Trusts are subject to multiple fOl1lls of legislative regulation dealing with taxation and governance. Trusts were widely used by planners as taxavoidance shelters. Tax legislation was amended to subject trusts, other than special trusts as defined, to the highest income tax rate of forty percent, in tel1llS of section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962. The inter vivos trust is also subject to a wide range of anti-avoidance measures, including those contained in sub-sections (3) to (8) of section 7 of the Income Tax Act and Part X of the Eighth Schedule to the Act, as well as the general anti -avoidance measures in section 103. These measures impact negatively on the use of trusts for estate-planning purposes. The research objective was to evaluate the use of testamentary and inter vivos trusts for estate-planning purposes and to develop a holistic estate-planniD.g model incorporating these planning instruments. Both the testamentary trust and the inter vivos trust were evaluated against broad principles of effective estate planning and the taxes and duties applicable to them. The research also reviewed the writings of financial planners on various techniques and models used for estate planning, as wells as case studies documented in the literature. The research developed and evaluated holistic estate-planning models incorporating testamentary trusts and inter vivos trusts, respectively. By neutralizing the effects of various taxes and duties, it was demonstrated that it is possible to develop an estate plan that satisfies most of the requirements of effective estate planning.

Por meio da adaptação de um velho instituto jurídico, o negócio fiduciário, foi introduzida, no ordenamento jurídico pátrio, a cessão fiduciária de direitos, com vistas a atender a necessidade de garantias mais eficazes para assegurar os negócios empresariais. A cessão fiduciária de direitos sobre coisas móveis, objeto deste trabalho, encontra-se disciplinada no artigo 66-B da Lei n 4.728, de 14/07/1965, introduzido pela Lei n 10.931, de 02/08/2004, e representa um novo mecanismo de garantia aos contratos celebrados no âmbito do mercado financeiro e de capitais. / Bibliografia: p. 188-197. / Inclui notas de rodapé. / Dissertação (mestrado) - Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo, Departamento de Direito Comercial, São Paulo, 2010.

OPSOMMING Alhoewel die trustfiguur reeds sedert die 19e Eeu in Suid-Afrika erken word, en as `n suiwer trustfiguur tipeer kan word, is die hantering van die regte van sekere trustbegunstigdes steeds in onsekerheid gehul. Die hoofrede hiervoor is die oorbeklemtoning van die wyse waarop trusts tot stand kom en die onderbeklemtoning van die unieke fidusiêre aard van die trust na oprigting daarvan. In Engeland, Skotland, Sri Lanka, Louisiana en Quebec, waar die suiwer trustfiguur ook aanwending vind, bestaan, in teenstelling met die oënskynlike regsposisie in Suid-Afrika, die moontlikheid van trustbegunstigdes sonder regte glad nie. In hierdie jurisdiksies speel die oprigtingsinstrument `n ondergeskikte rol en ontstaan die regte van trustbegunstigdes ex lege uit hoofde van die trustfiguur as `n vertrouensverhouding sui generis. Alhoewel die Suid-Afrikaanse trustreg die fidusiêre aard van die verhouding tussen trustee en trustbegunstigde erken, word die aard en omvang van die regte wat hieruit voort behoort te vloei nog nie voldoende deur die howe erken nie. Vertrouensverhoudinge waaruit regte en verpligtinge ex lege voortspruit, is bekend aan die gemenereg en word steeds hedendaags aangetref in verskeie ander vakdissiplines binne die Suid-Afrikaanse reg, waaronder die maatskappyereg. Die suiwer trustfiguur stel verder noodwendig `n vertrouensverhouding daar wat juis daarop gemik is om die regte van trustbegunstigdes te beskerm. Die standpunt word dus ingeneem dat alle trustbegunstigdes in Suid-Afrika derhalwe oor ex lege regte beskik. Daar word aan die hand gedoen dat trustbegunstigdes se regte nie uitsluitlik voortvloei uit hoofde van die tersaaklike oprigtingshandeling nie, maar dat unieke regte ontstaan as gevolg van die onderliggende fidusiêre verhouding wat tot stand kom wanneer, maar ongeag hoe, die trust opgerig word. Kortom: Die fidusiêre verhouding behoort erken te word as eie, onafhanklike bron van trustbegunstigdes se moontlike regte teen die trustee in die geval van trustbreuk. Nie net is dit `n logiese stap in die ontwikkeling van die gemenereg nie, maar sal dit ook die beskerming van trustbegunstigdes in die Suid-Afrikaanse trustreg op dieselfde voet plaas as trustbegunstigdes in die ander jurisdiksies wat nagevors is. So 'n stap sal bydra tot regsekerheid en nie tot `n wesentlike omwenteling in die Suid-Afrikaanse trustreg en -administrasie lei nie. SYNOPSIS Although the trust figure has been recognised in South Africa since the 19th century and can be characterised as a proper trust, uncertainty still prevails regarding the scope and acknowledgement of the rights of some trust beneficiaries. The main reason for this is the over-emphasis of the manner in which trusts are created, and the under-emphasis of the unique fiduciary nature of the trust once it has been established. In England, Scotland, Sri Lanka, Louisiana and Quebec where the proper trust figure is also applied, there is no possibility, contrary to the apparent legal position in South Africa, of trust beneficiaries without rights. In these jurisdictions the instrument used to create a trust plays a subordinate role and the rights of trust beneficiaries originate ex lege by virtue of the trust itself as a relationship of trust sui generis. Although South African trust law acknowledges the fiduciary nature of the relationship between trustee and trust beneficiary, the nature and extent of the rights that should emanate from this relationship are not adequately acknowledged by the courts. / Jurisprudence / L.L.D.

Prior to the introduction of section 37C into the Pension Funds Act. 24 of 1956, the benefit payable as a result of the death of a member would devolve in accordance with his last will and testament or the provisions of intestate succession. The advent of section 37C brought a statutory regime which expressly excludes freedom of testation and rather looks to the board of a fund to distribute the death benefit. The board may only pay the dependants of a deceased (either factual or legal) or the persons he has recorded on his nomination form. The section relies on the board to exercise its discretion in a manner which results in an equitable distribution of the death benefit notwithstanding that it does not provide any guidelines as to how this is to be achieved. Accordingly, numerous decisions are challenged by the identified beneficiaries because they are unhappy with the manner in which the board exercised its discretion. This results in complaints being lodged with the Pension Funds Adjudicator. Many such complaints should never have arisen or could have been easily solved by a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the board. The problem is that these complaints are adding to an already burdened office. Adequate training and understanding of the obligations of section 37C would probably result in fewer complaints to the Adjudicator. This dissertation examines whether the determinations which have been issued by the Adjudicator in respect of section 37C indicate a need for such training and understanding and, if they do, what possible remedies there might be to cure such a problem. Recommendations arising from this are that trustees must receive training focused on section 37C and proposed practical protocols to assist a board when exercising its duty to make an equitable distribution. / Jurisprudence / LL.M.

OPSOMMING Alhoewel die trustfiguur reeds sedert die 19e Eeu in Suid-Afrika erken word, en as `n suiwer trustfiguur tipeer kan word, is die hantering van die regte van sekere trustbegunstigdes steeds in onsekerheid gehul. Die hoofrede hiervoor is die oorbeklemtoning van die wyse waarop trusts tot stand kom en die onderbeklemtoning van die unieke fidusiêre aard van die trust na oprigting daarvan. In Engeland, Skotland, Sri Lanka, Louisiana en Quebec, waar die suiwer trustfiguur ook aanwending vind, bestaan, in teenstelling met die oënskynlike regsposisie in Suid-Afrika, die moontlikheid van trustbegunstigdes sonder regte glad nie. In hierdie jurisdiksies speel die oprigtingsinstrument `n ondergeskikte rol en ontstaan die regte van trustbegunstigdes ex lege uit hoofde van die trustfiguur as `n vertrouensverhouding sui generis. Alhoewel die Suid-Afrikaanse trustreg die fidusiêre aard van die verhouding tussen trustee en trustbegunstigde erken, word die aard en omvang van die regte wat hieruit voort behoort te vloei nog nie voldoende deur die howe erken nie. Vertrouensverhoudinge waaruit regte en verpligtinge ex lege voortspruit, is bekend aan die gemenereg en word steeds hedendaags aangetref in verskeie ander vakdissiplines binne die Suid-Afrikaanse reg, waaronder die maatskappyereg. Die suiwer trustfiguur stel verder noodwendig `n vertrouensverhouding daar wat juis daarop gemik is om die regte van trustbegunstigdes te beskerm. Die standpunt word dus ingeneem dat alle trustbegunstigdes in Suid-Afrika derhalwe oor ex lege regte beskik. Daar word aan die hand gedoen dat trustbegunstigdes se regte nie uitsluitlik voortvloei uit hoofde van die tersaaklike oprigtingshandeling nie, maar dat unieke regte ontstaan as gevolg van die onderliggende fidusiêre verhouding wat tot stand kom wanneer, maar ongeag hoe, die trust opgerig word. Kortom: Die fidusiêre verhouding behoort erken te word as eie, onafhanklike bron van trustbegunstigdes se moontlike regte teen die trustee in die geval van trustbreuk. Nie net is dit `n logiese stap in die ontwikkeling van die gemenereg nie, maar sal dit ook die beskerming van trustbegunstigdes in die Suid-Afrikaanse trustreg op dieselfde voet plaas as trustbegunstigdes in die ander jurisdiksies wat nagevors is. So 'n stap sal bydra tot regsekerheid en nie tot `n wesentlike omwenteling in die Suid-Afrikaanse trustreg en -administrasie lei nie. SYNOPSIS Although the trust figure has been recognised in South Africa since the 19th century and can be characterised as a proper trust, uncertainty still prevails regarding the scope and acknowledgement of the rights of some trust beneficiaries. The main reason for this is the over-emphasis of the manner in which trusts are created, and the under-emphasis of the unique fiduciary nature of the trust once it has been established. In England, Scotland, Sri Lanka, Louisiana and Quebec where the proper trust figure is also applied, there is no possibility, contrary to the apparent legal position in South Africa, of trust beneficiaries without rights. In these jurisdictions the instrument used to create a trust plays a subordinate role and the rights of trust beneficiaries originate ex lege by virtue of the trust itself as a relationship of trust sui generis. Although South African trust law acknowledges the fiduciary nature of the relationship between trustee and trust beneficiary, the nature and extent of the rights that should emanate from this relationship are not adequately acknowledged by the courts. / Jurisprudence / L.L.D.

Since their creation in Europe in the seventeenth century, pension funds have grown to become one of the main sources of capital in the world. A number of role players ultimately manage the pension money of members on their behalf. Accordingly, the focus of this study is on the role players involved in the actual investment of pension fund money. For the purposes of the study, the key role players in the pension fund investment chain are identified as pension fund trustees, asset managers and asset consultants. These role players have a specific responsibility in terms of the service that they ought to provide. One of the key aspects of this dissertation is therefore determining whether their responsibility is a fiduciary responsibility. The main purpose of the study is, however, to answer one overarching research question: Does fiduciary responsibility create barriers to the implementation of responsible investment in the South African pension fund investment chain? Clearly, there are two key terms in this research question, fiduciary responsibility and responsible investment. It is suggested that responsible investment takes at least two forms: a “business case” form1 in which environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues are considered only in so far as they are financially material; and a social form in which ESG issues are considered over maximising risk adjusted financial returns. Three key questions were asked in order to find qualitative descriptions and interpretations of fiduciary responsibility: Question 1: Are the key role players in the pension fund investment chain fiduciaries? Question 2: If so, to whom do the key role players owe their fiduciary duty? Question 3: What are the fiduciary duties of the key role players in the pension fund investment chain? It is also suggested that the duty to act in the best interests of beneficiaries could be described as the all-encompassing fiduciary duty. Two main interpretations of the / Private Law / LL.M.

Prior to the introduction of section 37C into the Pension Funds Act. 24 of 1956, the benefit payable as a result of the death of a member would devolve in accordance with his last will and testament or the provisions of intestate succession. The advent of section 37C brought a statutory regime which expressly excludes freedom of testation and rather looks to the board of a fund to distribute the death benefit. The board may only pay the dependants of a deceased (either factual or legal) or the persons he has recorded on his nomination form. The section relies on the board to exercise its discretion in a manner which results in an equitable distribution of the death benefit notwithstanding that it does not provide any guidelines as to how this is to be achieved. Accordingly, numerous decisions are challenged by the identified beneficiaries because they are unhappy with the manner in which the board exercised its discretion. This results in complaints being lodged with the Pension Funds Adjudicator. Many such complaints should never have arisen or could have been easily solved by a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the board. The problem is that these complaints are adding to an already burdened office. Adequate training and understanding of the obligations of section 37C would probably result in fewer complaints to the Adjudicator. This dissertation examines whether the determinations which have been issued by the Adjudicator in respect of section 37C indicate a need for such training and understanding and, if they do, what possible remedies there might be to cure such a problem. Recommendations arising from this are that trustees must receive training focused on section 37C and proposed practical protocols to assist a board when exercising its duty to make an equitable distribution. / Jurisprudence / LL. M.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / This research explores what roles nonprofits play in political representation by applying the concept of the representational role to nonprofits. The representational role consists of representational focus and style. Representational focus shows those whom nonprofits aim to serve: members, constituents, or the general public. Representational style denotes the ways nonprofits advocate for their focal groups: the delegation, trusteeship, and educational styles. The survey and regression analysis results demonstrate that nonprofits serving their members are most likely to convey their members’ voices directly to policy makers: the delegation style. In contrast, nonprofits advocating for their constituents are likely to pursue what they independently identify as the interests of their constituents: the trusteeship style. Finally, nonprofits speaking for the general public are most likely to work toward educating the general public: the educational style. These results suggest that nonprofits play different roles in political representation, depending on the types of their focal groups.