The Gazette 1988

• GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988

LAW SOCIETY ANNUAL CONFERENCE 5 - 8 May 1988

This year's Law Society Conference, which will be held in Jury's Hotel, Cork, from May 5 to May 8 inclusive, will have as its centrepiece presentations by David Andrews entitled "Mak i ng the Law Office Wo r k" and "Practice Development".

David Andrews is a former Chairman of the International Bar Association's General Practice Section and served as Chairman of the Section's Committee on Law Office Management and Technology. A former Managing Partner of a major London practice, he is currently the principal of the David Andrews Partnership which operates a consultancy in association w i th the well-known American firm of Altman & Weil.

Further details of the Conference will be circulated to members shortly.

Conclusion It is a l ways t emp t i ng to denounce the iniquities and imper- fections of new fiscal legislation. It is a temptation which the writer proposes to resist in the present instance and content himself w i th pointing out, should such comment be necessary, t h at t he new legislation is a minefield, and doubly

their own affairs by reason of "age or improvidence, or of physical men t al or legal i n c a p a c i t y ": s.108(d) FA 1984. S.65 FA 1985 exempts t wo further categories of trust property. These are (a) trust property subject to a discretionary trust on the termination of which the State will take a gift or an inheritance, and (b) a sum wh i ch is the subject matter of an inheritance deemed to be t aken by t he t r u s t e es of a discretionary trust by reason of s.31 CATA 1976. The first of these is relatively s t r a i g h t f o r wa r d. An obv i ous example would be a bequest to the State, subject to a discretionary trust to maintain the testator's w i dow during her lifetime. The second is more obscure. It appears to relate to property which, wh i le not being ac t ual t r ust property, is nevertheless property of which the trustees of a dis- cretionary trust have the " use occupation or en j oymen t" other- wise than for " f u ll consideration in money or money's wo r t h" within the meaning of s.31(1) CATA 1976.

In the normal course of events, the trustees of a discretionary trust f avou r ed w i t h such " u s e occupation or enjoyment" would take no gift or inheritance, neither they nor any of the potential ob j e c ts of t he t r u st being " b e n e f i c i a l ly en t i t l ed in possession" within the meaning of s.5(1) or s.11(1) CATA 1976. Why the enactment of s.106(1) FA 1984 and s. 103(1) FA 1986 should affect the position is not clear ,d) . The notional " s u m " brought into being by s.31(3) CATA 1976 has no real existence and is therefore incapable of becoming "subject to a discretionary t r u s t" within the meaning of s.106(1) FA 1984 and s.103(1) FA 1986. This essen t i al p r e - c ond i t i on be i ng absent, it follows that the " s u m" would not be subject either to the once-off inheritance tax of 3% imposed by s.106(1) FA 1984 or to the annual inheritance tax of 1% imposed by s.103(1) FA 1986. If this is so, the exemption in s.65(b) FA 1985 wo u ld appear to be unnecessary.

9