A trust's residency thrown into doubt by one trustee's move abroad

The situation

Rahel found out something was wrong on a phone call with her brother, Biniam, who was calling from overseas to tell her about a job offer he had just accepted. He was a veterinary technician, and a clinic abroad had made him an offer good enough that he and his family were planning to relocate within a few months. Rahel was happy for him. It was only after they hung up that she remembered the trust.

Their parents had set up a small family trust years earlier to hold a rental duplex, with Rahel and Biniam as trustees and beneficiaries together, and their cousin Chamari named as a third trustee to break any deadlock between the siblings. Rahel drove long-haul routes for a regional freight company and had never thought of herself as someone who managed a trust; the arrangement mostly ran itself, with Chamari handling most of the paperwork and the two siblings splitting the modest rental income each year.

Rahel's worry, once she thought it through, was not really about a specific tax rule. It was about whether Biniam moving away meant the trust itself would somehow have to move with him, and what that would cost. She called our office mostly to ask whether the trust needed to be wound up before he left, worried that whatever the answer was, it would be complicated and expensive either way. What mattered most to her was not squeezing out the best possible tax result. It was understanding, clearly and in advance, what was going to happen and roughly what it would cost, so she was not blindsided later the way she had been blindsided on that phone call.

The concern turned out to be well founded, if not quite in the shape Rahel expected. A trust's residency for tax purposes is not fixed to where its assets sit or where it was originally set up. It generally follows where the real decision-making authority over the trust lives — where the trustees who actually control it are located. With Biniam moving abroad and Chamari already living in another province, the practical centre of control over this small family trust was about to shift in a way nobody had planned for.

What the law actually said

A trust that becomes non-resident of Canada is treated, for tax purposes, much like a person who emigrates: it is generally considered to have disposed of its capital property at fair market value immediately before the change in residency, and to have reacquired it at that same value the moment after. For most individuals this is described as an exit tax. For a trust holding real property, the effect is the same in substance — a deemed sale of the duplex, on paper, triggering tax on any accrued gain, even though nothing was actually bought or sold and no cash changed hands to pay the resulting bill.

The duplex had appreciated meaningfully since the trust acquired it years earlier, which meant the deemed disposition, if it happened, would trigger a real and immediate tax liability landing somewhere in the range of twenty to forty thousand dollars, depending on exactly how the gain was calculated. That was not a number the trust could absorb without selling the property or the beneficiaries covering it personally, and it was exactly the kind of outcome Rahel had been afraid of without being able to name.

The harder question was whether the trust's residency would actually change at all. Residency depends on where the trustees who genuinely exercise control and management live and act, not simply on where any one trustee happens to reside. With three trustees named — Rahel in Ontario, Biniam about to move abroad, and Chamari already in another province — the trust's centre of control was not automatically going to follow Biniam. It depended on how decisions were actually made among the three of them, who signed what, whose approval mattered in practice, and whether the trust's governing document gave any one trustee outsized authority.

This was where the trust's own paperwork mattered more than anyone had appreciated. The original trust document gave the trustees joint authority but did not clearly document how decisions had actually been exercised day to day, and years of informal practice, where Chamari handled most matters with the siblings' loose approval, had blurred the picture. Untangling what the law required from how the trust had actually been run was the real work, and it needed to happen before Biniam's move, not after.

What we did

1. Reviewed the original trust deed line by line to confirm exactly what it said about trustee decision-making authority, quorum requirements, and how disputes among the three trustees were meant to be resolved. This mattered because the deed's formal terms, not the family's years of informal habit, would ultimately govern how a residency question was assessed if the trust were ever reviewed, and nobody had actually reread it since it was signed.
2. Mapped how decisions had actually been made in practice over the trust's history, interviewing Rahel, Biniam, and Chamari separately about who signed leases, approved repairs, and made distribution decisions each year. The practical exercise of control matters as much as the formal roles on paper for a residency question, and the interviews revealed a gap between what the deed said and how the family had really been running things.
3. Assessed the residency risk under the planned arrangement, concluding that with Biniam moving abroad and Chamari already living out of province, day-to-day control could plausibly be seen as shifting away from Canada once Biniam relocated, unless the remaining Canadian trustee's role was made clearly central and documented as such well before the move took effect, not after questions arose and the family was left arguing about what had really happened after the fact.
4. Restructured trustee authority formally, amending the trust's governance so that Rahel, the trustee remaining in Ontario, held clear, documented primary authority over the trust's key decisions. This replaced an informal three-way arrangement that had made sense when all three trustees lived nearby but no longer reflected where the people actually exercising control over the trust would soon be living, and it gave the family a document they could point to if anyone ever asked who was really in charge.
5. Documented Biniam's ongoing role deliberately as advisory rather than controlling going forward, spelling out in writing which decisions he could weigh in on and which now required Rahel's approval alone. A beneficiary and trustee living abroad who kept exercising real decision-making power in practice, regardless of what the paperwork said, would have undermined the very restructuring meant to protect the trust's Canadian residency.
6. Prepared a written record of trustee meetings and decisions going forward, establishing a habit of minutes and signed approvals that gave the family a genuine paper trail showing control resided in Canada. This mattered because residency disputes ultimately turn on evidence of how a trust actually operates over time, not on a single restructuring document filed once and then forgotten.
7. Advised on the trust's exposure if the arrangement were later challenged, being clear with Rahel that restructuring reduced the risk substantially but could not eliminate it entirely. Residency questions depend on facts that can shift again if Chamari also moved, or if Rahel's own involvement thinned out over time, so we flagged what would need to change to keep the trust's position solid.

The outcome

The restructuring held. With Rahel's authority as the Canadian-resident trustee clearly documented and Biniam's role formally limited to an advisory one, the trust's tax residency remained Canadian through and after his move, and the deemed disposition that would have triggered tax in the twenty-to-forty-thousand-dollar range did not occur. The rental property stayed in the trust, generating the same modest income it always had, and Rahel and Biniam continued splitting that income the way the trust always intended.

The outcome was not a clean win. Restructuring the trust's governance cost real money in legal fees and Rahel's time, and it changed the family dynamic that had existed for years, where all three trustees treated their roles as roughly equal. Biniam, now living abroad, had to accept a genuinely reduced role in decisions about a property he still had a financial stake in, which was a real concession on his part and a source of some quiet tension between the siblings for a while afterward.

Rahel's original priority, predictability over optimization, was largely met. She went into Biniam's move knowing what the trust's exposure was, what the restructuring would cost, and what the ongoing paperwork obligation would look like, rather than finding out after the fact the way she had with the original phone call. The trust now carries a documentation habit it did not have before, a real but manageable cost of keeping it Canadian for as long as the family wants to hold the property this way, and one Rahel now treats as a routine part of holding the property, rather than as an imposition on an arrangement that used to simply run itself in the background.

What you can learn from this