Termination of trusts

Termination of trusts—methods of termination

An express trust, after it has become operative, may come to an end in a number of ways, for example:

  1. the settlor may exercise a power of revocation or a power of appointment reserved to them in the trust instrument

  2. it may be set aside under the provisions relating to the avoidance of transactions at an undervalue or to dispositions in fraud of creditors, on the ground that the disposition was induced by fraud, duress, undue influence or mistake

  3. in the case of matrimonial proceedings or proceedings on the dissolution of a registered civil partnership, the court has power to:

    1. adjust interests in settlements

    2. set aside a disposition intended to defeat a claim for financial relief in such proceedings

    3. set aside a settlement made in compliance with a property adjustment order in matrimonial proceedings where this would amount to a transaction at an undervalue in an insolvency

  4. the passage of time

  5. due to rules of construction: the rule in Andrews v Partington [1775-1802] All ER Rep 209; the rule in Lassence v Tierney [1843-60]

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