Richard Adkinson - Estates, Trusts & Tax
Richard undertakes a wide range of work in the field of estates trusts and tax.
By way of examples, Richard has advised and represented clients in
· contested proceedings to remove and replace executors of a Will,
· contested proceedings to rectify a Will outside the time limit for making such a claim,
· contested proceedings as to the correct construction of the clause of a Will,
· minor and adult claimants and defendants in claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975,
· local authorities seeking to recover fees for care homes where the executors, attorneys or family members have dissipated the assets,
· proceedings challenging the validity of a will.
Richard has advised and represented parties in many trust matters, including claims about
· beneficial ownership of land and chattels both in England and overseas, acting for both cohabitants and third parties asserting a beneficial interest or a proprietary estoppel,
· beneficial ownership of land for the benefit of all parties where the benefit was the putative interest was relevant to confiscation claim under the proceeds of crime legislation,
· a declaration of trust relating to ownership of land procured through undue influence,
· the interpretation of a deed of appointment for the benefit of all parties in family financial relief proceedings,
· whether a trust was void against the rule against perpetuities or was charitable in nature.
Richard has advised executors in relation to inheritance tax, business property rates and agricultural property rates relief. He has acted in a contested case in the county court where a taxpayer sought repayment of a large sum of tax mistakenly paid on behalf of another taxpayer, and where taxpayers sought to challenge their liability to assessments of VAT.
Richard is able to accept work directly under the public access scheme.
Richard Adkinson is clearly a modern thinking no nonsense young Barrister, whose attention to detail is excellent. He has a very friendly approach which greatly assists in handling clients in difficult situations. His written paperwork is excellent and will draft in such a way that it is easy to follow and understand. He will soon grasp the issues and provide excellent, clear and very helpful common sense advice. He has excellent advocacy skills and clearly knows his Court and Judges which shows he is very well prepared. He can certainly handle himself in Court and with much skill and attention to detail. I have no hesitation in recommending and retaining Richard (I have) and will continue to send him work, as and when the need arises.
David Knight, Solicitor, T A Matthews
SEMINARS AND ARTICLES
Richard regularly delivers seminars to solicitors on a wide range of topics relating to estates wills and trusts. Past topics include liability to dissatisfied beneficiaries in negligence under the rule in White v Jones, business and agricultural property reliefs and cohabitant’s beneficial interests. He has written articles on cohabitation, third party costs orders and costs in probate proceedings.
“Cohabitee rights”, N.L.J. 2004, 154(7134), 952-953 : An article on the relating cohabitants’ property disputes as it stood at the time.
Richard is a member of the Attorney General’s Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown for the Midlands’ Region.
Richard has been appointed as an Advocate for the Welsh Government in Employment Law, A Panel.
MEng (Hons) Electronic (Communications) Engineering, University of Sheffield
PGDip (Law), De Montfort University
Employment Law Association
Midland Chancery and Commercial Bar Association
Omac Oils Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), 22 January 2014  UKFTT 112 (TC) : Whether a the decision of HMRC to restore fuel to the owner on payment of a penalty equal to fuel duty was reasonable.
Donaghy v Revenue and Customs Commissioners:  UKUT 148 (TCC) : Whether, when implementing the farmers’ averaging scheme, HMRC was correct to treat a loss as nil? Whether the farmers’ averaging scheme was discriminatory or a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights?
Cheshire Employer and Skills Development Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners:  UKFTT 379 (TC); and on appeal to the Upper Tribunal  UKUT 329 (TCC); and on appeal to the Court of Appeal  EWCA Civ 1429 : Whether certain lump sum payments were relevant motoring expenses for the purposes of reg. 22A of the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 2001.