Tax advice versus structuring: why they are not the same thing.

Here is the new article in the same plain copy-paste format you settled on. Drop it into a normal text area and mark the bold lines as headings with the Squarespace toolbar.

The short answer

Tax advice and structuring are two different things, done by different people, on different timescales. Tax advice is a professional opinion given at a point in time about the tax consequences of a decision. Structuring is actually building the vehicle that advice points to, and then administering it properly for years or decades afterwards. Confusing the two is one of the most common and expensive mistakes families make, and it matters most when one provider quietly offers to do both.

What "tax advice" actually is

Tax advice is a recommendation. A qualified advisor looks at your circumstances, the law as it stands today, and the countries you and your assets touch, and tells you what the tax consequences of a course of action would be. It answers the question "what should we do, and what will it cost in tax?"

The important feature of advice is that it is a moment, not a relationship. It is delivered, you act on it, and the engagement usually pauses until the next question comes up. Advice also goes stale: it reflects the law and your situation on the day it was given, so it has to be refreshed whenever either of those changes, for example after you move countries or after a country changes its rules.

What "structuring and administration" actually is

Structuring is the building work. If the advice says a trust or a holding company is the right vehicle, structuring is the act of actually creating it correctly, with the right documents, in the right place. Fiduciary administration is everything that comes after: holding the assets, making and recording decisions, filing what has to be filed, keeping the structure compliant and correctly reported in every relevant country, year after year.

The important feature of structuring and administration is that it is continuous. It is not a moment, it is a thirty-year relationship. Long after the original advice has been given and the advisor has moved on, someone still has to run the structure properly, every single year, without dropping anything.

The two side by side

Tax advice. A professional opinion at a point in time. Answers "what should we do?" Delivered once, then refreshed when things change. Given by a tax advisor or accountant.

Structuring and administration. The building and ongoing running of the vehicle. Answers "who does it, and keeps it done, for decades?" A continuous relationship. Done by a trustee or fiduciary.

Three myths worth clearing up

Myth one: "My advisor told me how to set it up, so the setup is handled." Not quite. Being told what to build is not the same as it being built and run. The advice is the easy, fast part. The decades of careful administration that follow are where the real work, and the real risk, sit.

Myth two: "It is most efficient to have one firm do the tax advice and also run the structure." This is where people get caught. The two jobs need different skills, and bundling them creates a conflict, because a provider that both advises and administers has a reason to recommend a more complex structure than you may need. Efficient is not the same as aligned.

Myth three: "Once it is set up, it runs itself." Structures do not run themselves. They need active administration, accurate reporting across jurisdictions, and decisions made and documented properly. A structure that is set up well and then neglected can become a liability rather than a protection.

Why a focused fiduciary is the cleaner arrangement

Here is the point most providers will not volunteer. A fiduciary whose only business is fiduciary work earns its fee from one thing: administering your structure well. It has no tax product and no investment product to sell you, so it has nothing to cross-sell and no reason to steer you toward anything other than what the structure actually needs.

Contrast that with a provider that advises on tax, sells investments, and runs the structure all under one roof. Even when every individual is acting in good faith, the incentives pull toward keeping more of your activity, and your assets, inside the house. The cleanest arrangement keeps the advice with your tax advisor and the long-term administration with a focused, independent fiduciary, so no single party in the chain is both recommending the work and profiting from selling you more of it.

This is not an argument against getting good tax advice. You should get the best tax advice you can, in every country that matters. It is an argument for keeping the person who advises you separate from the person who holds and runs your wealth, because that separation is what keeps everyone honest over the long run.

This article is educational and general in nature. It is not legal, tax or financial advice, and every situation is different. Where a decision matters, speak to a qualified professional in the relevant country.