This is illustrated in two of our contributions this quarter. First, the thoughtful piece by Henry Brandts‑Giesen TEP, Sophie Barton and Jackson Tu’inukuafe is an excellent update and primer to the developing principles on trustee investment and ethical accommodations, but prompts the consequential anxiety over how ‘ethical’ is to be determined.

The same questions arise in ‘environmental, social and governance’ policies and climate change stances. They are bedevilled by a lack of the accepted taxonomy that the precision‑trained scientist insists on. Within the ‘ethical espousing’ community there is little agreement and, on some topics, outright disagreement. For a fiduciary, it is not clear whose views must, may or must not be taken into account. Pity the hapless trustee caught in the crossfire between strident zealots.

Precision should have been brought to the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) and cognate rules. Instead, one encounters muddled and internally conflicting definitions that even from a newly qualified lawyer would merit severe reproach.

A century ago, English and Welsh law was modernised by the Law of Property Act 1925, which is still a cornerstone today. The task actually started in 1923, hence the ‘century’ may be claimed. It was given to a single draftsman and is widely admired for its cohesion and clarity. These things cannot be framed by multiple parties.

Paul W Taylor TEP’s article on new trust reporting rules and guidance in respect of the CRS and FATCA in Canada illustrates the difficulty of building on a structure of poor original definitions.

We are also glad to carry Paul DePasquale TEP and Flávia Allegro Gerola’s summary of the faltering steps by which Brazil seeks to fit trust benefits into its federal and state tax systems. This follows analyses from other jurisdictions. We welcome similar news from other ‘non‑trust‑familiar’ countries.

It is sad, if inevitable, that our subject now needs to cover the judicial confiscation of trust assets and rights where the vehicle has been put to nefarious ends. Rebecca McNulty and her colleague Michael Ogilvy Watson merit our thanks for their diligent report from Jersey.

A further extension of our centre of interest has been that of mental capacity, or rather capacities, since different yardsticks may apply to differing legal actions. Readers are encouraged to study the book kindly reviewed for us by Heledd Wyn TEP.

We cannot call it an editorial table as we have not assembled in person since ‘the time whereof the memory of [editors] runneth not to the contrary’,^[1] but we heartily welcome to the, say, editorial Zoom that living legend of Auckland and STEP stalwart, Alison Gilbert TEP. We hope you find your new duties as Editor interesting, Alison.