This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Lumb v NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB, which concerned an application to discharge the appointment of a property and affairs deputy, and examined the scope of authority of such a deputy in managing Personal Health Budgets; (2) DDR v BDR, a case about detrimental reliance and constructive trusts; (3) updates to forms IHT100b, IHT100h and IHT100e; (4) HMRC have launched a new interactive Making Tax Digital for income tax tool to help taxpayers decide whether they are in scope; and (5) the Independent Expert Panel established by the Department for Business and Trade publishes its report on corporate re-domiciliation.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Office of the Public Guardian has updated its guidance on family care payments; (2) a Court of Protection decision about the withdrawal of CANH from a young adult which highlights the importance of best interests, autonomy and expert evidence (The Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust v TB); (3) HMRC’s updates to Form IHT404 (Inheritance tax: jointly owned assets); (4) the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has updated its guidance on permitted travel expenses for sanctions licence applications; and (5) analysis of a First-tier Tribunal tax case regarding the domicile status and tax liabilities of Addison Lee founder Sir John Griffin (Sir John Griffin v The Commissioners for HMRC).

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Companies House publishes guidance on removal of overseas entities from register; (2) CL v Swansea Bay University Health Board, where the Court of Protection held that section 16(7) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides the court with a broad discretion to vary or discharge a deputyship order; (3) Adrian Hyde (As Joint Trustee in Bankruptcy of James Stunt), an insolvency case which affirmed the principles that will be applied when considering the disputed ownership of an asset; (4) the Charity Commission’s blog on AI and the regulatory landscape; (5) Battenburg v Phillips, where the court examined whether it is an abuse of process for a litigant to pursue a probate claim in the English courts when the relevant issues have already been settled in a different jurisdiction; (6) Haworth v HMRC, where the UT held that there was no error of Law in the FTT’s decision on a ‘round-the-world’ trust scheme; (7) Re Representation of Viberts Executors Limited and Ross Badger, in which the Royal Court of Jersey created a new exception to the revenue rule; and (8) the UK government launches a consultation on its proposed changes to the taxation of non-UK domiciled individuals.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) HMCTS and HMRC updates to probate application forms PA1P, PA1A, IHT421 and IHT400; (2) HMRC guidance on when to appeal a late filing or late payment penalty; (3) Keighley v HMRC, which concerned the attribution of carelessness by an agent to the principal, as well as the tax treatment of shareholder expenses and company loans; (4) the National Crime Agency’s warning that Russia is using artwork storage facilities to evade sanctions; (5) Kenig v Thomson Snell & Passmore LLP, where the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision to extend time for beneficiaries to challenge solicitors’ estate administration fees; (6) the Charity Commission issues summaries of the changes due to come into force by the Charities Act 2022, and (7) the Department for Business and Trade publishes the Retained EU Law parliamentary report for June to December 2023.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) court funds interest rate changes; (2) discrimination over social care charging policy; (3) pre-marital agreements; (4) tax treatment of incentivisation; (5) the need for careful drafting of a protector’s powers; and (6) a UK company was not US resident under the DTT.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) analysis of the government’s Tax Update 2026 announced on 23 June 2026, which contains a package of tax and customs measures aimed at simplifying and modernising the tax system and tackling tax avoidance; (2) details of Probate and Court of Protection fee increases from 13 July 2026; (3) analysis of Cator v Thynn, Marques of Bath which examines the High Court’s approval of trustees’ proposed exercise of a power of advancement to address uncertainty over whether a child born through surrogacy was within the beneficiary class of historic family trusts; (4) analysis of Jennings v Appleby which addresses whether a trust that was valid when created can later become invalid through supervening administrative unworkability; (5) R (on the application of Aina Khan Law Ltd) v Legal Ombudsman in which the Court of Appeal restored the Legal Ombudsman’s capacity assessment on appeal; and (6) The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS) has issued an update on deprivation of liberty following the Supreme Court’s judgment in AGNI.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) analysis of British Camelids Ltd v Brooke Hospital for Animals which considers whether a gift in a Will fails if the beneficiary charity ceases to exist; (2) Darlington Borough Council v AW (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor), in which the Court of Protection held that unwise decisions are not equivalent to a lack of capacity and emphasised the need to respect P’s autonomy; (3) Masters v HMRC, where an expat’s withdrawals from their SIPP was held exempt from UK tax under the UK-Portugal Double Tax Convention; (4) HMRC confirms huge increase in individuals under criminal investigation; (5) VP Evans (as executrix of HB Evans, deceased) & Ors v HMRC, a FTT rules decision on disclosure of documents which notes the use of AI in producing decision; (6) CIOT’s responses to draft legislation for Finance Bill 2025–26 on IHT and pensions; and (7) BX v T Ltd (as trustee of the W Trust, in which the Guernsey Court of Appeal sets a high bar for disclosure of trust information to non-beneficiaries.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Form IHT38—Claim for relief on loss on sale of land has been updated; (2) the Office of the Public Guardian’s updates its guidance on gift-giving rules for deputies and attorneys; (3) Enable & Thrive Ltd v The Public Guardian, which considered the suitability of a trust corporation as a deputy; (4) Stockport Metropolitan District Council v EKK, in which the court confirmed that capacity to marry is determined on an ‘act’ or ‘status’ specific basis, rather than by reference to the individual that P wishes to marry; (5) analysis of Cobden v Cobden, an important decision concerning an agricultural general partnership, which establishes when a Syers Order may be made to prevent unfairness or injustice; (6) the Law Society publishes guidance on confirming identity verification to Companies House, and (7) a reminder of the Spring Forecast on Tuesday 3 March 2026.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Tonkin v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, in which the FTT overturned an IHT charge in an employment income scheme; (2) analysis of Osmond and Allen v HMRC, a decision of the UT which held that the taxpayers did not have a main purpose of obtaining an income tax advantage; (3) the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation publishes guidance on sanctions compliance threats for art market and high-value goods; (4) analysis of the new Pensions Schemes Bill; (5) analysis of Rogers v Wills, where a daughter was held to be entitled to substantial sums for caring for her late mother prior to death; (6) the Scottish government launches a consultation on the reform of the regulations concerning the dissolution of Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisations; and (7) the Law Commission launches a consultation on reforms to private international law in the context of digital assets and electronic trade documents.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) an application by parents to be appointed deputies for personal welfare of an adult child under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in the matter of HDEB; (2) Townsend v Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, in which the court held that it cannot compel treatment which clinicians have declined to provide, finding that incapacitated persons do not have greater rights than those with capacity; (3) the UT rules that the FTT erred in holding that property was not entirely ‘residential property’ setting out the relevance of commercial use, both historical and future in HMRC v Brzezicki; (4) the FTT confirms that leave campaign donations did not qualify for IHT exemption in Hosking v Revenue and Customs Commissioners; (5) the Privy Council confirms protectors hold a wider fiduciary role when consenting to trustee decisions in A v C; and (6) MA v WK which concerned the validity of three marriages conducted by way of an Islamic Nikkah ceremony in England but which did not comply with the Marriage Act 1949.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) HMRC updates form IHT400; (2) Carey Street Investments Ltd (In Liquidation) v Brown, a decision concerning professional trustees and ‘fraudulent’ breaches of trust; (3) Nilsson v Cynberg, a bankruptcy case where an express declaration of trust was held to be superseded by a subsequent common intention constructive trust; (4) Nunn v HMRC, Garden development—Appropriation to trading stock saves PPR claim; (5) Brindleyplace Holdings v HMRC, where the FTT decided that no SDLT was due on distributions of partnership and its properties following the purchase of a JPUT holding structure, and (6) STEP publishes its supplementary response to the proposed abolition of the non-dom regime.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) a Will is interpreted to exclude section 33 of the Wills Act 1837 (James v James); (2) HMRC publishes a new version of form R185 (Statement of income from trust); (3) analysis of new regulations which will assist with the flow of information between pension scheme administrators and personal representatives; (4) court allows quantum claim for care services provided to late mother (Roger v Wills); (5) the Jersey court voids trust appointments after mistake over TRF eligibility (Representation of G Private Trust Company Limited re J Trust); (6) AA v MZ, in which a foreign adoption was recognised despite not all Re Valentine’s Settlement criteria being satisfied; (7) HMLR updates Practice Guide 78 to highlight the complexities that may arise where an overseas entity registered as proprietor is dissolved in its territory of incorporation; and (8) SRA issues a warning notice addressing AI misuse risks for solicitors and law firms.