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 correct approach to deeming provisions did not permit

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll