header-logo header-logo

21 February 2008 / Judith Inghams
Issue: 7309 / Categories: Features , Public , Tax , Commercial
printer mail-detail

A rush of blood to the head?

Changes to Capital Gains Tax for non-domiciliaries create as many anomalies as they remove, says Judith Ingham

For the second time in as many years, an innocent sounding heading in an HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) note conceals an upheaval in the world of trusts taxation. On the first occasion, it was “alignment” in the 2006 Budget Notes which heralded fundamental changes to the inheritance tax treatment of trusts contained in the Finance Act 2006. This time, it was the label “anomalies” in the 9 October 2007 Pre Budget Report (PBR) which was the signpost to a revolution in the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) treatment of trusts made by non-domiciliaries. And, this time, there is a further sting in the tail—the draft clauses issued on 18 January 2008 (which it is proposed should be included in the Finance Bill 2008) went a lot further than the PBR implied. And, following significant lobbying since 18 January, we now have a raft of clarifications (some published in an HMRC letter of 12

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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll