Removing funds from minor's investment account

The life company trusts are products with a bare trust layered on. That

Those are life company products with a trust over it, so a small subset of the world of trusts.
I am aware of that. And very common, especially amongst those who gift €6,000 a year. As opposed to the very wealthy who have much more in the trust than that. Seeing as our OP is worried about having to dip into the fund, I'd put him in the former.
 
It at some stage in the future we got into financial difficulty whether that be a job loss or something similar would we be able to withdraw funds from our sons account , specifically before he turned 18
He’s just worried about an armageddon situation
A job loss or temporary loss of income is not Armageddon, you are the only person talking about Armageddon.

Not sure people here understand the suggestion I made or how trusts work. The logic of having a third party trustee would be to opine on an extreme emergency situation where the OP needs money. So let’s think about what would face that trustee. A request for a loan to help fund accomodation and food etc for the family which includes the beneficiary. What would a reasonable person do?
Ah yes because a family with €1.5m in assets will need a loan from their son to put food on the table in a house they own. Unless they have explored every other available source of loans, sold all their assets and are genuinely struggling, your suggestion is bogus. And an aunt/uncle may be a third party but they are not independent

Unless the OP suffered a life changing injury ot medical condition, your suggestion is financial engineering to evade tax.

We’re simply talking about a mechanism that could be built into gifts to a child for a particularly nervous individual to protect their ability to borrow money from the child where there’s a black swan event.
That is literally the point of the trust to prevent such meddling, it's not supposed to protect a nervous individual who wants to retain access

the loan is surely repaid in this case, and the child is hardly going to jeopardise future inheritances by acting the maggot
This is what is fundamentally wrong with your logic, its an abuse of power. You believe the parent has a right to do what they want with the money because "sure didn't I give it to you in the first place". And the child must toe the line because of a threat on future inheritance. Lovely family values there.

I’m sure you’re drawing on your enormous experience of trust and estate law and tax to debunk what I suggested. Or might you perhaps be a barstool expert?
I'm not an expert but my own solicitor made it very clear when we discussed it last year. It's also pretty easy to find a number of solicitor firms that specialise in TEP that will say the same thing online. Maybe you are comfortable recommending it in a professional capacity

I’ll say it slowly so hopefully you understand it…the whole point…of the independent trustee…is to demonstrate…that it isn’t a scam or a ruse…if an unforeseen emergency arises…and in extreme circumstances…the parents need to borrow…from the child. The trustee considers what a reasonable person would do when the household that the child lives in is in an emergency situation and the child has money…it is perfectly logical and reasonable for the trustee to lend money to the parents.
True to form, you can't argue the point so you resort to snarky comments, well done! I won't be engaging with the pettiness further
 
Back
Top