header-logo header-logo

01 November 2013 / Stephen Smith
Issue: 7582 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Seeing clearly

istock_000001015637medium

Stephen Smith warns practitioners to keep an eye on the tax consequences of disposals set aside under s 37 of MCA 1973

The case of AC v DC (No 1) [2012] EWHC 2032 (Fam), [2012] All ER (D) 380 and AC v DC (No 2) [2012] EWHC 2420 (Fam), [2013] All ER (D) 11 (Apr) has been subject to comment, in various guises, over the past few months (see “Scuppering unscrupulous spouses”, NLJ, 7 June 2013, p 14).

What is perhaps interesting is that while the judgments by Mostyn J (No 1) and Sir Hugh Bennett (No 2) have attracted comment, there has been little discussion or consideration of the helpful tax analysis undertaken by Mostyn J in AC v DC (No 1) and clarification of the tax consequences arising from the setting aside of a disposition following an application under s 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973).

The final hearing, (No 2), came before Sir Hugh Bennett in the summer

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll