Court applications for non-contentious trusts

Variation of trusts—variation of trusts with the court's assistance

It is open to any settlor to impose such trusts and confer such powers and discretions as they see fit. Consequently, the general rule is that the court has no inherent jurisdiction to vary the terms of a trust where those trusts are clearly expressed and valid. However, this general rule is subject to exceptions.

Under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958

Under section 1 of the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 (VTA 1958), the court may by order approve any arrangement, on behalf of those persons listed in VTA 1958, ss 1(1)(a)-1(1)(d):

'Where property, whether real or personal, is held on trusts arising, whether before or after the passing of this Act, under any will, settlement or other disposition.'

An application to the court under the VTA 1958, s 1 for the variation of the terms of a trust should be begun using the Part 8 procedure.

Under section 57 of the Trustee Act 1925

Where trustees manage and administer property and the trust instrument (or the law) does not

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