We have assumed that • the trust settled by A is within the relevant property regime • the appointment to A is made prior to the first ten year anniversary of the trust The appointment of the trust property to A will trigger an exit charge under the relevant property regime. For information on the exit charge, including its calculation, see Practice Note: Relevant property trusts—the exit charge. See also the section entitled 'When are the IHT account and payment due?' which contains details of when it is not obligatory to file a return. The appointment of the trust property

Under section 19 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) a person cannot carry out a regulated activity, or purport to do so, in the UK unless they are either an authorised person (ie authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and/or the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)), or an exempt person (eg by being an appointed representative). For an overview of the regulated activities regime in the UK, see the Practice Note: What are regulated activities? from our Lexis®PSL Financial Services module. As

1) Does B still have

In answering this Q&A we have assumed that the land is located in England or Wales and, therefore, have limited our research to the laws of England and Wales. From a practical perspective, disclaimer of the property is unlikely to have happened unless the company entered liquidation or was dissolved

Immigration analysis: This immigration analysis considers the impact of Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) v BB, which confirms that appellate restraint remains central to immigration appeals concerning Article 8 'family life'. The Court of Appeal held that the Upper Tribunal (UT) wrongly interfered with a fact-sensitive decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), reinstating the FTT's conclusion that an Afghan refugee had not established the necessary degree of dependency with his adult family members to engage Article 8.

Law360: Employment lawyers are bracing for impact after the Employment Rights Bill received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025, with no clear answers about how employees can have their new rights enforced when tribunal claims take years to be heard.

'Bed and breakfasting' originally referred to the practice of selling shares and repurchasing them the following day. Although this was most popular prior to 1998, arrangements where a person sells an asset only to buy it back again a short time later are still used in a modified form to achieve capital gains tax (CGT) savings for current or future tax years, subject to careful consideration of applicable anti-avoidance rules. Why was it used? Before the share matching rules were changed in 1998 (see below) the acquisition cost of the new shares would not be connected with the disposal value of the old shares. The cost of the new shares would be matched with the subsequent disposal of those new shares perhaps many years in the future. The exercise of buying and selling shares of the same company and class would achieve an uplift in the base cost of those shares for CGT purposes. This 'bed and breakfast' procedure was frequently used at the end of the tax year by taxpayers who wished to:

Law360: BigLaw lawyers advising international clients on the EU AI Act tell Law360 there are significant uncertainties over vague terms in the 458-page statute, how its steep eight-figure fines will be enforced, and whether it will set a new standard globally as part of the 'Brussels effect'.

Law360: In April 2024, the UK Financial Ombudsman Service told the House of Commons' Treasury Committee in a letter that the number of complaints it received about so-called debanking had increased by 69% between the financial years 2020–2021 and 2023–2024.

ARCHIVED: this Practice Note is no longer maintained as it covers the implementation of EU free movement law in the UK prior to IP completion day, on which date domestic legislation implementing EU free movement law was revoked, subject to certain savings and modifications. For further details, including of the relevant savings and the position of CJEU case law, see Practice Note: Brexit and the end of EU free movement law in the UK. The Practice Note has been retained in archived form for historical interest, because EU law as previously implemented in the UK remains relevant in certain limited situations. For historical versions of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, SI 2016/1052, including immediately prior to revocation, see Legislation.gov.uk. For the ongoing development of EU free movement law in EU Member States, see: Immigration, employment & share incentives (EU Law)—overview. Directive 2004/38/EC (the Citizens' Directive) creates two additional categories of family members of EEA nationals who are

MLex: Flexible provisions in the EU's flagship digital law mean the surge in AI technologies won't escape scrutiny, the EU’s top antitrust official, Olivier Guersent, said. In a wide-ranging interview, he also mentioned increased efforts to detect 'more subtle' cartels and an intention to actively enforce new rules against foreign subsidies.

IP analysis: This case relates to Nestlé's registration for a three-dimensional trade mark corresponding to the product 'Kit Kat 4 fingers'. The opinion examines acquired distinctiveness of a trade mark and in particular extrapolation of evidence, and attempts to clarify the case law in this area. The Advocate General dismissed the appeals of all of the parties. In relation to the Nestlé appeal, it was the Advocate General’s view that Nestle had not adduced sufficient evidence to show that its trade mark had acquired distinctive character.