A proposition which ensures that those who are not so fortunate as to
be in a position to so order their affairs will pay all the more in
tax.

On 8/11/16, Neil Guthrie <nguthrie@mac.com> wrote:

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
------------------------------------------