10:11 AM, 16th April 2025, About a month ago 10
Text Size
Thousands of UK property owners — from landlords and entrepreneurs to families managing estates — transfer the beneficial interest in their properties each year without changing the legal title. These transactions are frequently executed for practical, lawful reasons: estate planning, tax efficiency, business restructuring, succession arrangements, or joint ownership clarifications.
Crucially, these transfers often occur without notifying the mortgage lender, and in the vast majority of cases, without consequence. For many, this raises a fundamental question:
Does transferring beneficial ownership — without lender consent — risk breaching the mortgage contract or triggering enforcement action?
The legal answer lies in a distinction that is both well-established in English land law and often misunderstood: the separation between legal and beneficial ownership. While lenders hold charges over the legal estate (the registered title), the beneficial interest may be reassigned, split, or settled on trust without altering that legal framework — and, importantly, without impairing the lender’s security.
This principle is not merely theoretical. It is embedded in the Law of Property Act 1925, reflected in the Land Registration Rules, and supported by routine conveyancing practice across the UK. The Land Registry does not record changes in beneficial ownership. HMRC, meanwhile, recognises such transfers for income tax and CGT purposes — even encouraging transparency through declarations like Form 17, without any requirement to involve lenders.
Despite standard mortgage clauses that purport to restrict the transfer of “any interest” in mortgaged property, there is no published case law in the UK of a lender calling in a loan solely due to a beneficial transfer — provided payments are kept up and legal title remains unchanged. The absence of litigation is telling. It indirectly validates the common professional view: the lender’s security remains intact so long as the legal estate is untouched.
In this White Paper, we explore the legal foundation of this principle, its regulatory context, and why — from both a legal and commercial standpoint — the transfer of beneficial interest without lender consent is not only routine, but often essential. We will draw directly on primary legislation, regulatory guidance, and case law to show why this practice is lawful, widespread, and seldom challenged in the courts.
Prefer to read offline? [Download the full white paper as a PDF]
The foundation of English property law rests on the separation between legal title and beneficial (equitable) ownership. This distinction, enshrined in the Law of Property Act 1925 and confirmed by HM Land Registry and HMRC, allows the legal owner to remain unchanged while the economic benefits of ownership are reassigned — often for estate planning, tax structuring, or commercial purposes.
Under section 1(6) of the Law of Property Act 1925, only legal estates or interests can be created at law; all other interests (including beneficial ownership) take effect in equity. Section 53(1)(c) further confirms that any disposition of a beneficial interest must be in writing. Nowhere does the statute require that a transfer of beneficial interest affects legal ownership — nor does it suggest that a mortgage lender must be notified or involved, provided the legal estate is untouched.
In fact, section 27(2) of the LPA 1925 makes clear that only certain legal dispositions — such as conveyances or assignments of the legal estate — trigger a requirement for registration. Beneficial changes do not. The legal owner remains the borrower named on the mortgage, and the lender’s charge remains enforceable against that legal estate, regardless of any behind-the-scenes equitable arrangements.
HM Land Registry reinforces this distinction in both its guidance and policy. Its blog post titled “Legal estates and beneficial interests: what’s the difference?” notes:
“The register records the ownership of the legal estate, not the equitable or beneficial interests. This means that the person shown as the registered proprietor may not be the same as the person entitled to the proceeds of sale or the rental income.”
https://hmlandregistry.blog.gov.uk/2016/08/16/legal-estates-beneficial-interests-whats-difference
HM Land Registry’s Practice Guide 24 also explains that trusts of land — including those created by declaration — do not have to be registered unless the parties wish to protect the interest by way of a Form A restriction. Even then, the restriction only alerts future purchasers; it has no bearing on the lender’s existing security unless the legal estate is being conveyed.
As a result, thousands of beneficial transfers occur annually, often between spouses, parents and children, or business partners. Provided the legal title — and therefore the mortgagor — remains the same, the mortgage charge is unaffected.
There is no statutory requirement under the LPA 1925, Land Registration Act 2002, or associated regulations to inform the lender of a transfer of beneficial interest alone. The only exception would be if the transfer impairs the lender’s ability to enforce its rights — for example, if a declaration of trust granted a new occupant exclusive possession in breach of the mortgage terms. However, where standard declarations merely reallocate beneficial interest and expressly preserve the lender’s rights, there is no interference with the lender’s charge.
In practice, this means the lender’s security remains fully intact, and the borrower continues to hold the legal estate and repay the loan — the two conditions that mortgage lenders fundamentally care about.
The routine practice of transferring beneficial interest without lender consent is not only supported by the legal framework — it is quietly endorsed through regulatory policy, tax treatment, and professional conduct guidance. Key regulatory bodies including HMRC, HM Land Registry, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have each established positions that reflect the reality of thousands of lawful, undisputed beneficial transfers every year.
HMRC openly acknowledges and facilitates the transfer of beneficial ownership for both income tax and capital gains tax (CGT) purposes.
For income tax, where jointly owned property is held by spouses or civil partners, HMRC applies a default 50:50 income split unless a Form 17 election is made. That election requires evidence of unequal beneficial ownership — and does not require a change in legal title.
“You do not need to tell HM Land Registry about a change in your beneficial interests in jointly owned property, because it does not affect the legal ownership.”
— HMRC Form 17 Guidance-https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/income-tax-declaration-of-beneficial-interests-in-joint-property-and-income-17
The fact that HMRC accepts a declaration of trust (without any conveyance or registration at HM Land Registry) as evidence of a valid transfer of beneficial interest reinforces the view that such arrangements are lawful and do not disturb lender security.
In the context of capital gains tax, HMRC also recognises that the transfer of a beneficial interest — for example, between spouses or into trust — is an effective disposal for tax purposes, even where no legal conveyance occurs. According to the Capital Gains Manual:
“The creation of a trust is a disposal by the settlor for Capital Gains Tax purposes.” – https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg33220
Provided such transfers are properly documented and reflect genuine beneficial interest, HMRC treats them as legally effective disposals. Notably, there is no suggestion that lender consent is required for such transfers to be valid in law or tax.
As discussed in Section 2, the Land Registry’s register does not track beneficial ownership. Their official blog and Practice Guide 24 confirm this:
“The register records the ownership of the legal estate, not the equitable or beneficial interests.”
— HM Land Registry Blog – https://hmlandregistry.blog.gov.uk/2016/08/16/legal-estates-beneficial-interests-whats-difference/
This stance ensures that lenders and buyers can rely on the registered legal title without needing to investigate underlying trusts. Consequently, behind-the-scenes beneficial transfers do not interfere with the lender’s legal charge, which attaches to the registered proprietor’s estate.
Even where a declaration of trust is executed, Land Registry guidance confirms that there is no requirement to register it — unless the parties voluntarily choose to protect the beneficial interest by entering a Form A restriction. And even then, the restriction merely notifies future purchasers that the property is held on trust — it does not alter the lender’s security.
Practice Guide 24 – Private Trusts of Land – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-trusts-of-land/practice-guide-24-private-trusts-of-land
The SRA does not prohibit solicitors from advising on or drafting declarations of trust that transfer beneficial ownership. Instead, its Code of Conduct requires solicitors to avoid misleading lenders or creating undisclosed third-party rights that could interfere with enforcement.
Provided the trust documentation preserves the lender’s rights and does not create adverse interests (such as exclusive occupancy rights or veto powers), there is no ethical breach. In fact, many conveyancers offer declarations of trust as a routine service — particularly for unmarried couples or family co-owners.
Where a solicitor is acting for both borrower and lender in a purchase, the UK Finance Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook (formerly the CML Handbook) requires disclosure of trust arrangements at the outset. However, once the property is legally acquired and the solicitor is no longer acting for the lender, drafting a post-completion declaration of trust to transfer beneficial interest is widely accepted professional practice — and not subject to mandatory reporting to the lender.
The FCA, which regulates mortgage lenders, does not currently publish any policy or guidance prohibiting the reassignment of beneficial interest. Its focus is on regulated mortgage contracts, borrower affordability, and fair treatment of consumers.
Because the borrower remains the same (as legal owner), and the mortgage terms are not varied, a beneficial interest transfer does not constitute a regulated change of circumstances. Nor does it fall within the FCA’s rules on mortgage advice, selling or variation.
The absence of FCA commentary on this point is telling — it reflects a regulatory position that sees no consumer detriment or risk to the lender, provided payments continue and the charge remains over the registered legal title.
Taken together, the positions of HMRC, HM Land Registry, the SRA, and the FCA make one thing clear:
As long as the borrower remains the legal owner and complies with the mortgage terms, regulators and lenders alike have shown no interest in challenging or reversing valid, transparent beneficial transfers.
A robust understanding of the legal position requires examining how UK courts have treated the relationship between beneficial interest transfers and a mortgage lender’s charge. While there is no reported case in which a lender has successfully called in a loan solely because of a transfer of beneficial interest, several judgments confirm the enduring strength of a lender’s security — even where underlying ownership arrangements have shifted.
One of the most important House of Lords cases on priority and beneficial ownership, Cann confirmed that a mortgage lender’s interest attaches from the moment of completion — and that any beneficial interest arising thereafter cannot override the legal charge.
In Cann, a mother attempted to assert a beneficial interest in her son’s mortgaged property, but the court held that her interest could not take precedence over the lender’s charge, which was created simultaneously with the acquisition of legal title.
Lord Oliver stated:
“The bank’s charge takes effect at the same time as the legal estate is acquired and as part of the same transaction.”
This case supports the position that once the legal estate is charged, subsequent beneficial arrangements cannot weaken the lender’s security.
This Supreme Court case further cemented the primacy of the lender’s legal interest. It involved a purchaser who had promised to grant a tenancy to the seller after completion — but failed to register that interest before the lender’s charge took effect.
The Court held that the equitable rights of the seller could not override the mortgage because they were not registered and the lender had no notice.
Lord Collins noted:
“The conveyance and mortgage were one indivisible transaction. The mortgage took effect before the equitable interest claimed by the occupier.”
This decision reiterates that the lender’s legal charge trumps unregistered or subsequent equitable claims, reinforcing the notion that a lender’s position is insulated from later beneficial interest transfers.
In this case, a forged signature on the mortgage deed led one joint owner to claim the mortgage was unenforceable against her share of the property. The court found the mortgage void as to her legal interest — but crucially, Santander’s charge was still enforceable against the co-owner’s beneficial interest.
This outcome underscores a vital point: the courts will uphold the lender’s right to enforce its charge over the beneficial interest of a party who did enter into the mortgage agreement, even where irregularities affect another co-owner.
Although the facts involved fraud, the underlying logic reaffirms that beneficial interests remain within reach of the lender’s remedy — they are not shielded by equitable rearrangements.
Unfortunately, this judgment isn’t available on BAILII. However, you can access a comprehensive summary and analysis of the case here:
Perhaps the most telling point of all is what’s missing from the case law: there are no known published judgments where a mortgage lender has:
Despite thousands of such transfers being arranged every year — particularly for estate planning, tax efficiency, or restructuring purposes — the courts have never upheld enforcement action based purely on a behind-the-scenes change in equitable ownership. This absence of litigation strongly supports the conclusion that such transfers, when properly documented and when legal title remains untouched, do not compromise the lender’s security and are not treated as breaches in practice.
The case law speaks with clarity: mortgage lenders’ rights attach to the legal estate, and remain enforceable regardless of changes in the beneficial interest. Courts consistently uphold the sanctity of the legal charge and reject claims that unregistered or subsequent equitable interests can override or disturb the lender’s remedies.
At the same time, the complete absence of case law punishing borrowers for transferring beneficial interest — without affecting legal title or defaulting on payments — is arguably as powerful as any binding judgment. It reflects the long-standing commercial reality: these arrangements are both lawful and accepted.
Transferring beneficial interest without altering legal title is not just a legal curiosity — it is a practical, widely used tool at the heart of modern family wealth planning, tax structuring, and business continuity strategies. This section explores how these transfers function across three core areas: estate planning, tax efficiency, and business reorganisation — all while maintaining lender security and mortgage compliance.
In family wealth planning, it is common for legal ownership to remain with one party (e.g. a parent), while the beneficial interest is assigned to another (e.g. children or a trust). This is often achieved through a Declaration of Trust, which reallocates the economic benefits of a property — including future sale proceeds — without changing the registered title.
For example, a parent may declare they hold a property “on trust” for their child or for a discretionary trust. This allows families to:
Crucially, since the legal owner remains unchanged, the mortgage stays in place, the lender retains full recourse, and no lender consent is required — provided the trust arrangement does not affect enforcement (e.g. occupancy rights).
For HM Land Registry guidance on trusts and legal title: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-trusts-of-land/practice-guide-24-private-trusts-of-land
Transferring beneficial interest is also central to legitimate tax optimisation within families. For example:
HMRC confirms that such beneficial interest transfers are effective disposals, even where the legal title remains unchanged.
👉 HMRC Capital Gains Manual – CG33220
Additionally, HMRC’s Settlements legislation (ITTOIA 2005) only applies where income is transferred without a corresponding transfer of beneficial ownership — reinforcing that beneficial interest must genuinely pass to the new party to be recognised.
This creates a clear incentive: a valid trust deed documenting a change in beneficial interest is not only respected by HMRC — it’s required for proper tax treatment.
In the commercial arena, beneficial transfers enable property-owning individuals to reorganise their businesses while retaining mortgage compliance. This is particularly relevant when:
While direct promotion of any structure with a Scheme Reference Number (SRN) — such as CAR or SIS — must be avoided, it is worth referencing expert commentary that analyses the underlying principles of beneficial transfers and ownership restructuring.
Andrew Marr CTA (Forbes Dawson) writes in detail about beneficial ownership and bridging finance within Section 162 incorporation:
👉 https://forbesdawson.co.uk/articles/2024/07/26/whats-so-bad-about-bridging-loans-in-a-section-162-incorporation/
Andy Wood (Tax Barrister) critiques the application of the Ramsay principle and discusses beneficial ownership and genuine commercial purpose:
👉 https://taxbarristeruk.com/is-it-really-the-worst-tax-avoidance-scheme-of-all-time/
Lee Sharpe CTA explores HMRC’s scrutiny of incorporation relief and clarifies when beneficial transfers are valid under Section 162:
👉 https://secure-forum.property118.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Incorporation-relief-uncertainty-Tax-Insider.pdf
These expert opinions, published independently of any specific promoter, are valuable for understanding the legal and commercial validity of transferring beneficial ownership — especially when part of a business reorganisation.
Across all these use cases, the common thread is that the legal owner remains in place, the mortgage terms are unaffected, and the lender’s charge continues to attach to the registered estate. The declaration of trust simply reallocates the economic benefit, while explicitly preserving the lender’s rights in the event of enforcement or sale.
This commercial reality explains why lenders have not sought to challenge such transfers — and why regulators, solicitors, and tax professionals continue to facilitate them in high volumes.
The transfer of beneficial interest in UK property — without altering legal title or seeking lender consent — is not a loophole, workaround, or grey area. It is a longstanding, lawful, and commercially essential practice, underpinned by primary legislation, reinforced by regulatory silence, and validated by everyday use across the legal and financial professions.
We have seen that:
These conclusions are not theoretical. They reflect the commercial reality that thousands of such transfers take place each year — in trusts, in tax planning, in succession strategies, in restructuring — and that these arrangements are accepted by mortgage lenders because they do not compromise security.
Where care is taken to preserve the lender’s rights — particularly around possession and enforcement — and where trust deeds are properly drafted, the risk of lender objection is not just minimal: it is effectively theoretical.
In a legal and regulatory system that rightly demands transparency and compliance, this is one of the rare areas where commercial pragmatism and legal formality align. The law does not require lender consent for a borrower to change who benefits from the property — so long as the borrower continues to own the legal estate and honour the mortgage terms.
In many cases, particularly where a property has previously been subject to a Declaration of Trust, the legal and beneficial ownership may have diverged. This is entirely lawful and often commercially advantageous — for example, for estate planning, tax structuring, or business succession. However, when the property is later refinanced, it is often necessary to reunify legal and beneficial interests to satisfy the requirements of the incoming lender.
This section offers practical guidance for conveyancing solicitors and lenders, confirming that this reunification process is not only normal, but anticipated in both the legal framework and Land Registry practice.
Mortgage lenders typically require that the borrower (i.e. the mortgagor named on the legal title) has full beneficial ownership of the property being used as security. This ensures:
To reunify the legal and beneficial interests and enable refinancing:
The trust must be brought to an end — typically by way of a Deed of Termination of Trust or equivalent agreement, confirming that the beneficial interest reverts to the legal owner.
Form A restriction removal (if registered):
If a Form A restriction is recorded on the title (e.g. “No disposition by a sole proprietor…”), this must be cancelled. The correct form for this is:
Form RX4 – Application to remove a restriction
👉 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restriction-application-rx4
Supporting evidence will typically include:
Update the register:
If the transfer of beneficial interest back to the legal owner was executed as a formal deed, it may be prudent to lodge it with HM Land Registry as supporting documentation when applying for restriction cancellation.
It is important that conveyancing solicitors proactively communicate to lenders that:
This is not a sign of impropriety or concealment — it is a common transitional step in refinancing where beneficial interests were previously allocated (e.g. within a family, trust, or company structure). Many lenders are already familiar with this scenario, and concerns are generally resolved by clear explanation and clean documentation.
To ensure a smooth refinancing process:
✅ Identify early whether a trust or Form A restriction exists
✅ Discuss with the client the need to reunify title
✅ Prepare and execute a deed of trust termination
✅ Liaise with the outgoing and incoming lenders where applicable
✅ Remove any Form A restriction and update the register
✅ Explain to the new lender that the transaction aligns with standard regulatory and legal principles
For full HM Land Registry guidance, refer to:
👉 Practice Guide 24: Private Trusts of Land
The process of reuniting legal and beneficial ownership ahead of refinancing is standard, accepted, and fully supported by UK property law. So long as the trust is lawfully terminated and the register is updated appropriately, mortgage lenders should be reassured that their security is protected — and that the transition restores full alignment between borrower and beneficial owner.
Mark Alexander is the founder of Property118, a knowledge hub and peer support network for UK landlords and property business owners. This White Paper reflects over two decades of real-world experience and collaboration with legal, tax, and financial professionals to advance transparency, risk management, and regulatory alignment in the private rented sector.
This White Paper is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. No arrangements described herein are being promoted.
Readers should seek independent professional advice before implementing any restructuring involving beneficial interest.
This White Paper may be freely shared, quoted, or redistributed in full or in part, provided attribution is given to the original author and Property118.
The author would like to thank the following professionals for their publicly available commentary, analysis, or guidance, which contributed to the development of this White Paper:
Their expertise and published views helped ground this paper in practical, regulator-aware analysis. All references to their work are made with attribution and hyperlinks provided.
A list of key legislation, case law, regulatory guidance, and professional commentary cited in this White Paper:
PAUL BARTLETT
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up18:04 PM, 11th April 2025, About a month ago
Thank you Mark for hitting the objectives for better transparency, risk management, and regulatory alignment in the private rented sector.
Your collaboration with legal, tax, and financial professionals to bring these insights into this White Paper is fascinating, diligent and valuable for property business owners.
David Mensah
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up8:54 AM, 12th April 2025, About a month ago
This white paper is extremely helpful, many thanks Mark.
I have one question that I didn't see covered in the paper:
If the declaration of trust has legal and beneficial ownership with different people (not just different fraction), does this trust need to be registered with the trust registration service (TRS)?
For example, legal ownership is two parents, beneficial is two parents + one child.
thanks.
David
Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up13:35 PM, 12th April 2025, About a month ago
Reply to the comment left by David Mensah at 12/04/2025 - 08:54
Thank you for your kind feedback — I’m really pleased to hear the white paper has been helpful.
Your question about whether a trust with split legal and beneficial ownership needs to be registered with the Trust Registration Service (TRS) is a good one. The answer depends on the specific type and purpose of the trust, and whether it falls within the scope of HMRC’s TRS rules under the Money Laundering Regulations.
The best source for guidance is HMRC’s official TRS Manual, particularly the section on what constitutes a registrable express trust. You can start here >>> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/register-a-trust-as-a-trustee
If you're unsure whether your arrangement requires registration, HMRC also provide a helpline for trustees and their agents:
📞 HMRC Trust Registration Helpline: 0300 123 1072 (Mon–Fri)
Because trust registration can carry penalties if overlooked, I’d suggest getting personalised advice from a solicitor or tax adviser familiar with trust structuring — especially when involving family members.
Gary BTLowner
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up19:45 PM, 12th April 2025, About a month ago
A very interesting white paper Mark, but it raises a few questions for us.
1 Does the person gaining the beneficial transfer necessarily also take on responsibility for the outgoings or is that optional and needs to be written into the trust? In particular the DD already set up to service the mortgage will be from the Legal Owner, and any attempt to change this means notifying the lender which may be a choice not preferrred.
2 Should this be dealt with by a solicitor, as in our case (between spouses) we hope it might be quicker, less costly and have less implications than a full legal transfer?
3 If chosen later is reversal straightforward?
Thanks for your help.
Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up20:19 PM, 12th April 2025, About a month ago
Reply to the comment left by Gary BTLowner at 12/04/2025 - 19:45
Thanks for taking the time to read the paper — and for your thoughtful questions. I’ll do my best to steer you in the right direction without stepping into personal advice.
1. Responsibility for outgoings
The transfer of beneficial interest doesn’t automatically change who is responsible for financial obligations like mortgage payments or property outgoings. These arrangements are typically clarified in the Declaration of Trust itself. Where the legal owner remains responsible for the mortgage (as is usually the case), the direct debit would generally remain in their name. You’re right that attempting to change this could alert the lender, so it’s something many people choose to leave as-is unless refinancing.
2. Use of a solicitor
While many declarations between spouses are straightforward, it’s still important that the document is valid, enforceable, and clearly drafted. Whether or not a solicitor is needed depends on your level of comfort, but even simple trust templates should ideally be reviewed by someone who understands the tax and legal implications — particularly if you expect to rely on the document for CGT, IHT or income tax purposes.
3. Reversal of a trust
Reversing a declaration of trust can be done, but it’s not automatic. It generally requires a Deed of Variation or Termination, and both parties must agree. If any tax consequences were triggered by the original declaration, those can’t necessarily be unwound by reversing the arrangement later.
For general guidance on trusts and their implications, you may find HMRC’s pages useful: 👉 https://www.gov.uk/trusts-taxes
And if you’re considering setting one up or making changes, it’s always worth having a conversation with a solicitor or tax adviser who deals with property ownership and trusts.
RichDad
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up12:59 PM, 14th April 2025, About a month ago
Thanks Mark for the well-researched guidance paper!
It does trigger more questions, especially on the aspects of estate and succession planning.
If beneficial ownership of a portfolio is with a Ltd Co (50/50 owned by a married couple), but title and BTL mortgage are in sole or joint personal names, what events are triggered when one of the couple passes away?
Does it make a difference if the property is held in a Trust instead of a Ltd Co?
What is the difference if the couple’s children are included as Trustees or as shareholders of the Ltd Co?
Many thanks again!
Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up14:53 PM, 14th April 2025, About a month ago
Reply to the comment left by RichDad at 14/04/2025 - 12:59
Thanks for your thoughtful feedback — I’m really glad the paper has helped to spark deeper thinking around estate and succession planning.
You’ve raised some excellent questions — and they go beyond beneficial ownership alone, touching on trusts, limited company structuring, and inheritance implications. While I can’t provide personalised advice, I can offer some general observations and point you in the right direction:
1) Beneficial ownership via Ltd Co
If beneficial ownership of a rental property portfolio rests with a limited company, then what happens on the death of one spouse depends largely on how the shares in the company are structured. If the shares are jointly held 50/50, those shares would usually pass under the deceased’s Will (or intestacy rules if no Will exists). The company continues to own the beneficial interest uninterrupted.
2) BTL mortgage in personal names
If the legal title (and mortgage) remains in personal names, then on death, the surviving joint owner would usually retain the legal title — but again, much depends on how the legal and beneficial interests were separated. The lender’s position would also be relevant at that point, especially if refinancing or restructuring is required.
3) Trust vs Ltd Co ownership
There’s no one-size-fits-all answer here. Trusts can offer more control over who benefits and when, but they can also be subject to complex tax and reporting rules (e.g. the Trust Registration Service). A limited company offers different estate planning benefits — often linked to share structuring, family investment strategies, and potential CGT/IHT planning.
4) Children as Trustees or Shareholders
This is a really important distinction:
• Trustees manage the trust for the benefit of beneficiaries, but do not personally benefit unless also named as such.
• Shareholders in a limited company own equity and may receive dividends, voting rights, or value on exit — subject to how the shares are classed and what the Articles say.
For inheritance planning, each path has implications for control, tax exposure, and risk, so it’s important to take advice tailored to your family’s objectives and risk appetite.
For general guidance on how inheritance tax interacts with companies and trusts, HMRC’s resources are a good starting point:
👉 https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/gifts
👉 https://www.gov.uk/trusts-taxes
Wishing you all the best with your planning — and thanks again for engaging with the white paper.
RichDad
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up15:03 PM, 14th April 2025, About a month ago
Thanks again Mark, and with more detail comes even more to think about!
To me, the complexity seems to be in avoiding having everything in the structure unravel upon one person's death, causing additional burden for the survivors/heirs.
Much to consider in the various pathways!
Gary BTLowner
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up16:52 PM, 20th May 2025, About 3 days ago
Hi Mark
I assume that if Beneficial Interest has been transferred the process needs to be reversed before selling the property, or is that automatically reversed upon selling?
Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up18:27 PM, 20th May 2025, About 3 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Gary BTLowner at 20/05/2025 - 16:52
Absolutely not in both scenarios you have described.
Transferring beneficial interest back from the company to the individual would be a separate taxable event for both CGT and SDLT.
What would happen in practice is that the company would instruct the trustees to sell the property on its behalf. Ideally, this will be minuted. The important thing is that the net proceeds of sale would belong to the beneficiary, i.e. the company, meaning that all net sale proceeds would need to be paid into the company bank account as soon as possible after the sale is completed. The company would then account for any profits made on the sale of the property over and above the market value it was acquired prior to incorporation.