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 ...
This case was the second in a series of decisions involving Tony Vandervell's trusts and his tax liability. The first was Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners , [ 1 ] which concerned whether an oral instruction to transfer an equitable interest in shares complied with the writing requirement under Law of Property Act 1925 , section 53(1)(c ...
However, this scheme was defeated in the case Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners. [3] Vandervell therefore had the shares repurchased by a trust company set up to manage his children's inheritance, through an option that had been granted during the setup of the original tax-avoidance scheme.
While a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary he contributed to a number of significant cases. Three cases of particular importance are Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 (giving a powerful dissent), Vandervell v IRC [1967] 2 AC 291 (where he gave a majority speech) and In re Gulbenkian's Settlements [1970] AC 508. An interesting problem arose on Lord ...
The site enables you to find more than just reverse lookup names; you can search for addresses, phone numbers and email addresses. BestPeopleFinder gets all its data from official public, state ...
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]
After stealing $300,000 worth of tires from Indian River County, ex-assistant fire chief was in Vero Beach arguing his public defender was ineffective.
Anyone in the U.S. who has had a Facebook account at any time since May 24, 2007, can now apply for their share of a $725 million privacy settlement that parent company Meta has agreed to pay.