- Tourists Win Millions for Slips, Trips and Falls3rd Sep 2010
- Injured Rail Worker Receives £32,00031st Aug 2010
- Check the Builder's Insurance25th Aug 2010
- Insurance - Age to Remain a Factor16th Aug 2010
- New Rights for House Buyers9th Aug 2010
- Wedding Video Stops Divorce3rd Aug 2010
- 'It's Been in the Family For Years' is No Argument26th Jul 2010
- Driving: Mobile Phone, No - Dictaphone, Yes19th Jul 2010
- 'Toxic Sofa' Victims Win Compensation12th Jul 2010
- Canoe Fraudsters Must Repay Nearly £600,0006th Jul 2010
- In Brief - HMRC to Name and Shame Tax Dodgers28th Jun 2010
- Who Chooses the Executor?14th Jun 2010
- Chef Entitled to Second Helping of Justice7th Jun 2010
- Court Agrees to Reverse Settlement Error2nd Jun 2010
- Privacy Cases Will Be Dealt With On Their Facts25th May 2010
- Smoker Loses Out in Asbestos Settlement18th May 2010
- Man Wins Planning Battle Over House Disguised as a Barn12th May 2010
- Sikh’s Widow Awarded £415,000 for Egg Allergy Death5th May 2010
- General Intention Cannot Preserve Will27th Apr 2010
- Car Turning Area Creates Right Over Property14th Apr 2010
- iPod Deafness is User's Fault30th Mar 2010
- Summary of Budget Changes for Individuals25th Mar 2010
- Compensation for Honeymoon Ruined by Dysentery15th Mar 2010
- Mercy Killing is Not the Same as Assisted Suicide8th Mar 2010
- Husband Ordered Out of Ancestral Home23rd Feb 2010
- Verbal Will Directs £1/2 Million to Aunt27th Jan 2010
- £140,000 Mesothelioma Payout for Grandfather22nd Jan 2010
- Will Writer in the Dock15th Jan 2010
- Will Valid if Testator Had Capacity When it Was Drafted6th Jan 2010
- European Inheritance Law Overhaul Proposed23rd Dec 2009
- Supervision Failure Costs Council14th Dec 2009
- £240,000 for Holidaymaker Poisoned by Worm9th Dec 2009
- Ward & Rider Achieve Lexcel and Bronze IIP Accreditation1st Dec 2009
- Bank Charges Decision 27th Nov 2009
- Funding the First Step On the Ladder23rd Nov 2009
- Nightjack 'Outing' Bodes ill for Bloggers 18th Nov 2009
- When Equal Shares Change9th Nov 2009
- Executor With Hand in Till Jailed3rd Nov 2009
- Asbestos Damages for Widower26th Oct 2009
- Deskbound Worker Wins Compensation For Blood Clot19th Oct 2009
- Don’t Get Angry With the Council!12th Oct 2009
- Family Court Protects Children From Media Intrusion5th Oct 2009
- Pensions Case Moves to Europe23rd Sep 2009
- Estate Property - HMRC Recommend Three Valuations23rd Sep 2009
- Judge Uses Discretion in Contact Proceedings Case16th Sep 2009
- Past Exposure to Noise Warrants Compensation8th Sep 2009
- What Happens if I Don't Make a Will?28th Aug 2009
- Be Careful What You Claim For19th Aug 2009
- Swine Flu - Guidance for Employers10th Aug 2009
- Child Maintenance Rule Changes7th Aug 2009
- Stay Where You Are!4th Aug 2009
- PreNuptial Agreements - Parliament Must Act if Law to Change29th Jul 2009
- Easements - What They Mean at the Time22nd Jul 2009
- £10,000 for Vibration Injury14th Jul 2009
- Shared Residence Does Not Create Priority Housing Need13th Jul 2009
- Planning Permission is Only Part of the Story10th Jul 2009
- Risk Minimisation Necessary, Says Court6th Jul 2009
- Executors be Warned2nd Jul 2009
- Delayed Lump Sum Payments on Divorce1st Jul 2009
- E-Conveyancing - Where Are We Now?29th Jun 2009
- Cyclist Riding Without Helmet Awarded Full Compensation10th Jun 2009
- Making the Boundaries Clear10th Jun 2009
- Credit Crunch - Divorce Settlements in the Spotlight10th Jun 2009
- New Website Goes Live!27th May 2009
Court Agrees to Reverse Settlement Error
Although a trustee is personally responsible for the actions they take, the law is not so harsh as to prevent a trustee who makes an innocent mistake from rectifying it.
In a recent case, a 'receiver' for a mentally impaired man (her husband) was appointed by the Court of Protection: a receiver in this context is effectively a trustee responsible for the affairs of another person. The receiver made a settlement of her husband's assets without giving full consideration to the Inheritance Tax (IHT) consequences of her actions. As a result, an IHT liability ensued.
The receiver sought to have the settlement revoked, as had she been in possession of all the relevant facts at the appropriate time, she would not have made it. HM Revenue and Customs opposed the application.
The court had sympathy for the receiver and agreed that the settlement should be made void.
This case shows the importance of making sure that sufficient care is taken when such decisions are made. Although the end result was the avoidance of the IHT liability, the case will inevitably have involved a great deal of time and considerable costs, both of which were avoidable had the matter been given full consideration at the outset. In addition, in such cases any IHT mitigation exercise would have to be reconsidered after the original situation was restored, which could well have adverse consequences on the family’s IHT position.
If you are a trustee, we can advise you on all aspects of trust and tax law.




















