That this activity continues is evidenced by the fact that the sixth duke is said to have left an estate worth £9.9bn upon his death this week to his son and yet, despite the fact that inheritance tax is supposedly payable on all estates on death worth more than £325,000, it has been widely reported that very little tax will be due in this case.
For the sixth duke has not left an estate of £9.9 billion to his son.
If he had then inheritance tax would be payable.
One beneficiary of a trust has died, to be replaced by another beneficiary of the same trust. And, err, that’s it.
The English legal concept of a trust is believed to have been developed during that era, when knights departing the country with no certainty of returning wanted to ensure that their land passed to those who they thought to be their rightful heirs without interference from the Crown. Trusts achieved that goal and the concept has remained in existence ever since, representing the continual struggle of those with wealth to subvert the rule of law that may apply to others but that they believe should not apply to them.
Mindgarglingly wonderful, isn’t it?
Using the law subverts the rule of law.
And I think it just lovely that Murphy has published this in a newspaper with its own trust, err, issues.