Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1967] 2 AC 291 is a leading English trusts law case, concerning resulting trusts. It demonstrates that the mere intention to not have a resulting trust (for example, to avoid taxes) does not make it so. This case was the first in a series of decisions involving Tony Vandervell's trusts and his tax ...
Under the rule established in Vandervell v IRC, [29] if the owner of a sole beneficial interest instructs his trustees to transfer the property, and this is done to transfer the beneficial interest and not simply to change the trustees, this does not fall under Section 53(1)(c) and requires no specific formalities. [30]
Re Vandervell Trustees Ltd [1971] AC 912 is a UK tax law case, concerning the ability of the Revenue to amend tax assessments. This case was the second in a series of decisions involving Tony Vandervell 's trusts and his tax liability.
When this occurs, the property is held on resulting trust for the settlor, as in Vandervell v IRC. [17] This also occurs where a trust is formed over property which requires formality, but is improperly created (for example, a land transfer that does not adhere to the Law of Property Act 1925). [18]
Trump made the comments during a wide-ranging press conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida where he said he’d bring the lawsuit against the storied Iowa newspaper because he believed the ...
In Florida State’s December 2023 lawsuit against the ACC, on page 32 of the 38-page complaint, item 151 states: “Florida State be deemed to have issued its formal notice of withdrawal from the ...
Last week, the Free Press reported that GM cut 1,000 jobs globally, mostly salaried but some hourly, as a "normal course of business" to gain operating efficiency. GM will stop using its Yuma ...
These presumptions are rebuttable. In Fowkes v Pascoe, [5] evidence was presented that a woman had purchased stock in the names of herself and her grandson; the grandson and granddaughter-in-law's evidence that this was a gift was admissible. However, the presumption only considers an intention to create a trust, not ulterior motives.