Trusts and divorce

If a party to a marriage/civil partnership is a beneficiary under a trust and entitled to receive income or capital from it, that income or capital may be regarded as a financial resource of that party and be taken into account by the court. The court's approach will depend on the type of trust in question and the reasons for which it was set up. The court's ability to consider trusts assets as a resource of a party arises from the section 25(2)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and paragraph 21(2)(a) of Schedule 5 Part 5 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004). A trust may also be varied if it is a nuptial settlement. In addition, there may be trusts or property law considerations within family proceedings.

There are three main methods of approaching trusts on divorce/dissolution:

  1. treating trust assets as a resource available to one of the parties and thus available for distribution by the court—see Practice Note: Introduction to trusts within financial proceedings—Trusts as a financial resource

  2. variation of nuptial settlements under MCA 1973, s 24(1)(c)

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

All in? Court confirms when a settlement is 'made' for the purposes of excluded property (Accuro Trust (Switzerland) SA v The Commissioners for HMRC)

Private Client analysis: This case considered the meaning of 'relevant property' under the settlements regime of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) and, in particular, the time at which this definition is to be tested. The question arose as to whether the trustees of an offshore trust established by a non-UK domiciled settlor were subject to the UK settlements regime in respect of property added to the trust after the settlor became deemed domiciled in the UK, or whether they were exempt from such charges as the trust consisted solely of excluded property. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) held that whether trust property is excluded property is based on the status of the trust at the time that it was established, not at the time that the property in question was added to the settlement. As a result, the trust in this case did consist solely of excluded property and no inheritance tax (IHT) charges arose as a result of either the ten-year anniversary or capital distributions. The FTT was also asked to consider whether their jurisdiction was appellate, or supervisory only. The FTT held that, while their jurisdiction was supervisory, the questions raised by the trustees were relevant in establishing whether HMRC had acted reasonably and that the outcome (ie that the paid IHT should be refunded and that no further IHT was due) would be the same in either case. Written by Katherine Willmott, senior associate solicitor at Foot Anstey LLP.

View Private Client by content type :

Popular documents