Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Trusts and Estates Law and Tax Journal: April 2016

Simrun Garcha discusses the lessons from Goenka v Goenka [2014]

The High Court recently considered the constantly evolving area of law associated with inheritance claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (IPFDA 1975) in Goenka v Goenka [2014]. The case considers the correct approach a court should apply to a claim by a spouse under IPFDA 1975 and reinforces the factors a court will consider in determining whether reasonable financial provision has been made for a surviving spouse.

Peter Nellist has words of caution for practitioners seeking investment advice for clients

Professor John Kay said in the Financial Times on 9 January 2016:

Brabners LLP

Duncan Bailey and David McGurnaghan examine the impact of the SDLT changes for private clients

On 25 November 2015, the Chancellor presented his Autumn Statement and Spending Review. While the changes to the taxation of dividends and reversal on tax credits took many by surprise and understandably grabbed the headlines, there were a number of other proposals which are only now being grappled with by private client practitioners.

Geoffrey Shindler questions whether our current use of grammar and punctuation is evolution or degeneration

Do you care about grammar and punctuation? Should you care about grammar and punctuation? Or is this very old fashioned and in this free-wheeling world in which we live everybody makes up their own rules and everything is correct? In this philosophy nothing can be incorrect, because freedom of expression counts for everything.

Mary Ashley looks at Lobler v HMRC [2015], which has an interesting take on rectification

As the saying goes, ‘hard cases make bad law’; however, in the context of the tax code, the converse is true: bad law makes hard cases. The overly prescriptive tax code has once again led to an unexpected outcome of a very difficult case, but for once it is in favour of the taxpayer!

Clarke v Brothwood [2007] indicates the circumstances in which ‘clerical error’ allows rectification. Siân Hodgson reports

Until 1983 there was no power to rectify a will. If a will was wrongly drafted and did not reflect a testator’s instructions, the furthest that a court could go was to omit spurious words.

Henderson v Wilcox [2015] sheds light on uncertain aspects of the forfeiture rule. Sarah Playforth analyses the case

What could be more straightforward than the forfeiture rule? On the face of it, the rule of public policy that prevents a killer from benefitting financially from their crime offers glorious certainty in a morally ambiguous world. But, like most legal concepts, you only have to scratch the surface to find that things are not as black and white as they seem.