LONDON (Reuters) -The ex-wife of a former UBS executive on Wednesday lost an appeal against her divorce award at Britain’s top court, in a ruling lawyers said could have implications for wealthy people who move assets to shield them from inheritance tax.
Clive Standish, the Swiss bank’s chief financial officer from 2004 until 2007, last year successfully challenged his ex-wife Anna Standish’s original 45 million-pound ($62 million) award from what was then a 133 million-pound estate.
The case turned on whether roughly 80 million pounds of investment funds Clive Standish transferred in 2017 into his then-wife’s name, to be placed in trusts for their children, were matrimonial property.
Matrimonial property is generally acquired during the marriage and courts take an equal division as the starting point upon divorce.
London’s High Court ruled the funds were matrimonial property and awarded Anna Standish 40% of them, but that decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal which gave her a 25 million-pound share of the estate.
Anna Standish appealed to the UK Supreme Court, which unanimously rejected her case. Judge Andrew Burrows said that, aside from each spouse’s contribution, the key issue was “how the parties have been dealing with the asset”.
The judge ruled the transfer of the funds into Anna Standish’s name was to “save inheritance tax and was for the benefit of the children”, making it non-matrimonial property.
Clive Standish’s lawyer Lucy Stewart-Gould from Stewarts said the ruling showed that “title alone is no determiner of how assets should be divided”.
Anna Standish’s lawyers declined to comment. The case will now return to the High Court to decide if the 25 million-pound share will meet Anna Standish’s reasonable needs.
Lawyers say the ruling is especially significant for high-net-worth individuals where wealth has been transferred for tax or estate planning purposes.
Britain has long been seen as a favourable jurisdiction by less wealthy partners and courts have regularly made awards running into the hundreds of millions of pounds.
Will MacFarlane, from the law firm Kingsley Napley who was not involved in the case, said the decision removed “a conflict between IHT (inheritance tax) planning and wealth protection”.
Sarah Norman-Scott from Hodge Jones & Allen said the Supreme Court ruling “shows a clear steer towards wealth preservation”, but added that the decision could impact any divorcing couple.
(Reporting by Sam TobinEditing by Mark Potter)
Comments