Banker wins top court battle in landmark £80m inheritance tax divorce row
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled, a retired banker who paid £ 80 million to his wife to avoid the inheritance tax, will not have to divide the amounts equally after their divorce.
In 2017, 72 -year -old Clive Standish carried millions of pounds of assets to his 57 -year -old wife Anna Standish. The transfer aimed to benefit from MS Standish’s domestic status of Australia and allowed the money to benefit two children and reduce their inheritance tax obligations.
However, the British highest court has now determined that Mr. Standish has the right to protect the biggest share of assets. Five justice unanimously admitted that the couple had been accumulated by Mr. Standish before their marriage, which is a key factor in their decisions.
Bay Standish, who lived in the UK, was concerned about paying about £ 32 million if he died with assets on his name, Lords Burrows and Stephens were concerned about paying about £ 32 million in his decisions on Wednesday.
They said: “In short, 2017 assets had no marriage because the first was to save taxes, and the second was for the benefit of children, not a spouse.
“For this reason, 2017 assets were treated as an entity shared between the husband and wife for any time.”
Mr. Standish waited for his wife to use the money to establish two open sea confidence, but Mrs. Standish never did this, and when the legal action started, he remained the sole owner of these assets.
In 2022, two years after their divorce, Mr. Justice Moor, the Supreme Court judge, divided the family’s a total of £ 132 million of the family by giving a reward to Bay Standish £ 87 million and £ 45 million.
Mr. Standish objected to this decision at the appeal court and argued that the majority of money, including the transfer of 80 million pounds, was won in 2004 before he began to live together in Switzerland.
Last year, the judges of the Court of Appeal evaluated that 75% of this £ 80 million were won before marriage and thus reduced Mrs. Standish’s share to £ 25 million.
While sitting with Lords Burrows and Stephens, Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd Jones and Lady Simler, he said that they did not see any reason ”to intervene in the Evaluation of the Court of Appeal and that they dismissed Mrs. Standish’s Supreme Court appeal.
In their decisions, they recorded: “The important point is that 2017 is largely non -matrimonial property and that only a relatively small element consists of marriage features.
“This point disappeared in the first approach by Moor J in the first stage, and therefore the Court of Appeal had the right to intervene and make its own assessment.”
Lord Faulks argued that during the Supreme Court for Mrs. Standish, assets became a common property after the transfer and contributed by accepting it as a gift to this reserve.
Tim Bishop KC said that the gift was not for the only benefit of Mrs. Standish, but for the benefit of the children first ”.
Lords Burrows and Stephens said: “Here, the only source of pre -marriage assets within 2017 assets was the only husband. These beings were transferred to the spouse.
“However, the problem of the spouse is that there is nothing to show that parties act as shared between them in 2017.
“Rather, the transfer was following a plan to reject the inheritance tax, and it was only for the benefit of the children.”
