81 | johnston wrote:
They don't necessarily need to be replaced just retired. I'm not sure that would be ground for refusing to release a client's file.
Replaced/retired - same result and yes they could refuse especially if they are also a trustee - it happens Edited by sarahb5 at 10:22 pm, Wed 13 Oct sarahb5 - 2021-10-13 22:21:00 |
| 82 | sarahb5 wrote:
Replaced/retired - same result and yes they could refuse especially if they are also a trustee - it happens I know they can refuse, whether they should or their refusal to release would uphold a complaint is another matter. In my experience files are released with the understanding that the trustee company is retired in a simple communication exchange with the new solicitors. johnston - 2021-10-14 07:00:00 |
| 83 | johnston wrote:
I know they can refuse, whether they should or their refusal to release would uphold a complaint is another matter. In my experience files are released with the understanding that the trustee company is retired in a simple communication exchange with the new solicitors.
There would need to be a paper trail of documents signed by continuing trustees, retiring trustees and new trustees - at least a trustees resolution and deed of retirement and appointment- a file note won’t cut it under the new legislation Edited by sarahb5 at 7:34 am, Thu 14 Oct sarahb5 - 2021-10-14 07:33:00 |
| 84 | sarahb5 wrote:
There would need to be a paper trail of documents signed by continuing trustees, retiring trustees and new trustees - at least a trustees resolution and deed of retirement and appointment- a file note won’t cut it under the new legislation I fully understand that. I have done all that many times on behalf the new solicitor trustee company. johnston - 2021-10-14 10:18:00 |
| 85 | The original solicitor as trustee retired about 10 years ago, and so now it is just my sister and I. We transferred all the documents to this new firm in Christchurch, but I have no confidence in the solicitor we have used there so far (for non trust matters) so I'm happy to shift again. sumstyle - 2021-10-14 13:43:00 |
| 86 | sumstyle wrote:
The original solicitor as trustee retired about 10 years ago, and so now it is just my sister and I. We transferred all the documents to this new firm in Christchurch, but I have no confidence in the solicitor we have used there so far (for non trust matters) so I'm happy to shift again.
The fact you don’t have an independent trustee should be cause for alarm so definitely if you’re not happy then uplift your trust documents and take them elsewhere for a review - it’s your trust so it’s a good opportunity to make sure it’s fit for purpose sarahb5 - 2021-10-14 19:22:00 |
| 87 | sumstyle wrote:
The original solicitor as trustee retired about 10 years ago, and so now it is just my sister and I. We transferred all the documents to this new firm in Christchurch, but I have no confidence in the solicitor we have used there so far (for non trust matters) so I'm happy to shift again. Perhaps you don't need a trust. What is its purpose? johnston - 2021-10-15 06:59:00 |
| 88 | I read somewhere (but cant find it now) that all but the initial amount that the trust was set up with plus interest if any, could be reversed from the trust back to the settlors but any amount over this ie capital gains, belongs to the trust to be eventually distributed to the beneficiaries. In the mean time the trusts funds cannot be spent by anyone including the trustees (mum and dad) unless it is for funding the trust ie costs to maintain the retirement apartment the trust bought and fees relating to the trust/apartment. I would think any funds in the trust can be reversed back to the settlors as the original ammount this is in the cash. The capital gains belonging to the trust are now in the apartment bought which can be converted to cash by selling but would be better in the apartment to get more capital gains.
The 80 years olds might be treating themselves to the more expensive loaf of bread rather than the cheapest, or going to the doctor, not sure if you can control their spending so they don't fritter their own money away. ash4561 - 2021-10-18 07:59:00 |
| 89 | This just goes to show what a risk FTs can be. The guts of the problem is that unless the Trustees are given "full and unfettered" control of the trust, then IR consider them to be a sham. That means that by inputting your assets, you are handing "full and unfettered" control to a third party!! Thus the endless arguments around who does what with the asset. There are far better ways of managing things. tegretol - 2021-10-24 10:35:00 |
