Wills & Trusts Law Reports | June 2016 #160The claimant and first defendant were husband and wife and joint freehold owners of a property in the UK where they lived. Up until March 2006 the claimant and first defendant were treated as domiciled in South Africa. However, from 6 April 2006 they would be treated as domiciled in the UK for inheritance tax purposes. In November 2005 the claimant took advice on mitigating the consequences of being treated as domiciled in the UK for the purposes of inheritance tax. He was advised that his position would be improved if he placed the property into an interest in possession settlement.
...
In Freedman v Freedman, Clare Stanley QC analyses HMRC’s arguments against rescission of a voluntary disposition due to mistake ‘Practitioners need to bear in mind for the future that HMRC may challenge cases of unintended tax consequences concentrating on the gravity of the mistake.’ This article examines the recent decision of Mrs Justice Proudman in …
Continue reading "Mistake: Facing the consequences"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2015 #152In 2001 the claimant purchased a house (St Leonard’s Close) with the assistance of a loan from her father. In 2004-5 the claimant’s father agreed to forego the loan. In 2010 the claimant moved out of St Leonard’s Close and into rented accommodation. The claimant wished to buy a different house (Gibbs Green) but she had difficulty selling St Leonard’s Close. Her father therefore agreed to lend her sufficient funds to cover the purchase price of £525,000 and the acquisition costs of £5,000 in respect of Gibbs Green. The claimant’s father made clear, and the claimant agreed, that this was a...
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2015 #152The claimants were the executors of the will of the deceased dated 8 September 2000 whereby his residuary estate passed to his widow and three sons in equal shares absolutely. The first defendant was the deceased’s widow and the first claimant and second and third defendants were his sons.
Under the will, inheritance tax would be payable on the estate in respect of land and farming assets which did not qualify for agricultural property or business property relief on the three quarters of the residuary estate which had passed to the deceased’s sons. The beneficiaries decided that t...
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | June 2015 #150The trustees of a settlement dated 16 December 2003 made by the first claimant, Brian Kennedy, (the settlement) sought an order to correct a mistake made in the terms of an appointment dated 1 October 2008 (the October 2008 appointment).
Under the terms of the settlement, of which Mr Kennedy was originally the sole trustee, Mr Kennedy had a life interest in possession. The settlement contained a power of appointment exercisable by the trustees in favour of Mr Kennedy, his children and remoter issue. In default of appointment, the capital was held on trust for Mr Kennedy’s children...
Kennedy v Kennedy [2015] expands the horizons of the doctrine of mistake. Steven Kempster and Sarah Aughwane explain ‘If a trustee makes a causative mistake of sufficient gravity, the transaction is voidable even if the mistake is as to the tax consequences.’ Two years ago the Supreme Court heard the joined appeals in Pitt v …
Continue reading "Mistake: Fault lines"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | July/August 2013 #131The first appeal concerned two settlements, made with non-resident trustees, by Mr Futter. Considerable ‘stockpiled’ gains were rolled up while the trusts were non-resident and, in exercise of the powers conferred by the trusts, new resident trustees were appointed and capital was distributed to Mr Futter and his children in the mistaken belief that the ‘stockpiled’ gains, which would be attributed to them, would be absorbed by allowable losses that had been realised, so that no liability to capital gains tax would arise. In advising as to the effect of s87 of the Taxation a...
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | June 2013 #130The appellants appealed from a first instance decision by Mr Recorder Chapman QC on 15 May 2012, which refused their application for an order for rectification of a conveyance that was executed on behalf of their mother (Mrs Day) by her solicitor (Mr Froud) who was acting as her attorney. The conveyance was dated 6 June 1985. The conveyance had transferred Mrs Day’s home from her sole name into the names or her and her son (the respondent) as beneficial joint tenants. The purpose of the transaction was to enable borrowing to be secured against the property by the respondent. Mrs Day died...
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2012 #125
The settlors, who were husband and wife, each executed a trust deed in mirror terms in 1992, creating discretionary trusts. At the time the trust deeds were executed the settlors had only one grandchild, Maxwell. The trust deeds contained inter alia the following definition of the beneficiaries:
‘The settlor’s children, Tracey Mathew and Kitty and his [her] grandchild Maxwell, and remoter issue and the spouses, widows and widowers of such children, grandchildren and remoter issue.’
On the same date as the trust deeds were executed the settlors...
Zoë Sive discusses the divergent approach of the Jersey courts in the recent case of Re R [2011] ‘The Jersey decision highlights the extent to which the English and Jersey positions have been affected by the different judicial and jurisdictional attitudes and policies in relation to tax authorities.’ The recent judgment of the Royal Court …
Continue reading "Mistake: Leviathan can look after itself"
This post is only available to members.
