Community and residential care

The elderly client's main preoccupation is likely to be whether or not they will have the finances in old age to keep them, whether in their own home or in a care home. For the wealthy client that may not be particularly troublesome but for the majority of older clients their concern centres on what care they can get or afford to get.

Note that this topic addresses only English law. Following devolution there are now significant differences between the English, Scottish and Welsh rules on many aspects of care provision and funding.

Guide to Care Act 2014 repeals

The Care Act 2014 (CA 2014) was probably the most important piece of legislation in the field of social care since the National Assistance Act 1948. It has wiped away a large number of pieces of legislation, both primary and secondary. Part 1 of the Act is in force but Part 2 is only partly in force.

For more information, see Practice Note: Guide to Care Act 2014 repeals.

Benefits and means testing

All clients are aware that their assets can be taken

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