Trusts of land

Trusts of land

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996

The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996) came into force on 1 January 1997. Under it the:

•
trust for sale is replaced by the trust of land
•
doctrine of conversion is abolished
•
trustees and the beneficiaries are given additional powers and rights in relation to the trust property
•
court is given enhanced powers to make orders in relation to the trust
•
beneficiaries are given powers to remove and appoint new trustees

See Practice Note: Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.

Trusts of land—preliminary issues

Under the provisions of TOLATA 1996, s 14 the court is able to make orders:

•
relating to the exercise by the trustees of any of their functions including an order relieving them of any obligation to obtain the consent of or consult with any person in connection with the exercise of any of their functions, or
•
declaring the nature or extent of a person's interest in property subject to the trust

While TOLATA

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

Private Client weekly highlights—5 February 2026

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Re Organ; House v Helme, in which the court gave guidance on the removal of executors for misconduct and their right to an indemnity; (2) University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v AB (By his Litigation Friend), a case which considers what tools the Court of Protection has at its disposal to ensure compliance with best interests decisions made on behalf of P; (3) Bristol City Council v CC (By his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor), where the court allowed disclosure of closed material concerning CC who lacked capacity; (4) Hackett v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, in which the Upper Tribunal (Tax) held that compensation payments were taxable as income; (5) Smith v Campbell, in which the court set out a detailed analysis of legal authorities and evidence relating to several potential grounds for the removal of trustees; (6) Kearney v HMRC, a decision of the FTT which found that HMRC had validly assessed the taxpayer to CGT and penalties as a UK resident based on pre-2013 rules; and (7) analysis of the International Tax Compliance (Amendment) Regulations 2025, SI 2025/740 which updated the UK’s rules for Automatic Exchange of Information.

Question of the week: Can executors pay inheritance to a beneficiary who is subject to a debt relief order? Are there are any additional precautions the executors should take?

This Q&A considers the situation where a beneficiary is under a debt relief order and sets out who has the obligation to report this.

FTT finds HMRC validly assessed taxpayer to CGT and penalties as a UK resident (Kearney v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Kearney v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) held that the taxpayer was a UK-resident for tax purposes, applying the common law principles applicable before the introduction of the statutory residence test in 2013. The FTT also upheld HMRC’s discovery assessments and, subject to a reduction in quantum, penalty determinations.

FTT decides joint and several liability notice is a criminal charge and it has jurisdiction to consider public law arguments (Hall v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In this interlocutory decision, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) in Hall ruled in favour of Mr Hall (H), a director of insolvent companies issued with a joint and several liability notice (JSLN) in the amount of £1.68m under the phoenixism provision in para 3 of Sch 13 to the Finance Act 2020 (FS 2020). The FTT held that a JSLN constitutes a criminal charge for the purposes of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) so that HMRC bears the burden of proving its prima facie validity and was therefore directed by the FTT to serve its evidence and skeleton arguments first. The FTT also refused HMRC’s application to strike out three grounds of appeal challenging the proportionality of the JSLN regime and the rationality of HMRC’s decision to issue the notice, holding that it has jurisdiction to consider such public law arguments and, in respect of two of the grounds, although they were weak, they were arguable and should be heard.