Article courtesy of Law Dot News | Tax | Trusts – Dormant Trusts

Your Dormant Trust Is Not Invisible to SARS

“Things do not go away. They go somewhere.” (Annie Dillard)

Many trustees assume that a dormant trust can be safely forgotten. No income, no assets, no transactions … No problem.

SARS has made it clear that this assumption may be an expensive one.

In recent months, SARS has intensified its focus on trust compliance, targeting trusts that have failed to submit annual income tax returns. What many trustees may not realise is that inactivity does not remove a trust’s tax obligations.

A trust that has been sitting dormant for years is still required to submit annual income tax returns. Failure to do so can now result in administrative penalties, even where the trust has conducted little or no activity.

Dormant does not mean exempt

One of the most common misconceptions among trustees is that a trust only has compliance obligations if it earns income, owns assets, or actively conducts transactions.

That is not how SARS views the issue.

According to SARS, all registered trusts, whether economically active or passive, are required to submit annual income tax returns. The obligation exists even where the trust has little or no economic activity.

Why SARS is paying closer attention

Since May 2026, the revenue authority has been issuing administrative penalty assessments to trusts with outstanding returns following earlier final demands for compliance. Trustees who received those demands were given an opportunity to correct the non-compliance before penalties were imposed.

Depending on a trust’s assessed taxable income, monthly administrative penalties can range from R250 to R16,000 and may continue accruing if the non-compliance is not remedied.

This reflects a broader shift in SARS’ approach to trusts. What was once viewed by many as a relatively passive area of administration is increasingly becoming an area of active oversight and enforcement.

Thinking about winding up a trust?

Many trustees only discover outstanding compliance issues when they begin taking steps to terminate a trust’s affairs. By that stage, years of outstanding returns, incomplete records, or unresolved SARS obligations may need to be addressed before the process can move forward.

Importantly, a trust that has effectively ceased operating is not automatically regarded by SARS as deregistered for tax. Trustees remain responsible for ensuring that trust information is maintained, updated, and, where appropriate, formally deregistered through the correct processes. Failure to do so may expose the trust, and potentially its trustees in their capacity as representative taxpayers, to penalties and other consequences under the Tax Administration Act.

Winding up a trust and deregistering it with SARS are not the same thing. A trust that trustees regard as dormant, inactive, or terminated is still regarded by SARS as a registered taxpayer with ongoing filing obligations until it has been properly deregistered.

The position can become particularly costly where penalties have been accumulating in the background.

As SARS continues to invest in data capabilities and automated enforcement mechanisms, historic compliance issues are becoming easier to identify and harder to overlook. In some cases, trusts that trustees believed were inactive for years are now being drawn back into the compliance net.

The lesson is straightforward: before assuming that a dormant trust requires no further attention, trustees should ensure that all filing obligations have been met and that the trust’s SARS records are up to date. A trust may be dormant in practice, but that does not mean it has disappeared from SARS’ radar.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

Article courtesy of Law Dot News | Contracts | Property | Trusts

Contracting with Trusts – Is a Majority Decision Valid?

“Externally, trustees cannot disagree. In the external sphere the Trust functions by virtue of its resolutions, which have to be supported by the full complement of the Trust body.” (Extract from judgment below)

A recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment provides yet another reminder to tread carefully when contracting with trusts. Your agreements with a trust will be invalid and unenforceable if the trustees acting for the trust weren’t properly authorised to bind the trust.

But must trustee resolutions always be taken unanimously by all of the appointed trustees to be valid, or will a majority decision ever suffice? The SCA addressed that question in the context of a trust seeking to escape from a suretyship which had not been unanimously agreed to and signed by all three trustees acting jointly –

When a majority trustee decision isn’t enough

• A creditor sued a property trust for payment under a suretyship given to it by the trust. The trust countered that the suretyship was invalid because the resolution authorising trustees to sign the suretyship was not authorised and signed by all three trustees, but only by two of them.
• Indeed, only two of the trustees had attended the trustee meeting at which the suretyship was discussed. The third trustee had not been at the meeting and did not sign either the resolution authorising the suretyship to be signed or the actual suretyship.
• The meeting itself was in order, in that the trust deed provided for two trustees to constitute a quorum for meetings. But the deed also provided that a unanimous decision was required for the trust “to conduct business on behalf of and for the benefit of the Trust, and to employ trust property in such business”.
• In any event, as the Court put it: “…trustees must act jointly in taking decisions and resolutions for the benefit of the Trust and beneficiaries thereof, unless a specific majority clause provides otherwise” and “Even when the trust deed provides for a majority decision, the resolutions must be signed by all the trustees. (Emphasis added)
• As it was neatly put in an earlier High Court decision: “A majority of trustees in office may form a quorum internally at a trust meeting, but can still not externally bind a trust by acting together … It is not the majority vote, but rather the resolution by the entire complement which binds a trust estate. A trust operates on resolutions and not votes.” (Emphasis added)
• As only two of the three trustees had acted for the trust in this case, the Court held both the resolution and the suretyship to be invalid and unenforceable.

So, what does that mean for you in practice when contracting with a trust?

Internal trust matters: Internal matters (such as using trust income for the benefit of beneficiaries or administering trust assets) “may be debated and put to a vote, thereafter the voice of the majority will prevail.”

External trust matters: As an outsider however your dealings with the trust will relate to external trust matters (transactions relating to trust property with the outside world such as buying and selling property, signing suretyships and the like) and here unanimity is essential for the trust to be bound. Even when the trust deed allows majority decisions, all the trustees must still participate in the decision-making and all of them must sign a resolution to make it valid externally. Make sure therefore that all trustees signing for the trust have the power to do so per the trust deed and by a valid, unanimous resolution.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

Article courtesy of Law Dot News | Trusts – Trustees

Trustees: Your New Duty to Report Beneficial Owners

“National Treasury, therefore, expects that if South Africa continues to make significant improvements in effectiveness and swiftly exits grey listing, it will have a limited impact on financial stability and costs of doing business with South Africa, particularly if South Africa moves speedily to get out of grey listing.” (National Treasury)

South Africa’s grey listing by the Financial Action Task Force, the global financial watchdog, has led government to hurriedly introduce new “Anti-Money Laundering and Combating Terrorism Financing” measures to combat financial crimes. One of those measure is a new requirement for trustees to disclose all “beneficial owners” of trusts.

In what was unfortunately no April Fool’s Joke, new requirements effective from 1 April 2023 were gazetted without notice and after business hours only on 31 March 2023. They came in the form of amendments to the Trust Property Control Act Regulations, requiring all trustees to establish and record the beneficial ownership of the trust, to keep a record of prescribed information relating to beneficial owners, to lodge same with the Master’s Office, and to keep all information up to date on an ongoing basis.

“Beneficial owner” has a wide definition

The definition of “beneficial owner” includes (logically) all beneficiaries, “a natural person who directly or indirectly owns ultimately owns the relevant trust property”, and “a natural person who exercises effective control of the administration of the trust arrangements…”. It also includes all trustees and the founder – those inclusions seem a lot less logical but that’s the law.

So, what should you do now?

Media reports have highlighted both the heavy penalties for failure to comply with these obligations (a R10 million fine, imprisonment for five years, or both) and the impossibility of trustees complying with those obligations on 1 April as a result of both the timing of the gazette and delays in establishing the requisite Master’s online electronic register.

But the practical issue now is that all trustees must take steps to comply – go to the Master’s “Trust Beneficial Ownership Register” page and follow the instructions there (note – you must be signed into Google to access that link).

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

Article courtesy of Law Dot News | Family Law – Trusts on Divorce

Trusts on Divorce: Are You Stuck with an Ex-Spouse as Trustee?

“Love is grand. Divorce is a hundred grand.” (Anon)

That’s a great scenario whilst the marriage prospers, but what happens on divorce? A recent High Court decision addressed one such scenario –

Trusts may be formed for a variety of reasons, and the purpose and structure of each trust will inform the choice of trustees. When it comes to families aiming to preserve and protect family assets for future generations, often both spouses are appointed not only as beneficiaries, but also as trustees.

 

‘Not the Titanic’ – this marriage took six years to sink

In 2014, whilst a marriage was (as the Court put it in a judgment rich in nautical imagery) “still in calm waters”, the spouses formed four trusts. Two were called business trusts, one a property trust, and the fourth a family trust. Naming choices aside, the critical issue is that both spouses had been appointed as trustees.

Regrettably in 2015 the couple “drifted” apart and their marriage “ran aground and settled on the rocky shores of the divorce courts door” with the institution of divorce proceedings. “Unlike the Titanic” observed the Court, the relationship took six years more to be finally laid to rest – the divorce was only granted in 2021.

 

The ex-spouses apply for each other’s removal as trustee

The ex-husband then applied to the High Court for removal of his ex-wife as trustee of all four trusts on the grounds that she had breached her duties as trustee. Most significantly, he said, she had failed to attend trustee meetings for some five years despite being invited to them.

 

• Her main defence was that, in the context of the ongoing divorce proceedings, her ex-husband’s conduct made it impossible for her to attend to her duties as trustee.The Court was unconvinced by her various allegations in this regard, and two aspects in particular bear mention –
  • She complained that being in the minority her decisions were overruled – not an excuse for failing to attend meetings held the Court.
  • Her ex-husband failed to provide a vehicle to enable her to attend meetings – again no excuse, said the Court, there being a provision in the trust deed for virtual meetings.
• Also counting against her was the fact that she was living in a trust-owned property “but fails to maintain such and pays no rent at all despite receiving the amount of R10 000,00 per month towards property expenses incurred.”
• Finding that she had not been involved in the trust’s affairs and did nothing to safeguard them, the Court ordered her removal as trustee.

The Court then rejected as being without merit her counterclaim for her ex-husband’s removal as trustee on the grounds of a breach of his duty of trust towards her and a conflict of duty between his private interests and his duties as trustee.

Let’s have a look at the law behind those decisions –

 

What are a trustee’s duties?

Per the Trust Property Control Act: “A trustee shall in the performance of his/her duties and the exercise of his/her powers, act with the care, diligence and skill which can reasonably be expected of a person who manages the affairs of another”.

 

Must a trustee be impartial?

The Court: “It is not required of a trustee to be total[ly] impartial or [to have] no connection with the beneficiaries, but rather that he or she is capable of bringing the necessary independent mind to bear [to] the business of the trust and of deciding what is in the interests of the trust.”

 

When will a court remove a trustee?

The court has a discretion which it must exercise “with circumspection”.

Per the Court: “The court has to be satisfied that the requested removal will be in the best interest of the trust and the beneficiaries … a mere conflict of interest between trustees and beneficiaries or amongst the trustees [is] insufficient for the removal of a trustee … the overriding question is always whether or not the conduct of the trustee imperils the trust property or its administration”.

There is no requirement to prove bad faith or misconduct, rather “the essential test is whether such disharmony, as in the present matter, imperils the trust estate or its proper administration … It is therefore clear that the court may remove a trustee from office in the event that such removal will be in the interest of the trust and its beneficiaries.” (Emphasis supplied)

 

In closing…

If you are faced with a divorce scenario, avoid a situation such as the ex-spouses in this matter faced by making sure that all questions around any trusts involved – such as who is to remain as trustee, who is to remain as beneficiary and so on – are resolved as part of the divorce process, and not left for future resolution.

Even better, take professional advice upfront when setting up trusts on how to avoid any future disputes that may arise should your marriage ever sail into stormy waters.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

 

© LawDotNews