Abuse

Over recent years, the issue of abuse of the elderly has risen in prominence. Such abuse can take the form of physical or psychological abuse but financial abuse has also become widespread. Those who take advantage range from family members to professional fraudsters, and it is quite likely that many instances go unreported and unseen. However, there are methods that can be adopted to prevent abuse and, in the case of financial abuse, to recover assets.

Financial abuse—detection and prevention

In recent years, abuse of the older client has become a topical issue. While the public perception may be that this is confined to physical abuse, there is, nonetheless, evidence of growing if not hidden financial abuse. This can take various forms and is often difficult to spot because those that are doing it are family members. In some cases, those abusing the older person may have the legitimacy of a lasting power of attorney (LPA) or enduring power of attorney (EPA), whether registered or not.

There are causes of action that can arise as a result of such abuse, such as undue influence and fraud, that can lead to

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