This matter involved a direct transfer of property from two adult children to their parents. The Commissioner assessed duty on the transfer. The parents, being the transferees, disputed the assessment on the basis that they had originally provided the monies for the purchase of the property in their children’s names. They therefore claimed that they were the “real purchasers” of the property and were entitled to an exemption from duty pursuant to section 34 of the Duties Act 2000.
The Tribunal decided the matter in favour of the Commissioner. This was based on a finding that the purchase monies were actually provided by the children, not the parents. That itself was sufficient to dispose of the matter. Nevertheless, the Tribunal went further to say that even if the parents had provided the purchase monies, the presumption of advancement would apply with the effect that the property would be considered as having been gifted to the children. That presumption was not rebutted in this matter for a number of reasons. Among others, the parents had provided evidence to the effect that the property was put into their children’s names for asset protection purposes. Since it was necessary for the parents to divest themselves of the property for asset protection purposes, they cannot now claim that they intended to retain some beneficial interest in the property by way of a resulting trust.
