Joy Williams brought a claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 against the estate of her deceased partner Norman Martin. Her claim was brought both on the basis that for a period of two years before Mr Martin’s death she had been living in the same household with him as his wife (s1(1)(ba)) and alternatively on the basis that she was wholly or partly maintained by the deceased (s1(1)(e)).
At the date of his death Mr Martin remained married to his wife Maureen Martin, though they ...
Continue reading "Tax: Victory for the taxpayer"
The claimant brought a claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance Provision for Family & Dependents Act 1975, against the estate of Alexander Graham Bryce (the deceased), on the basis that she had been living in the same household as the deceased, as his wife, in accordance with s1(A) of the Act. Otherwise, as the deceased had died intestate, his c£600,000 estate fell to be distributed to his numerous intestacy beneficiaries, a class to which the claimant, who was never married to the deceased, did not belong.
The first issue before the court was w...
The first appeal concerned two settlements, made with non-resident trustees, by Mr Futter. Considerable ‘stockpiled’ gains were rolled up while the trusts were non-resident and, in exercise of the powers conferred by the trusts, new resident trustees were appointed and capital was distributed to Mr Futter and his children in the mistaken belief that the ‘stockpiled’ gains, which would be attributed to them, would be absorbed by allowable losses that had been realised, so that no liability to capital gains tax would arise. In advising as to the effect of s87 of the Taxation a...
The appellants appealed from a first instance decision by Mr Recorder Chapman QC on 15 May 2012, which refused their application for an order for rectification of a conveyance that was executed on behalf of their mother (Mrs Day) by her solicitor (Mr Froud) who was acting as her attorney. The conveyance was dated 6 June 1985. The conveyance had transferred Mrs Day’s home from her sole name into the names or her and her son (the respondent) as beneficial joint tenants. The purpose of the transaction was to enable borrowing to be secured against the property by the respondent. Mrs Day died...