TRUSTS

Trusts are a rather different concept. They have no such personality. They are simply an arrangement whereby property is handed over by one party (the ‘settlor’) to another (the ‘trustee’) for the benefit of another (the ‘beneficiary’), on the basis that the property will be held and used as the trustee wishes. Although legal title is actually transferred from the settlor to the trustee, the trustee’s and beneficiary’s rights are recognisable and enforceable by the courts. As with companies, the use of trusts has come along way since their invention – they were first used to protect the property of medieval knights while away on crusade. Although until recently a concept only recognised in United Kingdom Commonwealth countries and other former colonies, it is now possible to establish trusts in countries with very different legal traditions, such as China.

BENEFITS

Although establishing and administering either a company or a trust is not without expense, they make a lot of sense when it comes to buying and owning a yacht. Most importantly, companies and trusts can also be used, quite lawfully, to reduce an individual’s apparent wealth and subsequent personal tax exposure. Companies are also used to form the basis of VAT-avoidance structures, by putting the use of a yacht on a commercial basis and through the use of cross-border leases.

Now and then, yachts are involved in accidents. Liability could easily exceed the value of the yacht, and, should the owner be held liable, his or her other assets are at risk. More sensible, then, to ring-fence any such source of liability by owning the yacht through a company.

Similarly, companies and trusts can help to isolate ownership where wealth is derived from developing or otherwise unstable countries, where there is a risk of political rivals attempting to expropriate personal possessions. And for those in even the most stable surroundings, protection from creditors is usually desirable where the owner wants to indulge in large, commercial risk-taking.

By law, yachts must be registered somewhere. Shipping registers being open to inspection by the public, details of a yacht’s owner are readily available. Most owners just don’t like the idea of tabloid journalists – or perhaps even former spouses – knowing what they own. Although the identity of company directors and shareholders is often a matter of public record, many jurisdictions allow directorships and shares to be held in the name of nominees.

The beauty of undertaking transactions through a company is that it is the company that undertakes the transaction, not the directors or shareholders, meaning that the latter can bask safe in the knowledge that they are largely immune from personal liability.

YACHT ARREST

This comfortable state of affairs cannot, however, prevent the arrest of the yacht itself. Where this happens, the yacht is legally prevented from leaving her mooring. Typically, police or customs officers present the yacht with the court papers – this is the process which used to involve the nailing of a writ to the mast.

Yachts are often arrested following a collision, an allegation of pollution, or where a good or service has been provided to the yacht without the provider (including crew) having been paid. There is no need for judgment to have been given and there may be little or no warning before the yacht is arrested – potentially leaving the owner in an awkward and embarrassing position in the middle of a busy charter season.

The only way to release the yacht from arrest is either to pay the claim or to provide security. Such security may only be acceptable if provided or supported by a large bank. In turn, the bank will require a personal guarantee from the yacht’s ultimate owner.

LIMITATIONS

On occasion it may be possible to look behind the company at the individuals involved. This is known as ‘lifting the corporate veil.’ The laws of certain jurisdictions, for example, state that where it appears that, in the course of winding-up a bankrupt company, transactions have been carried out with the intent to defraud creditors, a court may declare the individuals involved liable. Criminal sanctions can also apply. ‘Creditors’ here only includes those owed money at the time the transfer was made, excluding future creditors. The burden of proving the necessary intent lies with the creditors. The same principle applies where it looks as if a company was set up to frustrate a court order to freeze assets.

Further, companies cannot be used to circumvent legal obligations. This does not mean that individuals will be liable if the company’s legal obligations are breached, but if the company is set up just because a legal obligation (such as complying with safety requirements in respect of a large yacht) is inconvenient or expensive to comply with, then the veil could be lifted.

The use of nominees only prevents the true identity of directors and shareholders being made available to the public. It is not normally possible to offload liability onto the nominees, and there is likely to be a clause in the agreement to set up the company, obliging the actual directors and shareholders to indemnify the nominees.

Privacy cannot be entirely guaranteed in any event. Not unreasonably, international treaties on the exchange of information relating to criminal activities, including tax evasion, can allow require even the strongest privacy laws to be brushed aside.

Property placed in a trust may still be made the subject of asset freezing orders and court judgments if a trust is not recognised, although if the property is physically located in the same country that the trust is administered from, this will be difficult. A number of countries, including the United Kingdom, are party to an international convention on the recognition of trusts, known as the Hague Convention, recognising trusts which conform to certain characteristics.

JURISDICTIONS

Offshore jurisdictions still have a reputation as being sun-baked islands where dodgy deals can be concluded in an unregulated financial free-for-all. Nothing could be further from the truth for the vast majority of commonly-used locations. In fact, virtually all the world’s leading multinationals use offshore companies and trusts to undertake business in a private, tax-efficient yet entirely legal way.

‘Offshore’ simply means a jurisdiction other the one someone is already resident or domiciled in for tax purposes. They certainly don’t need to be either sunny or insular, although many are as it can form a lucrative boost to otherwise small, remote and tourist-dependent economies. In fact, a good example of a growing offshore centre is the United Kingdom.

For yacht owners, the principal advantage of using a respectable, well-known offshore jurisdiction is that there is rarely the need to reinvent the wheel: they are geared up to provide yacht owning structures. As these activities often provide a sizeable proportion of foreign income, their governments make it a priority to make matters simple for those looking for this type of service.

It is important to choose the jurisdiction(s) with care, however. No two are the same. There are bad apples in the barrel, especially with regards the integrity of local practitioners. With companies, but more particularly with trusts – where legal title is transferred to a local trustee who may perhaps have discretionary powers – there exists opportunities to extract more from their clients than had been expected.

CHOICE

Other factors to consider include initial and ongoing costs (including local taxes), international reputation, and the strength of their rule of law – in other words how tough their courts are. Political stability is another important factor, as is the time zone, the exchange controls, and any escape provisions – which allow companies to change jurisdictions while maintaining their legal personality and trusts to be transferred without needing to be rewritten.

Working with a local branch of an international legal or accounting group may provide reassurance, but on the other hand one may end up being steered towards just those places where they happen to have an office. Ideally, guidance in the earliest stages should be sought from an independent, trusted source, capable of providing a truly impartial, global overview.