Taxation and Trusts

Confused about Trusts and what they do?  Join the club!


What exactly is a Trust, and why does everyone seem to have a different opinion, FFS?  Almost every transaction we undertake involves creating a trust of some sort; there is no need to have anything in writing, and we rarely consider the trust aspect in these routine transactions.  The divine trusts you forge with the Universe are seldom written down but they define everything .  

Trusts, as we usually think of them, tend to be of the formalised kind and require three parties; the creator or settlor (sometimes called grantor), one or more trustees, who act as administrators, and one or more beneficiaries. 

Trusts are commonly understood to be either revocable or irrevocable. Both types are living trusts, which means they’re established during your lifetime and differ in the amount of control you have over assets and beneficiaries, as well as the tax benefits available.  And, of course, the use of trusts is heavily regulated by the state, who expect you to register your trust with HMRC.  Hopefully that statement will have triggered a few mental alarm bells. If that is the case, you might simply want to skip down to the paragraph headed: The Matrix Deception.

But, in case you really need to know, here’s a run through the most common types of trust and their benefits that the state permit and control. 

Discretionary trusts, pilot trusts and A&M trusts

(i) Discretionary trusts

For lifetime trusts, fully discretionary trusts seem to be the most popular choice nowadays for those who can make gifts covered by an Inheritance Tax (IHT) exemption(s) or falling within the IHT nil rate band. It is important to have the default beneficiaries named or defined under the trust. This requirement stems from the need for certainty of the beneficiaries which is one of the legal requirements for a valid trust to exist. It must be clear and certain at any time who the beneficiaries are under a trust. If the choice is simply left to the trustees, then, unless the trustees actually appoint someone, that certainty will be lacking.

Of course, under a discretionary trust such default beneficiaries will only benefit if there is no other appointment made by the end of the trust period (usually 125 years) and this should be obvious if one reads the trust provisions.  It must be said that the default beneficiaries do not necessarily have to be named as particular individuals although this is the simplest way of dealing with the question of certainty. It should be possible to define the default beneficiaries in some other way, but great care needs to be taken to ensure that the result is certain, for example that there is no need for anyone to still have to exercise their discretion over the choice. In practice, you would not expect a trust to actually last 125 years without the trustees making an appointment of benefits but, if there is no certain default beneficiary, there will be a possibility of a “resulting trust” for the settlor. Whilst HMRC has confirmed that this by itself will not amount to a gift with reservation of benefit (thus negating any IHT benefits of the trust), there will be income tax implications.  Who’d have guessed?

(ii) Pilot trusts 

A separate mention needs to be made of discretionary “pilot trusts”. These are trusts set up with a small sum, usually £10, as a receptacle to receive larger sums in due course, usually following the death of the settlor. Trusts created on different days are not related settlements for IHT purposes so the benefit of such an arrangement is that each trust will be entitled to its own nil rate band for IHT purposes. Following the introduction of the anti-avoidance rules on “same-day additions”, such planning no longer works for additions on death. However, settling several trusts on different days (in accordance with the so called “Rysaffe” principle) still works very well with life policy trusts involving protection policies where the premiums paid by the settlor are covered by IHT exemptions, and with Loan trusts (see below). 

(iii) A&M trusts 

Finally, remember that not all trusts falling within the relevant property regime will be fully discretionary trusts. Most lifetime trusts, i.e. trusts other that trusts for the disabled and absolute trusts, will also be subject to this regime. This includes trusts with an interest in possession (see below re flexible trusts) and many trusts for children or grandchildren which take the form of what used to be called an “accumulation and maintenance” trust, for example a trust under which a minor child becomes entitled at age 25 or 30 and until then the trustees have discretion whether to use the trust income for the child’s benefit or accumulate it. Many settlors (and testators) still prefer this form of trust for specific beneficiaries rather than a fully discretionary trust. 

Inheritance trusts using life assurance bonds 

The two most popular IHT mitigation schemes (also sometimes called “inheritance trusts”) available from life offices are the Loan Trust (or Gift and Loan Trust) and a Discounted Gift Trust. Following the extension of the DOTAS rules to inheritance tax there was concern about such schemes, so it came as great relief that HMRC confirmed that it considers these schemes as legitimate planning. In effect, HMRC seems to have accepted that life assurance bonds have a “special” place in taxation, not just as far as the taxation of chargeable event gains is concerned, but in tax planning generally.  It is important to remember though that this favoured treatment applies to the existing tried and tested plans. It will not necessarily apply to any new trust arrangements offered by a life office.

 Non-discretionary trusts 

Trusts which don’t count as relevant property include the following: 


Some of these must have been created before 22 March 2006 (such as the TSIs) and others may only be created on death (such as an IPDI, TBM or an 18 to- 25 trust). This aspect will therefore be relevant to will planning. It should go without saying that if there are potential minor children or grandchildren beneficiaries who will benefit on death, it is always best to include all the appropriate trust provisions in a will. If there are no such express provisions a trust will nevertheless come into effect as long as the beneficiary is a minor and there is not an absolute entitlement but someone (usually the executors or their adviser) will have to figure out what kind of trust is it (this will depend on the precise wording of the will). Deciphering will trust provisions to establish the type of trust in question before the trustees can invest the inherited funds is one of the ways that make lawyers rub their hands together.  

 Lifetime flexible trusts 

Although the IHT advantages of using a flexible trust as compared to a discretionary trust have disappeared for post 21 March 2006 trusts, flexible interest in possession trusts are still useful from an income tax standpoint. This is because income arising under an interest in possession trust will belong to and be taxed on the beneficiary entitled to it. Therefore, the need for trustees to pay income tax at the high trustees’ rates and the administration that goes with this is avoided. Instead the trustees: 


Indeed, if all the trust income is mandated (paid by the provider straight to) the income beneficiary, the trustees will have no tax liability at all and no need to file tax returns. 

There are two situations where trust income will not be taxed on the beneficiary. 


To achieve the above income tax treatment, the trust investments must be income unit trusts or OEICs. Insurance bonds and accumulation unit trusts or OEICs will not be suitable.

The Matrix Deception.

However, all of these trusts are essentially what we might refer to as ‘Matrix’ deceptions. After all, their primary use to is to shelter assets from the state and it’s extortionate taxes. But, as we have seen elsewhere, the payment of any form of tax by individuals is unlawful and therefore we do it either because we are unaware of the deception, by enforcement, or on a voluntary basis.  And if the trusts are set up by your legal fictions, which don’t belong to you, the trust assets don’t belong to you either.   

To understand the scale of the Matrix Deception with trusts, we should go back to their introduction in the 14th Century. 

December 13 is the anniversary of the resignation of one of the more benign and pious Popes in history - Celestine V, who previously lived as a hermit, before he was persuaded to end his life of solitude to unite two rival factions of Roman cardinals.  This was in 1294, and having fulfilled that requirement, within a few months poor Celestine was forced out in a ruthless power struggle by the Machiavellian Cardinal  Benedetto Caetani, who subsequently became Pope Boniface VIII. 

It is alleged that Caetani was then responsible for imprisoning and torturing his predecessor to prevent him from disclosing how he was deceived into resigning.  Cardinal Caetani, as Pontiff, went on to implement perhaps the most terrifying document in history, Unum Sanctum (in 1302), which stated:  "We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”  

In celebration, the Pope commissioned a gold-plated headdress in the shape of a pinecone, with an elaborate crown at its base. The pinecone is an ancient symbol of fertility and one traditionally associated with Ba’al as well as the Cult of Cybele.  It also represents the pineal gland - hence, the 13-foot tall pinecone in Vatican Square. 

Unum Sanctum is not only the first trust deed in history, but also the largest trust ever conceived, as it claims the whole planet and everything on it, conveyed in an Express Trust.  Pope Boniface VIII was the first leader in history to create the concept of a Trust, but the first Testamentary Trust, through a deed and will creating a Deceased Estate, was created by Pope Nicholas V in 1455, by issuing the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex. This includes the opening text “For a perpetual remembrance.” 

This Papal Bull had the effect of conveying the right of use of the land as Real Property, from the Express Trust, Unam Sanctam, to the control of the Pontiff and his successors in perpetuity. Hence, all land is claimed as “Crown Land” and is represented by the first Cestui Que Vie Trust, created when a child is born.  It deprives us – to this day - of all beneficial entitlements and rights on the land.  

Unum Sanctum is not only the first trust deed in history, but also the largest trust ever conceived, as it claims the whole planet and everything on it, conveyed in an Express Trust.  

Pope Boniface VIII was the first leader in history to create the concept of a Trust, but the first Testamentary Trust, through a deed and will creating a Deceased Estate, was created by Pope Nicholas V in 1455, by issuing the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex. This includes the opening text “For a perpetual remembrance.” This Papal Bull had the effect of conveying the right of use of the land as Real Property, from the Express Trust, Unam Sanctam, to the control of the Pontiff and his successors in perpetuity. 

Hence, all land is claimed as “Crown Land” and is represented by the first Cestui Que Vie Trust, created when a child is born.  It deprives us – to this day - of all beneficial entitlements and rights on the land.

The 2nd Crown of the Commonwealth

The second Crown was created in 1481 with the papal bull Aeterni Regis, meaning “Eternal Crown”, by Sixtus IV, being only the 2nd of three papal bulls as deeds of testamentary trusts.  This Papal Bull created the “Crown of Aragon”, later known as the Crown of Spain, and is the highest sovereign and highest steward of all Roman Slaves subject to the rule of the Roman Pontiff. Spain lost the crown in 1604 when it was granted to King James I of England by Pope Paul V after the successful passage of the “Union of Crowns”, or Commonwealth, in 1605 after the false flag operation of the Gunpowder Plot. The Crown was finally lost by England in 1975, when it was returned to Spain and King Carlos I, where it remains to this day.  This 2nd Crown is represented by the 2nd Cestui Que Vie Trust, created when a child is born and, by the sale of the birth certificate as a Bond to the private central bank of the nation, depriving us of ownership of our flesh and condemning us to perpetual servitude, as a Roman person, or slave.

The 3rd Crown of the Ecclesiastical See

The third Crown was created in 1537 by Paul III, through the papal bull Convocation, also meant to open the Council of Trent. It is the third and final testamentary deed and will of a testamentary trust, set up for the claiming of all “lost souls”, lost to the See.  The Venetians assisted in the creation of the 1st Cestui Que Vie Act of 1540, to use this papal bull as the basis of Ecclesiastical authority of Henry VIII. This Crown was secretly granted to England in the collection and “reaping” of lost souls. 

The Crown was lost in 1816, due to the deliberate bankruptcy of England, and granted to the Temple Bar which became known as the Crown Bar, or simply the Crown. The Bar Associations have since been responsible for administering the “reaping” of the souls of the lost and damned, including the registration and collection of Baptismal certificates representing the souls collected by the Vatican and stored in its vaults.

This 3rd Crown is represented by the 3rd Cestui Que Vie Trust, created when a child is baptized. It is the parents’ grant of the Baptismal certificate––title to the soul––to the church or Registrar. Thus, without legal title over one’s own soul, we will be denied legal standing and will be treated as things––cargo without souls––upon which the BAR is now legally able to enforce Maritime law.

"The Triregnum (the Papal Tiara formed by three crowns symbolizing the triple power of the Pope: father of kings, governor of the world and Vicar of Christ) from the XVIII Century, with which the bronze statue of Saint Peter is crowned every June 29th, the feast day of the Saint.

Use of the Tiara, a ritual during solemn ceremonies, was abandoned during the Papacy of Paul VI.

The Tiara is a headdress ending in an ogive and made of silver, and during the times of Boniface VIII two crowns were added, and from 1314 three crowns (the reason it is called the triregnum), topped by a small globe with a golden cross.

Among the various interpretations, we shall mention the one that says that the three crowns represent the militant, the suffering and the triumphant Church.

The shape of the Triregnum varied throughout the years. We may find it represented as more or less rounded, in some cases without the globe and the cross. At times there is a modified position of the ribbons (two ribbons with a patent cross hanging)."

The Holy See Press Office:

https://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/sp_ss_scv/insigne/triregno_en.html#:~:text=Use of the Tiara%2C a ritual during solemn,by a small globe with a golden cross. 

The Cestui Que Vie Trust

A Cestui Que Vie Trust is a fictional concept. It is a Temporary Testamentary Trust, first created during the reign of Henry VIII of England through the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1540 and updated by Charles II, through the CQV Act of 1666, wherein an Estate may be effected for the Benefit of a Person presumed lost or abandoned at “sea” and therefore assumed “dead” after seven (7) years. Additional presumptions, by which such a Trust may be formed, were added in later statutes to include bankrupts, minors, incompetents, mortgages, and private companies. The original purpose of a CQV Trust was to form a temporary Estate for the benefit of another because some event, state of affairs, or condition prevented them from claiming their status as living, competent, and present, before a competent authority. Therefore, any claims, history, statutes, or arguments that deviate in terms of the origin and function of a CQV Trust, as pronounced by these canons, is false and automatically null and void.

A Beneficiary under Estate may be either a Beneficiary or a CQV Trust. When a Beneficiary loses direct benefit of any Property of the higher Estate placed in a CQV Trust on his behalf, he does not “own” the CQV Trust; he is only the beneficiary of what the Trustees of the CQV Trust choose to provide.  As all CQV Trusts are created on presumption, based upon original purpose and function, such a Trust cannot be created if these presumptions can be proven not to exist.

Since 1933, when a child is borne in a State (Estate) under inferior Roman law, three (3) Cestui Que (Vie) Trusts are created upon certain presumptions specifically designed to deny, forever, the child any rights of Real Property, any Rights to be free, and any Rights to be known as man or woman, rather than a creature or animal, by claiming and possessing their Soul or Spirit.

The Executors or Administrators of the higher Estate willingly and knowingly:

1.  convey the beneficial entitlements of the child, as Beneficiary, into the 1st Cestui Que (Vie) Trust in the form of a Registry Number by registering the Name, thereby also creating the Corporate Person and denying the child any rights to Real Property; and

2.  claim the baby as chattel to the Estate. The slave baby contract is then created by honouring the ancient tradition of either having the ink impression of the baby’s feet onto the live birth record, or a drop of its blood, as well as tricking the parents to signing the baby away through the deceitful legal meanings on the live birth record which is a promissory note, converted into a slave bond, sold to the private reserve bank of the estate, and then conveyed into a 2nd and separate CQV Trust, per child, owned by the bank. When the promissory note reaches maturity and the bank is unable to “seize” the slave child, a maritime lien is lawfully issued to “salvage” the lost property and is monetized as currency issued in series against the CQV Trust.

3.  claim the child’s soul via the Baptismal Certificate. Since 1540 and the creation of the 1st CQV Act, deriving its power from the Papal Bull of Roman Cult leader Pope Paul III, 1540, when a child is baptized and a Baptismal Certificate is issued, the parents have gifted, granted, and conveyed the soul of the baby to a “3rd” CQV Trust owned by the Roman Cult, which has held this valuable property in its vaults ever since. Since 1815, this 3rd Crown of the Roman Cult and 3rd CQV Trust representing Ecclesiastical Property has been managed by the BAR as the reconstituted “Galla” responsible, as Grim Reapers, for reaping the souls.

Each Cestui Que Vie Trust, created since 1933, represents one of the three Crowns representing the three claims of property of the Roman Cult: Real Property (on Earth), Personal Property (body), and Ecclesiastical Property (soul). Each corresponds exactly to the three forms of law available to the Galla of the BAR Courts: corporate commercial law (judge is the ‘landlord’), maritime and canon law (judge is the banker), and Talmudic law (judge is the priest).

These definitions from Black's Law (4th & 5th editions) imply that we are trustees of the CROWN Estate (NAME property) when acting in person(am), holding  trust property in possession... and not the rightful Cestui Que Vie Beneficiary...

What is the real power of a court ‘judge’?

Given what has been revealed about the foundations of Roman Law, what is the real hidden power of a judge when we face court?  Is it their superior knowledge of process and procedure or of magic? Or is it something simpler and far more obvious?

It is unfortunate that much of the excitement about Estates and Executors has deliberately not revealed that an Estate, by definition, has to belong to a Trust––to be specific, a Testamentary Trust or CQV Trust. 

When we receive legal paper or have to appear in court, it is these same CQV Trusts which have our rights converted into the property contained within them. 

Instead of being the Trustee, or the Executor, or Administrator, perhaps we are merely the Beneficiary of each CQV Trust, granted only beneficial and equitable use of certain property, never legal title.  

So if the Roman Legal System assumes we are merely the beneficiary of these CQV Trusts, when we go to court, who represents the Trustee and Office of Executor? We all know that all cases are based upon the judge’s discretion which often defies procedures, statutes, and maxims of law. Well, they are doing what any Trustee or Executor, administering a trust in the presence of the beneficiary, can do under Roman Law and all the statutes, maxims, and procedures are really for show because under the principles of Trust Law, as first formed by the Roman Cult, a Trustee has a wide latitude, including the ability to correct any procedural mistakes, by obtaining the implied or tacit consent of the beneficiary, to obviate any mistakes. 

The judge is the real and legal Name. The judge is the trust, itself. We are the mirror image to them––the ghost––the dead. It is high sorcery, trickery, and subterfuge that has remained “legal” for far too long. Spread the word.

Source: http://stopthepirates.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/history-of-trusts.html