Ball v Ball [2017] 1 EWHC 1750 (Ch)

Autumn 2017 #169

The Deceased was married to James Ball. They had had eleven children, including the three claimants and eight of the nine defendants. In or around 1991, the family split, when the three claimants reported their father to the police for sexually abusing them when they were younger. The Deceased felt that the complaints were exaggerated, and was annoyed that they had been made public. As a result, on 27 May 1992 the Deceased made a will excluding those three claimants from benefit, dividing her estate between her eight remaining children and one of her grandsons. The will was professional ...

Barclays Wealth Trustees (Jersey) Limited & anor v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 1512

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...

Henderson v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 556 (TC)

Autumn 2017 #169

The appellants were the four children of Nicholas Henderson. They appealed under s42 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions Act) 2003 and s207 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, against HMRC determinations that they had all been domiciled in the UK since their birth. Strictly this appeal only related to tax years prior to 2008-2009, as a new statutory regime governs appeals relating to questions of domicile thereafter.

The parties were agreed that the appeals could be determined by reference to three questions:

  1. (1) Had Ian Hende...

Hives v Machin [2017] EWHC 1414 (Ch)

Autumn 2017 #169

This claim concerned the proper construction of the will of Mrs Bastubbe (‘the Testatrix’). The Testatrix had three sons, Christopher, Eric (the Claimant’s father) and Peter (the Defendant). The Testatrix made her last will in 2003 at a time when all three of her sons were living. The Defendant had one son and one daughter, and the Claimant was Eric’s only daughter. The deceased would have been aware in 2003 that Eric had a chest complaint that caused him breathing difficulties and that Christopher was suffering from illness relating to drug addiction. Christopher...

Hood v HMRC [2017] UKUT 0276 (TCC)

Autumn 2017 #169

Lady Hood was the lessee of premises at 67 and 67A Chelsea Square, London SW3 (premises) which had been granted by Viscount Chelsea and Chelsea Land & Investment Company Ltd and Cadogan Holdings Company (Cadogan) on 21 September 1979 for a term due to expire on 25 December 2076 (head lease). By licence granted by Cadogan a reversionary sub lease of the premises was granted by Lady Hood to her sons on 19 June 1997 to commence on 25 March 2012 and to expire on 22 December 2076 (sub lease). Lady Hood as sub-lessor and her sons as sub-lessees respectively covenanted to perform and observ...

Legg v Burton [2017] EWHC 2088 (Ch)

Autumn 2017 #169

The testatrix had two daughters, the first and second claimants. In July 2000, the testatrix and her husband made wills in favour of the survivor, and subject to that, in favour of the claimants in equal shares.

The husband died in May 2001. Between 2001 and 2004, the testatrix made 13 further wills. These progressively favoured the defendants (who were two of the grandsons of the testatrix and the partner of one of them), at the expense of the claimants. The last of these wills was made on 12 December 2014, when she made a further will under which the claimants took a legacy of £...

Martin v Williams [2017] EWHC 491 (Ch)

Autumn 2017 #169

This was an appeal against a decision of the County Court ([2016] WTLR 1075) to make reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for Mrs Joy Williams from the estate of her deceased partner Norman Martin. Under the terms of Mr Martin’s last will his entire estate passed to Mrs Maureen Martin, Mr Martin’s wife, from whom he was separated, but to whom he remained married until the date of his death. Mr and Mrs Martin had not divorced but they had made an informal arrangement regarding their separation.

HHJ Gerald made an order ...

Nahajec v Fowle Case No: C30LS199

Autumn 2017 #169

By a will dated 7 July 2015 Stanley Nahajec (‘deceased’) left the whole of his estate valued at £265,710 to the defendant whom he appointed as sole executor. The deceased died on 19 July 2015 and a grant of probate to the defendant was issued on 15 October 2015. The claimant, who was one of three adult children of the deceased, brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (‘Act’) on 12 April 2016. One of her half siblings, Mark Nahajec, similarly made a claim under the act which was settled by a payment of £22,000 though his circumstances differed ...

Rangers [2017] UKSC 45

Autumn 2017 #169

The appeal concerned a tax avoidance scheme by which employers paid remuneration to their employees through an employees’ remuneration trust in the hope that the scheme would avoid liability to income tax and Class 1 national insurance contributions. The question on appeal was whether an employee’s remuneration was taxable as their emoluments or earnings when it was paid to a third party in circumstances in which the employee had no prior entitlement to receive it himself or herself.

The employing companies, including RFC, operated the tax avoidance scheme in the tax years between...

Routier v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 1584

Autumn 2017 #169

The appeal concerned the restriction (the Restriction) imposed by s23 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA), as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in an earlier hearing of the appeal, on IHT relief for legacies and gifts to charities, to legacies and gifts to UK charities subject to the supervision of the UK courts. The question was whether the Restriction violated the EU law principle of freedom of movement of capital so as not to be enforceable in relation to a legacy of an estate with assets situate in the UK to a Jersey charity.

There were three sub-issues:

  1. (1) W...