A retired banker, who paid about £ 80 million to his wife to avoid heritage tax, would not have to divide the amount equally with her after her divorce, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled.
In 2017, 72-year-old Clive Standish transferred the property of Multimilian-Pound in his wife, Anna Standish, 57. The objective of this transfer was intended to take advantage of the Australian non-dome status of Ms. Standish, allowing more money to benefit her two children and to inherit the liabilities.
However, the Supreme Court of the UK has now determined that Mr. Standish is entitled to maintain the largest part of the assets. Five judges unanimously agreed that most of the money was accumulated by Mr. Standish before the couple’s wedding, an important factor in their decision.
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.
He said: “In short, the property of 2017 had no marriage, because, earlier, was to save the transfer tax, and the second thing was that it was for the benefit of children, not the wife.
“The property of 2017, therefore, was not being treated by husband and wife as a property for any time that was shared between them.”
Mr. Standish hoped that his wife used money to establish two offshore trusts, but Mrs. Standish never did so, and she remained the only owner of those assets when she started legal action.
In 2022, two years after his divorce, High court Judge Mr. Justice Moore divided the total assets of £ 132 million of the family by honoring Mr. Standish £ 87 million and Mrs. Standish £ 45 million.
Mr. Standish challenged this decision court of AppealArguing that most of the money, including transferred assets of 80 million pounds, were earned before living together in Switzerland in 2004.
Last year, the Court of Appeal Judges evaluated that 75% of that £ 80 million was earned before marriage and hence Mrs. Standish’s stake was £ 25 million.
Sitting with Lord’s Burses and Stephens, Lord Read, Lord Lloyd Jones and Lady Simleer, they said they “see no reason” to intervene in the court of the appeal and dismissed the Supreme Court appeal of Mrs. Standish.
In his judgment, he noted: “The important point is that the assets of 2017 are largely non-practical assets and only a relatively small element includes marital property.
“This point was lost in the approach taken in the first example by Moore J and the court of the appeal was therefore entitled to intervene and evaluate itself.”
Lord Fallks for Mrs. Standish argued during the Supreme Court that the property had become a shared property after transfer and they had accepted them as a gift and contributed to that money.
Tim Bishop Casey stated that the gift was not for the only benefit of Mrs. Standish, but “mainly for children’s benefits”.
Lords Baroz and Stephens said: “Here the source of pre-marital property within 2017 property was a special husband. Those assets have been transferred to the wife.
“But the problem for the wife is that it is nothing to show, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 property as shared between them.
“Rather, the transfer was in pursuing a plan to deny the inheritance tax and it was especially for the benefit of children.”
