The Court of Protection and supporting services

Jurisdiction

The Court of Protection as we know it today was created by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), which came into force on 1 October 2007, and has jurisdiction over the property, financial affairs, personal welfare and healthcare of people who lack mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.

Prior to 1 October 2007, applications to the Court of Protection under the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983) were handled by the Public Guardianship Office. Under the new jurisdiction of MCA 2005, the Court of Protection is a separate self-contained body that is responsible for handling its own applications and processes.

Although the powers of the Court of Protection are defined by MCA 2005, its authority can only be exercised by the judges nominated by the Lord Chancellor who must be from among the judges specified in MCA 2005, s 46(2), which include a range of judges from district judges to the President of the Family Division. MCA 2005 therefore provides for the exercise of the court's powers at different judicial levels.

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