Practice and procedure

Fast find key contentious trusts and estates precedents

This collection of contentious trusts and estates Precedents consists of those that are frequently used in probate claims, claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and administration actions as well as some trusts precedents. It also includes some less frequently used Precedents. It combines Precedents drafted by the Lexis+ UK Practical Guidance team with Precedents from other popular sources elsewhere in Lexis+ Legal Research.

See Practice Note: Fast find key contentious trusts and estates precedents

How to issue a Part 7 claim in contentious estates

This How to guide provides guidance on how to issue a Part 7 claim in contentious estates. It focuses particularly on procedural aspects that are specific to contentious estates.

See Practice Note: How to issue a Part 7 claim in contentious estates.

Psychology of trust and estates disputes

This Practice Note considers the psychology of trust disputes, including common triggers of disputes, common biases and possible solutions.

See Practice Note: Psychology of trust and estates disputes.

Practice and procedure—CPR Part 57—probate and

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Private Client News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at section 75A FA 2003 applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Private Client by content type :

Popular documents