This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) HMRC has updated schedule IHT430 used when claiming the reduced rate of inheritance tax when at least 10% of the estate is left to charity; (2) the ATT has made budget representations on income tax simplification, as well as IHT relief on shares, mileage allowances and trivial benefits; (3) the ATT has also submitted a response to the government policy paper on changes to the taxation of non-UK domiciled individuals; (4) the Court of Protection has dismissed an appeal upholding the decision of no contact between spouses, who each have dementia (MA v A Local Authority); (5) analysis of the Court of Protection’s decision concerning the review of deprivation of liberty and P’s participation (Re PQ (court authorised DOL—representation during review period)); and (6) HMRC has published guidance for non-resident landlords on applying as an individual to receive UK rental income without UK tax deducted.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Royal Holloway and Bedford New College v QLaw Legal Services Ltd which held that professional executors could not charge the estate without express or written agreement; (2) analysis of Stock v Neal, in which a key issue was when royalties are capital for trust law purposes; (3) a discussion about the current law on cohabitation; (4) analysis of Teixeira v Moaven which confirms the continued importance of the sham trust doctrine where declarations of trust are used to misrepresent beneficial ownership; (5) analysis of Property 118 Ltd v HMRC, in which the FTT cancelled the DOTAS scheme reference numbers for two widely-used property incorporation structures, and (6) Mendez v Haines, a case concerning a nullity application, which sets out a summary of the law on domicile and in particular addresses the circumstances in which a domicile of choice can be acquired and lost.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) FS Capital Ltd v Adams, in which the Court of Appeal held that the sale of loan assets from insolvent Jersey trusts was void as an improper exercise of a fiduciary power; (2) the OPG’s new guidance on Court of Protection visitors' reports and their release; (3) Hanson v Coleman, in which the court held that executors, who were removed for misconduct, had to pay the applicant's costs and could not indemnify themselves from the estate; and (4) Re C (A Child) (Recognition of Nigerian Adoption), where the court held that a strict application of the domicile condition in Re Valentine’s Settlement would violate Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the recognition of an overseas adoption.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Court of Appeal dismisses Local Authority’s appeal in long running covert medication case (A Local Authority v B); (2) Carey Street Investments Ltd (in liquidation) v Grant Timothy Brown, which concerned an alleged fraudulent breach of a director’s fiduciary duty; (3) ECCTA 2023 changes to the Register of Overseas Entities regime for entities registered before 4 March 2024; (4) Wade v Singh, in which the court held that a declaration of trust was a transaction defrauding creditors; (5) D’Angelin v HMRC, where the FTT dismissed the non-domiciled taxpayer’s appeal and denied business investment relief due to a director’s loan account; (6) HMRC v Burlington Loan Management DAC, a decision of the UT on the anti-abuse provision in the UK-Ireland double tax treaty; and (7) news on the tax aspects of the party manifestos being published ahead of General Election 2024.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Ashimola v Samuel, an unusual probate case involving allegations of fraud, forgery, and impersonation; (2) the Office of the Public Guardian issues guidance on Court of Protection deputies’ approach to family care payments; (3) R (on the application of VRP, a protected party, by her litigation friend SR) v The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames, which considered a local authority’s duty to provide same-sex carers; (4) HMRC has published a new version of the IHT grossing up calculator; and (5) Louwman v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, which held that offshore income gains and accrued income profits of a taxpayer were not ‘protected foreign source income’ under the transfer of assets abroad regime.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) analysis of Burgess v Whittle, an important decision on concerning testamentary capacity, undue influence, and lost Wills; (2) Times Media Ltd v Rayner, in which the court ordered the successful party to pay costs to protect trust funds; (3) publication by the Office of the Public Guardian of comprehensive guidance on accessing the ‘Use a Lasting Power of Attorney’ service; (4) Boulting v HMRC, which offers valuable guidance on share buybacks and when they are for the benefit of the company and not a taxable distribution; (5) Maile v Maile, which highlights the difficulty in proving unconscionability in a proprietary estoppel case; and (6) HMRC’s updates to the International Exchange of Information Manual arising from changes to the Common Reporting Standard.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) analysis of domicile and jurisdiction in divorce applications (Ramana v Kist-Ramana); (2) the Court of Appeal’s decision in Helliwell v Entwistle, which held that wilful non-disclosure invalidated pre-nup; (3) the Supreme Court’s decision that liability for fraudulent trading not limited to directors or other persons exercising management or control over the company in question (Bilta v Tradition Financial Services); (4) court confirms beneficiaries’ direction to personal representative to waive forfeiture rule following assisted death (In re the estate of David Peace); (5) analysis of Sayers v Dixon, an insolvency case, where several interspousal transfers were held to be a sham; (6) FTT’s decision that the pension of a non-UK resident was taxable under Article 17 of UK/Portugal double tax treaty (Trevor John Masters v HMRC); and (7) news of the first corporate prosecution of the offence of failure to prevent the facilitation of UK tax evasion, which has been brought against an accounting firm.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the FATF’s updated guidance on beneficial ownership and transparency of legal arrangements, (2) BH v JH, in which the Court of Protection held that unspecified charities who were to benefit from a residuary gift must be notified when the statutory Will is altered, (3) HMT consults on the effectiveness of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, (4) analysis of some key features of the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Act which came into force on 30 January 2024; (5) the Charity Commission updates guidance to reflect CA 2022 changes coming into force, and (6) the publication of Finance (No. 2) Bill 2024.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) analysis of Wilkinson (as executor of the estate of John Whewell, deceased) v Kirkham, in which the court held that a substitutionary residuary gift was not void for uncertainty; (2) Cator v Thynn, Marquess of Bath, in which the Court approved the exercise of the power of advancement in favour of a surrogate-born child; (3) analysis of Wood v HMRC, in which the FTT held that a series of political donations were subject to IHT and not eligible for relief under IHTA 1984, s 21; (4) R (on the application of George Martin) v The Chancellor of the Exchequer and others, in which the Court refused judicial review over technical consultation of APR/BPR reforms; (5) CIOT has published an exchange of letters with HMRC regarding the Temporary Repatriation Facility (TRF) and its application to trusts; (6) analysis of Michael Parker v HMRC, in which the FTT rules that the taxpayer was not UK resident based on the statutory residence test, and (7) the King’s Speech.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Ballard v Buzzard, where rectification was ordered to validate pension scheme amendments despite defects in the execution of the deeds; (2) TA v The Public Guardian, which concerned the duties of a certificate provider for a lasting power of attorney; (3) the Civil Justice Council publishes its final report on the procedure to determine mental capacity in civil proceedings; (4) HMRC publishes new guidance on the abolition of the furnished holiday lettings tax regime; (5) Harrow School’s unsuccessful cy-pres application to expand and update its charitable objects, and (6) Raja v ATM Law, which involved a dispute over the beneficial interest in a property subject to a charging order and the validity of trust deeds.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) HMRC’s publication of new ‘stand-alone’ IHT100 forms to replace the previous modular format; (2) the Court of Protection case of Re PQ (Court Authorised DOL: Representation During Review Period), in which the court held that continued representation of P is required during the review period of a community deprivation of liberty; (3) the case of Winfield v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, in which the FTT allowed the taxpayer’s appeal and found that multiple dwellings relief for SDLT was available; (4) publication of the Law Commission’s supplemental report and draft Bill on property rights in digital assets; (5) the case of Howe v Leck Holdings, in which the High Court held that an Inheritance Act claimant had real prospects of setting off that claim against a pre-existing debt she owed to the estate; (6) the Court of Appeal decision in HMRC v GE Financial Investments, in which the court found that no relief was available under the UK-US double tax treaty; and (7) the Scottish case of Trustees of the Eighth Earl Cadogan’s 1961 Settlement Trust v Butler, in which the Inner House of the Court of Session refused appeals against decisions of the Scottish Land Court declaring that a resumption notice was contrary to the good faith of an agricultural lease and approving an improvements notice.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) North East London NHS Foundation Trust v Beatrice (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) (No 2), Court of Protection, which provides valuable guidance on best interest decision making for those suffering with anorexia nervosa; (2) Mahmood v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, in which the FTT rejected the taxpayer’s argument that a transaction should be rescinded due to mistake regarding a CGT liability; (3) Brown v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, in which the Court of Appeal upheld decisions that taxpayer was liable for SDLT on acquisition of a property via a company; (4) Williams v Williams, which considered how the principles established in Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott apply to the beneficial ownership of jointly owned commercial property, and (5) Jersey Court approves trustee’s decision to vary discriminatory provisions in a dynastic trust.