Professional negligence—Wills, estates and trusts

Professional negligence—tax advice in relation to Will drafting

Where a solicitor has drafted a Will which fails to achieve the testator’s intentions because of incorrect tax advice, there may be a right to recover those losses from the solicitor. However, there are a number of complexities to such claims. A claimant seeking to recover losses from an adviser will need to make out all the elements of the negligence claim. In particular, thought needs to be given to:

  1. who the correct claimant is and how the claim should be formulated

  2. the basis for the claim, and

  3. proximity, mitigation and limitation

This Practice Note considers leading cases where personal representatives and beneficiaries claimed against the advisor and examines the options under contract and tort law in recovering losses and its issues.

See Practice Note: Professional negligence—tax advice in relation to Will drafting.

Professional negligence claims—Will drafting

A beneficiary may seek to claim against the draftsperson who drew up the Will where a negligent act or omission has taken place.

This Practice Note sets out the basis for these professional negligence claims

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 FA 2003, s 75A 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