header-logo header-logo

25 September 2008
Issue: 7338 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Who benefits?

Paul Hewitt and Paola Fudakowska report on beneficial ownership

In (1) Antony Stow (2) Richard Stow (3) Alhaji Ahmed v (1) Zoe Stow (2) Comissioners for HMRC (3) Estate of Edward Stow (4) Gareth Stow [2008] WTLR 1103 the third defendant (E) and the third claimant (K) were business colleagues. K settled assets on trust (the B Trust) and later used those funds to create a further six settlements (the N settlements). HMRC contended that the B Trust was a sham and E had provided the assets, therefore making E the settlor of the N settlement for tax purposes. HMRC issued notices of determination of tax on the trustees of the N settlement in the amount of £20m.

In 2005, E died leaving an estate of about £5m. E's wife, the first defendant (Z), was indicating an intention to claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 against both E's estate, and the trustees under s 10. The first and second claimants, (A) and (R), and the fourth defendant (G) were trustees of the N

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll