Mike
Trusts and trust law is complex. Not only are there trust lawyers and accountants, but trust lawyers and accountants who only deal with a particular element of trust law.
Inevitably any summation of trust legislation is bound to be an over simplification. Trusts may be assets settled by one individual for the benefit of others, without the effective passage of title, but equally the settlor might be a beneficiary, and the asset may or may not be irrevocably settled on persons other than the settlor, so in turn the beneficiaries or the settlor may retain all the benefits of owning the asset(s). Notwithstanding the settlor or the beneficiaries may be able to dissolve the trust at their whim and so enjoy the asset(s) which were only in trust for the time it suited them.
It is in consequence very easy to confuse ownership, control and similar terms. For example, in so far as the FAA is concerned they require that if an aircraft is owned by a corporation 75% of the voting rights are owned by US citizens. In theory the US citizen(s)’ exercise control over the asset, in the same way as the trustees in a trust with reservation of title. However, in both cases, the actual owners of the aircraft are quite entitled to “file” a charge over the asset and exercise a quick claim should the need arise. In consequence ownership and control maybe mere illusions.
I think trusts may therefore be used in this regard for rather different reasons and offer other advantages over corporations than title protection.
Everything costs money to set up and run if you do not have the skill to do it yourself. Costs fall between two stools – those that have to be paid to the authorities for the privilege (taxes, filing fees, etc) and those paid to the “professionals” providing the service. If money is an issue this might be an issue in the choice of the “best” vehicle. Inevitably the more you have, the less relevant either becomes, and the greater your options!