The problem is the public interest is not usually well represented here.
For example, Rich person A in cahoots with Trustee C claims no interest in (untaxed) asset B. When they litigate against each other Trustee C can struggle with estoppel because they themselves knew transaction was a sham so in communication with C rich person A WAS clear that they intended to maintain control.
We need to have something like an absolute public interest estoppel. If you assert something to the government or in court that reduces your taxes / avoids liability etc, then what you said to anyone actually suing you not critical.
For example, Rich person A in cahoots with Trustee C claims no interest in (untaxed) asset B. When they litigate against each other Trustee C can struggle with estoppel because they themselves knew transaction was a sham so in communication with C rich person A WAS clear that they intended to maintain control.
We need to have something like an absolute public interest estoppel. If you assert something to the government or in court that reduces your taxes / avoids liability etc, then what you said to anyone actually suing you not critical.