When Trusts Cross Borders: Planning for Internationally Connected Families

As South African families become increasingly international, the structures established to hold and transfer their wealth must operate across different tax systems, regulatory environments and family circumstances.

A trust that remains suitable for a family based in South Africa may produce a very different outcome when a beneficiary moves to the UK, the US or Australia. Changes to tax rules can also affect structures established many years ago, reinforcing the importance of reviewing arrangements as family circumstances and regulations evolve.

These issues shaped two recent Jersey Finance events in Johannesburg and Cape Town. Hosted in partnership with STEP Johannesburg and STEP South Africa respectively, the sessions brought together trust, tax, legal, banking, investment and wealth management professionals.

Led by Dr Rufaro Nyakatawa, Director – Africa at Jersey Finance, and Catherine de Maid, Partner at Burges Salmon, the discussions explored the UK-South Africa tax and planning considerations facing internationally connected families.

Recent changes to the UK tax regime formed an important part of both discussions. Participants considered how the replacement of the remittance basis, changes to inheritance tax and the introduction of transitional arrangements are influencing internationally mobile families.

The conversations demonstrated why an approach that worked previously cannot be assumed to remain appropriate. The outcome may depend on when a trust was established, where its settlor and beneficiaries are resident, how long they expect to remain there, the assets held and how the structure was funded.

A distinction was also drawn between settlors and beneficiaries. A trust may be less suitable for somebody moving to the UK as a settlor on a long-term basis, while continuing to serve a useful purpose for beneficiaries whose parents and the underlying family wealth remain elsewhere.

Participants cautioned against interpreting these changes as the end of the trust. Tax is only one reason for establishing a structure. Trusts continue to support succession, asset protection and the responsible management of wealth, particularly where beneficiaries may not yet be ready to receive assets directly.

The more useful question is whether a structure continues to serve the family’s current circumstances and long-term objectives.

The Johannesburg discussion placed particular emphasis on existing or legacy trusts. Advisers said that much of their current work involves reviewing established arrangements rather than creating new ones.

A common challenge arises when a trust was established while a family was concentrated in one country, but its beneficiaries have since moved across several jurisdictions. A South African trust may not produce the same outcome for children living in South Africa, the UK, the US and even in Australia. Distributions can be treated differently in each location, while reporting obligations and the risk of overlapping taxation create further complexity.

In some cases, advisers may need to consider whether domestic and offshore assets should continue to sit within the same structure or whether different arrangements are required for particular branches of the family. Participants discussed how distributions and inheritances might be coordinated across several structures to reflect the different circumstances of beneficiaries. Any such approach must be considered carefully, both from a tax perspective and in terms of fairness across the family.

The Johannesburg conversation also explored growing interest in foundations and private trust companies. Families may be attracted to these options because they appear to offer greater control or a different legal relationship with the underlying assets.

However, participants stressed that the treatment of a foundation can vary significantly between jurisdictions. Where its classification as a trust, company or another form of entity is uncertain, a new structure may introduce additional risks instead of resolving existing ones.

This reinforced a wider point: familiarity with the name of a structure is not enough. Advisers must understand how it is constituted, how rights are allocated and how each relevant jurisdiction is likely to treat it.

The conversation also suggested that attitudes towards international planning are changing. One participant reported seeing younger professionals and entrepreneurs consider global mobility and offshore estate planning earlier in their careers, rather than treating these issues as something to address closer to retirement.

While many of the same technical issues arose in Cape Town, the conversation focussed more strongly on how cross-border advice is coordinated in practice.

Participants shared examples of clients seeking advice only after moving country, sometimes several years later. By that stage, opportunities may have been lost and previously manageable issues can be more difficult and costly to resolve. Historic liabilities, reporting failures or structures established under the rules of another jurisdiction may all need to be addressed.

Early advice cannot remove every complication, but it gives advisers more scope to assess the available options before residence, ownership or family circumstances change.

The Cape Town discussion highlighted the value of developing a clear, coordinated plan. UK and South African advisers need to speak early, identify where their advice overlaps and set out the sequence in which actions should take place.

This is particularly important for clients preparing for an international move, when tax planning must compete with decisions about employment, schooling, housing and the practical demands of relocation. A clear plan can help families understand what needs to happen, when it must happen and which adviser is responsible.

Participants also considered alternatives to traditional trust planning. Family investment companies and offshore life bonds were among the options discussed. Each may offer advantages in particular circumstances, but neither is a universal substitute for a trust.

A company may allow economic and voting rights to be divided between generations, but its residence, management, ownership and future distributions all require careful consideration. Similarly, a life bond may provide tax deferral in some circumstances, but costs, liquidity, counterparty exposure and the client’s likely residence when the policy matures remain important factors.

The discussion also covered the ownership of investment assets, including the implications of holding assets connected to another jurisdiction and the treatment of offshore funds when an individual changes residence. Although the detail varied, the wider point was consistent: investment decisions cannot be separated from tax residence, estate planning and the structure through which assets are held.

Advisers in Johannesburg reported that much of their current work involves reviewing established trusts as families become more internationally dispersed. Structures created when family members and assets were concentrated in South Africa may no longer meet the needs of beneficiaries living in several jurisdictions. This is prompting closer consideration of how existing trusts operate, whether domestic and offshore assets should be treated differently, and how alternative structures such as foundations may be viewed across jurisdictions.

In Cape Town, advisers placed particular emphasis on the practical challenges surrounding international relocation. They are seeing clients seek advice after moving, when opportunities may already have been lost and tax, reporting or structuring issues have become more difficult to resolve. This has increased the need for advisers in different jurisdictions to coordinate their advice and provide families with a clear sequence of actions before and after a move. Advisers are also considering companies, life bonds and other investment arrangements alongside trusts where appropriate.

Across both session, the underlying priorities were closely aligned. There is no standard structure for an internationally connected family. The appropriate approach will depend on the family’s objectives, assets, relationships, mobility and future plans.

Advisers also recognised that these arrangements cannot be treated as static. A structure that works today may need to be reconsidered when a beneficiary relocates, a business is sold or regulation changes. Early advice and regular reviews can help families identify these issues before they become more difficult to address.

Collaboration is central to that process. No adviser can cover every tax, legal and regulatory consideration across multiple jurisdictions. Families are better supported when their advisers involve the right specialists, understand how their respective advice fits together and present the family with a coordinated course of action.

The issues raised in Johannesburg and Cape Town show why internationally connected families need structures that can adapt as beneficiaries relocate, regulation changes and family circumstances evolve. They also need advisers across different jurisdictions to work together, with each contributing the specialist knowledge required.

Jersey provides an established and well-regulated base from which these arrangements can be administered. Its political and economic stability, mature legal and regulatory framework and longstanding experience in international private wealth offer continuity for families whose members, businesses and assets extend across several countries.

The range of Jersey structures is also relevant to the planning options discussed at both events. Trusts, foundations and companies can support different family objectives, but their suitability will depend on how they are treated in every jurisdiction connected to the family.

Jersey’s trust framework illustrates this balance between continuity and adaptation. The Trusts (Jersey) Amendment Law 2026, which came into force in March, introduced targeted clarifications for trustees, beneficiaries and secured lenders. It was only the eighth amendment to the legislation in more than 40 years, reflecting an approach that preserves a familiar framework while responding to the needs of modern wealth planning.

This framework is supported by more than 14,000 finance professionals, spanning trust and corporate services, law, accountancy, banking and investment management. That depth of expertise allows Jersey-based providers to work alongside advisers in South Africa, the UK and other markets when a family’s affairs cross several jurisdictions.

For advisers, the value lies in having access to a stable jurisdiction, experienced specialists and structures capable of supporting different generations and changing patterns of mobility. For families, it provides continuity as their circumstances develop, while allowing their existing advisers to remain closely involved.

For further insights into the trends, opportunities and challenges shaping private wealth across Africa, sign up for the Jersey Finance newsletter.