Wed08232017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Trusts and Estates Law and Tax Journal: January/February 2016

Iain Managhan offers an update on recent revocation of power of attorney cases

There have been a number of cases heard in the Court of Protection this year that deal specifically with the issue of revocation of a power of attorney. When one considers these as a whole, it is clear that there are a number of recurring themes which ultimately lie at the heart of the majority of cases.

There is nothing new under the sun, especially with taxation. Geoffrey Shindler takes a tour through the ages

No doubt 2016 will bring its fair share of crises to disturb our equanimity, ranging from the parochial to the international. It is perhaps an interesting way of looking at the year to come to examine crises, often the introduction of new taxation provisions, we had to face in the past and how we dealt with them or indeed whether we can remember them at all. After a crisis has been dealt with or faded away it very soon becomes not only part of history but a part of history that we cannot even remember. So let us have a look at some of the issues which kept us, and our clients, both busy and worried.

Financial remedy case Joy v Joy-Morancho [2015] has valuable pointers for practitioners. Alexandra Hirst and Sofie Hoffman examine the outcome

The judgment of Sir Peter Singer in this complex financial remedy case runs to over 50 pages. This article focuses on providing a summary of the key facts of the case and looking at three important topics considered in the judgment, namely:

Sukhninder Panesar discusses Barnes v Phillips [2015], which has lessons on the role of inference and imputation in shared ownership disputes

Determinations of beneficial interests in shared co-ownership continue to test the courts. In doing so, each time finer points of law continue to develop as the courts clarify and refine the law as developed in leading cases such as Jones v Kernott [2011] and Stack v Dowden [2007]. More recently, in Barnes v Phillips [2015], the Court of Appeal was asked to assess whether a court at first instance was right to alter the beneficial ownership of cohabitees where title to the disputed property had originally been in joint names. In doing so, the Court of Appeal was required to clarify the role of inference and imputation in the imposition of a common intention constructive trust in shared ownership cases. In particular, whether a court was justified in imputing or inferring a common intention in circumstances where the parties in dispute had no actual agreement as to their respective shares in the event of a relationship breakdown. The question being whether there was a difference between inference and imputation when applied to common intention constructive trust disputes. This article explores the decision in Barnes and the role of inference and imputation.

Hutchings v HMRC [2015] provides comfort for executors given inaccurate information by beneficiaries. Marilyn McKeever gives the lowdown

The case of Hutchings v HMRC [2015] provides a salutary warning for those who still think they can conceal offshore bank accounts, and a comfort to executors who make proper enquiries about a deceased’s estate but who are not given the information they need to make an accurate return.

Forsters LLP

Alex Tamosius explains the implications of Foulser v HMRC [2015]

The First-Tier Tax Tribunal’s decision in Foulser v HMRC [2015] illustrates how far a layman’s understanding of ‘market value’ can deviate from its meaning for capital gains tax (CGT) purposes. The tribunal was asked to determine a historic market value of shares in a private UK company called BG Foods Ltd, in accordance with s17 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA) (more on which below): the taxpayers’ expert valued the shares at just under £6.5m, while HMRC’s valued them at just over £23m.

In part two of his article on Young v AG [2012], Charles King-Farlow considers the cases the judge relied upon to make the decision

In Young v AG [2012] his Honour Judge Purle QC found that all the assets of Wedgwood Museum Trust (the museum) were available to fund the £135m deficit of the Wedgwood Trading Group’s pension scheme, and not just the £100,000 deficit attributable to the five employees of the museum. In the second part of this article, we turn to look at the four cases relied upon by Judge Purle, and the second question for the court: whether, even if the assets were held upon a special trust, they should be made available to satisfy liabilities incurred by the museum company as trustee.