Barclays Wealth Trustees (Jersey) Ltd & anr v HMRC [2017] WTLR 917

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2017 #169

This appeal concerned the first periodic charge which fell due on a Jersey-resident discretionary trust established by the settlor, Mr Dreelan (‘the Settlor’) on 21 June 2001 (‘the 2001 Settlement’).

The Settlor transferred £100 to Barclays Wealth Trustees (Jersey) Limited (‘the Trustee’) to hold on trusts in broad discretionary form. The beneficiaries were the Settlor, his spouse and his children then living or born during the trust period. At this date the Settlor was not domiciled in the UK for IHT purposes.

The Trustee lent part of the settled funds to a wholly-owned Je...

Barclays Wealth Trustees (Jersey) Ltd & anr v HMRC [2015] EWHC 2878 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2015 #155

On 21 June 2001 the settlor, who was then non-domiciled in the UK, settled cash derived from a Jersey bank account on the trusts of a Jersey-resident discretionary trust called the Michael Dreelan Trust (MDT). The settlor became deemed domiciled in the UK for inheritance tax purposes from the beginning of the tax year 2003/04. Subsequently, on 4 April 2008, the settlor and others set up another settlement called the Dreelan Brothers Joint Trust (DBJT) and 25,000 ordinary shares in Qserv Limited were transferred from the MDT. These were later sold for cash that was UK situs property. On 2...

JP Gilchrist Trust v HMRC Case number: FTC/89/2012

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2014 #142

Mr Gilchrist settled property on trust on 17 May 1993. Under the terms of the trust, he was entitled to a life interest in the trust property. On 4 June 1993, the trustees exercised an overriding power of appointment to appoint 20% of the fund (the appointed fund) out of the main fund, on discretionary trust for the benefit of members of Mr Gilchrist’s family. Mr Gilchrist and his spouse were excluded from any benefit in the discretionary trust. Mr Gilchrist then gifted £44,000 to the trustees. The trustees used the funds to contribute to Whitecroft Limited, in which the trust held...

SDLT And VAT: Seeking clarity

Simon Rose reviews the implications of recent attempts at SDLT avoidance In light of the leading anti-avoidance case of Ramsay, a purposive interpretation of the legislation was taken and the clear intention of the scheme was to avoid tax. The recent cases reported below have all provided some much-needed clarity and certainty on a number …
This post is only available to members.

SDLT On Sub-Sales: HMRC strikes back

Neil Warriner discusses a case with lessons for taxpayers ‘The lesson here for taxpayers from the finding on the first point is that, if structures like this are to be implemented, then they need to be implemented properly having regard to all legal issues that may affect them, not simply the tax rules.’ Despite their …
This post is only available to members.

SDLT: Sub-sales in the spotlight

With HMRC’s attentions focused on sub-sale arrangements, Lee Nuttall reviews the findings of the recent decision DV3 ‘SDLT is a modernised form of stamp duty, but also borrowed heavily from stamp duty concepts. It attempted to counter some of the more blatant planning found in stamp duty (for example, “resting on contract” schemes).’Stamp duty land …
This post is only available to members.