Insight panel

Charlie Tee TEP is Partner at Withersworldwide, and Chair of the Modern Families Thought Leadership Group

Thirty years ago, a popular television show premiered in the UK that very much summed up how families were viewed at the time. 2point4 Children took, as its very title, what was considered by many, all over the world, to be an average or normal family at the time, namely the nuclear family unit of husband, wife and two (or sometimes three) children.

Since its debut, there has been a real shift in the nature of many family units, driven primarily by public opinion and subsequent legal changes, such that now we can confidently state that the make-up of any two families is almost never the same. The conformity, on the surface at least, of what was meant by a modern family in 1991 has fundamentally changed over the past 30 years.

To the delight of many, same-sex marriage has been legalised in England and Wales since 2014 (with Scotland following closely behind), civil partnerships having been introduced in 2005. So, since then, the legal nature of a family has not been only predicated on the relationship between a man and woman. In addition to this, technology has very much changed the way in which children can be born, and with surrogacy and adoption also factored in, it is clear that families can now legally, as well as practically, be comprised of many different constituent parts brought together by the complexity of human relationships. Medical advancements have thrown surrogacy into the mix, creating complications in the courts when it comes to rights to and definitions of biological heirs.

Looking forward, it is clear that legislation still has a way to go if it is to keep pace with public opinion and the way in which people live their lives, with the rights of unmarried couples or cohabitees in particular in many jurisdictions not keeping pace. It is fully expected that the next 30 years will see movement in this direction. What is clear is that whatever we consider to be a modern family will be as different in 2051 as it was in 1991.

Leigh Sagar TEP is a Barrister at New Square Chambers, and Chair of the Digital Assets Thought Leadership Group

I have had the privilege of being Chair of the STEP Digital Assets Special Interest Group since its formal establishment. During that period, I have watched in real time the adaptation of existing legal principles to explain the commercial effects of seismic changes in technology. The experience has been remarkable and, moreover, it is continuing.

In 2014, I had been looking into the new, mysterious world of digital assets, but there was little information on the web about the law that applied to it. This lack of interest by non-enthusiasts has, alas, become one of my enduring frustrations: practitioners have generally not been willing to put in the time to learn about how digital assets can affect their practices. The simple reason, of course, is that for the most part, digital assets are not immediately relevant to them. Their estate-planning clients might have Facebook and email accounts, but probably no crypto-assets, so there is no reason to enquire. Or is there?

I fear for the practitioner whose client has forgotten to tell him about the bitcoin that he received as a gift from his grandson, which is now worth GBP100,000 but will be irretrievable after death because the ‘seed words’ were not properly recorded; and for the practitioner who did not take the time to understand how crypto-assets work and gave the private key to complete strangers, thinking that it was a bank account number and that no one could do anything with it. The assault by technology on our professional lives has begun and will only accelerate in the future. It is my view that estate-planning and tax practitioners need to embrace the changes and prepare for the charge.

Thankfully, there have always been those who have had an interest in, or believed that they should know something about, the future. As with many other areas of life, the greater use of computing devices as a result of lockdown has contributed. In addition, the Law Society of England and Wales recently urged solicitors not to forget about digital assets. The problem I see, however, is that dealing with digital assets requires some deeper knowledge than can be acquired in the 15 minutes before an interview with a digitally aware client who is seeking to make a new will.

We are now pushing forward with an exciting programme that will advise and educate in more depth about the details and practices of service providers and the uses and abuses of crypto-assets. I am hopeful for the future, which, of course, is here already, but we all still have a lot to learn.

Philip Marcovici TEP is principal at The Offices of Philip Marcovici, and Chair of the Responsible Stewardship of Wealth Thought Leadership Group

Changes over the past 30 years have been dramatic, but none more so than the positive shift towards tax transparency. That said, not every country is ready for transparency, and the sad reality is that countries in urgent need of revenue are actually losing out as entrepreneurs and others relocate to avoid their countries obtaining information under the OECD’s Common Reporting Standard and otherwise. Where the home country suffers from corruption, misuse of tax information for political purposes and other shortcomings, the danger of information exchange may actually reduce tax revenues for the countries involved, rather than increasing them.

Taxes can be a form of political risk, particularly in a post-pandemic world where governments need to raise revenue. Wealth taxes, capital levies and other forms of ‘expropriation’ need careful attention by wealth and business owners seeking to navigate a troubled world. Again, linking this to transparency, as governments have more and more access to information about what people have, political risk is increasing. Over the next 30 years, I see these dangers coming to the fore.

The above said, I am very much in favour of a broadening of tax bases and am open to wealth and other taxes being introduced to create a fairer society. However, there is a need for better dialogue between governments and wealth owners, and a better understanding of the massive contributions to economies that wealth- and business-owning families make. Wealth carries responsibilities, and members of STEP must explore the holistic approaches wealth owners need to consider if they are to achieve responsible stewardship of wealth.

The focus of the Responsible Stewardship of Wealth Thought Leadership Group is on exploring responsibility from the perspective of achieving the objectives of families for their own well-being and harmony while aligning family interests with the interests of their communities and the broader world. This will require enhanced dialogue with governments and others.

In recent years, our members have, among the families they advise, observed a trend of turning towards using not only their money, but also their unique connections, influence and skills, to make a positive contribution to society. The responsibility connected to private wealth will always have a different meaning to different people; overall, it has become less about accruing personal wealth for family and future generations, and more about tutoring the next generation on good practice, communication, societal impact through philanthropy and awareness of the potentially destructive impact of wealth, with impact investing becoming an increasingly used vehicle.