Personal injury and disabled persons trusts

Personal injury trusts

For most people, a bare trust is the most appropriate type of trust. The injured person retains a large degree of control in a bare trust and the trust is tax neutral. If the person changes their mind later, the bare trust is also easiest to unravel.

Precisely because of the control that a bare trust gives to an injured person, some people will want to opt for a different type of trust because they fear what they might do if they had that control.

The different types of personal injury trust and how to select the most appropriate type are discussed in this Practice Note. It also explains how personal injury trusts can be used to ring fence compensation payments from assessment for means tested benefits and it explains the duties and powers of trustees of a personal injury trust.

See Practice Note: Personal injury trusts.

Tax and the personal injury trust

This Practice Note provides an overview of the inheritance tax (IHT), income tax and capital gains tax (CGT) treatment of the main types of trust used as

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