Practice and procedure

STARTING PROCEEDINGS

Permission to apply

For certain applications to the court, the applicant must obtain permission to apply. In such cases, the application for permission is made as part of the main application and the court will consider both issues together. The first stage in any application is therefore to establish whether or not you need to apply for permission.

Permission is not usually required to make an application relating to property and financial affairs, but permission may be required to make an application relating to personal welfare. The detailed rules as to when permission is required are contained in section 50 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and Part 8 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (COPR 2017). The rules and the procedure for making an application for permission are explained in the Practice Note: Court of Protection—permission to apply.

Making an application to the Court of Protection

Most applications to the Court of Protection are commenced by filing a COP1 application form, which should identify the applicant and the person lacking capacity (P) and state the

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