header-logo header-logo

21 February 2008 / Judith Inghams
Issue: 7309 / Categories: Features , Public , Tax , Commercial
printer mail-detail

A rush of blood to the head?

Changes to Capital Gains Tax for non-domiciliaries create as many anomalies as they remove, says Judith Ingham

For the second time in as many years, an innocent sounding heading in an HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) note conceals an upheaval in the world of trusts taxation. On the first occasion, it was “alignment” in the 2006 Budget Notes which heralded fundamental changes to the inheritance tax treatment of trusts contained in the Finance Act 2006. This time, it was the label “anomalies” in the 9 October 2007 Pre Budget Report (PBR) which was the signpost to a revolution in the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) treatment of trusts made by non-domiciliaries. And, this time, there is a further sting in the tail—the draft clauses issued on 18 January 2008 (which it is proposed should be included in the Finance Bill 2008) went a lot further than the PBR implied. And, following significant lobbying since 18 January, we now have a raft of clarifications (some published in an HMRC letter of 12

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll