Financial matters

Many elderly clients spend a lot of time thinking about their finances, worrying in particular:

  1. whether they have and will have resources sufficient to cover their needs to the end of their life

  2. where they can get extra finance when needed

  3. how they can ensure that their chosen relatives inherit something

The practitioner must seek to answer these and other questions competently in order to offer a rounded service to the client and to ensure that a holistic approach to their needs is taken.

Disposing of property interests

The home is likely to be the single most important asset to the elderly client, both in monetary and psychological terms, and elderly clients often express fear of losing their home or of it being sold and the proceeds being eaten up in future care home fees.

As a result of these concerns, elderly clients frequently seek advice from their professional advisers on how to dispose of their house to relatives, either permanently or so that they no longer own it but can remain living there. The first is relatively simple but often not sensible, while 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 FA 2003, s 75A 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