Section 735AE — Income Tax Act 2007: Settlor liable in place of close family member
Text of the provision Official document
Settlor liable in place of close family member 735AE 1 If—
a a benefit is provided to an individual in a given tax year out of assets which are available for the purpose as a result of—
i the relevant transfer, or ii one or more associated operations, b the individual is a close member of the settlor’s family at the time when the benefit is provided, c the individual is non-UK resident, or is a qualifying new resident, for the tax year in which the benefit is provided, and d the settlor is UK resident for that tax year, the benefit is instead treated for the purposes of section 732 and section 735AD(1) as provided to the settlor.
2 For the purposes of this section, a person is a “close member of the settlor’s family” at any time if the settlor is living at that time and—
a the person is the settlor’s spouse or civil partner at that time, or b the person—
i is a child of the settlor, or of a person who at that time is the settlor’s spouse or civil partner, and ii at that time has not reached the age of 18.
3 For the purposes of subsection (2), two people living together as if they were a married couple or civil partners are treated as if they were spouses or civil partners of each other.
4 Where any tax for which the settlor is liable as a result of this section is paid, the settlor is entitled to recover the amount of the tax from the individual concerned.
5 For the purpose of recovering that amount, the settlor is entitled to require an officer of Revenue and Customs to provide the settlor with a certificate specifying—
a the tax year in which income was treated as arising to the settlor, b the amount of income treated as arising, and c the amount of tax paid, and any such certificate is conclusive evidence of the facts stated in it.
Official source: legislation.gov.uk
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from UK courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →