Banker avoids splitting £80,000,000 given to ex to avoid tax after divorce

A retired banker who gave his wife nearly £80 million to avoid paying inheritance tax will not have to split it equally after their divorce.

Five Supreme Court justices unanimously agreed that because Clive Standish, 72, earned most of the money before their marriage, he was entitled to keep the largest share.

Standish transferred the millions of pounds to his then-wife, Australian Anna Standish, in 2017, to take advantage of her non-dom status and allow more money to benefit their two children.

He had been worried about paying around £32 million in inheritance tax if he died with the assets in his name, Lords Burrows and Stephens explained in their ruling on Wednesday.

They said: ‘In short, there was no matrimonialisation of the 2017 assets because, first, the transfer was to save tax, and, secondly, it was for the benefit of the children, not the wife.

‘The 2017 assets were not, therefore, being treated by the husband and wife for any period as an asset that was shared between them.’

Standish expected his wife to use the money to establish two offshore trusts, but she never did, remaining the sole owner of the money when legal action began.

In 2022, two years after their divorce, High Court judge Justice Moor split the family’s total wealth of £132 million by awarding Mr Standish £87 million and Mrs Standish £45 million.

Standish challenged this decision at the Court of Appeal, arguing that the majority of the money, including the £80 million of transferred assets, was earned before they began living together in Switzerland in 2004.

Last year, Court of Appeal judges assessed that 75% of that £80 million had been earned before the marriage and reduced Mrs Standish’s share to £25 million.

Lords Burrows and Stephens, sitting with Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd Jones and Lady Simler, said they saw ‘no reason’ to interfere with the Court of Appeal’s assessment and dismissed Mrs Standish’s Supreme Court appeal.

In their ruling, they noted: ‘The crucial point is that the 2017 assets are largely non-matrimonial property and only a relatively small element comprises matrimonial property.

‘That point was lost in the approach taken by Moor J at first instance, and the Court of Appeal was therefore entitled to intervene and to make its own assessment.’

Lord Faulks, for Mrs Standish, argued during the Supreme Court hearing that the assets had become shared property after the transfer and that she had contributed to that wealth by accepting them as a gift.

Tim Bishop KC said that the gift was not for the sole benefit of Mrs Standish but ‘primarily for the benefit of the children’.

Lords Burrows and Stephens said: ‘Here, the source of the pre-marital assets within the 2017 assets was exclusively the husband. Those assets have been transferred to the wife.

‘But the problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them.

‘Rather, the transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance ta,x and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children.’

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.

For more stories like this, check our news page.