A retired banker who gave his wife about £ 80 million to avoid paying inheritance tax It will not have to divide Wealth Following a divorce equally with him, The Supreme Court has ruled.
Five judges unanimously agreed because most of the money was earned before the money. MarriageClive Standish, 72, deserved the largest share.
He transferred his wife Anna Standish to his wife Anna Standish to his wife Anna Standish in 2017, to avail more money to avail the non-dome status of Australians and benefit his two children.
Being dominated in Mr. Standish, UK, he was concerned about paying about 32 million pounds in heritage tax, if he died with property in his name, Lords Baroz and Stephens explained in their judgment on Wednesday.
Sam Longworth of Hudson Sandler and head partner of Mr. Standish said: “The Supreme Court has also provided necessary guidance when the assets that do not have the original relationship for marriage partnership should be considered marital.
“This guidance will give the courts a clear outline to ensure that individuals would not benefit from running false arguments whether they did not agree to share some assets during their relationship currency.”
Claire Reid, a partner of the hall brown family law, said that more “goalposts were being transferred” than the ruling “paradise”, saying that the other spouses should be very attentive in how they do “.
He said: “Given the recent changes in the inheritance tax rules declared by the government, there is a possibility of many individuals, who were planning assets like Sri and Mrs. Standish.
“The rich husband -wife will now survive to avoid falling in the same complex position and will survive the need to obtain more clearly the terms of any transfer of cash or other assets.”
Sarah Norman-Skot and Victoria Walker, Hodge Jones and Family Law Partners in Allen and Moore Barlow said that couples should keep a clear record on the source of their money.
Ms. Walker said: “Moving forward, families would need to keep strict records to display that the transfer was executed for specific purposes.
“This said, if spouses cannot meet their related needs from the pool of available assets, the court will still draw on non-marital money to ensure fairness.
“However, where a lot of funds are available for high value separation, Standish gives a clear message: the intention is everything.”
A family law partner in Osborns Law predicts “a jump” in preneptial and post -postal inquiries following the Supreme Court’s decision.
He said: “Such agreements are yet to be considered ideal, they are being formed in such a way and especially for couples where important property is involved, although the court’s decision will always be designed to ensure that the financial needs of both sides are met.”
Lucy Stuart-Gold, the second partner for Mr. Standish at Hudson Sandler, said that at the time of divorce, the ownership of wealth or property, known as the title, is not enough to claim ownership; What matters is how that property is used.
He said: “The title alone is inadequate evidence to allow a party to share in a non-marital property.
“What is required, as shared, intends to share and treat assets, neither on the proper analysis of the facts of the case.”
Jennifer Dixon, Family Law Partner at Withers, agreed. He said: “The decision makes it clear that non-marital property should not be subject to shared theory and marital property should usually be shared 50/50, but non-practical property can be ‘matrimonial’ based on the couple’s intentions and treatment of that money during marriage.
“What tax plan practice was designed to benefit Mrs. Standish, instead of your children, it could be a different story well.”
