This year’s annual round-up reviews some of the most significant developments of 2017 and previews what is on the horizon for 2018. The key developments of 2017 include the highly publicised case of Ilott v The Blue Cross, which has been closely followed by contentious probate lawyers, the raft of new anti-avoidance legislation that has led to a heightened regulatory climate for high net worth individuals, trustees and their advisers, and the residence nil rate band, introduced in April 2017, which is still causing practitioners headaches due to its complexity. Key developments anticipated for 2018 include the Law Commission’s Wills Consultation, which could potentially result in a radical change in the way Wills are made, further changes to the rules on the deemed domicile of individuals, and a new consultation on the taxation of trusts, announced at Autumn Budget 2017. Also included are updates on LexisNexis®’s content, including news of exciting developments from the past year and what is coming up in the next 12 months. Reviewing

Taxation regime What factors determine tax liability in your jurisdiction (eg domicile, residence or citizenship)? Tax liability is determined by residence in Argentina. In general, Argentine citizens are considered residents. Foreign individuals are considered resident for tax purposes if either (i) they are resident under Argentina's migration laws, or (ii) they have stayed in Argentina for a period of 12 months (subject to certain permitted temporary absences). Argentine citizens may cease to be Argentine residents by acquiring residency in a foreign country under that country’s migration laws, or by remaining in another country for a period of 12-months. In either case, temporary visits to Argentina of no more than 90 days do not affect this calculation. The loss of residency takes effect on the first working day of the month immediately following the end of the 12-month period. In practice, it is not easy to lose Argentine tax residency as the individual must demonstrate to the tax authorities that they are genuinely living outside of Argentina. This means that they should have no home, establishment,

Taxation regime What factors determine tax liability in your jurisdiction (eg domicile, residence or citizenship)? Tax liability in Croatia is primarily determined by residence (either permanent or habitual residence). Permanent residence of an individual, within the meaning of the General Tax Act, is deemed to be the place of their home, which they have owned or possessed for not less than 183 days in one or two calendar years (actual residence in such home is not required). If an individual has permanent residence both in Croatia and abroad, it is presumed that their residence is in the country of their family’s residence or the country from where such individual mostly leaves for work or where they mainly stay. However, if the other country does not consider this individual to be its tax resident, it is presumed that their residence is in Croatia. Habitual residence is defined as the location at which an individual resides under circumstances which generally lead to the conclusion that they do not reside there temporarily. For tax purposes, habitual residence

Taxation regime What factors determine tax liability in your jurisdiction (eg domicile, residence or citizenship)? Only the concept of residence is relevant for taxation on the Isle of Man. Generally speaking, an individual is treated as resident in the Island for tax purposes if they: • are resident for more than six months in any tax year (ending 5 April) • spend more than 90 days per tax year on average over a period of four or more years (in which case residence attaches from the fifth year), or • arrive on the Island with a view to becoming resident What taxes apply to an individual’s income? For the tax year 2025–26, individuals are entitled to a tax-free personal allowance of £14,750. For any income over and above this amount, income tax is charged at the standard rate of 10% on the first £6,500 of additional income and at the higher rate of 21% for any further income. It is possible for couples who are

Taxation regime What factors determine tax liability in your jurisdiction (eg domicile, residence or citizenship)? Mexico follows a residency approach for taxing individuals. The main criterion for individuals to be deemed as tax resident is if they have established their abode in Mexico. If they have also an abode abroad, individuals are deemed as residents if their centre of vital interest is in Mexico. An individual will be considering as having their centre of vital interest in Mexico if: (i) more than 50% of their total income in the fiscal year is sourced in Mexico; or (ii) their main professional activities are carried out in Mexico. If a Mexican tax resident moves their tax residency, they will retain their residency in Mexico if they fail to submit a tax notice to the Mexican tax authorities evidencing their new tax residency. If a Mexican tax resident moves to a tax haven (low tax jurisdiction or regime), they will remain as tax resident for the five following tax years, as of the day they submit

Taxation regime What factors determine tax liability in your jurisdiction (eg domicile, residence or citizenship)? Türkiye has a complex tax system implemented with numerous separate laws, regulations, communiqués and subsequent amendments. Accordingly, the main legal texts regulating the Turkish Tax System are Tax Procedure Law No. 213 dated 10 January 1961, Corporate Tax Law No. 5520 dated 21 June 2006, Value Added Tax Law No. 3065 and dated 2 November 1984, Stamp Tax Law No. 488 and dated 11 July 1964 and the Income Tax Law No. 193 dated 6 January 1961 (ITL). Accordingly, the Turkish Tax System can be reviewed under three main categories: (i) income taxes such as the individual income tax and corporate income tax; (ii) taxes on expenditure, such as the Value Added Tax (VAT), Banking and Insurance Transactions Tax and Stamp Tax; and (iii) taxes on wealth such as Property Tax or Inheritance and Gift Tax. For individuals, residence and ownership of property and citizenship are determining factors for the applicable taxes in Türkiye. The liability for taxation of an

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) draft legislation for Finance Bill 2025 and policy papers published, including revised proposals on changes to the taxation of non-UK domiciled individuals and summer engagement plans to seek feedback from industry bodies and other stakeholders; (2) Autumn Budget date announced for 30 October 2024; (3) Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill introduced in the House of Lords; (3) guarantee of loan to discretionary trust secured by charge over trust assets not a lifetime transfer of value by settlor (Carvajal v HMRC); (4) protection for personal representatives in potentially insolvent estates (Wedgwood v Hosein); (5) Cayman Islands introduces major change to perpetuities rule; and (6) France restricts access to beneficial ownership registry.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) STEP’s submission to the Law Commission recommending a single statutory test for testamentary capacity; (2) Frischmann v Vaxeal Holdings SA which considered the validity of an assignment of a loan entered into by an attorney of the assignor; (3) Avon v Dalriada Trustees, in which the High Court upheld the partial validity of pension scheme amendments; (4) Fraser v Khawaja, where the court set aside a ‘bizarre’ Will on the grounds of forgery/fraud following a trial on written evidence; (5) Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Act 2024 comes partly into force, and (6) Morina v Scherbakova, which involved issues of domicile and conflict of laws.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Hubbard v Hubbard, where the lack of credible evidence resulted in the disallowance of a claim for trustee expenses; (2) NHS South East London ICB v JP & the Royal Hospital for Neuro-Disability, which considered issues of dignity, delay, and declarations on best interests; (3) R (YVR) v Birmingham City Council, a decision involving adult social care charging policies, the public sector equality duty, and severely disabled adults; (4) HMRC publishes Tax update spring 2025; (5) CIOT’s response to the consultation on reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief concerning their application in relation to trusts; (6) Patel v Patel, where the High Court resolved a dispute between two executors over the funeral arrangements for their father, and (7) the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary publishes updated AI guidance and introduces Copilot Chat for judges.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) a decision in which the court struck out the wording creating a life interest trust because the testator did not know and approve its effect (Elliott v Bateson); (2) Court of Appeal guidance on capacity assessments and specialist input where there is reason to doubt capacity during a Care Act assessment (TDB v Haringey London Borough Council); (3) a decision on reasonable contractual payment for informal family care (Rogers v Wills); (4) the Upper Tribunal’s ruling on a corporate settlor’s secondary liability for an inheritance tax periodic charge (Lexgreen Services Ltd v HMRC); and (5) a proposed change by HMRC to how certain pension lump sum death benefits are treated for other tax purposes, while retaining the existing income tax charge.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) HMRC publishes an updated IHT400 and new schedule IHT401a to record non long-term residence status of deceased; (2) Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation Ltd v KS, an important decision which addresses the jurisdictional limits of the Court of Protection; (3) HMRC has confirmed that trustees must close and re-register trusts ceasing to be taxable under the Trust Registration Service; (4) HMRC publishes a new Residence and FIG Regime Manual and updates its Inheritance Tax, Trusts and Estates, and International manuals to reflect recent changes to the law on domicile; (5) HMRC publishes new directions for internationally mobile employees; and (6) 381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Ltd v Click St Andrews Ltd, the first decision to award a building liability order under the Building Safety Act 2022 and which signals a major development in company law and the doctrine that different companies should generally be treated as different legal persons.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes a case on the duty of a trustee to account for personal benefit and a case in which the court refused to set aside an appointment made by trustees which was outside of their powers. The government has announced the date of Legislation Day.