This presentation examines the following questions in the context of the High Court decision in Raftland and what that decision means for trust practices and distributions generally:
- do we really need the trust loss measures and other complicated tax legislation after the High Court decision in Raftland?
- are some trust distributions simply ineffective shams under common law principles?
- if so, who gets taxed when a sham distribution is struck down: the trustee, the other beneficiaries named in the distribution minute or the default beneficiaries?
- do the answers to these questions depend on a better worded trust deed or trust distribution minute?