Revocable vs Irrevocable Trust

If you are searching for a revocable trust in Mauritius, the first thing to know is that Mauritian law starts from the opposite assumption. A trust is treated as irrevocable by default, and revocability has to be written into the deed on purpose. That single choice shapes how much control you keep, how far the assets are shielded and how the structure is viewed by the tax authority and by courts.

This page compares the two approaches for families. It is general information, not advice: the right answer depends on your residence, your family and your assets, and should be tested with a qualified adviser.

What the Trusts Act 2001 says about revocability

Section 11 of the Trusts Act 2001 presumes that a trust is irrevocable by the settlor and by the settlor's legal representative, unless the trust expressly provides for revocation. Three practical points follow:

• Silence means irrevocable. If the deed says nothing, you cannot later withdraw the assets by changing your mind.
• Revocability needs an express clause. The deed must say who may revoke, and in what circumstances. Our guide to what a trust deed contains shows where such a clause sits.
• The default protects the structure. Because the settlor has genuinely parted with the assets, beneficiaries and third parties can rely on the arrangement.

For the wider legal framework, see the Trusts Act explained and how Mauritius trust law works for families.

Revocable vs irrevocable trust: side-by-side comparison

The table describes tendencies. Courts look at the substance of each case, and no structure carries a guarantee.

Control: what the settlor keeps

A settlor who wants to stay involved does not need a revocable trust to do so. Under section 8 of the Trusts Act 2001 the settlor may also be a trustee, a beneficiary, a protector or an enforcer, but cannot be the sole beneficiary of the trust they created.

Section 24 goes further. A trust may have a protector, who can be an adult (including the settlor) or a legal person. Unless the deed says otherwise, the protector may remove and appoint trustees, fix the governing law, change the place of administration and withhold consent to certain acts, without becoming a trustee.

That means an irrevocable trust can still leave real influence in the family's hands. The questions to settle are:

1. Which powers does the deed reserve to the settlor, and are they proportionate?
2. Who should hold oversight powers: the settlor, or an independent person?
3. Does the family want flexibility more than certainty?

Read the powers of a trust protector and how much control a settlor can keep before drafting. A letter of wishes is another way to guide the trustee without making the trust revocable.

Where control becomes a problem

The more a settlor can undo or direct, the more a court or creditor may ask whether the trust is real. A document that says "irrevocable" but is run as though the settlor still owns everything invites exactly that question. The page on sham trusts explains when a court sets a trust aside.

Protection: why revocability matters to outsiders

Asset protection is where the two types diverge most. If the settlor can reclaim the assets at will, an outsider with a claim against the settlor has an obvious argument that those assets remain within reach. An irrevocable trust, properly funded and administered, gives that argument less to work with.

Three limits apply either way:

• Protection is not automatic. It depends on timing, intent and honest administration.
• A transfer made to defeat a creditor who already exists is the kind of act courts examine closely.
• The trust cannot do everything. Section 18 of the Trusts Act 2001 separately recognises protective (spendthrift) trusts, where a beneficiary's interest can be ended, restricted or suspended on insolvency or seizure of the beneficiary's property.

See trusts and creditors and asset protection with a trust for the detail, and protective trusts for the beneficiary side.

Tax: does revocability change the bill?

On the sources reviewed for this page, the Income Tax Act 1995 (consolidated up to the Finance Act 2026) taxes any trust on its taxable income at the Part IV rate of the First Schedule, which is 15%. The text speaks of a trust generally; the sources do not set a different rate for revocable and irrevocable trusts. Whether a particular revocable arrangement is treated differently in your own jurisdiction of residence is a separate question that your adviser must answer.

A few points that matter more than the label:

• Distributions. Under section 46(4), a distribution to a trust beneficiary is deemed to be a dividend in the beneficiary's hands.
• Non-resident trusts. Section 46(2) still describes a trust whose settlor and beneficiaries are all non-resident (or holders of a Global Business Licence), but it remains taxed at the same Part IV rate of 15%. The earlier exemption in section 46(3), based on a non-residence declaration, was repealed by the Finance Act 2021 with deemed effect from 1 July 2021 and no longer exists in the consolidated text.
• Charitable trusts. Part I of the Second Schedule lists charitable institutions, charitable Foundations and charitable trusts among exempt bodies. That is a purpose-based category and has nothing to do with revocability.

Nothing here amounts to a promise of tax savings. For the mechanics, see how trusts are taxed in Mauritius, the tax rate on a trust and tax on distributions to beneficiaries.

Transparency: both types are visible to the authorities

Choosing a revocable or irrevocable structure does not make the trust private from regulators. Under the FIAMLA 2002 (FIU version updated in 2026), the beneficial owners of a trust-type arrangement include:

• the settlor and the trustee;
• the protector, if there is one;
• each beneficiary, or the class of beneficiaries and objects of a power;
• any other individual with ultimate effective control, including through a chain of control.

A settlor who keeps a power of revocation is plainly someone who exercises control, so that settlor will appear in the beneficial ownership information in any event. The FSC also publishes Practice Notes for qualified trustees and corporate service providers on keeping that information up to date, and section 26A of the Financial Services Act 2007 requires it to keep a register of trusts with at least one qualified trustee. Our page on whether there is a register of trusts explains what it holds.

Which is the better fit? A short decision guide

This is a starting point only. Your own family, assets and country of residence may point elsewhere.

Practical checklist before you decide

• Read the revocation clause (or its absence) in the draft deed
• List every power the settlor keeps and ask whether each is necessary
• Decide whether a protector should hold oversight powers
• Ask how your country of residence treats a revocable trust
• Record your intentions in a letter of wishes rather than in the deed
• Revisit the structure at each annual review

You can also look at discretionary versus fixed trusts, which is a different axis from revocability, and at how the terms of an existing trust can be changed if circumstances shift later. If you would like your situation looked at by a corporate service provider licensed by the FSC (Management Licence), use the contact form.