Creation of trusts

Perpetuities and accumulations

The rules relating to perpetuities and accumulations stem from the provisions in the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 and from common law. These increasingly archaic rules were becoming troublesome and as long ago as 1989, the Law Commission started consultations on altering them. This culminated in a paper in 1993 identifying defects in the system and a final report in 1998 with a draft bill. This resulted in the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009 (PAA 2009) which gives effect to that report.

PAA 2009 became operable on 6 April 2010. It seeks to modify and simplify the law by making changes both to the rule against perpetuities (also known as the rule against remoteness of vesting) and the rule against excessive accumulations. Practitioners will still have regard to the old rules that continue to apply in certain cases.

See Practice Note: Perpetuities and accumulations.

Creation of trusts—parties, recitals and testatum

Usually the date on which the settlement was made is set out at the beginning of the trust instrument. The date may be important for subsequent time limits and 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 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