Deputies—appointment, duties and powers

Choosing the deputy

Any person may make a first application for the appointment of a deputy, although in practice most applications are made by (or on behalf of) a close relative. If there is no such person able or willing to make the application then the application may be made by a concerned friend, a solicitor or local authority. There is no requirement for permission so long as the application pertains to P's property and affairs.

The appointment of a deputy is made by the Court of Protection (the court) acting in its discretion, and no person has an automatic right to be appointed in priority to another. The court must consider the choice of deputy carefully having regard to the best interests of P. In practice, a deputy should be someone who:

  1. has the right level of skill and competence, and

  2. has a close personal connection to P

The court may appoint two or more deputies and they may be appointed jointly, jointly and severally, or jointly in respect of some matters and jointly and severally in respect of other matters.

Where there

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