Commentary

30 The facts of Futter and Pitt and decisions of the lower courts

POWERS OF APPOINTMENT vol 33
| Commentary

30 The facts of Futter and Pitt and decisions of the lower courts

| Commentary

30 The facts of Futter and Pitt and decisions of the lower courts

In Futter1, trustees appointed property to beneficiaries in the mistaken belief that the capital gains tax charge on this capital payment would be reduced by the personal losses of the beneficiaries. The legal advice on this point was wrong. At first instance, the appointments were set aside under the Hastings-Bass rule on the basis that had the trustees correctly understood the tax position they would not have made the appointment. This decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal which concluded that the so-called rule was much

To continue reading
View the latest version of this document, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisLibrary or register for a free trial