The best and worst laws in private client, tax and family
Byline: Karen Jones, founder of Citywealth, has more than 20 years’ experience in global private wealth.
Taxes that discourage house moves, complicated rules on investment gains and marriages that revoke wills are among the concerns raised by six private wealth advisers in Citywealth’s review of the laws they believe work well and those they would change. Their choices also include a rule they value: the ability to make lifetime gifts that can fall outside inheritance tax. Across the contributions, the questions are practical ones about how families pass on wealth, how businesses make decisions and whether the law protects vulnerable people.
Citywealth’s October 2024 article examined tax complexity, the risks of financial abuse and the freedom to choose who inherits. This update returns to those themes with contributions from Nimesh Shah of Blick Rothenberg, James Quarmby of Stephenson Harwood and Trevor Egan of Buzzacott in the UK; Joshua S. Rubenstein of Katten in New York; Alfred Ip of Hugill & Ip in Hong Kong; and Randall Krebs of Harbour International Trust Company Limited in Bermuda.
Their assessments concern different legal systems. The rules, and the options for reform, vary by jurisdiction.
What are theTax complexity and the case for certainty
Capital gains tax
Nimesh Shah, CEO of Blick Rothenberg, identifies complexity as his principal objection to UK capital gains tax. For the 2026/27 tax year, the main individual rates are 18% and 24%, with a £3,000 annual exempt amount. The calculation also depends on taxable income and eligibility for reliefs. Qualifying Business Asset Disposal Relief gains are taxed at 18% from 6 April 2026.
“For me, the worst area of UK tax has become Capital Gains Tax. Not the tax itself and not the rate, but the sheer complexity of the system. Depending on the asset, the taxpayer and the circumstances, there are multiple rates and reliefs to navigate, making it difficult for people to understand what tax they will ultimately pay.”
“The system has evolved over decades, with successive governments layering new rules on top of old ones. As a result, even relatively straightforward disposals can require taxpayers to navigate a maze of rates, allowances, reliefs and anti-avoidance provisions. It is hard to see how this promotes confidence in the tax system or encourages investment.”
Greater certainty over tax policy
Shah’s proposed remedy extends beyond a single tax to the frequency of changes in fiscal policy.
“Take the politics out of tax policy. Enshrine into law that a Government has one opportunity to present their Budget for the life of that Parliament. No more complication, no more uncertainty, a single Budget every term that UK businesses and the British people can rely on.”
Taxes on moving home and employing staff
Shah focuses on the difficulty of understanding a tax bill. James Quarmby, a London partner at Stephenson Harwood, is more concerned about how taxes influence decisions to move home or take on staff.
“For me, the worst tax in Britain is Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT), with Employer’s National Insurance Contributions (NICs) running a close second.”
“SDLT is a particularly damaging tax because it discourages economically productive behaviour. People stay in homes that are too large, too small or simply in the wrong location because moving triggers a substantial tax charge. The result is a less efficient housing market, reduced labour mobility and fewer transactions. Unlike taxes on income or gains, SDLT taxes movement itself. It creates a barrier between people and the homes that best suit their needs, while generating significant distortions throughout the economy. The tax is also highly visible and often feels arbitrary to those paying it, particularly when rates increase dramatically at certain thresholds.
“Employer’s NICs are almost as problematic. Although presented as a tax on employers, economists have long recognised that much of the burden ultimately falls on employees through lower wages and reduced job creation. It acts as a tax on employment itself, increasing the cost of hiring and retaining staff. At a time when policymakers frequently talk about productivity, growth and investment in people, taxing jobs remains a curious choice. In practice, Employer’s NICs can discourage recruitment, constrain wage growth and place a disproportionate burden on labour-intensive businesses.
“Both taxes share a common flaw: they raise revenue by discouraging activity that society should generally want more of. SDLT discourages people from moving, while Employer’s NICs discourage employers from hiring. If tax policy is supposed to support economic efficiency, both taxes fail that test rather badly.”
SDLT applies to property purchases in England and Northern Ireland. Scotland and Wales have separate property transaction taxes. For standard residential purchases, SDLT is charged on successive portions of the price, rather than applying the highest band reached to the entire purchase price.
Quarmby’s assessment concerns the wider economic effects of these taxes. Employers are legally responsible for their National Insurance contributions; how far that cost is passed on through wages, prices or hiring decisions can vary.
The Budget and the politics of tax
Changing those taxes would require political choices as well as technical ones. Trevor Egan, a partner at Buzzacott, expects the forthcoming Budget to reflect tensions between manifesto commitments and pressure for further tax increases.
“I think my comments from last year still stand as is, but what can we expect in the forthcoming budget? Not bravery, that’s for sure. More likely an unedifying compromise between measures Burnham will claim do not break Keir Starmer’s manifesto commitments and the inevitable tax increases aimed at placating his most important constituency – the hard left of the Parliamentary Labour Party, sitting on the backbenches and philosophically hell bent on making the country’s ‘haves’ have significantly less.”
That is Egan’s assessment of the government’s political priorities. The measures themselves have yet to be announced. In setting the Budget date for 28 October, Chancellor John Healey said it would meet the government’s fiscal rules and provide stability for businesses and families, while moving money and power beyond Westminster.
Wealth taxes
The prospect of further tax changes also raises a broader question about what should be taxed. For Joshua S. Rubenstein, the distinction between taxing income and taxing accumulated wealth is central to that debate.
Rubenstein, a New York-based partner and global chair of the Private Wealth Department at Katten, takes a broader view of the tensions in estate planning.
“The following is a list of what strikes me as the top laws with which the trusts and estates field has a love-hate relationship, depending upon your perspective, from tax to nontax:”
An annual wealth tax is charged on the value of assets a person holds, rather than solely on income earned or gains realised. Rubenstein’s strongest objection concerns the fairness of taxing accumulated wealth each year.
“Wealth Taxes: This is the closest to a hate-hate relationship among professionals. It is espoused mainly by governments desperate for more revenues and by socialist politicians who want to use it to redistribute wealth. They forget that wealth redistribution is the purpose behind estate and inheritance taxes. An annual wealth tax on assets that individuals have managed to accumulate after paying their annual income taxes strikes most of us as unfair. If income taxes have too many loopholes, fix the loopholes.”
Passing wealth to the next generation
The seven-year gifting rule
While Quarmby questions taxes on moving and employment, Shah identifies a rule he believes encourages useful planning. The seven-year gifting rule offers families a way to plan over a longer period. Broadly, outright gifts to individuals fall outside inheritance tax if the donor survives seven years. Gifts into trusts and gifts from which the donor continues to benefit can be treated differently.
“While inheritance tax is often described as Britain’s most hated tax, one of the strengths of the current regime is that people can take action to reduce their exposure through sensible long-term planning.”
“The seven-year gifting rule is a good example. It is relatively easy to understand and encourages individuals to pass wealth to the next generation during their lifetime rather than waiting until death. Families who plan ahead can significantly reduce their effective rate of inheritance tax.”
Estate and inheritance taxes
Rubenstein also sees lifetime transfers as central to the debate. He argues that estate and inheritance taxes should encourage people to distribute wealth. Whether a transfer actually escapes tax depends on the relevant exemptions, conditions and circumstances.
“No one likes to pay estate and inheritance taxes, but no one has to pay them, if they don’t want to. Unlike income taxes, which are revenue based and must be paid, estate and inheritance taxes are policy based (not revenue based), designed to be avoided by redistributing one’s wealth in ways that are tax favored (such as certain gifts) or even tax free (such as transfers to spouses and charity). Estate and inheritance taxes just need to be modified so that they apply only to individuals who have enough to afford to give things away. In that regard, the UK nil band is way too low. There are also some gimmicks to permit control after assets have been given away that should probably be curtailed.”
The UK’s standard inheritance tax nil-rate band is £325,000. A separate residence nil-rate band of up to £175,000 may apply to a qualifying home left to direct descendants, subject to conditions and a taper for larger estates.
Trusts and the limits of control
The rule against perpetuities
Lifetime transfers can reduce tax exposure, but they also raise questions about how much control a donor should retain. The rule against perpetuities restricts how far into the future certain rights to property can take effect. For families using trusts, it concerns how long arrangements made by one generation can govern the inheritance of later generations.
In England and Wales, the 2009 legislation generally sets a 125-year period for instruments within its scope. Different rules can apply to older arrangements.
“Rule against Perpetuities: If you are a control freak, you want your hard-earned wealth to last in perpetuity for your progeny. This encourages dead hand control, however, and assumes you will have progeny and that they will be responsible. There is something to be said for having assets come out of trust every couple of generations, so that they can be reorganized based upon the 20:20 hindsight of what makes sense in the future.”
Statute of Elizabeth
The Statute of Elizabeth referred to here is an English law dating from 1571. It was intended to prevent people from transferring property to keep it away from creditors, meaning people or organisations entitled to payment.
In trust planning, the question is whether someone should be able to place assets in a trust while preventing their own creditors from reaching them.
Rubenstein continues. “Statute of Elizabeth: I think it is fair to say that this is a real mixed bag. Should you be able to create a trust to defeat not only the creditors of your beneficiaries but also your own creditors? For centuries the Statute of Elizabeth said no, but many jurisdictions have repealed it in order to promote trusts in their jurisdictions.”
The principle survives in modern legislation. In England and Wales, section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 allows courts to intervene where someone gives away assets, or transfers them for significantly less than they are worth, with the purpose of putting them beyond a creditor’s reach or prejudicing a creditor’s claim.
For example, a person facing a claim cannot assume that giving a valuable property to a relative will protect it from recovery. Where the statutory conditions are met, a court can make orders to restore the position or protect those affected.
Wills and the freedom to choose
Testamentary freedom
Control during life is only part of estate planning. Testamentary freedom means being able to decide who receives your property when you die. Forced heirship rules, by contrast, reserve prescribed shares for particular heirs.
The ability to choose beneficiaries was one of the positive themes in Citywealth’s earlier review. Rubenstein returns to the argument.
“Testamentary Freedom: This is also a mixed bag. The argument against forced heirship is that if you made the wealth, why shouldn’t you have the right to decide what to do with it on your death? The argument in favor of it is that if everyone had fixed shares that are inalterable, there would be less to fight about after death. I favor testamentary freedom because in practice, wealthy heirs will always find something to fight about.”
That freedom is not absolute. In England and Wales, eligible family members and dependants can ask a court for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
When marriage revokes a will
A separate question is whether marriage should automatically cancel an existing will. Rubenstein identifies this as a particular concern when people marry later in life.
“Revocatory Effect of Marriage: With the increase in late-in-life predatory marriages, jurisdictions such as the UK that provide that marriage revokes a testamentary plan in effect at the time of such marriage need to consider whether that produces an equitable result any longer. Other jurisdictions confer a minimum testamentary share upon the new spouse but do not revoke the existing plan.”
The Law Commission for England and Wales recommended abolishing automatic revocation on marriage or civil partnership in May 2025. Its recommendation concerns England and Wales, rather than a single uniform UK system.
Hong Kong and predatory marriage
Rubenstein’s concern about marriage revoking a will has a parallel in Hong Kong. Alfred Ip TEP, partner and notary public at Hugill & Ip in Hong Kong, argues that two rules can combine to undermine an existing estate plan.
The distinction between a void and a voidable marriage matters here. A void marriage is legally invalid from the outset. A voidable marriage remains effective unless annulled, and annulment does not retrospectively undo its effect on an earlier will.
How two rules can affect an estate
Ip said. “Hong Kong inherited two legal rules from England that work in deadly combination to create one of the most unjust outcomes in private client law. Most people have no idea they exist.”
“Rule 1: Marriage automatically revokes your will. Under section 14 of the Wills Ordinance (Cap. 30), tying the knot silently destroys any existing will, unless it was made in contemplation of that specific marriage. No warning. No notification. Just a legal vacuum where your carefully planned estate used to be.”
“Rule 2: Only a spouse can set aside a voidable marriage. Under section 20(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance (Cap. 179), if a marriage is voidable, for example, where one party lacked capacity or did not validly consent, only the parties to the marriage can seek annulment. Not the children. Not the family. Not anyone who might have a legitimate interest. And once the vulnerable spouse dies, the window slams shut.”
“Put these two rules together and you get a perfect storm: a predatory marriage.”
“Here is how it plays out. An elderly person, perhaps widowed, perhaps losing capacity, is guided to the altar by someone with their eyes firmly on the estate. The marriage revokes the existing will. No new will is made (or the new one conveniently benefits the predator). The elderly person dies. The family discovers the estate passes under the Intestates’ Estates Ordinance (Cap. 73), and the ‘spouse’ walks away with the first HK$1,000,000 plus half of everything else where there are no issue, or the first HK$500,000 plus half of the residue where there are children.”
“The family? They are locked out. They cannot challenge the marriage because only the spouses have standing. They cannot rely on the old will because marriage revoked it. And if the vulnerable person has already passed, nobody can annul the marriage at all. Even if the vulnerable person is still alive, it is often difficult to prove the mental capacity of that person at the time of the marriage, as mental capacity is a fluid concept. In other words, he or she might be too old to make a Will, but might not be too old to get married.”
The HK$1 million provision applies where there are no descendants but specified other relatives survive. Without those relatives, the spouse takes the entire residuary estate. Personal chattels, such as household possessions, also pass to the spouse in the scenarios described.
The restriction on challenging a voidable marriage does not necessarily prevent a challenge to a later will or an eligible claim for family provision. Legal capacity is assessed for the particular decision and time, rather than by age alone.
The Lui Ming Lok case
Ip points to the Court of Final Appeal’s 2024 decision in Lui Ming Lok v Ng Im Fong Loretta.
“This is not hypothetical. In Lui Ming Lok v Ng Im Fong Loretta [2024] HKCFA 21, the Court of Final Appeal confirmed that a marriage entered into by a person lacking mental capacity is voidable, not void. An 81-year-old man with advanced Alzheimer’s married, made a new will benefiting his new wife, and died. His nephew, beneficiary under an earlier will, challenged both the marriage and the will.”
“The CFA unanimously held that section 20(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance is a comprehensive statutory code. Mental incapacity makes a marriage voidable. The common law rule that such marriages are void ab initio is not preserved. And because only the spouses can petition for annulment, the family had no standing to challenge the marriage after death.”
“The result? The marriage stood. The old will was revoked. The estate went to the new spouse.”
The judgment records probate having been granted to the wife in 2015. However, the 2024 appeal concerned only the striking out of the challenge to the marriage. It did not determine the separate challenge to the 2010 will or establish a finding of predatory conduct by the wife.
The proposals for reform
“Nowhere, and that is the problem. The UK Law Commission’s 2025 report recommended abolishing the automatic revocation rule. The UK Government confirmed in October 2025 that it is ‘considering’ the recommendations. Hong Kong’s Law Reform Commission has not addressed predatory marriage at all.”
“Meanwhile, the CFA in Lui Ming Lok acknowledged the harshness of the outcome but said the fix is for the legislature, not the courts. So the position remains: a voidable marriage revokes a will, and no one but the spouses can challenge it. If the vulnerable person has died, the family is powerless.”
“The real fix requires two changes. First, abolish the automatic revocation rule in section 14 of the Wills Ordinance, marriage should not silently destroy a will. Second, treat marriages entered into without capacity or genuine consent as void, not voidable, so that interested parties can challenge them even after death. Canada has moved in this direction. Hong Kong has not.”
“Until both rules are reformed, the combination remains the worst law in private client: a system that enables exploitation, silences families, and protects the predator.”
In England and Wales, ministers told Parliament on 30 June 2026 that they were still considering the Law Commission’s report and would respond in due course. The recommendation to end automatic revocation remained a proposal in that statement.
Bermuda and marriage equality
The change in marriage law
The legal effects of marriage extend beyond the treatment of existing wills. Randall Krebs, director and legal counsel at Harbour International Trust Company Limited in Bermuda, highlights a different concern: the reversal of legal recognition for same-sex couples.
“Bermuda’s personalized vehicle license plates have the word ‘Bermuda’ printed across the top, and the slogan ‘Another World’ written along the bottom.”
“Here is an example of local legislation where the slogan holds true.”
“Bermuda is widely recognized as the first and only national jurisdiction in the world to have legalized same-sex marriage and subsequently roll back those rights.”
“The legal timeline:”
“May 2017 (Legalization): The Supreme Court of Bermuda initially legalized same-sex marriage following a landmark discrimination lawsuit (Godwin and DeRoche v Registrar-General).”
“February 2018 (The Repeal): Succumbing to local political pressure and a prior non-binding referendum, the Bermudian government passed the Domestic Partnership Act 2017. Signed into law by the Governor, this act effectively banned future same-sex marriages and replaced them with a domestic partnership framework. This move earned Bermuda global media coverage as the first country to repeal marriage equality.”
Bermuda is a British Overseas Territory, and the enacted legislation is the Domestic Partnership Act 2018, rather than 2017. Following further litigation, the Privy Council upheld the restriction to opposite-sex marriage in March 2022. The Act also contains protections for certain existing same-sex marriages.
Family law and assisted reproduction
Surrogacy
Questions about legal recognition also arise when children are born through assisted reproduction. Rubenstein’s final concerns address whether succession rules have kept pace with reproductive medicine.
In the UK, the person who gives birth is the legal mother at birth. Legal parenthood can subsequently be transferred through a parental order or adoption where appropriate. This matters for estate planning because a genetic connection and legal parenthood are not always the same thing.
“Surrogacy: Science has progressed to the point where a couple (or even an individual) can have a child borne by a gestational carrier, while contributing some or even none of the genetic material. Some jurisdictions permit surrogacy and others do not. Even more problematic is whether surrogacy is recognized for inheritance and succession purposes. More jurisdictions need to enact/modernize their legislation with respect to both.”
Posthumous use of genetic material
Posthumous conception means conceiving a child after a person’s death using their stored sperm, eggs or embryos. Rubenstein distinguishes permission to use that material from the separate question of whether the resulting child can inherit.
“Posthumous Use of Genetic Material: Similar to surrogacy, science has progressed to the point where someone can give birth to a child using genetic material that was frozen prior to the donor’s death. Some jurisdictions regulate the posthumous use of frozen genetic material and some do not. Even more problematic is whether and to what extent posthumous use of frozen genetic material is recognized for inheritance and succession purposes. More jurisdictions need to modernize their legislation with respect to both.”
The case for reform
The contributors identify different priorities. Shah wants simpler capital gains tax rules and greater certainty over tax policy. Quarmby argues that taxes on property transactions and employment discourage productive activity. Egan questions whether the forthcoming Budget will offer significant reform.
For families passing on wealth, the concerns extend beyond tax. Rubenstein calls for clearer succession rules and a reconsideration of how far one generation should control the next. Ip wants changes to the laws governing marriage and wills in Hong Kong, while Krebs highlights the consequences of withdrawing marriage rights.
These choices affect who receives an estate, whether a person’s wishes survive a marriage and how a child’s inheritance rights are recognised. The advisers differ over which laws deserve the strongest criticism, but their proposals return to a shared concern: rules should be understandable and their consequences clear to the people affected.
Key Takeaways
Karen Jones is the founder of Citywealth and a wealth management commentator with more than 20 years’ experience across global private wealth, family offices and succession. Before founding Citywealth in 2005, she held publishing roles at The Times and The Sunday Times, London; Legal Business magazine and worked on the Asia Pacific Legal 500.
Subscribe to the Citywealth Weekly Newsletter to learn more about Private Wealth Management.
Read more:
IFC insights: Indian wealth management
The Global Migration Shake-Up: Why the Wealthy Are Moving
Citywealth Leaders List: Top 30 Immigration Advisors 2026
Citywealth Forum 2026 – Speaker: Matthew Briggs, Boyes Turner
60 seconds with Matthew Briggs, Boyes Turner
Hong Kong Overtakes Switzerland as China’s Wealth Moves to the Next Generation
Record inflows have put Hong Kong at the top of global wealth management, but advisers on the ground say the more immediate story is mainland China’s taxation of offshore trusts and a market already dealing with second-generation succession.
Sudden client death: when the plan meets reality
Two years after the Bayesian disaster prompted Citywealth to examine sudden client death, separate civil proceedings involving Mike Lynch have resulted in a judgment of more than £900m against his estate.