Shortly after Charles was decided by the High Court of Australia, another fixed investment trust was the subject of taxation proceedings. This time, it was before the Supreme Court of Canada in MNR v. TransCanada Investment Corporation Ltd. The trust was a typical fixed investment trust. Under the trust deed, an administrator (i.e. the manager) was to purchase a fixed number of predetermined shares of common stock of companies to constitute a trust unit. Upon all the shares of underlying companies of a unit being vested in the trustee, the trustee would issue shares of a trust unit. Each share of a trust unit represented an undivided equal interest in the unit. Read the rest of this entry »
B. Baker v. Archer-Shee in Unit Trusts
So far, the position is this. With regard to the number of beneficiaries, the effect of Nelson v. Adamson and New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd. v. CPD is that Baker is not limited to trusts with one beneficiary and the existence of a number of beneficiaries, whether in successionor concurrently, does not affect their respective claims to proprietary interests in the subject matter of a trust. Ironically, the expansive application of Baker was achieved in New Zealand Insurance only at the price of admitting that a beneficiary may not have a proprietary interest in the trust assets in some fixed trust situations, such as where the beneficial interest is ‘a specified sum to be provided out of an unidentified part of a body of assets‘. Read the rest of this entry »
It is true that where, as here, neither interest is in any way hypothecated or charged, the function of the trustees is simple, but that does not change the inherent character of the function, for the functional possibilities are present, and might at any time be invoked.
Nelson v. Adamson was distinguished as a decision as to what the income arose from, within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts of the United Kingdom. This is the same interpretation of Baker as that by Lord Morison in Reid’s Trustees.59 Read the rest of this entry »
