Offshore trusts: A taxing business

A successful taxpayer appeal against HMRC has lessons on how the courts will interpret legislation on the transfer of assets abroad. Remi Aiyela explains ‘Even though Mr Rialas orchestrated the purchase side of the transaction as HMRC claimed, it was stretching the meaning of the word “procure” beyond breaking point to suggest that the fact …
This post is only available to members.

WTLR(w) 2013-6 Bowring & anor v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 366 (TC)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

AAZ v BBZ [2016] EWHC 3234 (Fam)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2017 #169

AAZ (W) applied for financial orders ancillary to her divorce from BBZ (H). H was the sole director of the second respondent C Ltd, a Cypriot registered company and the trustee of a Bermudian Discretionary Trust (the trust). P Ltd, the third respondent, is a Panamian company which H said was within the trust. P Ltd was said to hold the bulk of the wealth in the case. None of the respondents took any part in the trial. H was in breach of several court orders, including one compelling his personal attendance for the duration of the trial.

H and W had been married since 1993 when the...

TM v AH [2016] EWHC 572 (Fam)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2016 #162

The wife applied to join the trustees of the A trust and the B trust as parties to the litigation between the husband and wife. The husband was the settlor of both trusts. At one point husband and wife had been beneficiaries. They have now been irrevocably excluded from benefit. The wife was applying to vary both trusts.

One trust was subject to BVI jurisdiction and the other to the jurisdiction of the Swiss courts. The trustees of each trust were not submitting to the jurisdiction, and were intending to apply to the foreign courts for directions as to what to in respect of the l...

Tchenguiz-Imerman v Imerman [2013] EWHC 3627

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2014 #136

Beneficiaries of a number of offshore discretionary trusts were joined as parties on their application to contested financial remedy proceedings. The court had made an order that these beneficiaries should disclose copies of documents provided to them for the purposes of an application that had been made to the Royal Court of Jersey (RCtJ) by the trustee of some of those trusts. The RCtJ had given the beneficiaries permission to make such disclosure if they were ordered to do so but expressed concerns about and invited the court not to require such disclosure [2012] (2) JLR 51.