Missing persons and presumption of death

According to the charity Missing People, around 170,000 people are reported missing in the UK each year. A person who disappears is presumed to be alive until the contrary is declared. While the majority of those reported missing are located within days, approximately 3% of missing adults remain missing after a week.

Since October 2014, it has been possible to obtain a declaration of presumed death under the Presumption of Death Act 2013 (PDA 2013) once a person has not been known to be alive for a period of at least seven years. However, in the intervening period, in circumstances where the person is still believed to be alive or before they can be presumed to have died, there may be nobody with authority to deal with their property and financial affairs, which can have serious implications for the missing person and their dependents.

To resolve this problem, the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017 (G(MP)A 2017) provides a statutory framework within England and Wales for a guardian to be appointed to deal with the missing person’s property and financial affairs.

This

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