header-logo header-logo

09 May 2014
Issue: 7605 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Trust law

Gilchrist (as trustee of the J P Gilchrist 1993 Settlement) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2014] UKUT 0169 (TCC), [2014] All ER (D) 25 (May)

The exercise of ascertaining the scope of the deeming effect of s 249(6) of the Corporation Taxes Act 1988 required the court to consider the approach properly taken to the construction of deeming provisions generally and to apply that approach to s 249(6), bearing in mind the text of s 249(6), its statutory context and its statutory purpose. There was no suggestion, in the text of s 249(6), as construed in Howell v Trippier [2004] EWCA Civ 885 that the deeming effect of s 249(6) extended to statutes beyond the 1988 Act or to the area of general trust law. Nor would one expect there to be. The 1988 Act was not a statute which governed general trust law. Section 249(6)(b) gave rise to notional income, being notional trust income, which meant that the rate applicable to trusts was levied on the appropriate amount in cash deemed to be received by the trustees. 

The

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll