Removing funds from minor's investment account

Taking money from a child is not a "playbook". Dress it up however you want put it would be completely bogus
You have no experience or understanding of these issues. The proposal is perfectly fine.

- Parent gifts €100,000
- Third party bare trustee appointed
- Unforeseen emergency arises
- Parent asks trustee for a loan
- Trustee considers what a reasonable person would do when such an emergency would clearly affect the child/beneficary and what the child would be likely to do if he or she was an adult
- Trustee advances the loan

There is nothing wrong with the above and Revenue would have no issue with it. The only risk is a negligible legal one of the adult child having a cut at the trustee, which is mitigated, as the trustee documents the decision and rationale, the loan is surely repaid in this case, and the child is hardly going to jeopardise future inheritances by acting the maggot.

Every day’s a school day…
 
Last edited:
You could try just "earmarking" the money for him but keeping it yourself.


Just in case... I am only joking.
 
I am concerned about our son’s CAT liability when myself and my wife pass, particularly because he is an only child .
I wonder would it make more sense to take out a Section 72 policy to (perhaps partially) cover any future CAT bill?

If you subsequently ran into financial difficulties, you just stop paying the premiums.
 
Why so? A link would be helpful.
You can presumably look it up as easily as I can. Basically, it was mentioned that a Section 72 policy is expensive and if it lapses all premiums paid in even of over a long time is totally lost. It was considered better to invest a similar sum in a savings or other policy and cash this in when the CAT liability materialises.

Generally, insurance against an event that is ultimately certain to happen will always be an expensive proposition.
 
You can presumably look it up as easily as I can.
Is this the thread you had in mind?

I certainly wouldn’t conclude that taking out a Section 72 policy was “the opposite of a good idea” in every circumstance having read that thread. Far from it.
Generally, insurance against an event that is ultimately certain to happen will always be an expensive proposition.
By that logic nobody should ever take out life assurance! You are not seriously advocating that, are you?
 
I certainly wouldn’t conclude that taking out a Section 72 policy was “the opposite of a good idea” in every circumstance having read that thread. Far from it.
That's OK.
By that logic nobody should ever take out life assurance!
Hardly. Aren't most life assurance policies either fixed term or alternatively lapse on a particular event, eg the repayment of a loan?
You are not seriously advocating that, are you?
What sort of question is that?
 
That's OK.
Grand.

I’m not saying a section 72 policy is necessarily the right option for the OP but given his age, the age of his only child and the size of the expected estate, I think it’s certainly worth considering.

Relying on a trustee to loan me trust assets if I run into difficulties? Nah, too risky.
 
The OP is just worried about an extreme emergency situation where the proverbial hits the fan and the only option is the child’s money. What’s risky about that? On that basis nobody would ever give their kids anything

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. You mustn’t have read the detail! What’s less risky, never gifting anything to anyone? The suggestion decreases the risk because it gives the parent extra protection.
 
The point is that there is no way to build in a mechanism in advance to ensure that trust assets get lent back to a settlor in extreme circumstances.

That’s not legally possible - you have either settled assets on trust or you haven’t.

In any event, €6kpa is going to take a long time to build into a meaningful figure. What if the OP gets hit by a proverbial bus in the morning?
 
Sorry , just seeing you post now. Really appreciate your response. I was briefly looking into Section 72 policies recently. I must look into what the premium would be . I am aware that they are horrifically expensive. I would be concerned that either my wife or son, would fail to keep up the payments after I die and I believe if you miss one payment, the policy cancels and you have lost everything that you put into it.
 
You have no experience or understanding of these issues
Ha, and your actual experience has led you outline a scenario that is not related to the OP

- Parent gifts €100,000
This is not the situation outlined by the OP. But for the sake of it, revenue would have no interest in your scenario because it would fall under the lifetime CAT threshold so it's not a problem. There is no tax evasion going on. However it would take some ethically dubious decision making from the trustees to contrive a situation that no other alternative was available than to raid the fund.

Going back to the OPs proposal of contributing €6k/yr to take advantage of the small gift exemption. If after 10 years, the OP tried to borrow €60k from the child as in your scenario, it would scream of a convoluted scheme to evade CAT on the eventual inheritance.

Every day’s a school day…
Absolutely, hopefully you'll catch the bus tomorrow
 
Wow.

My example is so different in that I used a nice round number of €100,000 vs your €60,000 number. I don’t know how old the child is, I just picked 6 x €16,000 / circa €100k.

You haven’t a clue. What exactly is the issue with my suggestion? 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?
 
Listen to yourself.

‘ethically dubious decision’

‘convoluted scheme to evade CAT’

Are you for real? Let’s see if you have the capacity for rational thought…

What if it was an adult child who’s gifted €6k a year for 20 years? They have, say, €200k. The parents run into unforeseen financial difficulty. The adult child lends €100k to his parents.

Do you think that ‘screams of a convoluted scheme to avoid CAT’?

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.
 
Even if the trust did loan the money, you would have to look at the mechanics of it. If they just use a bank account, it would be simple enough. If they use a life company, which a lot of people do, they would have to cash in the policy, which will also trigger a tax liability for the trust.

All of this adds another level of hassle and complexity to something that is pretty standard. If you are thinking of these situations now, don't do the trust until you are comfortable you have the resources to give €6,000 a year to your child...or give them less each year.
 
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.