The trustees sought to mitigate estate duty by terminating a life interest, and accelerating the interest fo the next generation.
Held: There had been no valid exercise of the power of advancement. Cross J rejected an argument approximating an advancement by way of resettlement to the exercise of a power of appointment. Although they were treated in the same way for perpetuity purposes, in his view the similarity ended there: ‘The interests given to separate objects of an ordinary special power are separate interests, but all the interests created in Carole’s fund were intended as part and parcel of a single benefit to her.’
Judges:
Cross J
Citations:
[1969] 1 Ch 463
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Futter and Another v Revenue and Customs; Pitt v Same SC 9-May-2013
Application of Hastings-Bass Rule
F had created two settlements. Distributions were made, but overlooking the effect of section 2(4) of the 2002 Act, creating a large tax liability. P had taken advice on the investment of the proceeds of a damages claim and created a discretionary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Trusts
Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.509125