Variation of trusts

Variation of trusts—variation of trusts without the court's assistance

As a general rule trustees are bound to carry out the settlor's wishes, however circumstances may arise where a variation is desirable, eg in the interests of efficient administration. In such cases the trustees will first consider whether a variation is possible without the assistance of the court, failing which the trustees will then turn to the court for assistance.

Express powers

The trust instrument may have been drafted so as to confer on the trustees powers wider than those contemplated by the general law. Modern trust instruments generally contrive to allow the trustees considerable discretionary powers. For example:

  1. a power of appointment (this is a power given by one person to another to declare how property is to be held)

  2. a power of advancement (this power enables trustees to pay or apply trust capital to or for the benefit of those entitled to the trust capital; the power may be given by the trust instrument or, subject to contrary intention, the power contained in section 32 of the Trustee Act 1925 (TA 1925))

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