Couples warned to ‘keep clear records on source of wealth’ following landmark divorce ruling
The Supreme Court, a retired banker who gives £ 80 million to avoid paying the inheritance tax to his wife will not have to divide this money equally after divorce.
Five justice unanimously admitted that 72 -year -old Clive Standish has the right to hold the biggest share, as most of the money was won before marriage.
In order to take advantage of Australia’s domestic status and allow more money to benefit two children, Multimillion -pound assets transferred to 57 -year -old Anna Standish at the age of 57.
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.
The chief partner of Sam Longworth and Mr. Standish of Hudson Sandler said: “The Supreme Court has provided basic guidance as to when the assets that do not have a connection to the marriage partnership should be considered as marriage.
“This guide will give the courts a clear framework to ensure that individuals cannot benefit from conducting wrong arguments about whether they agree to share or agree to share certain assets during the currency of their relations.”
Claire Reid, the partner of the Hall Brown Family Law, said that the decision is more “castle poles ında than the“ paradigm change ”and other spouses should be very cautious about how this is doing to managing their renovations to minimize tax bills”.
“Considering the recent changes in the inheritance tax rules announced by the Government, it is likely that there are many people who make a kind of real estate planning of Mr. and Mrs. Standish.
“Richer spouses will be alive in the need to formalize any requirement of cash or other assets in order not to fall into the same complex.”
Sarah Norman-Scott and Victoria Walker, Hodge Jones & Allen and Moore Barlow, respectively, family law partners, couples should keep open records about the source of their reserves, he said.
Walker said: “In the future, families will have to keep more strict records to show that transfers are carried out for specific purposes.
“If spouses cannot meet their relevant needs from the existing asset pool, the court will still benefit from non -matrimonal funds to provide justice.
“However, standish offers an open message for high -valuable distinctions where plenty of reserves are available: intention is everything.”
Yael Selig, a family law partner in Osbornes Law, foresees a “increase ında in Prenuptial and Postnuptial investigations following the decision of the Supreme Court.
He said: “Although such agreements are not yet accepted as norms, for couples with important assets, the decision of the court will always be based on to ensure that the financial needs of both sides are met.” He said.
Lucy Stweart-Gold, the second partner of Mr. Standish in Hudson Sandler, said that during the divorce, having money or assets known to have the title was not enough to demand ownership; The important thing is how to use this property.
He said: “The title alone is insufficient evidence to allow a party to share it in an out -of -marriage being.
“What is necessary is the intention of sharing and treating the asset as shared, there was nothing on the correct analysis of the realities of this case.”
Withers’ family law partner Jennifer Dickson accepted. He said: “The decision clearly demonstrates that non -matrimony property should not be subject to the principle of sharing, and it clearly reveals that the couple’s non -matrimony property may be ‘marriage’ due to the intention and treatment of the couple during marriage.
“If the tax planning exercise was designed to benefit Mrs. Standish rather than children, it would have been a different story.”
