Taxation in Scotland

We are incrementally developing a new set of content on Scottish private client law for Scottish practitioners. The content will provide an essential resource for Scottish practitioners, as well as practitioners in England and Wales with clients who need advice on cross-border issues.

The experts and market standard

The scope and content of the Taxation—Scotland sub-topic is being developed in collaboration with leading experts in Scottish private client practice, including:

•
Dale Ross of Blackadders
•
David Cobbof AM Advocates
•
Dorothy Kellas of Gilson Gray LLP
•
Gavin McEwan of Turcan

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

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.

The Supreme Court holds that anonymity for clinicians in withdrawal of treatment cases involving children should normally be of limited duration (Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Haastrup v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust)

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the hospitals’ appeals in these cases concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for children. There was no basis on which anonymity injunctions in relation to clinicians could be continued indefinitely. If anonymity is sought in such cases beyond a cooling-off period following the child’s death or withdrawal of treatment, the application should be made by the clinicians concerned. Such applications should be supported by specific evidence and the need for any restriction of freedom of expression must be established convincingly. Hannah Markham KC and Madeleine Whelan of 36 Family, Louise Sivey and Eloise Carey of Bates Wells, and Professor Carmen Draghici of the University of London comment on the judgment.

Non-exempt beneficiary’s share of estate liable for IHT (Changizi v Changizi)

Tax analysis: In the case of Changizi v Changizi and others, the English estate of a testator was left (after a deed of variation) as to 5/6 to his surviving spouse and 1/6 to his son. The executors had also paid inheritance tax (IHT) on failed potentially exempt transfers (PETs) to the son for which they had a secondary liability. There had already been considerable litigation in this case and considerable costs had been run up which had been awarded against the son. After the costs and IHT due on the failed PETs, the son was in debt to the estate before any distribution was made.