And one could cite, as a point of departure, Duke of Westminster v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (HL, 1935), per Lord Tomlin:

'Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be.'

Neil

> On Aug 11, 2016, at 14:16, Harrington Matthew P. <matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca> wrote:
>
> For those getting ready to teach trusts in the new school year, there is an interesting, and very clear, example of the tax benefits of trusts in today’s London papers.
>
> As many of you probably know, the Duke of Westminster died this past week. The third richest man in England, his ancestral estate includes a large part of Belgravia and Mayfair, and is estimated at around £9 billion. In fact, the Duke has the freehold on the land under the US Embassy.
>
> Normally, such an inheritance would attract a 40% death duty (roughly £3.6 billion in tax). However, his lordship’s 25-year-old son and heir will likely pay almost no tax because the estate is structured as discretionary trust.
>
> Two articles clearly explaining the problem (and showing the breadth of the London estate) can be found at:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tax/inheritance/inheritance-tax-and-how-the-dukes-of-westminster-avoid-it-on-the/
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-tax-why-the-new-duke-of-westminster-will-not-pay-billions
>
> Although many students’ eyes glaze over when talk of tax comes up in the trusts course --- especially on the first day --- this case might drive home the point in an interesting and fun way.
>
> Kind regards.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Matthew P Harrington
> Professeur titulaire
> Faculté de droit
> Université de Montréal
> 514.343.6106
> matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca
> commonlaw.umontreal.ca
> ------------------------------------------
>