Accountants appealed a finding of professional negligence. They had advised an american resident in Britain that he could transfer assets to his wife here without adverse tax consequences. At the trial the judge had considered an alternative scheme suggested now by the claimant.
Held: The judge should not have considered the alternative scheme. The defendants were not negligent and the appeal was allowed.
Judges:
The Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Carnwath
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 1621, [2002] STC 1388, [2003] 1 All ER 67
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Grimm v Newman and Another ChD 1-Nov-2001
Mr Grimm was given advice about the tax consequences of bring foreign investments into the country as a gift to his wife so that she could purchase property. He was advised that it would not have adverse tax consequences, but after the event he was . .
Cited – Timpsons Executors v Yerbury CA 1936
A resident in the United Kingdom was the life tenant under a trust administered in accordance with the law of the State of New York. She directed the trustees to pay out of the income to which she was entitled allowances to her children resident in . .
Cited – Carter v Sharon 1936
A person domiciled in the United States but resident in England paid allowances to her daughter resident in England out of the income of her investments in the United States, by means of a banker’s draft drawn on a London bank payable to the . .
Cited – Thomson v Moyse HL 1958
A British subject resident in England but domiciled in the United States was the life tenant of trusts administered in accordance with the law of the State of New York. The income of the trusts was paid in US$ into the beneficiary’s bank account . .
Cited – Harmel v Wright ChD 1973
The taxpayer was domiciled in South Africa but resident in England. Before he came to England he arranged for the incorporation of two companies, Artemis Ltd and Lodestar Ltd. Artemis was controlled by the taxpayer but Lodestar, in which he had no . .
Cited – MacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd HL 15-Feb-2001
The fact that a payment of interest was made only to create a tax advantage did not prevent its being properly claimed. Interest was paid for the purposes of setting it against tax, when the debt was discharged. A company with substantial losses had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Professional Negligence
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.178107