Offshore anti-avoidance regimes

STOP PRESS: Abolition of non-dom regime and introduction of residence-based IHT regime

Finance Act 2025 (FA 2025) which received Royal Assent on 20 March 2025, implements legislation to abolish the remittance basis of taxation and replace it with a residence-based regime, commencing on 6 April 2025. FA 2025 also replaces domicile as the key factor in establishing liability to inheritance tax. Other changes include amendment of the rules determining excluded property status, the abolition of protected settlements status of offshore trusts, and changes to overseas workday relief.

For information on these changes, see Practice Notes: The abolition of the remittance basis of taxation from 2025–26 and A new residence-based regime for IHT from 2025–26. See also: Finance Bill Tracking Service: Key dates (Finance Bill 2025) and Finance Act 2025.

Historically, offshore arrangements have been widely used by UK resident and domiciled individuals as well as UK resident non-domiciliaries to avoid UK taxation. The government's stance on offshore tax planning has hardened significantly over the years, and to limit the scope for tax planning a series of anti-avoidance measures have

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

High Court makes order regarding funeral arrangements where two executors disagree (Patel v Patel)

Private Client analysis: The High Court has resolved a dispute between two executors over the funeral arrangements for their father, a devout Hindu. In a sensible and sensitive decision which reviewed and applied settled principles, the judge (HHJ Paul Matthews) considered the various factors which favoured cremation in England over burial in India. These included the wishes of the deceased, the views of his family, the strength of his connections to the UK and India, and practicalities such as cost and delay. While the relevant factors and their relative weight will inevitably be fact-sensitive, similar factors are likely to recur in many such cases. What is clear is that no single factor (in particular, the deceased’s own wishes) will necessarily be conclusive, so that the court must weigh all relevant factors with care. Written by Kyle Bonnell, barrister at XXIV Old Buildings.

Dignity, delay, and declarations on best interests (NHS South East London ICB v JP & the Royal Hospital for Neuro-Disability)

Private Client analysis: The decision that being provided with nutrition and hydration was contrary to JP’s best interests is recorded in a separate judgment (NHS South East London Integrated Care Board v JP & Others. This judgment focused on the delay in bringing the matter to court, which delay ‘compromised [JP]’s dignity’ (para [5]). Incapacitious individuals like JP are uniquely vulnerable and their interests require vigilant protection. Their inherent dignity as human beings requires regular assessment of where their best interests lie. Hospital trusts, charities, and ICBs all have to be proactive in promoting the dignity of such individuals. Disputes between family members must not be permitted to delay applications being made to court; instead, they are a signal to make an application. Family members are consulted to illuminate P’s likely wishes and feelings and values and beliefs, not to ascertain the family’s views on what is best. Sensitivity to strongly held family views should not be permitted to detract from the proper focus of decision-making: P’s best interests. Written by Katherine Hampshire, barrister at Serjeants’ Inn.

Question of the week: Where an individual dies with UK nationality, domiciled in Scotland, with assets in England and Scotland, would their Will executed in accordance with the law of any part of the UK be validly executed under section 1 of the Wills Act 1963? What is the position as regards conflicts of laws as between England and Scotland? Which laws would apply to the succession of their moveable and immoveable assets situated in England and Scotland?

This Q&A contains links to further guidance on the validity of Wills under Wills Act 1963 and on the possible application of English private international law where the estate's foreign element is the Scottish domicile of the testator or the situs of assets in Scotland at their death.

Private Client weekly highlights—17 April 2025

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Changizi v Changizi, where a non-exempt beneficiary’s share of estate was liable for IHT under Re Ratcliffe; (2) Argyll and Bute Council v RF (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor), in which the Court of Protection refuses an application for recognition and enforcement of a Scottish Guardianship order; (3) Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Haastrup v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, in which the Supreme Court held that anonymity for clinicians in withdrawal of treatment cases involving children should normally be of limited duration; (4) Companies House launches a new voluntary identity verification service; (5) Armstrong v Bhattacharya, which highlights the importance of clear, contemporaneous documentary evidence and a consistent case in circumstances where a person wishes to demonstrate that ownership of a property differs to that which is recorded at HM Land Registry; (6) Tedford v Clarke, in which the court held that although a Will was badly drafted, it was not meaningless and was therefore capable of construction; and (7) a review of the first century of the Law of Property Act 1925.