header-logo header-logo

14 February 2008 / John Hendry
Issue: 7308 / Categories: Features , Tax , Family , Commercial
printer mail-detail

No case for panic

Phizackerley’s impact on will trust planning has been exaggerated, says John Hendry

Last year’s special commissioner’s decision in Phizackerley v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2007] UKSPC SPC00591, [2007] STC (SCD) 328 was presented in some quarters as a threat to nil rate band discretionary trust planning or even to will trust planning in general. But this decision related to one particular arrangement made vulnerable by its particular facts and the procedures followed. The facts were unusual, although hardly unique. The fatal flaw lay in the action taken when the discretionary will trust came to be put into effect.

 
THE HISTORY
Until retiring in 1992, Dr Phizackerley, an Oxford University academic, lived with his wife in accommodation provided by Balliol College. They then bought a house for £150,000 as joint tenants. Apparently Mrs Phizackerley had not worked since their marriage and made no financial contribution to the purchase price.
In 1996, some financial planning took place. The house was put into a beneficial tenancy in common in equal shares. Almost immediately
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll