This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Wigglesworth v Beetson, in which the claimant failed in an action for estoppel and adverse possession; (2) the Hansard Society to host a briefing on parliamentary process for Assisted Dying Bill; (3) Khan v Khan, which considered family property and constructive trusts; (4) analysis of the Autumn Budget announcement to bring unused pension funds and death benefits within the scope of IHT; (5) Palmer v Sans, which found that there was no transaction at an undervalue where property was already held on trust for the transferee; (6) KA v FA (The Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening), where the court recognised an overseas adoption notwithstanding failure of common law test; and (7) Kireeva v Bedzhamov, in which the Supreme Court has confirmed the application of the immovables rule to English property.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) updated guidance from HMRC on MTD for income tax and on the consequences of failing to pay tax on time, (2) Court of Protection cases, (3) a case on the classification of digital assets, and (4) updates to the HMRC’s Pension Tax Manual.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) summaries of recent Court of Protection cases; (2) publication of responses to HMRC’s consultation on simplifying and modernising income tax services through the tax administration framework; (3) HMRC’s consultation on potential reform of its enquiry and assessment powers, penalties, safeguards; (4) Miller v Irwin Mitchell, in which the Court of Appeal considered the extent to which a solicitor has a duty of care in respect of prospective clients; (5) Grosskopf v Grosskopf and another, in which the High Court decided that a dispute concerning the appointment of judicial trustees is suitable for arbitration; (6) prospective changes to the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law, and (7) Finance Bill 2024 due to receive Royal Assent on 22 February 2024.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Parr v Cheshire East Council, in which the Court of Protection (CoP) set out guidance on when the criteria for appointing a Personal Welfare Deputy are met; (2) Riddle v NA, in which the CoP clarified the test for determining costs applications; (3) the Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation is updated with guidance on using Artificial Intelligence in tax work; and (4) analysis of R(on the application of Peter Kadas) v HMRC, in which the High Court dismissed a judicial review claim against HMRC’s decision to provide the claimant’s information to the Spanish tax authority.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Law Commission publishes its recommendations to reform the Wills Act 1837; (2) Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z, in which the court granted a parental order despite applicants’ advanced ages; (3) HMRC issues first individual tax avoidance stop notices under POTAS regime; (4) further analysis of Accuro Trust (Switzerland) SA v The Commissioners for HMRC, in which the court confirmed when a settlement is ‘made’ for the purposes of excluded property; (5) Louwman v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, a decision of the FTT holding that OIGs and AIPs arising in offshore protected trusts are not protected foreign source income; (6) Moran v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, where the taxpayer was found liable under the transfer of assets abroad regime for the rent-free occupation of a house; and (7) the Data (Use and Access) Bill reaches its final legislative stages.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) a decision of the Business and Property Division (BPD) which held that a devise to a local authority was an absolute gift on the basis that testatrix’s wishes were precatory and did not impose a trust (Exeter City Council v Macklin); (2) the BPD passes over estranged parents to grant limited letters of administration in favour of the deceased’s fiancée to arrange his funeral (Cameron v Comerford); (3) the Court of Protection confirms that managing Direct Payments under any of four statutory schemes requires specific authority encompassing both property and affairs and health and welfare functions; (4) the BPD declares six settlements and associated loans settled by a deputy void ab initio (Zedra Trust Company (UK) Ltd v Graham David Tustain)); (5) HMRC updates its guidance on non-charitable expenditure; (6) CIOT and STEP seek clarification on IHT exemption for charitable trusts created by Will; and (7) the Royal Court of Jersey Court blesses a trust restructuring despite objections from guardians for future beneficiaries (JTC Trust Company (CI) Limited (formerly SG Kleinwort Hambros Trust Company (CI) Limited) v B).

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) West (as Trustees of the F.R. Kerry Family 1962 Trust) v Bullivant, in which the court approved a trust distribution after the valid surrender of the life interest; (2) the Court of Protection clarifies the scope of welfare deputy powers to control internet and social media use; (3) Wood v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, where the court held that political donations were subject to IHT and were not normal expenditure; (4) the Charity Commission publishes updated guidance for charity trustees on conflicts of interest; (5) Hails v Lawton (in his capacity as the Executor of the Estate of Beryl Foy), in which an executor was committed for breaching an estate account order; (6) McDaniel v Talbot, where the court awarded an estranged daughter financial provision from her father’s estate; and (7) the Court of Appeal’s decision in Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Burlington Loan Management DAC, that the UK-Irish treaty exemption applied to post-administration interest received from an investment company.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) P, Re (Property & Affairs Deputyship: Jurisdiction), a Court of Protection involving jurisdiction to remove a deputy; (2) Bonham v Stringer, a case where the court decided that rectification of an error in a Will was not required; (3) Malik v Messalti, an insolvency case which considered the transactions defrauding creditors rules in relation to hypothetical future creditors; (4) industry bodies respond to the government’s proposal to bring pensions within the scope of IHT; (5) Scotland’s Office of the Public Guardian announces a new Power of Attorney case management system; (6) CIOT’s response to the HMRC consultation on ‘Simplifying the Taxation of Offshore Interest’: and (7) publication of the 2025 issue of Halsbury’s Ecclesiastical Law.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Stock v Neal, where the court held that royalties were held as capital, not income, under an accumulation and maintenance settlement; (2) the government publishes an action plan to support unpaid carers; (3) analysis of Elborne v HMRC, in which the Court of Appeal rejected HMRC’s challenge to an IHT home loan scheme; (4) HMRC publishes a GAAR Advisory Panel opinion on arrangements to avoid IHT on lifetime transfers; (5) new HMRC guidance on the loan charge settlement scheme; (6) the Charity Commission urges charities to prepare for EHRC Code of Practice compliance; and (7) analysis of Thirsk v Thirsk, which provides significant guidance on balancing testamentary freedom with spousal provision, particularly where substantial inherited assets are involved, and highlights the potential for different outcomes between financial remedy and the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claims.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Court of Protection approves indefinite extension of injunction against P’s son in order to protect and support best interest decisions made for P (MK (‘P’), In the Matter of); (2) the FTT considers main purpose test in applying the transactions in securities regime to a buyback of EIS shares (Osmond v HMRC); (3) tax avoidance is not a prohibited purpose for transactions defrauding creditors (Purkiss (as liquidator of Ethos Solutions Ltd) v Kennedy); and (4) Finance (No. 2) Bill will receive its second reading and pass through all remaining stages on 24 May, following the announcement that a general election will take place on 4 July.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) amendments to the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 which come into force on 3 November 2025; (2) the Office of the Public Guardian publishes guidance on investigatory limits and alternative remedies; (3) analysis of the High Court decision in SKAT v Solo Capital Partners, which confirms the importance of factual evidence when establishing claims for misrepresentation; (4) the Scottish government publishes commentary on Assisted Dying Bill amendment; and (5) the signing of a new tax treaty between the UK and Portugal.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) analysis of the draft provisions to be included in Finance Bill 2026 which were published on Legislation Day, 21 July 2025; (2) reforms to the registration requirements of the Trust Registration Service (TRS) as part of the government’s response to the 2024 Money Laundering Regulations consultation; (3) double taxation tiebreakers—the meaning of POEM (Haworth v HMRC); and (4) a monumental Supreme Court decision on matrimonialisation and sharing principle on divorce (Standish v Standish).