6. Formality, Perpetuity, and Illegality

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2021

This article closes a gap in the theory of trust law by supplying a normative account of the use of trusts to avoid and subvert legal norms outside trust law. While the use of trusts to subvert other law has been a major function thereof since the Middle Ages, theorists of trust law have largely steered clear of this function. We evaluate the commonly proffered justifications for the use of trusts to subvert the law, finding that such justifications are not plausible in liberal legal systems, so that the subversive use of trusts should be curtailed. Common law legal systems attempt to curtail this use by anti-subversive norms, but these attempts are far from completely successful. To the extent existing anti-subversive norms cannot be perfected so as to prevent the subversive use of trusts, an approach restricting the available types of trusts may be preferable.

2003

2012

With dynamic learning features and visual aids, the Inside Series helps you make the most of your study time, throughout the semester and as you prepare for the final. Unlike heavily abridged treatises, the Inside Series is carefully written in a concise, straightforward style that clearly identifies the essential components of the law and how they fit together. You can quickly learn what is important and why. Overviews and Tables of Contents in each chapter act as a roadmap to guide you through topics, showing you how each relates to the larger legal framework. FAQs clarify points of law and help you avoid common mistakes and misconceptions. Sidebars give fascinating additional detail from legal history, policy, famous cases and more. The graphic design supports your visual learning, and features such as bolded key terms, summaries, and Connections help reinforce your understanding while giving you ample opportunity for self-review. Surprisingly concise, visually compelling, the In...

This shows that.

1997

The decision in Re Rose 1 fundamentally changed equity's approach to imperfect transactions.

Trusts & Trustees

Mark Studer of Wilberforce Chambers presents a round-up of recent trust cases of interest, featuring challenges to the appointment of trustees and protectors, the construction of appointment powers to add and/or exclude beneficiaries, the further development of the law of mistakegenerally following Pitt v Holt and also where different offshore jurisdictions have now incorporated the rule in Hastings-Bass into their statute law-recent examples of the exercise of the Court's 'momentous decision' jurisdiction, and new cases in the variation of trusts, including an important decision as to the English Court's jurisdiction to vary trusts having a foreign proper law.

North Carolina Law Review, 1997

for their thoughtful and helpful comments on an earlier draft of this Article. The author also appreciates the tireless research assistance of Sonia Bortolin. NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 75 poses of calculating the proper tax.' As the Supreme Court observed in the context of a tax-free corporate reorganization, to allow form to govern taxability would "exalt artifice above reality" and thwart the intended purpose of statutory provisions.! This lofty endorsement notwithstanding, the Service's cherished "substance-over-form" view has, in litigation, achieved no better than mixed success depending on the particular corollary principle (such as "step transaction," 3 "sham transaction,. 4 "business purpose," 5 and "implied agreement" 6) 1. See Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 469 (1935). The author is well aware of the current controversy surrounding the appropriateness of the use of any type of purposive approach, including the application of anti-abuse rules such as substance-over-form, in statutory interpretation. Justice Scalia's textualist approach to statutory interpretation is credited as a catalyst for this debate.